Readers’ comments: April 4, 2025

Where is Judy Chu?
Dear editor:
As other Democratic leaders take to the streets in protest and conduct town halls in Republican districts, where is our representative?
After repeated calls and emails to her office requesting specifics on what action she is taking to fight for our democracy, I have received only AI generated form letters containing her resume and list of causes she “supports,” along with links to her newsletter detailing her ribbon-cutting activities.
A call to her office in Claremont went to a voicemail saying the office is only staffed two days-a-week for a few hours. A call to her office in D.C. seeking information on when and where she might hold a town hall meeting referred me to her newsletter where no specific information could be found.
She has not shown up to support local protest marches nor has she made a public statement regarding the fed’s attacks on Scripps College.
What is she doing to fight back against attacks on free speech, social security, health and human services and education?
Tours and ribbon-cutting events are nice, but support means more than this. We elected our representatives to fight for us and they take an oath to protect the constitution.
So where is Judy Chu?
Wanda L. Pyle
Claremont

Council’s e-bike decision draws fire
Dear editor:
Last week our City Council voted to allow an unlimited number of motorized e-bikes use Claremont Hills Wilderness Park, and they did so without any discussion of fire risk. Does it not seem irresponsible, and even dangerous, to approve unlimited e-bike use in the dry Claremont hills when the large lithium batteries on e-bikes are known to explode?
City staff testified they made a couple of phone calls trying to find out why neither LA County nor Orange County allow e-bikes on wildland trails, but they did not find quick answers. Apparently, our city staff and council suffer from an acute lack of curiosity. In just a five-minute web search, I found many examples of e-bikes causing fires, including a July 2023 CBS report  describing an incident where Orange County Fire Authority Division Chief Nick Freeman responded to a call involving an e-bike battery that randomly exploded during a ride on an Irvine trail.
“The rider experienced the battery starting to warm and heat so he exited the bike and shortly thereafter the battery ignited in a fire, sending projectiles up to 40 feet from the bike,” Freeman said. “And it was very challenging to extinguish.”
Oh my. I dug a little deeper and learned that e-bike battery fires are rare, but do we really want to risk just one wildfire in the Claremont hills?
I also learned that “UL-certified” e-bikes are relatively safer, while cheap, generic non-certified e-bikes carry more risk of fire and explosion. But the City Council did not even discuss potential mitigation measures such as allowing only UL-certified e-bikes, or allowing e-bikes in the hills only when the grass is green (not dry and ready to burn). And I did not hear any discussion about what allowing unlimited e-bike use of the Claremont hills would do to all of our fire insurance rates.
Sarah Chisholm
Claremont

Council falls down on e-bike decision
Dear editor:
On March 25, we got a stark lesson in why people distrust government. Our City Council disregarded public comments, its community commission, and its own staff by adopting an ordinance to allow throttle-powered motorized bikes (i.e., Class 2 “e-bikes”) in the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park.
Vice Mayor Jennifer Stark stated that she uses an e-bike and expressed strong support for biking in the CHWP. But instead of recusing herself due to her bias and self-interest in the topic, she cleverly twisted reality to convince the Council to go along for the ride.
After public comment was closed, leaving us no opportunity to rebut, she argued that Class 2 e-bikes should be allowed because they are indistinguishable from other bikes. That’s plainly false. Class 2 e-bikes have a clearly visible throttle that allows the rider to motor forward without pedaling. (Rangers can easily observe the throttle, and observe if someone is not pedaling.)
Stark then proposed to strike language that would have required equestrians to remove their horse’s manure from the trails, as is required of dog owners. It’s not doable, she opined. If we were allowed to speak, someone would have stood up and informed her that “manure catchers” are widely available and customarily worn by horses in parades and at other popular parks and beaches.
Hikers (who are about 90% of the park’s visitors) will suffer. E-bike use will now proliferate, and ever more riders will zoom by yelling “On your left,” leaving you in a cloud of dust.
Meanwhile, a mom and dad can no longer enjoy a walk in the park with their child between them because it is now a crime to walk more than “two abreast” (ostensibly to leave enough room for bike riders to speed downhill without pesky pedestrians in their way).
Tomas Suk
Claremont

Kudos for ‘Going There’
Dear editor:
As a new member of the beautiful city of Claremont and a frequent reader of the digital Claremont Courier, thank you.
I greatly appreciate your column.
Lorenzo Alvarez
Claremont

Column on free speech narrowed the definition
Dear editor:
I came to Claremont in the late 1970s. My family lived on the edges of the local Jewish community, but I grew up proud of my heritage. As a child, I was once attacked in a local park — shoved into a low cinderblock planter while classmates shouted slurs about my being a Jew. In high school, I was again targeted, this time by pseudo neo-Nazis. I was only protected because a few older football players stepped in.
These incidents didn’t define my experience of Claremont. For years, I believed this town had matured — that it made space for difference, dialogue, and complexity. But reading Mick Rhodes’ recent column [“Free speech in the crosshairs, even in Claremont,” March 28] I felt something shift.
The piece presents itself as a defense of free speech, but it functions more like a moral directive cloaked in editorial form. The use of a highly charged, legally defined term like “genocide” — applied without context, precision, or acknowledgment of October 7 or Hamas — undermines meaningful conversation. What’s happening in Gaza is undeniably horrific. But calling it genocide without reckoning with the facts erases the legal and moral weight of that word — and shuts down honest debate.
I understand concerns about speech being suppressed on college campuses. I share them. But if we care about dialogue, we must also challenge rhetorical tools that masquerade as openness while actually narrowing the bounds of acceptable thought.
The Courier once reflected the texture of our town — civic debates, small-town quirks, shared moments. There’s still a need for that kind of space. I hope the paper can return to fostering thoughtful, open, and truly inclusive civic conversation.
Jonathan Bendiner
Claremont
Editor’s note: The first reference of the word “genocide” in the column “Free speech in the crosshairs, even in Claremont” is clearly attributed to U.N. human rights experts and Amnesty International, who have both called Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide.

Free speech column misses the point
Dear editor:
Regarding your column, “Free speech in the crosshairs, even in Claremont” [March 28], I think you’re missing the point. I don’t think anyone is against free speech. I think people are against hate speech that you feel needs to be protected. I’m sorry you don’t feel the need to support the Jewish students who have been harassed, denied access to classes and libraries, and feel intimidated on a daily basis.
I never thought I would thank President Trump for anything, but he seems to be the only one willing to squash antisemitism on college campuses. If you didn’t know, saying such as “From the river to the sea,” is a popular Hamas chant calling for the destruction and eradication of all Jews from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Additionally, another phrase, “Globalize the intifada,” which uses the Arabic word for “uprising” or “shaking off,” feeds a discourse promoting widespread violence against both Israelis and Jews across the globe.
Lastly, your use of genocide is not accurate in this case. I do believe that Israel does not want to completely eradicate every Palestinian, unlike what Hitler wanted to do to the Jews.
Free speech when used out of context can be a dangerous and harmful weapon. You may not realize this because you are not Jewish, but I’ll tell you that the hate speech and the intimidation needs to stop. I would hope you get behind that.
Lastly, and for what it’s worth, I think you’re spending too much time finding any reason to justify your hate for Trump perhaps to the detriment of unifying our community.
Kealohilani Robinson
Claremont
Editor’s note: The first reference of the word “genocide” in the column “Free speech in the crosshairs, even in Claremont” is clearly attributed to U.N. human rights experts and Amnesty International, who have both called Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide.  

Israeli attacks on Gaza are not genocide
Dear editor:
Your column [“Free speech in the crosshairs, even in Claremont,” March 28] is a litany of everything that you dislike in the country. The entire country. Your shotgun approach not only exceeds the publishing parameters of the Courier but also misses on two crucial points: the so-called “Gaza genocide” and your belief that the feds are stifling free speech on college campuses.
Israeli attacks in Gaza are not genocide. Israel is not trying to destroy an ethnic group. Israel’s actions are not intended for physical destruction of a people. Israel’s attacks are not designed to prevent births within a group or to forcibly transfer children to another group. Israel is targeting Hamas, a dependent of Iran, which is dedicated to annihilating Israel.
As for free speech, universities and colleges are under investigation for ignoring antisemitic acts. Scripps College and other institutions are not being investigated in order to limit free speech. Peaceful demonstrations, speakers, or printed materials are not the cause of the investigations. Federal funding at Scripps is being withheld for inaction against antisemitic slurs, intimidation of a student wearing a Star of David, antisemitic tropes in the student newspaper, and the refusal of the coffeehouse to hire a “Zionist.” In short, the issue is the violation of the Civil Rights Act Title VI.
Mick Rhodes, I am not likely to convince you that editorializing about national politics is inappropriate in the Claremont Courier. Sadly, I do not believe you will change your mind and admit that your use of the term “Gaza genocide” is irresponsible, slanderous, and vicious. Most importantly, the fact that you totally ignore that Jewish students are being denied their civil rights is testament to your inability to understand.
Jacqueline Knell
Claremont 

Recent campus demonstrations aren’t purely free speech
Dear editor:
Recent college campus demonstrations have sparked debate but cannot be classified as purely “free speech” events. While the First Amendment protects speech from government suppression, it does not shield actions that infringe on others’ rights, disrupt institutions, or break laws.
Many protests extended beyond peaceful expression. Occupying buildings, blocking access, and harassing students and faculty are not protected speech. Free speech does not include preventing others from attending class, feeling safe, or exercising their rights. When protests become physically obstructive or intimidating, they cross into coercion.
Some demonstrations also involved explicit threats, hate speech, or incitement to violence — none of which are protected. Chanting slogans advocating harm, vandalizing property, or intimidating individuals constitutes criminal behavior, not free expression.
Evidence suggests these protests were not entirely organic. Reports indicate outside agitators played a role in organizing, funding, and escalating events. The presence of professionally made banners, coordinated logistics, and legal defense funds suggests more than spontaneous activism. Many arrested or leading demonstrations were not students but professional activists tied to radical organizations. The uniformity of messaging and tactics across campuses further indicates centralized coordination.
This manipulation undermines genuine student voices, turning universities into political battlegrounds. Schools must investigate these influences to protect students from being used as ideological pawns. While peaceful protest is a right, demonstrations that involve intimidation, disruption, or lawlessness are not protected under the First Amendment.
Changing subjects: Some news outlets and others have characterized those working under Elon Musk as young, nerdy coders, willy-nilly running algorithms disrupting the entire government.  Regardless of how they now feel about the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency, I encourage readers to search and watch the YouTube video of Brett Baier’s extensive interview of Musk and company. I think supporters and detractors will all find it enlightening.
Jack Sultze
Claremont
Editor’s note: the First Amendment protects offensive speech, including, with a few exceptions, what many might consider “hate speech.”

Larkin Place should prioritize seniors, families, not homeless men
Dear editor:
I submitted the following comments to our City Council and Supervisor Kathryn Barger before their Wednesday April 2 meeting:
Dear Supervisor Barger and Claremont City Councilmembers,
Jamboree is building Larkin Place, supportive housing for homeless persons, with funding from several sources, including LA County. One of our Council members serves on the board of a funder.
Larkin Place is next to our senior center, very close to our middle school, and not far from an elementary school and several preschools.
Seniors and families with children will benefit the most by being housed there. Other singles and couples will benefit the least; housing them there would waste the advantages of the location.
I have read that homeless seniors are increasing in numbers and that our school district has students it knows are homeless. There will be enough of both to fill Larkin Place.
In addition, the surrounding neighborhood’s residents will be more welcoming to seniors and families than to other homeless. Residents have expressed concerns regarding homeless males near the middle school.
Housing seniors and families with children at Larkin Place will optimize benefits to the homeless and will minimize conflicts within our community. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Please ensure that it happens.
Thanks for caring about those who are unfortunately homeless. Let’s do the best we can for them.
Bob Gerecke
Claremont

Larkin Place: what would Jesus do?
Dear editor:
Some folks are still resisting the settling of new residents at Larkin Place on Harrison Avenue, arguing baselessly that opposition would disappear if the tenants were all seniors. The building is almost finished a block from my apartment. The funding package obligates the nonprofit operator/developer to serve the planned population of people who have qualified for permanent supportive housing after a long wait on a list for this life-changing, life-enhancing opportunity.
My faith tradition challenges followers of Jesus, and followers of the many great moral prophets, to stand with courage against fearful hostile dehumanizing of people who are different from us. I mourn the baseless emotional assumption that these new vetted neighbors, who have gotten a much needed fortunate break, will be dangerous to other neighbors, based solely on the fact that they have experienced homelessness in the past. The assumption is unjust.
Some of the opposition to supportive human services is manufactured for the perceived political advantage of instigating fear and then offering protection: a form of bullying. The fear is unwarranted. Jamboree will manage these new homes and services well and do a lot of good. Based on door-to-door conversations, most neighbors will welcome these residents.
My civic activist friend Bob Gerecke tells the truth: Claremont urgently needs to provide more affordable senior, family, veteran and essential worker housing. But it is irresponsible to argue that because those other populations have needs that Larkin Place’s tenants should not be allowed. Larkin Place’s demographics will include seniors, family members, veterans, workers: the very folks you argue we should serve “instead.”
The Rev. Gene Boutilier
Claremont
Boutilier is the president of Housing Claremont.

Anyone notice the double standard?
Dear editor:
I’m no fan of double standards and hypocrisy, no matter the political parties involved. I remember well when Hillary Clinton had a private server and Trump 45 and his followers wanted to lock her up, or worse.
Now we learn that a reporter was erroneously included in a group chat discussing a secret military mission. But because it was Team GOP it was just “a little glitch.” Using Signal to communicate on personal devices is about as secure as the cone of silence was in the old “Get Smart” TV series. Was this carelessness, incompetence, or a desire to avoid record keeping and accountability? Who knows? But the way this was brushed off versus Clinton’s server issue amazes me.
Now let’s look at Texas Democratic Representative Jasmine Crockett referring to wheelchair-bound Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels.” I’m no fan of grade-school name calling by anyone, but our president recently referred to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman as “maggot Haberman.” And remember “little Marco,” “sleepy Joe Biden,” “low-energy Jeb,” “crooked Hillary,” “Pocahontas” (Elizabeth Warren), and so many others over the years? (There’s even a Wikipedia page devoted to all the names the president has called rivals and people he dislikes.) Abbott said re: Crockett’s comment that the Democrats have nothing to offer but hate. Has he forgotten that the head of his own party is an Olympics-level name caller?
All this unprofessional nonsense boils down this: if the president and his party do it, it’s no big deal. If Democrats do it, it rises to the level of the Nuremberg Trials. This ongoing double standard is stunning. Makes me nostalgic for the Richard Nixon era. At least Nixon confined his foul language to his “private, secret” tape recordings!
Don Linde
La Verne

Trump/Hitler parallels don’t make sense
Dear editor:
I don’t know the Rev. Thomas Johnson, but after reading his column [“Interfaithfully: The timely lessons of a pastor who opposed Hitler,” March 28] his credibility has already dropped one or two notches with me. First of all, “Mein Kampf” does not translate to “my big idea.” Far from it. The correct translation is “my struggle.” I wonder how often the Rev. Johnson included this as part of his course curriculum at the Claremont School of Theology? How many of his former students must now be correctly re-educated on the meaning of “Mein Kampf”?
Secondly and more importantly, even though Rev. Johnson doesn’t mention Donald Trump by name, the implication of drawing parallels to Hitler is obvious. These parallels don’t make any sense because I don’t think Hitler would have pursued deporting a student at Columbia University for inciting violence and expressing hatred towards Israel and the Jews.
Lastly, the Rev. Johnson writes about “foundational values of respect, decency, integrity, love and freedom for all people” after drawing the parallel of “Get rid of anyone who is not of true German (American) ethnic heritage.” I wonder how the families of Laken Riley and Jocelyn Nungaray would feel about this parallel.
Alex Pilz
Claremont

Double standard on kind words when it comes to Trump?
Dear editor:
“If you call names or give emotionally laden analogies, you’ve already lost even though you’re preaching to the choir,” “Be kind and responsible for your words. If it’s not nice, don’t say it.” This from Leslie Watkins [“Letter writers not doing themselves any favors,” March 28].
When we were kids, mom often reminded us that “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all,” to paraphrase Thumper in the movie Bambi. My question is this: How can one espouse that type of advice while simultaneously supporting the current occupant of the White House? I’ve become strangely sentimental for the days of George H.W. Bush’s “kinder and gentler nation.”
Laurel Tucker
Claremont

What did you expect, Trump voters?
Dear editor:
When you voted for Donald Trump, did you …
• Expect to have Elon Musk running the country?
• Mean to infuriate 40 million Canadians by threatening to take over their country and impose draconian tariffs on our closest ally?
• Give China the opportunity to move decisively into markets we formerly dominated as our trading partners look for other, more reliable, suppliers?
• Mean to drive the stock market down by 10% in 100 days because investors have no idea what to expect next?
• Intend to give massive tax breaks to billionaires?
• Mean to sell American citizenship to any rich foreigner who has five million dollars for a “gold card”?
• Mean to cut off foreign aid funds that will result in the deaths of thousands of children in Africa from AIDS and tuberculosis?
• Mean to drastically cut funding for medical research at numerous American universities?
• Mean to cut thousands of jobs at our national parks?
• Expect tariffs to increase the cost of living and fuel inflation?
• Mean to add $5,000 to the cost of a new car?
• Expect millions of foreign tourists to choose a destination other than America for their vacation?
• Expect to have a former Fox News analyst become the Secretary of Defense and then use a non-secure messaging app to discuss imminent military action in Yemen?
• Expect Trump to call for the impeachment of federal judges — which has led to death threats against their families?
• Expect him to abandon Ukraine and praise Putin?
What did you expect?
Mark Merritt
Claremont

Rejecting DEI is accepting inequality
Dear editor:
Campbell Wright [“Letter writers not doing themselves any favors,” March 28] continues to believe that any interesting criticism of Trump is a sign of “derangement,” not of evidence. Oh, he allows that Trump is not perfect, but he points out that no one is perfect, so we and Trump are exactly alike (even though most of us are not convicted felons, serial liars and narcissists).
Wright’s biggest failure however is his refusal to see that “we” are not just individuals, but are members of different social groups. He allows differences of “color of skin,” but will not see that that distinguishing feature has consequences. The poverty rate among Black and Latino older adults is about twice as high as for older white adults. There is a significant racial retirement wealth gap, leading older adults of color to face more retirement insecurity than their white counterparts. Black and Latino workers are less likely to be offered workplace retirement plans and more likely to work in low paid jobs with little margin for savings. Social Security helps reduce these inequities between older white adults and older adults of color.
DEI programs are intended to do the same, to bring those groups (and thus individuals) historically discriminated against to where there is equality (of “opportunity” as Wright wants) with the rest of us. Contrary to Wright, “equity” in this context means differential allocation of resources to the historically disadvantaged until (and only until) such time as the group succeeds in achieving a level of opportunity comparable to the privileged social class. That is, DEI is pursuing the American ideal of equality. Those rejecting DEI are accepting permanently unequal status for minorities.
Merrill Ring
Claremont

Tattoos, due process, and the rule of law
Dear editor:
Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, toured the notorious mega-prison in El Salvador last Wednesday, posing in front of a large cage, holding dozens of shaved-bald, shirtless, tattooed prisoners, all facing the camera. Sporting a baseball cap and a Rolex watch, with her long brown hair cascading over her shoulders, she excreted a video of herself thanking the president of El Salvador for conspiring with the U.S. government to imprison alleged terrorists, Venezuelan gang members, and other brown-skinned folks with tattoos. There is also a TikTok video of her facing the prisoners and nodding in apparent approval. The video is ghastly and reminiscent of images from Nazi concentration camps.
Noem also appears in a Department of Homeland Security video which has been airing internationally and in America, standing with a backdrop of American flags, instead of shirtless prisoners in a cage. The message is just as menacing and hateful.
These videos are in English which leads me to believe the intended audience is not Spanish speakers. This is theater, all for show, feeding red meat to the base, who hunger for this kind of cruelty. This is about showing the receipts of evil.
In America we have this pesky Constitution which provides for due process and the rule of law.  People cannot just be abducted from their homes, universities, or off the sidewalk, by plainclothes, masked and hooded ICE agents, and whisked away in unmarked vans to be held in a detention facility in Louisiana, or sent to rot in a Salvadoran prison, without due process, with no opportunity to defend themselves in front of a judge. And yet, this is what is happening. Don’t think it can happen to you? Think again. This is authoritarianism. This is evil.
M. Boos
Claremont