Yes, it was insensitive. But don’t make school board member who used a slur resign.

Is her apology for a slur not enough?

Regarding “Teachers call for resignation of Cabarrus school board member who used slur during meeting,” (Sept. 23):

While the choice of words used by Cabarrus County school board member Laura Blackwell were insensitive and unbecoming, she apologized for venting her frustrations so inappropriately. Is this not enough to give the woman a chance to continue serving her community?

I am having trouble with those who continue to demand her resignation. Do we really live in that sensitive of a culture that we must write off and cancel anyone who errs in judgment, even if they apologize for the error of their ways? If so, good luck finding flawless, infallible candidates in the upcoming election.

Elizabeth Nervegna, Midland

A virus milestone put in perspective

Let’s put in perspective the 200,000 U.S. deaths due to COVID-19. Assuming a mid-March start date, that’s the same as another 9/11 every three days.

The use of aircraft for terrorism was a horrible surprise. The pandemic is different. Our “leaders” had literally months of warning from their own experts that the pandemic was coming and how it could be allayed. But they decided to do almost nothing to stop it.

They have taken extreme measures to confuse the public about its severity.

There are plenty of other examples of the Trump administration’s incompetence, but this is just one example of why we need new leadership in Washington and many of our states.

Robert McElfresh, Mint Hill

Virus disaster we face was avoidable

The coronavirus continues to be an ongoing disaster. Although we seem to have accepted our situation, there is another perspective to consider.

What if there had been an organized, common cause from the beginning and work to fight the onset and spread? How many lives saved? How many businesses would still be open? Science would still be valued and not denied.

Panic? Unlikely, but even had there been it would have created a need for guidance and coherent, dedicated leadership. We would have set a positive precedent internationally.

I sadly look at where we are, but I also consider where we could, should be. This was all avoidable.

Kirk Weaver, Matthews

In-person voting would limit chaos

Voting in person is no more dangerous than going to the grocery store or drug store. It can be done safely to ensure that their vote is counted.

Large numbers of mail-in and absentee ballots will be completed improperly and will lead to post-election chaos and numerous legal challenges.

Craig Reutlinger, Charlotte

A reform that might limit shootings

A partial solution to the senseless killing of black citizens by police in the U.S.: The law should deny liability coverage of police who draw their firearms without activating their cameras and audio devices.

This would document both verbal identification of police and subsequent action with those firearms. The process would encourage both thoughtful consideration of anticipated actions and a record for prosecutors and grand juries following any violent outcomes.

Those who overlook this option are not serious about police reform.

John McCarter, Charlotte

Something larger is at stake. Democracy.

Regarding “What are the never-Trumpers thinking?,” (Sept. 24 Opinion):

J. Peder Zane can’t understand why many notable Republicans are supporting Biden. The better questions are:

Why are there no high profile Democrats supporting Trump (if his first four years have been so good for the country)?

Why are the Russians, who worked so hard to get him elected in 2016, doing the same in 2020?

Why did Trump stick his head in the sand when he was briefed early on about the coming COVID-19 pandemic?

Now, there is ominous news that he will not concede to the public’s will if he loses the election.

Maybe the never-Trumpers see something larger at stake, our precious democracy. Please everyone, vote this year!

Chris Roy, Charlotte

Put these limits on Supreme Court

Once again, our so-called elected leaders don’t understand the real problem regarding the Supreme Court.

Life appointment for a justice is contrary to common sense.

A simple amendment to the Constitution would satisfy all political persuasions. How about — a justice can only serve a maximum of 15 years, or until reaching age 75, whichever comes first?

That would end all the inane, infantile and illogical whining we have been hearing.

Chuck Newton, Charlotte