Letters: Free New Year’s Eve transportation ended before midnight

What is the point of encouraging celebrating responsibly with the lure of free public transportation when the final train is at 10:26 p.m. on New Year’s Eve? This year we decided to explore downtown Denver for dinner, lights and 9 p.m. fireworks, taking the free RTD light rail from Westminster on the N Line — easy access, no driving nor parking worries.

Much to our dismay, we returned to Union Station at 10:40 p.m. to return home and found the N Line last train was at 10:26 p.m.! On New Year’s? Fortunately, we found an Uber for $35 before the price surge. Friends who were there until midnight were also blindsided that the light rail was no longer running for the evening, and they had to wait two hours and pay $200 for an Uber ride home! Re: “Guess Claudine Gay should have waited …,” Jan.

6 letter to the editor A recent letter to the editor commented on Bret Stephens’s opinion piece about Claudine Gay’s resignation. The writer suggested that Stephens had missed the mark and that diversity equity inclusion (DEI) efforts were paramount when selecting Gay to be president of Harvard.

Stevens had noted her “thin academic credentials,” and the letter writer took issue. There is a third perspective that seems to have been overlooked when looking for proper criteria for college presidential selection. I do not care about thin academic resumes, which are often padded and enhanced, nor the questionable importance of using DEI as a means to restore some perceived disequilibrium.

I am mostly interested in the character of leadership. The new president should be able to promote rigorous debate in all areas of social interaction and societal conflict. Can they model the hopeful ideals of a great academic environment that challenges students to engage in critical thinking? Will they be able to promote a love for the academic workplace and the privilege of learning in the footsteps of great thinkers and not be led by political rhetoric? How do we develop admirable character traits and inquisitive open minds that can clearly argue both sides of issues rather than become part of a mob with thin and inadequate backgrounds for well reasoned decision making? The president can set this tone by organizing forums and colloquia, inviting speakers from all persuasions, and demanding by teaching attentive adherence to rigorous protocols of active listening with courtesy and enthusiasm to learn.

Recently an article referred to a person by referring to their mental illness as identifying a key characteristic of that person, such as “he is schizophrenic” or “her son is bipolar.” I think the more modern, compassionate and accurate way of referring to people is not to assume that an illness, mental or physical (or both), defines and categorizes that person but rather to indicate they are suffering from a disease called schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or diabetes.

It is a common error baked into our way of referring to people to make a point, but it should be considered carefully and eventually eliminated from our conversation and writing. Continuing this error makes it more likely that prejudices about how a disease may affect a person or their behavior will cause us to marginalize them and our relationships with them..