Dabo Swinney shouldn’t be vilified for promoting forgiveness amid the protests

On Swinney

I am a Gamecock fan but I also support Clemson football head coach Dabo Swinney — and especially his strong Christian witness.

Recently The State’s Matt Connolly was critical of Swinney’s recent remarks concerning the death of George Floyd, despite the fact that: a) Swinney referred to Floyd’s killing as a “disgusting act of evil,” and b) Swinney denounced racism as a sad fact of life because “we live in a sinful fallen world.”

In addition Connolly criticized Swinney because the coach had spoken “largely about forgiveness and faith.”

But to call for forgiveness does not mean to suggest that the killers of George Floyd should escape prosecution. Justice demands accountability but beyond justice, according to the Bible, there is a need for forgiveness.

Five years ago a white racist named Dylann Roof slaughtered nine black people in Charleston’s Mother Emanuel AME Church; Roof was subsequently convicted of those nine murders and given a death sentence. If the members of that church had opted for revenge, it might have ignited a race war; instead they chose to forgive.

As a result of their choice the Confederate flag was later removed from the South Carolina State House, and a powerful and unforgettable message of reconciliation was sent across the world.

Jesus urged us to forgive our enemies, and forgiveness and biblical values are far more powerful than hatred and revenge.

The Rev. Bill Bouknight, Columbia

Editor’s note: Matt Connolly’s piece was not an column on Dabo Swinney and it did not reflect Connolly’s personal views regarding Swinney’s comments. Connolly’s piece was a reported story that featured comments by others offering their views on Swinney’s remarks..

On endorsing Sen. Graham

I am extremely disappointed by The State’s endorsement of Sen. Lindsey Graham. Although your endorsement quoted Graham as describing himself as both “consistent” and “independent,” he is anything but. Initially an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, Graham now appears to be little more than President Trump’s lackey.

Your endorsement noted that Graham has been instrumental in “increasing the number of conservative judges on the federal bench” with the implication that the Editorial Board supports this. However, you failed to acknowledge that the majority if not all of the appointed judges are white males — and are therefore not representative of the population. Furthermore, many of these judges were deemed unqualified for lifetime appointment by the American Bar Association, which leads one to question what motives may have been at play in their appointment.

Your endorsement also noted Graham’s support of the CARES Act. But with fellow Sen. Tim Scott sitting next to him, Graham complained that unemployed citizens were receiving benefits that sometimes amounted to more than what they would earn while working — and Graham declared that the $600 benefits would only be extended “over [his] dead body.”

While your endorsement acknowledged that Graham spouted “unhelpful rhetoric” regarding the unemployment benefits, there was no acknowledgment that several provisions within the CARES Act benefited wealthy individuals and corporations in myriad ways that were far less publicized than one-time payments to certain individuals and families — or benefits for those suddenly facing unemployment.

I must reiterate that as a longtime subscriber to The State, I am extremely disappointed. I would have preferred that the Editorial Board had not made any endorsement at all.

Rebecca Huggins Barnette, Columbia

On cancer therapy

Improving access to at-home cancer treatment could be a win-win amid the COVID-19 pandemic. And we must bring this about: right now accessing cancer treatment is a terrifying prospect for cancer patients like me who are in a higher risk group of contracting COVID-19.

When the pandemic began my oncologist stopped my oral chemotherapy due to my weakened immune system. But after three weeks my tumor marker skyrocketed from less than 85 to 2244, which required me to go back on oral chemotherapy.

Unfortunately, many insurance plans charge significantly more for oral chemotherapy drugs than IV chemotherapy; during one month, for example, I was asked to pay $14,300 for my $15,000 medication.

The problem isn’t that these drugs are necessarily more expensive; the problem is that a patient’s out-of-pocket costs for oral therapies are higher under these plans.

But there is hope.

If Congress would approve the Cancer Drug Parity Act, it would allow cancer patients in South Carolina to get treatment from the safety of their own homes. It would also require health plans to provide the same level of coverage for oral chemotherapy as for IV chemotherapy. Cancer doesn’t stop, and neither can we.

David West, West Columbia

West is a volunteer with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

This story was originally published June 9, 2020 at 9:59 AM.