Including diverse perspectives can help others understand significance of hate crimes

Diverse perspectives

The article, “Groups urge SC lawmakers to pass hate crimes bill”, published on March 9, 2021, provides important information on the proposed piece of legislation that would increase penalties for crimes committed against people on the basis on their identities. While the article included the thoughts and opinions of South Carolina leaders and lawmakers; the views of the LGBTQ community, individuals with disabilities, and other groups who are often targeted by these crimes were largely absent.

Those who are survivors of hate crimes are often silenced and this article could have seized the opportunity to give them a voice. How can one truly understand all the significance of this legislation without hearing the opinions of the groups of individuals that stand to benefit most from the passage of the hate crime bill? In the future, I urge you to include more diverse perspectives so that the health and well-being of all individuals can be improved.

Allison Vittes, Columbia

State employees

Governor McMaster’s recent executive order (2021-12) unfortunately indicates he has internalized little from the last year. In the days since the order was signed, DHEC has announced the deaths of more than 100 South Carolinians from COVID-19, and increases in social contact that will follow this order will likely lead to more deaths.

While I disagree with the decision, I am sympathetic to the governor’s argument that removing restrictions on private behavior and allowing individuals to take risks as they see fit is consistent with the aims of limited government. However, McMaster’s decision to prohibit state employees who are able to work remotely to continue to do so, until they have the opportunity to be vaccinated and develop immunity, is unconscionable. The trade-offs highlighted in your article are real and pressing concerns, but as state agencies have been operating at full service levels since last July, it is hard to see how this aspect of the executive order will benefit South Carolinians at large.

Forcing public servants to take additional risks in the two months before all can be vaccinated suggests that the only costs and benefits with which the governor is concerned reflect his own political calculations.

Tim Bersak, Greenville

Office of Resilience

In today’s hyper-partisan political climate, it seems more difficult than ever for our leaders to come together and solve the problems facing our country and state. Believe it or not, there are still some issues that both Democrats and Republicans agree on and are leading on together.

Last year, Democrats and Republicans in the General Assembly unanimously voted to create the South Carolina Office of Resilience. This office is in charge of creating a statewide flood resilience plan to reduce damages from major flooding events and manages a voluntary loan fund to assist our neighbors who live in areas with repeated flooding. However, while the office was created, it was unable to be funded last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our leaders here in Lexington and Richland counties, particularly those like Sen. Nikki Setzler, now have the opportunity to once again come together on this important issue by fully funding the Office of Resilience this year. By doing so, we can let this office begin their important work and show the entire state that we can all come together on issues like disaster preparedness and relief.

Michael Bunda, Cayce

Rep. Rutherford

On the subject of legislators misusing the state plane and staying in 4- and 5-star hotels: I can remember employees of state agencies having to go out of town for state business and their spouses wanted to accompany them. The rule was you may take your spouse, but you have to pay for half of the accommodations and if you are driving your personal vehicle, you will only be reimbursed for one-half of the mileage.

And if he used campaign funds for expenses that were paid for by another organization, that, within and of itself, should be illegal. His wife’s part has to be paid for by personal funds .

Apparently he thinks like our ex-solicitor: It’s free money if I choose to use it.

Douglas W. Brazell, Columbia