Editor,

Mr. Howard’s letter to the editor “Another misguided vision” in response to Mr. Espinoza’s guest perspective in the June 18 edition was presumptuous and disrespectful. He first cites the district election he vehemently opposed as proof that change is not required and then vulgarly projects his self-image to draw a cynical and moot point. The cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy he expressed are perplexing, to say the least.

What Mr. Howard suggests is problematic because he relies on opinion rather than fact. First, no one is saying that ideal representation can only come from a specific parameter. What Mr. Espinoza said is that successful institutions are those that embrace and promote diversity.

Second, this is not divisive. What might be more divisive is the current standard of etiquette that inadvertently, without any malice, produces a harmful outcome for people from historically marginalized communities.

Nevertheless, I can make allowance and forgive Mr. Howard. However, I invite him to consider that the people who advocate and ask for mere courtesy to change a standard of etiquette so that everyone has a fair opportunity are not asking for much other than a kind gesture.

Ray Larios

Burlingame

Recommended for you

(3) comments

Terence Y

Mr. Larios – I didn’t realize you could speak for Mr. Espinoza’s because nowhere in Mr. Espinoza’s letter does it include “successful,” “institutions,” “embrace” or “promote.” Perhaps you’re providing an opinion rather than fact. Nevertheless, I can make an allowance and forgive you. BTW, we do have a system for representation – our current election system. Of course, we need to ensure election integrity, unlike our recent presidential election.

DavidP

Well said Ray. Blaming underserved communities for their predicament over the years hasn’t been very constructive. I for one welcome a new approach to fuller civic engagement.

Dirk van Ulden

Well Mr. Larios - while your argument is quite articulate, you do not make a lot of sense. Where comes the idea from that our current institutions do not embrace and promote diversity? I have been retired for some years but even when I entered the professional workforce in 1974, those were a given and have been optimized and abused ever since by the likes of Mr. Espinoza. Then, can you please provide tangible evidence that our "current standard of etiquettes" is still producing harmful outcomes from "historically marginalized communities"? Your observation is stuck in the 1950s and 1960s. You fail to give any credit to the subsequent generations that have worked very hard to make our society a much better place to thrive in than what you are willing to acknowledge.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!