Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to [email protected]. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    "Is DEI Really Bad?" [Re: "UT-Austin Lays Off People in 60 DEI-Related Positions," Daily News, April 2.]
    The elected officials here in Texas who are pushing measures like Senate Bill 17, which orders all public colleges and universities to end all DEI and DEI-related programs, and has so far caused UT-Austin to let go at least 60 employees, whether statewide officials or members of the Texas Legislature, seem to me not to understand the message of the Bible's New Testament, both the Gospels and the several Letters of Paul. As a lifelong United Methodist, I am convinced that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is an almost perfect rendering of the basic teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, and the cause for which he died on a Roman cross: the coming of the Kingdom of God, here on Earth.

Dear Editor,
    Ms. Fisher, respectfully your article isn't fully researched and doesn't go far enough ["Third-Party Report Finds Police Academy Hasn’t Implemented Crucial Reforms," Daily News, March 28]. It doesn't go into how the City Council damaged the process by installing unqualified individuals into so-called citizens groups which had the power to set their own agendas, and couldn't get themselves organized to submit reports. Additionally, the failure of Council to lay out a specific series of needs apart from a nebulous "Warrior" to "Guardian" mindset (which doesn't make any sense) while ripping away funds. They (the council) also forced a reorganization without complete analysis. If you recall, the original Kroll report didn't have many substantial improvements to suggest. Also, you fail to take into account in your report the damaging effect of the Groundwater Analysis, which sapped leadership energy and focus.
    Overall you wrote a good article. My opinion is it could have been better.

Dear Editor,
    I was in utter shock when I read the article “Opinion: Electric School Buses Are a Win for Kids’ Health, the Environment, and Our Community [March 12, 2021].” Personally, I feel like this is an article that should be brought to the attention of such an extensive amount of readers. Therefore, it brings me joy to see that it was published in your Chronicle. However, it is also one of the saddest pieces that I have read in a while. While no one voluntarily meant to hurt this poor little girl, we have all contributed to the acceptance of emitting so much diesel into the air we breathe our entire lives. Diesel is the largest source of nitrogen oxide and the inhalation of this compound can evidently interfere with the ability of our blood to carry oxygen. Repeated exposure can lead to permanent lung damage or, like in this case, death. This is a continuous worldwide problem like the article suggests. While this particular case occurred in London, I cannot believe that over 4.2 million casualties per year are due to air pollution. How awful is it to hear something like that? And the worst part is knowing we hold so much control over overlooked causes of these fatalities. By simply opting for electric school buses, we would be able to eliminate a substantial amount of harmful emissions that traditional diesel buses continue to expose. With ethical considerations in mind, we should prioritize public health and keep in mind all the children susceptible to respiratory illnesses. It is relieving to hear the possibility of being able to do some good in light of the story Ella and her family had to live through. Additionally, it’s enlightening to know that we can make a change now to help not just our planet from all the nitrogen oxides we have provided it with, but also our lungs. I hope we do make the switch to electrical buses if that means being able to save millions of lives starting with one small act that can make that big of a difference.

Dear Editor,
    I returned to “Why Austin Can’t Seem to Quit its Despised Coal Plant” [News, Dec. 1, 2023] after Austin Energy General Manager Bob Kahn’s memorandum on March 8 communicated yet another delay in the process of exiting the Fayette Power Project. The article had expressed the likelihood of this outcome but offered a somewhat hopeful perspective on the work of advocacy groups to prevent it. Though Kahn’s memo does present some great potential courses of action, including AE issuing RFPs to gather data around carbon-free generation technologies, the fight to make Austin fully carbon-free in little more than a decade seems increasingly less promising.
    As a student at UT-Austin, I initially found this article compelling for its discussion of Fayette’s water usage and LCRA’s calls for consumer-led conservation amid increasingly dire droughts. A Daily Texan article, also published March 8, similarly discussed increasing energy bills despite similar or decreasing energy usage. It seems incredibly unfair that consumers face the consequences of Fayette’s continued operation, and as this summer once again spikes water and energy demand, I agree that consumers should make themselves aware of the amount of water that could be made available by closing the plant.
    The memo’s mention of sharing a common goal brought my attention back to the lack of public influence on LCRA. It will be up to the Legislature to take action regarding LCRA, but I think the discussed financial deterrent may not be convincing enough if even Sierra Club’s lawsuit last summer could not make it a breakpoint.
    Ultimately, delaying the Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection plan will help only if the revised plan actually realizes the exit from Fayette. As Mayor Kirk Watson stated in his newsletter, “there’s nothing we can do … that’s more profound or effective in combating climate change than getting us out of that plant.”