Media narratives regarding the "Wall of Moms" protests in Portland have a lot to say about implicit bias and the responsibilities of white allyship.
Policy decisions and institutional design have a lot to say about the value we place on education and the components we deem necessary for its delivery.
If the prevalence of racial bias and the demands of law enforcement makes rights violations predictable, are we not then complicit in maintaining the status quo?
Public officials have described the return to classrooms as an "experiment," but this description fails to appreciate the guidelines for studying protected populations.
Is the moral righteousness we experience over questions of trade-offs a blessing or a curse? Can that outrage be productive or must it be suppressed?
What are all the sources that might imbue a thing with meaning, and how might we separate our endorsement of any one of those strands from the thing as a whole?
Not all voices carry the same weight, and these disparities in clout complicate our assessment of what can and cannot be said.
The harm principle represents the standard for judging others' speech, but it can't tell us what punishment is appropriate or separate good faith from bad faith dialog.
Just as tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance, the possibility of free speech must be forcibly maintained and policed according to some limits.
Criticism of the letter tends to move far beyond the words on the page. That move is no doubt justified in some circumstances, but perhaps not justified in all.