Lucas Patrimony
It was J. Carter Brown, former director of the National Gallery of Art, who said that George Lucas was profoundly dedicated to the idea that his collection, as lovingly formed, would be available for the ongoing enjoyment of art enthusiasts in his native city.
Henry Walters selected the Maryland Institute to receive custody of the collection because of George Lucas' interest in art students, and the fact that in 1910, before the Walters Art Gallery was a public museum and before the Baltimore Museum of Art existed, the Maryland Institute was the only adequate facility for such a large and important collection.
The BMA accepted the responsibility of exhibiting and conserving these works of art in 1933, and, from the earliest stages of its own development, built its permanent collection around the strengths of the Lucas holdings.
So the Maryland Institute feels it can no longer utilize the holdings, thus they should be sold? What about the art lovers of Baltimore?
It is not fair to do this to them. The institute argues that it must sell the collection for its students' benefit. Has it overlooked how many students come to the museum to study the collection, especially the young printmakers?
It is not just their resource, it's a community resource that cannot be lost.
As one who worked as a volunteer at the BMA, first with Adelyn Breeskin, and then with former Curator Victor Carlson, framing, matting and cataloging the prints, I know how responsibly we utilized precious space and time in the care of these works.
So I feel it is outrageous of the institute to callously announce it will sell the collection if the court gives it permission to do so.
The dispersal of the collection would irrevocably and irreparably diminish the BMA and the Walters among the foremost centers for study and appreciation of 19th century French art, thus depriving us of a remarkable part of our own cultural heritage, not to mention the beauty of the individual works.
Can we allow this to happen to our community? No, no, no.
Marge Bright
Baltimore
Healthy Wealth
"At least I have my health."
Easy for some to say and to monopolize upon, too.
It should strike one as odd that the governor's chief of staff, Major F. Riddick Jr., was going to collect $184,000 in unused sick and vacation leave, claiming to have been "fired" from his old post in Prince George's County.
He must be pretty healthy to have accumulated that much unused leave.
That sum would provide financial assistance for rent, food and clothing to 97 disabled Marylanders for an entire year through the Disability Assistance and Loan Program, a disability health care and financial arrangement for the poorest of the poor and the sickest of the sick.
Sadly, Gov. Parris Glendening has eliminated this program from the budget, threatening the livelihood of over 20,000 people.
During his short time in office, Mr. Riddick has already received more of his current salary than a disabled DALP recipient, at $15 a month, receives in an entire year.
I'm glad our officials are in such fine financial health.
Kevin Lindamood
Baltimore
Single Mothers
The increase in illegitimate births and single mothers has been prominently covered in the media, but the problem in not limited to low-income, inner-city women.
My two daughters, now living in a prestigious college town, have elected to have babies with male "partners."
Raised in the 1970s, they are part of a growing number of single mothers, many of whom have lived with the baby's fathers for years and in some cases have two or three children.
Others, who no longer have relationships with the fathers, are rearing their offspring alone and live on public assistance or have part time jobs at minimum pay.
These are not teen-agers, but intelligent, college-educated women with their own moral code.
There is a rebellion against authority, a possible reaction in my daughters' case to a fairly strict upbringing.
They reject the idea of a civil or church marriage, and opt instead for a commitment to their partners. It is unfair to the children and certainly not a foundation for the family as interpreted by society. But what is the solution?
H. B. Horton
Baltimore
Gang Rape Coverage Criticized
The Jan. 28 article in the Maryland section of The Sun about the abduction of a 13-year-old girl and her subsequent rape by six teenage boys should have been your front-page headline story for that edition.
What event of that day -- or of the preceding month for that matter -- reflected more about the current state of our community than that horrendous crime?
The significance of that act upon our city streets speaks more of our moral and spiritual decline that the results all the surveys, polls, government studies and task force reports published by your paper for the last year.
Your failure to recognize the significance of that event by placing it in the bottom quarter of the Maryland section is another example of how we, through our institutions, have become immune to the violence against our children.
Have we become so disconnected as a culture that the unimaginable pain and horror that 13-year-old girl suffered is too remote from our consciences to warrant front-page attention in our city's dominant newspaper?
A band of pubescent youths roamed our streets, entered a public establishment, stole one of our daughters, stripped her in an abandoned house, then tortured her for over two hours with successive acts of sexual molestation.
Two hours!
If, in the words of Richard W. Riley, "Children [are] living report cards of what we have all done to build their character," then we have all flunked. It will take all of us -- our newspaper, our civic leaders and each of us as individuals -- to tackle the implications of that evening.
This was not a freak accident or the actions of some deranged individual. Six teenagers acting in concert in such a depraved manner over such a long period of time is not a quirk of nature.
This is a story about six families who raised boys as predators and unleashed them on the community at large.
This is about the relatives, friends and neighbors of those six youths who failed to connect with these youths by offering themselves as examples of moral citizens.
This is about the schools, the churches and the merchants that came in contact with these youths but had nothing of any permanence to offer them.
This is about a young girl -- just a child -- who we, as a culture, left unprotected.
We were not there for her because of our collective apathy and tolerance for violence.
It is hard to imagine a greater threat to our families than the likes of those six teenagers. Yet it is unlikely that our criminal justice system will have a meaningful sanction for these juveniles and their families.
The faceless government will be the focus of the debate of what went wrong. Discussions about individual "liberties," not individual duties, will dominate the day.
Once the juveniles are tried, the term "victim" will be attached to each of them to explain away their deviancy, assuage our outrage and cover up our complicity.
The violent destruction of this girl's world should have been your front-page headline story for that day. Articles about youths committing such vicious crimes must stay on the front page to remind us of how quickly we are letting the moral fabric of our community disintegrate.
If we as a community do not feel the shame in letting something as horrible as this happen to our most precious of resources, our wonderful children, then there is no hope for change and certainly no chance for our redemption.
If we begin today to be more vigilant about our duties as citizens, more loving within our families and among our friends, and more vocal and intolerant about violence against our children, we can prevent this heinous crime from happening again.
Martin J. Clarke
Baltimore