Politics these days can be pretty intense. People have their opinions, and they’re entitled to them. People feel strongly about their opinions, and they’re entitled to that too. It’s pretty debasing to everyone involved though when discourse has to leave the realm of civility while in the public sphere.

Your thought from Oct. 13: “Even candidate Paula Levy showed her colors when posting a rant ...” is instructive. Have you ever met Paula? Have you ever witnessed her lengthy portfolio of charitable work and community outreach in her capacity as a citizen? Have you ever bothered to inquire about the many supports she has provided to community institutions for decades without asking for anything in return? The fruit of her compassion, her time, her family’s money has been substantial, and you know a tree by its fruit.

How, I wonder, does one determine another person’s “true color?” Why does a person not get to have an opinion without it being referred to pejoratively? The political statement you might have made, after having defined the term, could just as easily have been “I don’t agree with ‘equity’ because ...”

I would like to know what your thoughts are and why you think that’s such a bad thing. In conclusion, you made an interesting final statement. “The role of the school board is to represent the parents, not divisive rhetoric.” Credit to you. If I take your meaning correctly, “divisive rhetoric” says more about the speaker than it does the recipient.

Andrew Pappadakis, Woodland Park