Readers write: Immigration path, talent at home, science knowledge

Letters to the editor for the March 27, 2017 weekly magazine.

Peter Komka/AP
A Siberian tiger cools itself in the pool of the tigers' enclosure in the Gyongyos Zoo in Gyongyos, Hungary, on June 24, 2016. The Hungarian health authority issued the second-highest degree heat alert.

Immigration path

Regarding the Feb. 22 editorial, “Trump’s mixed message on immigration: An opening for a deal?” (CSMonitor.com): Three cheers for the Monitor editorial staff. They have expressed the opportunity just right. I did not vote for Donald Trump. Immigration was not my priority issue. Now we all have been compelled to pay attention.  

I probably met some unauthorized immigrants when I was living and working in southern California years ago. I can sympathize with their plight and would favor a path to citizenship that does not do an injustice to those who are here legally. I can see now that stricter border security is needed. How can we invite millions to citizenship if we cannot control our borders?  

Ken Brack

Huntington, Vt.

Talent at home

Regarding the Jan. 16 People Making A Difference: Rachel Brown, who has returned to the United States from Kenya, seems like a treasure. The world may need her overseas, but right now, her skills and message are critical to our nation.

Holly Bauer-Mergen

Spencerport, N.Y.

Science knowledge

The Feb. 27 Briefing, “Extreme weather and climate change,” pointed out that scientists’ knowledge about the role of climate change in some weather events such as heat waves has improved greatly, while there is more uncertainty about how climate change affects other events. This shows the value of past climate change research and the need for more. It is troubling that the Trump administration wants to cut back on climate research funding for agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It feels as if the US is speeding down a dark rainy road at night, and the driver wants to turn off the headlights.

Carol Rawie

Silver Spring, Md.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.