It’s long past time for USC to make amends to the Wheeler Hill community
Wheeler Hill
In response to the article regarding St. James AME Church’s request for USC to return land to the original Wheeler Hill community, I share some history. At a time when Black Columbians could not walk on USC’s campus, much less enroll, USC began buying up Wheeler Hill land for university expansion, displacing hundreds of Black families and profiting by selling to developers.
Racist rhetoric like “slum”/“urban blight” propagandized the neighborhood as undesirable when it was a close-knit community with churches, businesses, and working-class residents looking out for each other, and raising doctors, educators and city leaders. Rather than addressing racism and inequitable income, the community was destroyed while white affluent neighborhoods were largely able to fend off USC with privileges of whiteness and wealth.
Significantly, Columbia received national accolades for an “agreement” with Wheeler Hill residents to rebuild with accessibility to a range of incomes. Touted as “visionary” urban design, the agreement was broken as homes were marketed to wealthy white buyers beyond the financial reach of original residents. It’s long past time for USC to make amends. Deeding four small lots to a community that deserves much more is a small ask from an institution with commitments to equity.
Susi Long, Wheeler Hill
SCANA hearings
I am happy the state had its day in court with the SCANA executives. I attended every local rate increase meeting where customers literally begged the commission to deny yet another increase. The Public Service Commission failed to do its job and should be held accountable as well. Their reasoning was that they did not give SCANA the full increase, but giving them an increase at all was a failure in their jobs. Now Dominion has requested a healthy increase and another meeting was held. The outcome has not been determined. SCANA customers should be awarded reparations for the gut-wrenching rate increases given. The meetings were humiliating and hollow, but practiced decisions were made anyway. Having the SCANA executives receive punishment is good, but not enough.
Eleanor Horres, Mount Pleasant
Horseshoe crabs
We commend The State for Chiara Eisner’s article exposing industry attempts to deliberately suppress adoption of an animal-free alternative to the use of threatened horseshoe crabs in the testing of vaccines and other healthcare products. We find it stunning that the subject of your investigation has for years accepted crab blood from illegally harvested animals and misrepresented crab mortality data to regulators.
This doesn’t need to happen. An equivalent, if not superior, test called rFC is now being accepted around the world — except in the United States. Your article points out that industry lobbyists have pressured government agencies and other regulators in the U.S. to delay adoption of the synthetic — a move that can only mean protection of industry profits at the expense of one of the oldest living species on earth.
Fortunately, leading pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly has paved the way for adoption of rFC, using it in four medicines, including two therapeutics for treating COVID-19. We hope pharmaceutical companies will follow Lilly’s lead in helping make the bleeding of horseshoe crabs for medical testing obsolete.
John Bloomfield, Hilton Head
S.C. Heritage Act
The S.C. Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear Pinckney v. Peeler, a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the S.C. Heritage Act. Like the S.C. Attorney General, I believe the Act is unconstitutional, and I urge the Supreme Court to hear the case. South Carolinians are taking stock of the symbols in their communities, but the Heritage Act restricts their ability to make their own decisions regarding these monuments.
If the Supreme Court found the Heritage Act unconstitutional, it wouldn’t change or remove any monuments; it would simply give South Carolinians, acting through their schools and cities, the ability to make decisions about the future of local memorials. These decisions should reside with local residents, as we are the ones who live and work around these monuments. S.C. has a rich history, and residents should be able to choose how we remember that history.
Tina-Maria Sandoval, Columbia
