Context

There was another verbal dust-up involving UCLA Coach Jim Mora and USC that hit the airwaves Tuesday, though Mora claims it was the product of selective editing. Mora, a guest on "The Dan Patrick Show," was asked about USC, and said, “I don't give a rat's [behind] about USC.” Mora said that was only half the comment. “What I said, without editing, is 'I don't give a rat's [behind] about USC, we're thinking about Stanford,' ” Mora said. “That was not a dig at USC, that was an indication of our focus on Stanford.

Based on early reports about the apparently racist remarks made on the bench by Calabro, I was all for stringing the guy up. But as the story has emerged, it seems pretty clear that he was quoted out of context. For me, his explanation has the ring of truth: His use of the (ordinarily abominable) phrase "nigger case" was intended as verbal shorthand for "another shameful case in which this disgraceful epithet was hurled." Understood in that context, his remarks reveal him as the very opposite of the racist he is accused of being.

Re "Blame Anybody Except She Who Did It," Commentary, July 11: Of course women aren't "guiltless"; they're human and as such are responsible for their actions. What has been happening on the evening news is mostly an acknowledgment that for every murderer there exists a context. We can't fault the news for asking the question: "Why? What brings a person to take a life?" The problem isn't feminism. The problem is that although every person sitting on death row right now has a context, in the overwhelming majority of cases, no one cares.

As we see the crime of rape reaching endemic dimensions, there is no doubt that such a program should be integrated into medical school curricula, a need illustrated by recent news of an emergency room doctor who failed to recognize a rape case. I do not feel that this epidemic, as a menace eroding the fabric of a civilized social life, is studied enough.

As a major object of discussion in Joseph Bell's commentary of Sept. 27, "Schools Miss Point: Education," I feel compelled to respond. My purpose is to clarify the misconception under which he wrote his somewhat hurtful commentary. Let me explain the context of the "four major goals." In responding to a question on my perception of the role of a superintendent, I mentioned a recent national study of school boards that identified four major interests: positive image, improved test scores, labor peace and winning athletic programs.

Re "GOP Lawmakers Are Counting on Making Taxes Pay in 1998 Agenda," Dec. 1: Although Ronald Brownstein does not directly quote me as saying "not only does the public cherish many of the deductions it would sweep away," its placement would suggest this is something I conveyed in my interview with him. I did not. Instead, I said the home mortgage deduction should be protected. Even more critically, the article quotes me as saying, "Americans remain very comfortable with the notion of progressivity."

Peggy Noonan's purported review was hardly that at all. It was, indeed, an archconservative polemic set out to rewrite history. She quotes Joe McCarthy, who she agrees was "vulgar and demagogic," for the purpose of attributing "common sense" to his campaign of fear and intimidation. Does she think that events have no context, that words may be cut and pasted irrespective of their initial intent? Perhaps she wishes that the public had a memory as faulty as one of her former employers.