It bodes badly for our Republic that we are so quick to cancel another for a stupid remark. The same thought police that comes today to cancel Ms. Figueroa is the one that will cancel you tomorrow for expressing your unpleasant or out-of-vogue idea.

All Ms. Figueroa did was say the quiet part out loud. Her constituency, her popularity, comes in part from her ethnic connections. She is probably right that I (another Jew lawyer) can not understand her experience and that of a large portion of her constituents as she can. If she had railed against white males and the patriarchy instead of noticing that this white-male was Jewish, she would be a hero of the DEI movement right now.

But even if she is right as to her understanding, it is possible she might still be good for people like me. If her concern for “minorities” is broad enough (i.e. includes my minority), I might be able to overlook the anti-semitic remark.

On the other hand, a would-be challenger could easily enough make the argument that her experience and commonality with certain constituents does not redound to their benefit. Maybe the Jew-lawyer could make a case that Ms. Figueroa is too close to advocate for what is best for her community and defeat her at the ballot box.

But this is unacceptable at the Democratic City Committee. She challenged their preferred candidate, and now is run out on a rail at the first opportunity.

Her “pattern of antisemitic comments” is two statements that she made with regard to one man. That she picked on his identity is just human nature. We are tribal, and sometimes lesser instincts grab a hold of us. Sometimes, a certain stereotype fits. I don't know either of the players here; I don't know how well Mr. Jacobson might fit a Latino stereotype of the Jewish-lawyer.

It's not up to the DCC to force her expulsion. They made their view known. They should have let the voters decide if there is “an innate inability to effectively serve all

members of her constituency and the City of Stamford.”

But the pièce de résistance, the topper of toppers is this: “It is untenable that she remain in office where the absence of bias and prejudice are critical to fair and just service to the City and all of its people.”

Talk to a moderately conservative or religious person, or someone who wears a MAGA hat, about our experiences with those in office. Using this “bias and prejudice” standard, many would agree that the “innate inability to serve” is as evident in her accusers as it appears to be in Ms. Figueroa.

What could have been used as the opening of a robust conversation has instead been used to silence and suppress, in service of what?

David R. Herz, Bridgeport, CT

Republican Candidate in the 126th.