AFTER READING the “@Odds’’ arguments for and against the gift of a possible UMass law school on the Oct. 24 op-ed page, I was surprised by the tone of the comments by the two University of Massachusetts trustees (“Bailout of failing school’’).
Their opinion was weakened by their choice of words, such as “political pork,’’ “fourth rate,’’ “offload,’’ “salvage this mess,’’ “more ambulance chasers,’’ and “Lawsuits ‘R’ Us,’’ to the point where the opposite opinion from the UMass-Dartmouth chancellor (“An affordable option’’), written so well, made the best sense.
Having received an education more than 50 years ago at a state school - UMass-Lowell - that I could not have even dreamed of anywhere else, I hope that the plan to offer a law degree program to deserving students of less means will succeed.
Perhaps we need not only a state law school, but some more enlightened trustees.
Patricia Hughes
Yarmouthport
FOR PURPOSES of full disclosure, I am a 1994 graduate of Southern New England School of Law, passed the bar on my first attempt, serve as an adjunct faculty member at the school, am a former second assistant district attorney for Bristol County, and have currently hung my own “shingle’’ in private practice (not chasing ambulances).
I was shocked and amused by the venom and emotion of University of Massachusetts trustees Lawrence F. Boyle and Jennifer C. Braceras’s Oct. 24 op-ed “Bailout of failing law school.’’ Their conceited and pretentious comments should alarm the governor and other UMass trustees.
Boyle and Braceras’s spiteful words indicate a tawdry perception of the opportunities a public law school could provide to less affluent men and women of our communities.
Apparently, Boyle and Braceras believe law school should only be available to those who can afford it. I, for one, believe the Commonwealth could only benefit from the acquisition of Southern New England School Law.
Christopher Markey
New Bedford 
