I grew up as the youngest of nine children in a household where my parents worked modest jobs, stretching every dollar to keep us fed, clothed and sheltered. One of my mother’s greatest resources was the thrift store.
I remember those shopping trips vividly. When the doors opened, she instructed us to grab armfuls of clothing and bring them to her. With a discerning eye, she sorted through someone else’s donations, matching sizes and styles to her children. Somehow, she made it work.
Those trips were about more than clothing. They were about dignity. Thrift stores allowed families like ours to look and feel good without sacrificing money needed for food, utilities or rent. They provided affordability without shame.
Fast-forward to today, and something has changed.
Thrifting has become trendy. Resellers, influencers and celebrities have helped transform secondhand shopping into a profitable enterprise. What was once a lifeline for families with limited resources has increasingly become a marketplace where popularity drives prices and profit overshadows purpose.
The irony? Items donated freely are sometimes priced comparably to merchandise in retail stores.
When did donated clothing become a luxury? When did affordability become exclusivity? And when did the people who relied on these stores become an afterthought?
There is nothing wrong with embracing sustainable fashion or finding hidden treasures. But there is something troubling about an industry that benefits from generosity while pricing out people who depend on it.
Working with underserved communities, I see how rising costs force families to make difficult choices. Affordable clothing should not become another financial burden.
Thrift stores must reconsider their priorities. Donations should represent an opportunity to provide access, not simply maximize revenue.
My mother didn’t take us thrifting to make a fashion statement. She took us because nine children needed clothes, and she was determined to provide them without compromising our dignity.
Somewhere along the way, we turned necessity into novelty and affordability into excess.
The greatest value of a donated item isn’t how much someone will pay for it, but what it means to someone who otherwise couldn’t afford it.
Dignity should never become a luxury.
Kim Jay, training manager and senior community health worker, Sinai Urban Health Institute
Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham recently gained national attention after declaring her opposition to the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. These comments were embraced by Fox News and denounced by the WNBA’s Players Association. Soon after, Cunningham had a run-in with Chicago Sky guard DiJonai Carrington, who after being ejected for a foul on Cunningham, wrote the words “WHITE PRIVILEGE” on Instagram. Carrington was criticized by many of the same conservative pundits who lauded Cunningham, even as Carrington's words were celebrated by progressives who attacked Cunningham.
The polarized reactions to Cunningham and Carrington raise the question of whether the race of the speaker affects public support for athletes’ political speech. We used this controversy to find out.
In August, we fielded an experiment on a nationally representative survey. We randomly assigned respondents to one of three groups and asked them how acceptable it is for professional athletes to speak publicly about political issues. In the control condition, we asked the question without referencing any specific player. Respondents in the other two experimental conditions were asked the same question, but with the mention of Carrington or Cunningham, who have racially distinctive names. This allowed us to test whether identifying a specific player changed Americans’ views about athletes making political statements, as decades of research on racial discrimination have revealed Americans can recognize the race of individuals from their names.
Our experiment shows that Americans are more likely to approve of athletes who voice their political views when those athletes are white (as opposed to Black). Sixty-nine percent of those asked about Cunningham approved of athletes speaking publicly, while only 57% of those asked about Carrington approved.
We then examined the differences in attitudes among the most racially prejudiced Americans, and found that these individuals were much more likely to support athletes’ political speech when a white athlete was mentioned. While 62% of the most racially prejudiced in the Carrington group opposed professional athletes making political statements, among the most racially prejudiced respondents in the Cunningham group, 64% supported professional athletes making political statements, with only 36% in opposition.
As the WNBA continues to grow, debates over what its players can say will likely intensify. Our findings suggest that these debates are not simply about whether athletes should speak out. They are also about who is speaking.
Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and director, UMass Poll
Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and co-director, UMass Poll
Adam Eichen, doctoral student in political science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and graduate research fellow, UMass Poll
Reader Michael Hart recently wrote about his stance against the death penalty. I beg to differ.
Mr. Hart wrote: “There were certainly some (executions ) carried out in error.” Perhaps this was true a century ago, but since capital punishment was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, I ask him to produce definitive evidence or proof of any wrongful executions.
Some years ago in Illinois, Anthony Porter was freed from death row (and from prison) after it was ascertained he was wrongly convicted in a double fatal shooting. This case was held up as an example showing the death penalty was broken. Porter was indeed exonerated. But Alstory Simon, who confessed to the murder, was released from prison after he said he was coerced to make a statement by a private investigator working with the journalism students .
The Death Penalty Information Center that Mr. Hart cites would like the public to believe it is an unbiased group. In reality, it is an anti-death penalty organization with an agenda.
If Mr. Hart is concerned about the time between sentencing and execution, saying this is “cruel and unusual punishment “ and “torture," I can see his point. It’s cruel and torturous to the families of the murder victims. I’m definitely in favor of speeding up this time frame.
When I was 11 years old, my oldest brother, Frank, was murdered during a holdup. He was 25 years old. You want to know about torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Try living with that for the rest of your life. Try watching your parents mourn and grieve every day. And try watching his killers spend less than 10 years in prison.
David G. Foys, Westmont
The contradiction between the values Barack Obama championed and the working conditions employees should be able to expect at the Obama Foundation and Obama Presidential Center must be glaring.
That’s exactly what makes this situation so troubling. Obama built much of his political message around standing up for working people, supporting organized labor, protecting workers rights and making sure people received fair wages and benefits. He even said, “labor unions are a big part of the solution.”
So how is it that institutions bearing his name have employees who feel the need to organize a union to secure the pay, benefits and working conditions they believe they deserve?
The question isn’t whether the employees have to form a union. The question is why employees feel they need a union to have a meaningful voice in the first place.
A union should never be viewed as a failure of the workplace. But when the person whose legacy inspired an institution championed workers rights and collective bargaining, it is fair to ask whether those principles are being reflected in the treatment of the people who work there.
The true test of a commitment to working people isn’t what you say when you’re running for office. It’s how you treat the people working for you when you no longer need their votes.
Timothy “Tim” Thomas Jr., Auburn Gresham
Elgin Community College’s trash bag standoff with Flock Safety, described in WBEZ's Lisa Kurian Philip's recent story — “To protect immigrant students, a Chicago-area college told Flock to remove its cameras. The company refused" — is less a privacy dispute than a lesson in who owns a campus.
In April 2025 the college rented six surveillance cameras. When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained a student in a campus lot and enrollment slipped, President Peggy Heinrich asked that the cameras come down. Flock refused, then ignored an offer to pay out the remaining months. Staff covered the lenses with bags and zip ties. Unmarked workers stripped the bags off. The cameras stayed until the contract expired in April.
That is the tell. A public college could not shut off equipment on its own property because the vendor kept title. Safety had been leased, and the lease ran one way.
Records show immigration authorities searched Flock data from other Illinois campuses, including Joliet Junior College and both University of Illinois campuses. Although Elgin Community College own audit found no such search, caution was the right call. More than half of its students are Hispanic, and a camera that logs plates, dents and bumper stickers does not distinguish a stolen car from a student driving to class.
Illinois colleges still running these readers should ask one question before renewing: If the board votes tomorrow to pull the plug, can it? If the answer is no, the campus is not securing its students. It is renting them out.
Ronald Beaty, West Barnstable, Massachusetts
In her recent op-ed on Christopher Columbus, Selena Fragassi wrote, “I’d be the first to stand on the hill of needing strong examples of Italian pride in this country.”
I would like to add Frank Gasparro, the 10th chief engraver of the U.S. Mint, to her list.
Gasparro designed the reverse side of the Kennedy half dollar. For the U.S. Bicentennial, he designed the National Medal. He created the medal that Congress awarded John Wayne. And in Gasparro's most widely known accomplishment, he designed the reverse side of the Lincoln Memorial penny
Also, I agree with Fragassi that we should have a special day “to honor those who are our true American pioneers.”
Indigenous peoples have been here for thousands of years. In that time, they discovered and sampled every plant growing in the Americas. Thanks to them we have the four great gifts of corn, potatoes, tomatoes and cocoa beans. So next year and in years yet to come, let Chicago be in the forefront of celebrating a more inclusive holiday by calling it (the day we traditionally know as Columbus Day) Explorers Day. That way we can all join together in honoring the accomplishments of many people.
William Dodd Brown, Lincoln Square
Excellent reporting on the sexual assault at the University of Chicago campus, Sophie Sherry, Rosemary Sobol and Mary Norkol. The two women who saved their friend are sheroes! Thank you for the well-written article. I’m sure this was painful to cover, but I love the brave silver lining of women’s friendship.
Laura Brancky, Glenview
Is it my imagination, or are all consumer goods manufacturers raising prices? I just spent $9 for a small bag of Gardetto’s and a diet Coke. Thanks, Donald Trump.
John Hankes , Streeterville
President Donald Trump is trying to make a deal with voters by promising to pay adult Americans $5,000 if the Republican Party maintains control of Congress. Any voter thinking about accepting Trump‘s offer to pay off voters should consider how to artfully take advantage of the deal. Hold out for a least $130,000, the reported amount Trump paid Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about their alleged sexual encounter.
Alan Rhine, Glenview
