To the editor:
On “Political Opposition Under Attack on Campus” by Paula Chakravarty and Vasuki Nesia (opinion guest essay, April 8):
As an alumnus and scholar of NYU, I am troubled by the author’s suggestion that the only voice suppressed at NYU is the Palestinian voice in a complex tragedy.
Academic freedom requires academic responsibility, but when it is suggested that the suffering of the Palestinian people is the only acceptable subject matter, that responsibility is lacking and anti-Semitism It is assumed that a single sentence expressing opposition to the law will provide sufficient balance.
This problem is also seen in the failure to mention incidents of disruption, intimidation, and physical intimidation at New York University and other universities that have effectively shut down all speech other than condemning Israel.
Academic freedom must be earned every day through a commitment to fostering discussion from multiple perspectives and sources. That freedom, already under attack, will be lost when the people realize that it only serves one side.
Ted Besman
columbia south carolina
To the editor:
As a Jew, a former dean and professor of higher education, and a passionate defender of academic freedom and free speech, I appreciate Paula Chakravarty and Vasuki Nesia’s courageous and persuasive work. Kudos to the essay.
Tragically, universities have become dependent on donors, just as corporations are more dependent on shareholders than faculty, students, and staff. If people can’t freely express unpopular opinions on college campuses, where can they safely do so?
As a student at the University of Massachusetts, I learned to think critically and question the actions of my country’s leaders regarding the Vietnam War. I arrived there in his 1964 as an innocent conformist, but because of my outspoken faculty and fellow students, I left with a healthy skepticism of government statements and actions.
Because of that eye-opening experience, I have been a political activist for many years. In these frightening times, when we are moving away from democracy and toward authoritarianism, it is important that higher education institutions become spaces for the expression of free thought, even if they lose a few narrow-minded donors. Is required.
Allen Davis
dublin new hampshire
To the editor:
The problem with academics defending free speech is that they are years too late. Where were conservatives and people with different viewpoints when they were fired and kicked off campus?
Andrea Economos
Hartsdale, New York
To the editor:
Professors Paula Chakravarty and Vasuki Nesia write that the Gaza war is “only the United States, apart from Israel, that can stop it.”
Hamas started the war on October 7 and is still holding captive Israelis hostage whose members have not killed them. It is puzzling why professors, and students who support the hateful rhetoric they champion, would take agency away from terrorist groups.
(Rabbi) Avi Shafran
new york
The author is the director of public affairs at Agudath Israel of America.
Should there be a Biden vs. Trump debate?
To the editor:
Regarding “TV Networks Urge Biden and Trump to Debate” (Business, April 10):
The television networks’ efforts to broadcast the debate between President Biden and Donald Trump are purely selfishly motivated. As the article points out, these discussions draw large audiences, and networks are always looking for ways to attract viewers.
Mr. Trump is not interested in discussing issues or policies, he just wants a platform to use childish slurs and belittling others. His approach to campaigning so far has been simply, “Vote for me or vote for someone else.” This may be a recipe for entertainment and a large audience, but it has no redeeming value to voters.
Eric Schroeder
Bethesda, Maryland
To the editor:
President Biden should definitely debate Donald Trump and use the opportunity to speak in front of a large audience to once and for all debunk Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
The vast majority of Republicans believe that lie. Too many people believe that something ridiculous poses a very real threat to the future of our free elections.
But here are the facts, which I believe are compelling and virtually indisputable. Within weeks after the 2020 election, Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results in state and federal courts were rejected by at least 86 judges, 38 of them Republican appointees and several was appointed by Trump himself. .
Top state officials, most of them Republicans, said there was no evidence of wrongdoing that would change their results.
The president should have reiterated this over the past three years, but better late than never. I hope there is still time to save America’s endangered democracy.
bobby bradock
nashville
Parenting of Rosie the Riveters
To the editor:
Regarding the award of the Congressional Gold Medal to the country’s Rosie the Riveters, “Rosies of World War II, heroes of the home front win gold medals” (news article April 12):
These women took jobs in the aircraft and military industries not only for patriotic reasons, but also because such skilled and relatively well-paid work was prohibited before World War II, and they had no money. It was also because it was necessary.
Many of them are mothers with young children who for the first time (and so far, only) have access to high-quality, federally funded child care and are able to hold full-time jobs. These services were closed as soon as the war ended.
Although recent legislation (the 2024 Child Care Development Fund Final Rule) has increased federal funding for child care, resulting in improved access and quality, it is still far from widespread in the United States.
If Congress truly wanted to honor the Roses, it would authorize and fund universal public child care once and for all.
Sonya Michelle
Silver Spring, Maryland
The author is professor emeritus of history and women’s and gender studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, and author of Children’s Interests/Mothers’ Rights: Shaping America’s Child Care Policy.
I don’t have enough money
To the editor:
Regarding “Why some billionaires support Trump” (column, April 5):
Paul Krugman has an urgent question regarding tax cuts for billionaires: “At the end of the day, how much does extra money actually mean to people who already live incredibly lavish lifestyles?” I’m asking questions.
The movie “Key Largo” provides the answer. Humphrey Bogart’s character asks Johnny Rocco, played by Edward G. Robinson, “He wants more, doesn’t he Rocco?”
“Yeah. That’s it. More. That’s right. I want more!”
“Have you had enough?” another character asks.
“Well, I’ve never done it. No, I don’t think I would,” Rocco replies.
jim coddington
new york
