To the editor:
About “In the Age of Exposure, Some Protesters Choose Anonymity” (News article, May 3):
As a former activist who proudly carried on progressive civil disobedience and protest movements from the 1970s to the 1990s, I empathize with the energy and idealistic enthusiasm of this year’s student demonstrators.
But it is inconceivable that so many people chose to wear masks. The anonymity of their anti-Israel expressions seems to me too close to mob action. It is also an aversion to the notion of the free exchange of ideas that the modern post-secondary educational experience is supposed to be all about.
If these students are to achieve anything during the protests, they will have to put their true identities under challenge and defend their ideas.
Or perhaps anonymous radicals will be unmasked and suddenly realize what some of them claim is simply inconceivable: the disappearance of the modern state of Israel.
Carl D. Berman
Albany, New York
To the editor:
This article addresses the issue of masked pro-Palestinian (and a small number of pro-Israel) protesters on college campuses, with students fearing suspension, disclosure of personal information, and other threats if their identities are known. It points out that
The article compares this generation of students to previous generations of activists, of which I was a member, who “put their words on record and set their futures in service to a greater purpose.” “By putting yourself in danger, you have acquired moral power.” In fact, we did so, and it was to protest the Vietnam War and support civil rights in the face of severe police violence.
While some may compare Kent State University to behavior on college campuses today, the level of risk facing students today cannot be compared to that of students back then.
One very important difference between then and now is that men of my generation risked being drafted into the military. We demonstrated not only for “moral strength” but also because an unjust war threatened to take our lives. The overwhelming concern was conscription, not documentation.
Don’t compare the two eras. We weren’t wearing masks. they do. We thought, “We want to stop the war!” They are shouting “from the rivers to the sea,” but that will undoubtedly require more fighting.
Linda Rogdberg
Philadelphia
To the editor:
Akosua Barthwell Evans, a protester at Columbia University in 1968, said: “Times have changed, but I have so much respect for the protesters who used peaceful means to fight injustice and had the courage to take personal risks to make a difference.” (“Witness: Portraits of People Living the News,” Sunday Opinion, May 5).
They don’t have the courage to hide behind a mask, as many of the recent protesters have done. Go unpunished for breaking the law, violating campus policies, and making so many others feel threatened and unsafe, as many of the recent protesters have called for in their “demands.” It is not courageous to demand that.
Civil disobedience means being willing to accept the consequences of your actions and letting the chips fall where they may.
Nathaniel Helfgott
teaneck new jersey
Money and Politics: Member Remuneration and Campaign Funds
To the editor:
Regarding “Resignation of Member of Parliament: Exit Interview” (opinion, May 5th):
Some of the outgoing councilors lamented that their salaries were not linked to inflation or the cost of living. Perhaps if Congress made similar concessions on the minimum wage, the people they represent would be more likely to accept their grievances.
Jonathan L. Gleit
Tarrytown, New York
To the editor:
Asked about corruption in Congress, Rep. Ken Buck cited rampant political spending and “a tsunami of money coming in from special interests.” His revelation that members of Congress need to raise more than $250,000 for their party to secure a coveted committee position highlights the dire need for campaign finance reform in our political system. It highlights gender.
This is not just a political challenge, it is a constitutional challenge. After decades of misguided precedent, the Supreme Court has effectively appointed itself as the legislative body for campaign finance reform. An amendment is the only way to address the pernicious influence of money in politics.
Ratifying the For Our Freedom Amendment would give states and Congress the power to set reasonable limits on political spending and ensure that the voices of all Americans matter. Twenty-two states have asked Congress for amendments, and voters have made reducing the influence of money in politics a top priority for 2024.
Candidates interested in tackling out-of-control spending have pledged support for the amendment, returning a government focused on addressing everyday problems rather than raising money for the next election cycle. should be supported.
Jeffrey D. Clements
cambridge, massachusetts
The author is the CEO of American Promise, which proposed the amendment.
Cousteau’s granddaughter on protecting the ocean and marine life
To the editor:
Regarding “Fishing areas seen as flaws in marine protection plans” (news article, May 1):
Since my grandfather Jacques Cousteau explored and spotlighted the underwater world, our oceans have changed and marine ecosystems face increasing threats such as climate change, plastic, and destructive fishing. Masu.
Our oceans cover more than 70 percent of our planet and provide us with so many benefits, including oxygen, food, livelihoods, and recreation, just to name a few, but they need some protection. Only about 8 percent of them receive it.
If our oceans are not protected from destructive activities, how can we really protect them? Bottom trawling indiscriminately destroys the ocean floor, destroying habitat and destroying marine life in its destructive path. To kill.
World leaders are seizing the opportunity to build real and meaningful protection for our oceans by working towards what is known as 30×30, a commitment to protect 30 percent of the Earth’s oceans by 2030. have. Such protection allows fish to grow, feed, and reproduce to support more living things. A resilient sea. But allowing destructive practices like bottom trawling in protected areas around the world would undermine this effort.
We know that our oceans thrive when properly protected, and so do the people and communities that depend on them. World leaders, including President Biden, must protect 30 percent of our oceans and do more. Rather than limiting protection to remote areas, expand it to cover geographically diverse areas.
By fully protecting our oceans, without exclusions or exceptions, we will restore the world’s waters and rebuild ocean richness for generations to come.
alexandra cousteau
Paris
The author is a senior advisor to the international advocacy organization Oceana.
Expelled from Trump?
To the editor:
Re “Trump back? Alert capital talks of exodus” (Washington Memo, May 6):
I was disappointed to read your article reporting that many influential people in Washington are talking about plans to leave the United States if Donald Trump is elected president.
Many of these people have deep resources, deep government experience, and other political skills. So instead of thinking through which country to apply for “asylum” in, why don’t they organize, fight back, and be proactive in doing everything in their power to re-elect Joe Biden?
Lloyd Trufelman
Katonah, New York
