To the editor:
In response to “Pennsylvania President Downfall in Testimony Uproar” (front page, December 10):
I also was not happy with the responses of Ms. Elizabeth Magill and other university presidents at the Congressional hearing on campus anti-Semitism, but I do not support resignation or expulsion. Everyone on a difficult job has made mistakes and learned from those mistakes. Should any of us be fired or forced to resign for every mistake we make?
All of these distinguished women were questioned at the hearing as they tried to balance their duties to protect their students’ safety with their right to freedom of expression. Even the Supreme Court is struggling with the same issue.
Yes, their answers at the time were inadequate, but they then clarified their thinking and plans moving forward. They deserved a chance to make it right. We expected the same for ourselves.
Kenneth Olshansky
San Rafael, California.
To the editor:
There is no place, time or place in which calling for the genocide of any group of people is acceptable. a point.
Lynn Bernstein
Brooklyn
To the editor:
Dame Elizabeth Magill’s main point – that her university’s punishment for hate speech depends on specific facts – was thoughtful and appropriate. But the answer cannot be viewed in isolation.
The question was not asked, but it seems inconceivable that Ms. Magill (or the other college presidents) before the House committee would have shown such careful ambiguity if the question had been whether a student would be disciplined for advocating genocide, for example. Or blacks, or Native Americans, or homosexuals.
I suspect much of the anger is because their carefully rehearsed answers suggest a troubling double standard on campus: a protective standard for many traditionally persecuted groups — and a different standard for Jews.
Greg Al Suwaidi
New York
The writer is a lawyer.
To the editor:
Article titled “University Presidents Caught in the Trap” by Michelle Goldberg (column, December 10):
Unfortunately, Ms. Goldberg’s thoughtful comment regarding the testimony of the three university presidents before Congress misses the point.
Yes, freedom of expression and debate is necessary and must be protected. However, when hate speech turns into behavior, this is not the appropriate test to motivate discipline.
Freedom of expression ends when it becomes bullying, intimidation or incitement, or when it puts people in fear of physical harm or suppresses the speech of others. It certainly ends where a reasonable listener could interpret it as a call to commit horrific crimes such as genocide.
There has been a lot of hypocrisy, including selective application of the rules. This is where university presidents and the institutions they lead fall short. Whether in the academy or on the street, individuals must learn how to allow and discuss any side of an issue without crossing the line into hate speech.
Young people and many others do not understand this because our teachers fail to teach them how to do it – a task that is essential for a healthy society.
William Teitelman
Athens
The writer is a retired lawyer.
To the editor:
I believe university administrators across the country are abdicating their role in educating students. Under the guise of freedom of expression, they miss the point. Rather than simply protecting a student’s right to speak freely, they should ensure that students are educated about these issues.
As a professor at Kent State University, I more than once encountered students gathering and holding film screenings without fully understanding what they were fighting for, what they were fighting against, nor the implications of their positions both here and abroad. I saw that when students benefited from the knowledge, they changed their course and reconsidered their actions.
By sitting back and emphasizing freedom of expression above all else, administrators miss the opportunity to engage students in their education, and fail the very students they work so hard to protect.
Becky Rolnick Fox
Akron, Ohio
The subway’s homeless problem persists
To the editor:
Re “Adams says city is seeing results in its efforts to get help for the mentally ill” (News article, November 30):
As someone who rides the subway frequently, I have a hard time reconciling Mayor Eric Adams’ optimism about the progress the city is making in helping the homeless with the scenes that continue to occur on New York’s subways.
The same huddled figures try to sleep on wooden benches, their belongings stuffed into plastic garbage bags – all that’s left of their lives. On the subway, my fellow passengers and I prayed for the person who entered the car shouting, “I don’t want to hurt anyone—I just need some money!” It wouldn’t actually hurt.
No one seems to notice that there is still little police presence to monitor and protect the homeless and so do we. For enthusiasts, there is just an amazing acceptance that we need to take our eyes off suffering as we continue on our way to our destination.
To the editor:
Re “Let’s Tell You a Story: What would American theater be without Jewish actors, playwrights, and directors?” (T Magazine, December 3):
While there is much to admire in this fine piece, it is troubling that Jesse Green does not write about or even mention any Jewish female playwrights.
The article reinforces the widespread erasure of women writers in the theater industry, while praising the usual suspects. Yes, Arthur Miller, Lerner & Lowe, Neil Simon, and Tom Stoppard should be included in this story. The same goes for the Jewish playwrights, lyricists, and songwriters who built and continue to build the American theater.
The essay looks at a century of Jewish women playwrights, including Edna Ferber (“Dinner at Eight,” 1932); Lillian Hellman (“Children’s Hour”, 1934); Betty Comden (“In the City”, 1944); Dorothy Fields (“Annie Get Your Gun,” 1946); Bella Spewack (“Kiss Me, Kate,” 1948); Susan Yankowitz (“The Station”, 1969); Liz Swados (“Runaways”, 1978); Wendy Wasserstein (“The Heidi Chronicles”, 1988); Paula Vogel (“How I Learned to Drive”, 1997); Lynn Ahrens (“Ragtime,” 1998); Winnie Holzman (“Wicked”, 2003); and Lisa Krohn (“Fun Home”, 2013), to name a few. It also ignores the countless Jewish women playwrights and musical theater writers who today are redefining American theater.
Alice Eve Cohen
New York
The writer is a playwright whose play “Oklahoma Samovar” won the National Jewish Playwriting Competition.
A rare hardship for a rare name
To the editor:
Re “An unusual name can be a burden. In Japan, parents are curbed” (News article, December 3):
This article discussed how Japan is trying to limit the spread of unusual baby names. There is a good reason to do this. As a psychologist, I have met many patients who found that having an unusual name was a real social handicap throughout their lives.
Iceland has a good solution to this problem: it gives all parents six months to choose their child’s name. This gives them time to think about the consequences of choosing a name that could later make their child an object of ridicule or pity. It also produces many colorful ways of referring to the newborn (some of which are a little salty), since the baby may officially have no name for the first six months. (Icelandic law actually prohibits the use of names that might cause embarrassment.)
harvey m. Berman
White Plains, New York
The recent testimony of college presidents on anti-Semitism has sparked widespread discussion and debate about the implications of their statements. As individuals in positions of leadership and influence, their words hold significant weight and carry potential consequences for the college community and society at large. Their testimonies shed light on the prevalence of anti-Semitic attitudes and actions on college campuses, raising important questions about the state of tolerance and inclusivity in higher education. It is crucial to explore the implications of their testimony in order to better understand and address the challenges of combatting anti-Semitism in educational institutions.