To the Editor:
In “Fighting Trump, Some Voters Are ‘Burned Out on Outrage’” (front page, Feb. 20), you claim that Democrats and nonpartisan groups that work to preserve democracy in America are tired of fighting.
That’s not what I see. I see deepening expertise, expanding networks and steely resolve. Organizations like mine that were created by amateurs intent on doing what they could to save democratic institutions are now seasoned and hard at work. And there are a lot of us.
Do not write us off.
Claire Ullman
New York
The writer is co-founder and co-director of Students for Voting Justice, founded in 2020 to involve college students in getting out the vote in communities of color in the South.
To the Editor:
My humble suggestion to those exhausted from their efforts in opposing Donald Trump and now possibly even apathetic: Please remember Gen. George Washington and his suffering troops during the Revolutionary War, the suffragists and the civil rights movement. Thank heavens none of these ordinary Americans gave in to what must have been their own deep mental, physical and financial exhaustion, first to win independence and then to keep expanding our democracy.
Given recent events, please think, too, of Aleksei Navalny and his determination to keep pressing for a democratic Russia through those long years of psychological and physical torture, only to end with his murder.
Donald Trump has made this our own moment to step forward to work to save our own democracy. We can’t let down all those who came before us who created the rights we enjoy today by letting Mr. Trump have his way in destroying our values and our society.
Mary C. Helf
Flourtown, Pa.
To the Editor:
“Some voters” cannot afford to be burned out on outrage if they want to keep their democracy. I’m as exhausted by Donald Trump as every other sane American, but I know damn well that if he becomes president again, our democracy will be destroyed.
It’s as stark and simple as this slight variation on New Hampshire’s license plate: Vote for the candidate who wants you to live free or your democracy will die.
Robyn Ultan
Lawrenceville, N.J.
Alito’s Complaint
To the Editor:
Re “Alito Renews Criticism of Decision on Same-Sex Marriage” (news article, Feb. 21):
I don’t know that Justice Samuel Alito’s complaint that people who oppose homosexuality risk being unfairly “labeled as bigots” is quite right. Given that opposing homosexuality is equivalent to opposing blue eyes, the more likely risk is being labeled ignorant.
Cynthia G. Hicks
San Leandro, Calif.
To the Editor:
The laws that govern the town square in American society have always been secular. To change that would diminish our democracy by weakening the separation between church and state. Does Justice Samuel Alito truly not understand that?
Rebecca A. Miles
St. Augustine, Fla.
Avoiding Harm to Wildlife
To the Editor:
Re “The Planet Needs Solar Power. Can We Build It Without Harming Nature?” (nytimes.com, Feb. 11):
If we are to responsibly reach our clean energy goals, conservation organizations and developers must work in partnership with communities and other stakeholders to ensure that projects avoid harm to wildlife.
Climate change is now one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, with two-thirds of North American bird species at risk of extinction due to our warming planet. We risk losing billions of birds if global temperature rise continues unabated, which is why the National Audubon Society advocates well-sited and well-operated wind, solar and transmission infrastructure.
Thanks to a well-established and robust scientific knowledge base and ongoing research and development of new technologies, there are many ways to reduce risks to wildlife and implement bird-friendly solutions. These include avoiding high-impact habitats, maximizing development in previously disturbed areas, and upgrading existing transmission lines or expanding within existing rights of way.
There is no such thing as impact-free energy development, but projects can responsibly avoid, minimize or offset impacts. Together, we can make decisions that help build a cleaner, healthier future for wildlife and people.
Garry George
Los Angeles
The writer is senior director, climate strategy, for the National Audubon Society.
Favoring ‘Privilege Over Potential’ at Elite Colleges
To the Editor:
Re “Why the Requirement for SAT or ACT Scores Returned to Dartmouth,” by David Leonhardt (The Morning, Feb. 6):
Dartmouth is correct that once again requiring the SAT will identify a few more low-income students who can succeed there. But it is unlikely to yield more than a marginal change in income distribution.
For decades elite colleges have sought to increase access for low-income students, yet their admission processes continue to generate overwhelmingly wealthy student bodies. The reason is simple: Their definition of “prepared for success” is indistinguishable from “profile of a rich student” and will always favor privilege over potential.
Ultimately, it isn’t the test, or extracurriculars or information about college that limits the number of low-income and BIPOC students; the problem is how we define who deserves access to elite colleges’ immense resources.
Any institution serious about diversifying access should look to colleges like Millsaps, Hampshire, Salem and Beloit, which represent an array of selective, student-centered institutions that have seen double-digit increases in Pell-eligible students over the last decade. With limited resources, these colleges have diversified their economic makeup, taking meaningful steps to create broader opportunities for future leaders.
Wealthy institutions, like Dartmouth, would do well to adopt and implement their approaches if they are serious about bringing more income diversity to their student bodies.
Ed Wingenbach
Amherst, Mass.
The writer is president of Hampshire College.
Order in the House
To the Editor:
It seems to be a truth universally acknowledged that the House is dysfunctional — but there is a solution.
Imagine that those Republican members from districts that Joe Biden carried were to announce that they considered themselves to be independent — unable to remain in a MAGA Republican Party and unwilling to sign on to the Democratic agenda. As a group they could cause the election of a speaker who would agree to permit legislation they favor to come to a vote.
They would be in the same position of control as the far-right caucus, but their control would be over the entire body as opposed to one party. And with that control they could cause compromise bills to go forward and Congress would work again.
Further, given the composition of their districts it is likely their actions would be supported and they would suffer no personal penalty.
John Stockton
Harrison, N.Y.