To the Editor:
Campus protests, some involving violence, are not new. Columbia was one of the centers of student activism during the Vietnam War, peaking in 1968, when protesters seized several university buildings.
But the worst moment was on May 4, 1970, when Ohio National Guard troops killed four unarmed student antiwar protesters at Kent State University.
That was then — when protests were about U.S. government policies around a totally misguided deadly war.
But now we have a far different reality in which we’re seeing what amounts to an internecine clash of worldviews among different factions of students and faculty.
University leaders across the country are generally unprepared to manage these crises. But why are we surprised? Crisis management is a specific skill set that doesn’t necessarily come naturally to academicians.
What’s needed now is smart, sensitive leadership that understands the dynamics of the intense and dangerous turmoil that is roiling campuses across the country. Universities must create clear guardrails with respect to what is permissible and what won’t be tolerated in terms of actions, speech and public messages among students, faculty and staff.
Clear intimations of antisemitism, racism of any kind, violence or the threat of violence can’t be tolerated. Full stop. Violators of these guidelines need to be dealt with immediately and definitively.
Academic leaders who can’t or won’t step up as effective crisis managers should step down now and make room for those who are prepared to deal with these complex, highly charged situations, which I fear will be with us for the foreseeable future.
Irwin Redlener
New York
The writer, a pediatrician, is founding director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University.
To the Editor:
I was a university student at the time of the protests against the Vietnam War and saw how student opinion eventually helped lead our nation to a correct moral posture, of ending our involvement in that war. So I cannot help but look at today’s unrest and ask if college students are again showing us the true moral direction, by opposing our nation’s direct support of the Middle East war.
Raymond M. Carlson
To the Editor:
There is at least one difference worth noting between the previous protests at Columbia (and other universities) against the Vietnam War and South African apartheid and today’s demonstrations against the war in Gaza.
This time around, students, who are going about their business on a shared campus, face intimidation, harassment, violence, expressions of hatred and existential threats to themselves and their community.
Alma Mater, perched above, is surely weeping.
Renée S. Septimus
New York
The writer is an alumna of Barnard College, class of 1973.
To the Editor:
Re “Divestment From Israel a Rallying Cry of College Protesters” (news article, April 25):
If the protesters truly wish to influence policy, they might consider these steps:
Remain involved with their schools after graduation, possibly becoming administrators and trustees.
Run for political office.
Mount takeovers of the companies in question.
All these require sustained effort over many years, way beyond outdoor protests in nice weather.
The last might require (ugh) going to business school.
Brian Eskenazi
Westbury, N.Y.
The writer is an alumnus of Columbia College, class of 1974.
To the Editor:
Re “The Ghost of the 1968 Antiwar Movement Returns,” by Charles M. Blow (column, April 25):
As someone who participated in the antiwar movement of the 1960s, I caution today’s students who plan to protest at the Democratic National Convention this summer: Remember, the demonstration in 1968 served only to help elect Richard Nixon and extend the Vietnam War for another seven years.
Unless they want to hand Donald Trump a gift wrapped in a big shiny bow, I pray they think long and hard about their plans.
Joanne Hoffman
New York
To the Editor:
Re “I’m a Columbia Professor. The Protests on My Campus Are Not Justice,” by John McWhorter (Opinion, April 25):
Unfortunately when I see these protests, legitimate or not, they are just another reminder of the senseless cycle of futility that surrounds this issue. One side attacks. The other responds. One side protests. Then the other. Rinse. Repeat. Nothing changes.
What would be refreshing and maybe even constructive would be if leaders of both sides stopped re-litigating the past and thought about the future. Where do we go from here? Israel is a reality. So is Palestine.
If leaders and supporters from both sides could think about the lives of their children and the futures they could and should have, as opposed to the wrongs of the past, maybe, just maybe, something positive might happen, instead of just more noise.
Richard Rosenfeld
New York
Don’t Delay the Trump Trials
To the Editor:
As a voter in the United States, I believe that one should gather as much information about the candidates as possible to make informed decisions about whom to vote for. It is maddening that critical information about Donald Trump will likely be kept from us before the presidential election.
There are four serious criminal cases against him. Only one, the least “serious” case, may be completed before the election. The others are of monumental proportions.
There is something radically wrong in our judicial system if it can be manipulated to delay these cases from being completed before we vote. Depriving us of knowing before the election whether a candidate committed serious crimes is an absolute abomination.
Democracy relies on an educated public that is able to get as much accurate information about issues and candidates for office as possible. All pertinent criminal cases about candidates should be tried immediately!
Bruce Shames
New York
Trump, Pence and Abortion
To the Editor:
Re “Now Is Not the Time to Surrender Ground in the Fight for Life,” by Mike Pence (Opinion guest essay, April 23):
One could almost feel sad for Mike Pence if he honestly believes that serving as vice president under the consensus worst president in American history is “one of the greatest honors” of his life. Almost, but not quite!
Mr. Pence sold his soul for the privilege of standing behind Donald Trump and nodding while Mr. Trump embarrassed our country.
In this essay he adopts Mr. Trump’s playbook of spinning falsehoods (for example, “Democrats in Washington have already attempted to legalize abortion up to the moment of birth, and they failed”).
And referring to Mr. Trump, can Mr. Pence really believe “just how committed he was to the pro-life movement” during his time in office?
Donald Trump has, when it benefited him politically, been pro-choice, pro-life and something in between. The one thing he’s always been is pro-Trump.
Mr. Pence thinks that he’s redeemed himself and his credibility and integrity by carrying out the simple act of vote certification on Jan. 6. He hasn’t. He is where he deserves to be: fading into irrelevance and obscurity.
Jay Adolf
New York