To the Editor:
Re “Academic Freedom Under Fire,” by Jennifer Schuessler (The Arts, Feb. 17):
Reading this article one might think that the only people concerned about academic freedom are newly formed faculty groups that have “sprung up” at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. In fact, the American Association of University Professors, with about 43,000 members, has defined and defended academic freedom since 1915.
The vast majority of higher education faculty members today are in contingent appointments. They are not eligible for tenure, and so most have no protection when they are disciplined as a result of violations of academic freedom. Faculty everywhere — despite job title or job category — are entitled to academic due process, and that’s where our energies should be channeled.
Since 1915 and urgently since Oct. 7, the A.A.U.P. has advocated a robust concept of academic freedom. We have urged administrators to provide an environment in which no voices are silenced, no ideas are suppressed, and the most deeply held beliefs are subject to challenge.
Faculty members in A.A.U.P. chapters, including at Penn, N.Y.U., Cornell, Columbia and Rutgers, have spoken out against attempts by administrations, donors and politicians to limit the exchange of ideas on campuses.
The A.A.U.P. understands that the academic freedom cases on which it is most important to take a stand are, in fact, the “unclear cases,” and we are never afraid to do so.
Irene Mulvey
Washington
The writer is president of the American Association of University Professors.
To the Editor:
Jennifer Schuessler exposes disagreements over campus free speech. It’s a helpful overview of the state of the debate. What is missing is a clear sense of what academic freedom is not.
Academic freedom is not carte blanche to do whatever one wants; it’s limited to the expression of ideas. Nor does academic freedom mean that others have to agree with us. And though extreme, academic freedom can never justify bullying or harassing behaviors.
When academic freedom is viewed simply as an entitlement, we overlook its real purpose: to ensure the pursuit of knowledge and learning.
It may sound simple, but the best way to protect this core principle of democracy and higher education is to clarify what academic freedom is and what it is not.
Sonia Cardenas
Hartford, Conn.
The writer is dean of faculty, vice president for academic affairs and a professor of political science at Trinity College.
Mourning Flaco the Owl
To the Editor:
Re “New Yorkers Mourn Neighbor They Could All Look Up To” (front page, Feb. 25), about Flaco the Eurasian eagle-owl:
While it was heartbreaking to learn of Flaco’s death, apparently from a crash into a building, I, like many others, spent the last year rejoicing over his freedom from captivity and marveling at just how swiftly and joyfully he took to that freedom.
Captivity denies all wild animals their very fundamental right to live their lives on their own terms, but I’ve always found it especially mystifying how humans can justify captivity for birds — animals that we celebrate and revere specifically because they “fly free!”
We should honor Flaco’s memory by celebrating the year he spent reclaiming and living a free life as an owl, and by reflecting on the harm we do to all wild beings when we lock them away in captivity.
Jenn Forbes
Seattle
To the Editor:
Congratulations, Flaco! You made it for over a year living free in New York after your escape from the Central Park Zoo. And you got a front-page obituary in The New York Times. How many other birds can claim such an honor?
Eva Yachnes
New York
A Sustainable Israel-Gaza Cease-Fire
To the Editor:
Re “The U.S. Call for a Humanitarian Cease-Fire in Gaza Is a Necessary Step” (editorial, Feb. 26):
We Israelis are eager to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu go. Nevertheless, the core goals of the war on Hamas are not of his making; they are critically important to all Israelis.
Any sustainable truce must include (1) the end of Hamas rule in Gaza, and (2) the return of all hostages. Any cease-fire proposal that includes these terms will have the backing of Israelis, no matter their leadership.
To the Editor:
Re “On Airports’ Horizon: Facial Recognition” (Travel, Feb. 19):
Imagine if someone (or something) insisted you were someone you’re not. How would you go about proving you’re you? Sound like the start of a dystopian novel? Well, that’s exactly the situation that people will be in if we let facial surveillance get too far out of control.
This kind of technology has its temptations, but remember — it could be you or your kids who get misidentified at an airport halfway around the world, and what happens then?
Let’s think twice before we put too much faith in this equipment, and make sure there are safeguards for how it can be used. Studies have shown that false positive IDs are highest among people of color and women, revealing that the technology operates with the prejudices of the people who created it.
Nobody is immune from being misidentified and having their lives ruined by a mistake brought about by a machine programmed with imperfect software designed by human beings, with all our flaws and biases.
Larry Bailis
Cindy Rowe
Boston
Mr. Bailis is chair of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action. Ms. Rowe is its president and C.E.O.
Giving Domestic Violence Survivors a Voice
To the Editor:
Re “What Would a Better Domestic Violence Shelter Look Like?,” by Rachel Louise Snyder (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 15):
I spent two months living in a domestic violence shelter in high school before moving into a homeless shelter for three years. Ms. Snyder asks, Whom does it help to keep their locations private?
She quotes the former executive director of an open shelter who spoke to “community leaders, school officials, police officers, attorneys” while devising her plan and also refers to a 2020 report interviewing 14 directors of open shelters. Were any survivors asked what they thought, wanted or needed?
This silencing of our voices is typical of professionals entrusted with our care. They make decisions and assumptions and speak for us. Silencing is also a key mechanism of abuse, and it’s crucial not to replicate aspects of these hierarchical relationships in order to aid recovery.
If Ms. Snyder had asked me, I’d say I wanted to keep the domestic violence shelter location secret because it felt safer. It’s true that even with private shelters, people in the community know about us, but they’re not the abusers we’re seeking refuge from.
Privacy isn’t the problem; lack of shelters is. Rather than more open shelters, the solution could be to build more private shelters in as many neighborhoods as funding would allow for.
Ms. Snyder ends the piece by saying “we all have a stake in the extraordinarily difficult task of rebuilding the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens.” Why not let survivors decide how to rebuild our lives ourselves?
Amadeus Harte
New York
The writer is a Ph.D. candidate in medical anthropology at Princeton University.