To the Editor:
Re “After Arrests at Columbia, Students Face More Fallout” (news article, April 21):
As parents of students suspended by Columbia University and Barnard College, we write to express our outrage.
After deploying the New York Police Department on Columbia’s campus to shut down what Chief of Patrol John Chell characterized as a “peaceful” protest (as reported in The Columbia Daily Spectator), Columbia and Barnard have suspended over 100 students, a great many of whom have been summarily evicted from their dorms and barred from dining halls without a formal investigation or hearing.
Among the evicted are lower-income students, students of color, students with disabilities and first-generation students. The security of students has been further compromised by vicious doxxing. We question the legality of much of what Columbia and Barnard have done in the last few days and fear for our children’s safety.
While we parents come from a variety of religious faiths and social backgrounds, we are all invested in our children’s well-being and education. We therefore find the actions taken by the administration deeply troubling and contrary to the principles of liberty, justice and academic freedom that are fundamental to the mission of higher education.
We demand that Columbia and Barnard repeal the suspensions of all suspended students. If Columbia and Barnard do not reverse course and restore some balance in the treatment of their students, they risk tarnishing their reputations as educational institutions that value free intellectual exchange and the pursuit of justice.
D. Borus
J. Cuming
Ms. Cuming is a Barnard graduate. The letter was signed by 50 other parents of suspended students.
To the Editor:
Re “Columbia University to Hold Classes Remotely After Weekend Protests” (news article, nytimes.com, April 22):
As a Jewish college student, I have found the ignorance and extremism I have seen on campus since Oct. 7 deeply upsetting. Both my own experiences and those of my peers have shown me that knowledge and an ability to have difficult, but civil, conversations are the keys to overcoming the extremist forces overtaking so many of America’s college campuses.
Although I understand concerns about student safety, I was deeply disappointed with Columbia University’s decision to hold remote classes, thus interfering with the daily operations of the university and the education of its students. In going remote, Columbia capitulated to the forces of disinformation, incivility and antisemitism driving these protests.
In the coming days, I hope that Columbia and other institutions that are currently engulfed in protests work to fulfill their missions of educating young people — our future leaders — while creating spaces for difficult conversations and taking concrete steps to stop horrific acts of antisemitism. The future health of our democracy depends on it.
Zane Nagel
Washington
The writer attends the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.
To the Editor:
I am 78 years old — a product of the ’60s and a graduate of Columbia University. I protested and marched in Washington, D.C., and New York City and on the campus of Columbia in 1968. We were angry, but we had hope that we could bring about change. And until today I have kept those values.
But I now feel a type of despair that is new to me. I have no issue with criticizing Israel, with peaceful protest, but the operative word is peaceful. The harassment and hatred being expressed at Columbia against Jews are truly frightening. And my deepest question is: Where is the left? Where is its condemnation of the hatred? That silence is deafening.
Doris Dlugacz
Woodmere, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Re “Universities Try to Quell Pro-Palestinian Protests” (front page, April 23):
In seeing the unrest at Columbia and other campuses around the nation, it seems obvious that the divisiveness is escalated by the political theater of hauling university leaders in front of members of Congress. I’m truly curious as to what purpose these “hearings” play in furthering our nation beyond giving politicians with deep agendas the free airtime to play to their bases.
Why do we continue to allow members of Congress to drive us further apart for their own benefit?
Matt Glass
South Orange, N.J.
To the Editor:
Among the issues that are at the center of the acrimony regarding the pro-Palestinian protests on campuses, the demands of the protesters at Yale that the university divest from arms manufacturers are perfectly reasonable.
A university, Yale or any other, discredits itself as an institution of higher learning by using its financial resources to finance means of mass destruction.
John A. Viteritti
Laurel, N.Y.
Praise for Liz Cheney’s Plea to the Justices on Trump’s Immunity Claim
To the Editor:
Re “The Justices Should Rule Promptly on Trump,” by Liz Cheney (Opinion guest essay, April 22):
Thank you, Ms. Cheney, for presenting a crystal clear rationale for the Supreme Court to wrap up the issue of presidential immunity in a timely manner and let the trial about efforts to overturn the 2020 election proceed and hopefully conclude before the November 2024 election.
Voters certainly have the right to hear what exactly Donald Trump did on Jan. 6. Many of us were disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to hear Mr. Trump’s preposterous arguments that he is immune from prosecution because he was president, but it was not a surprise.
Three of the current justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) were nominated by Mr. Trump, while Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, is an active Republican operative and an election denier. And we all know that Samuel Alito is a right-wing extremist.
I am extremely concerned that these five biased jurists will do anything in their power to help Mr. Trump. I do not believe that, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices simply “call balls and strikes.” Perhaps previous justices did that, but not the current Roberts court packed with right-wing partisans, promoted by the Federalist Society, whose main goal is social re-engineering.
Michael Hadjiargyrou
Centerport, N.Y.
To the Editor:
I could be called a lifelong liberal who mostly disagreed with anyone who espoused Republican Party views. My softening toward a few Republicans is a direct result of the mayhem that former President Donald Trump has brought to our country.
His over-the-top, dangerous behaviors are a source of disgust and anxiety as I consider the possibility of this man getting re-elected. And his rise has only pushed me further away from any sense of faith in our political system.
But there are a few courageous and intelligent Republicans who are able to see through this man’s ego and obsessions with himself enough to speak out to any American willing to hear the truth. These include Liz Cheney.
I have such admiration for her. She continues to speak with clarity, honesty and deep courage to call out Mr. Trump to members of her party.
Thank you, Ms. Cheney, for teaching me to look beyond the party labels and to listen to the words.
Maureen Cleary
Whitefish, Mont.