To the Editor:
Re “In an Age of Doxxing, Some Protesters Choose Anonymity” (news article, May 3):
As a former activist with a proud résumé of progressive civil disobedience and protest from the 1970s through the 1990s, I sympathize with the energy and idealistic enthusiasm of the student protesters this year.
However, I find it inconceivable that so many have chosen to be masked. The anonymity of their anti-Israel expression seems to me far too close to the behavior of a mob. It is also anathema to the concept of a free exchange of ideas that the modern postsecondary educational experience is supposed to be all about.
If these students intend to accomplish anything while they are protesting, they need to put their real identities to the challenge and defend their ideas.
Or perhaps in being unmasked, these anonymous radicals will suddenly realize that what some of them are advocating, the elimination of the modern state of Israel, is entirely inconceivable.
Carl D. Birman
Albany, N.Y.
To the Editor:
This article addresses the issue of masking by pro-Palestine (and a few pro-Israel) demonstrators at college campuses, pointing out that students fear suspension, doxxing and other threats if their identities become known.
The article compares this generation of students to earlier generations of activists, of which I was a member, who “gained their moral force in part by putting their words on record and their futures in jeopardy for a larger cause.” Indeed we did, and we did it to protest the war in Vietnam and to support civil rights in the face of serious police violence.
Although some will draw parallels between Kent State and today’s actions on college campuses, the level of risk that students today face can’t begin to compare with that of students back then.
One very important difference between then and now is that the men of my generation risked being drafted. We were demonstrating not only for “moral force,” but also because an unjust war threatened to take our lives. The draft, not the doxxing, was an overwhelming concern.
Please, don’t compare the two eras. We didn’t wear masks; they do. We wanted to “stop the war!”; they are chanting “from the river to the sea,” which surely will require more fighting.
Linda Lögdberg
Philadelphia
To the Editor:
Akosua Barthwell Evans, a 1968 protester at Columbia, states: “Times have changed, but I have a lot of respect for the protesters who are using peaceful means to fight injustice and who have the courage to take personal risks to try to make a difference in the world” (“Witness: Portraits of the People Living the News,” Sunday Opinion, May 5).
There is no courage in hiding behind masks as many of the recent protesters have done. There is no bravery in demanding that there be no punishment for breaking the law or violating campus policies and causing many others to feel intimidated or uneasy, as so many of the recent protesters have asked for in their “demands.”
Civil disobedience means one is willing to accept the consequences for one’s actions and let the chips fall where they may.
Nathaniel Helfgot
Teaneck, N.J.
Money and Politics: Congressional Salaries and Campaign Finance
To the Editor:
Re “Quitting Congress: The Exit Interviews” (Opinion, May 5):
Several departing members of Congress bemoaned their salaries not being tied to inflation and the cost of living. Perhaps the people they represent would be more likely to accept that grievance if Congress made the same concession on the minimum wage.
Jonathan L. Gleit
Tarrytown, N.Y.
To the Editor:
When asked about corruption in Congress, Representative Ken Buck addressed pervasive political spending and the “tsunami of money that comes in from special interest groups.” His revelation that members of Congress need to raise $250,000-plus for the party to secure coveted committee positions underscores the dire need for campaign finance reform in our political system.
This isn’t just a political challenge, but a constitutional one. Through decades of misguided precedent, the Supreme Court has effectively appointed itself as the legislative body for campaign finance reform. An amendment is the only path forward to address the toxic influence of money in politics.
Ratifying the For Our Freedom Amendment will empower states and Congress to set reasonable limits on political spending, ensuring that every American voice counts. Twenty-two states have called on Congress to propose the amendment, and voters list reducing the influence of money in politics as a top priority for 2024.
Candidates who care about addressing out-of-control spending should pledge support for the amendment and help us return to a government that focuses on addressing everyday issues, not on fund-raising for the next election cycle.
Jeffrey D. Clements
Cambridge, Mass.
The writer is C.E.O. of American Promise, which has proposed the amendment.
Cousteau’s Granddaughter, on Protecting Oceans and Marine Life
To the Editor:
Re “Fishing Zones Seen as Flaw in Plan to Protect Oceans” (news article, May 1):
Our oceans have changed since my grandfather Jacques Cousteau explored and spotlighted underwater worlds, with marine ecosystems facing growing threats like climate change, plastics and destructive fishing.
Our oceans cover more than 70 percent of the planet and provide us with so many benefits — oxygen, food, livelihoods and recreation, to name just a few — yet only about 8 percent of them are under some type of protection.
How can our oceans truly be protected if they aren’t shielded from destructive activities? Bottom trawling indiscriminately bulldozes the seafloor, destroying habitats and killing marine life in its destructive path.
Global leaders have an opportunity to establish real, meaningful protections for our oceans with their efforts toward what is known as 30×30, a commitment to safeguard 30 percent of the planet’s oceans by 2030. Such protections allow fish to grow, feed and breed to build more resilient oceans. But allowing destructive practices like bottom trawling in protected areas worldwide undermines this effort.
We know that our oceans thrive when they are well protected, and so do the people and communities that rely on them. Global leaders, including President Biden, must protect 30 percent of our oceans and then do more. Don’t limit protections to remote areas but expand them to cover geographically diverse waters.
By fully protecting our oceans, without exclusions or exceptions, we will restore our global waters and rebuild ocean abundance for generations.
Alexandra Cousteau
Paris
The writer is a senior adviser to the international advocacy group Oceana.
Exiles From Trump?
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Return? A Wary Capital Talks of Escape” (Washington Memo, May 6):
It was disappointing to read your article reporting that many influential people in Washington talk of planning to leave the United States if Donald Trump is elected president.
Many of these people have ample resources, deep government experience and other political skills. So rather than ruminating about which country they would apply to for “asylum,” why aren’t they organizing, fighting back and actively doing all they can to re-elect Joe Biden?
Lloyd Trufelman
Katonah, N.Y.