[ad_1]
To the Editor:
Re “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Immunity Case” (front page, Feb. 29):
The Supreme Court has decided to consider Donald Trump’s immunity case on a purportedly expedited basis, with oral arguments set for the third week of April. Did the court really need to hear the merits of this case at all? Is the question of whether Mr. Trump is immune for inciting an insurrection and trying to overturn an election really up for debate?
The D.C. Circuit Court’s exceedingly well-reasoned, comprehensive and unanimous decision definitely answered that question. And yet, the Supreme Court has now granted Mr. Trump another delay that, it must know, could well lead to the result that Mr. Trump will not face trial before the election.
And, God forbid Mr. Trump wins, we all know there will never be a trial, because he will either pardon himself or order the Justice Department to end its prosecutions of him.
There must be a reason that the court felt compelled to hear this case on this schedule, a schedule that could very well result in calamitous consequences to this country. It took the court four days to grant certiorari and decide Bush v. Gore. Why not here?
It makes one consider the possibility, as painful as that might be, that some members of the Supreme Court, for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of the case, for reasons having nothing to do with the fair and impartial administration of justice, for reasons having nothing to do with what is best and necessary for our democracy, decided to prevent a swift and fair adjudication from happening.
Laurie Korenbaum
Brooklyn
The writer is a retired federal prosecutor.
To the Editor:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling to hear arguments in late April on Donald Trump’s claim of immunity is a denial of justice, not to Mr. Trump, but to the people. The electorate is entitled to know, as soon as possible, whether the former president is innocent or guilty of an alleged crime.
The court can — and must — redeem itself by rendering its opinion promptly, and well before June, when it typically issues its last opinions of the term.
Peter Siviglia
Irvington, N.Y.
The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
Whether the justices know it or not, the issue they have agreed to take up is whether John Adams was right: that we have a government of laws and not of men.
Jonathan J. Margolis
Brookline, Mass.
The writer is a lawyer.
A Gift to a Medical School, and a Call to Arms
To the Editor:
Re “$1 Billion Gift to Make Tuition at Bronx Medical School Free” (front page, Feb. 27):
I am currently a member of the faculty at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, as well as a proud alumnus. My colleagues and I are overjoyed at the transformative nature of the unimaginably generous gift of the Gottesman family, which will defray tuition for Einstein students for years to come.
It is unfortunate that we needed such a gift. This stems from the fact that we, as a nation, have not chosen to follow the example of most other nations to make medical school affordable through state or federal funding. Even at the cheapest American medical schools tuition is more than $20,000 per year for in-state residents.
Onerous medical school debt prevents many from entering medicine, and discourages students from entering primary-care and lower-paying specialties, including my own: infectious diseases.
In addition, current trends in taxation favor the wealthy, but budgeting has resulted in inadequate spending on biomedical research and medical education. Thus, it is only through gifts such as this that wealth is being transferred in such a beneficial fashion.
Perhaps this gift should be taken as a twofold call to arms: first, as a shining example of philanthropy for other generous donors to emulate; and second, as a call for local, state and federal lawmakers to re-evaluate the financial priorities of the nation, so that gifts like these are not needed to make medical education affordable for all Americans.
Yoram A. Puius
Bronx
Gender Identity and a 6-Year-Old’s Shame
To the Editor:
Re “A Deep Divide Over Teaching Gender Identity” (front page, Feb. 23):
When I was 6 I realized that I was different and that I was unacceptable. I liked many things about the world of boys, but I so loved the world of girls. In 1961, even a 6-year-old could figure out how unacceptable that was. On that day shame was born in that small innocent child, and I carried its weight deep in my soul every day for decades.
Prof. Brené Brown, who has researched shame, notes the conditions in which shame and its destructive impact will flourish: secrecy, silence and judgment. That’s pretty much the isolated and repressive world that I faced in the ’60s. It left me trying to live much of my life plagued by lifelong depression and thoughts of suicide.
Americans who fear letting younger children learn in age-appropriate fashion that everyone can define can how they experience the spectrum of gender do so because the MAGA far right has targeted young trans children as scapegoats in its war for conformity. Its rhetoric is filled with disinformation and cruelty.
Every time a new law is passed targeting this vulnerable minority, secrecy, silence and judgment grow. Innocent children are condemned to return to my world of 1961, when women, people of color, L.G.B.T.Q. people and many others were openly discriminated against, and 6-year-old kids like me … we didn’t stand a chance.
Mark Petersen
Park City, Utah
The Loss of a Herbarium
To the Editor:
Re “Duke University Prunes Century-Old Herbarium” (news article, Feb. 22):
The reports of the closing of Duke University’s herbarium should be a wake-up call to the global community. This collection of plant specimens, among others, is an essential resource in helping to understand threats to biodiversity, preserve endangered species, respond to climate change and much more.
But what is happening at Duke is a symptom of a larger problem: There is no collective plan to protect these irreplaceable resources in the event that individual institutions find themselves unable to do so.
The New York Botanical Garden’s own herbarium is the largest in the Western Hemisphere, so we understand firsthand the extreme care and cost required to maintain this precious resource. Herbaria are critical for scientific research that benefits all of us — meaning that we all share a responsibility to ensure their future.
As government funding and philanthropy increasingly redirect resources toward the hard sciences, we fear that more institutions will follow Duke and the University of Louisiana Monroe in making difficult choices that ultimately threaten biodiversity. To prevent further loss, those who understand the risks must demand collective action, and all stakeholders — governments, the philanthropic community and the public at large — must pay attention.
Jennifer Bernstein
Bronx
The writer is the C.E.O. and president of the New York Botanical Garden.
[ad_2]
Source link
