To the Editor:
Re “Judges Struggle to Signal Alarm as Fiery Rulings Become Norm” (front page, March 30):
As a judge, now retired, I always strove to write opinions that were confined to a consideration of the facts and the law and avoided rhetoric that was inflammatory or political. However, I was never confronted by the direct and continuing assault on the rule of law and constitutional norms being waged by the current administration.
Given that a sycophantic Congress has turned a blind eye to the dire threat to our democracy, it is understandable that today’s judges feel compelled to sound the alarm using language that expresses their outrage and deep concern.
Predictably, President Trump attacks these judges as “rogue” and “activist,” but in fact they are likely to be the last line of defense against a would-be tyrant who disregards the law or uses it to his own ends.
Gerald Harris New York The writer is a retired New York City Criminal Court judge.
To the Editor:
Judges are not limited to their rulings to warn the public of threats to the rule of law and the constitutional order. Ethics rules for federal judges and Supreme Court justices broadly permit them to “speak, write … and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.”
The rules go even further. They say that judges are “encouraged” to speak publicly on these topics, “either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference or other organization dedicated to the law.”
Chief Justice John Roberts did just that in March, when, at a Rice University appearance, he said that “personally directed hostility” toward judges was “dangerous, and it’s got to stop.” His comment was welcome, but more is needed.
Speaking out need not suggest that a judge is partial or lead to recusals. To the contrary, the silence of the judges can be interpreted wrongly to imply that all is well.
Stephen Gillers New York The writer has taught legal ethics at N.Y.U. Law School since 1978.
Censoring College Professors in Red States
To the Editor:
Re “Professors Are Changing What They Teach, Even Out of Trump’s Gaze” (news article, March 18):
The epidemic of faculty self-censorship in response to the Trump administration’s assault on higher education should alarm all Americans.
Less visible, but in many cases even more damaging, are state limits on faculty speech. Over half of U.S. college students now study in states that restrict what they can learn.
Last year alone, red-state lawmakers adopted 14 gag orders limiting classroom discussion in public colleges and universities. Ohio restricts discussion of any “controversial belief or policy,” including climate change, electoral politics, foreign policy, marriage and immigration. Mississippi bans any academic program or course that promotes D.E.I. or endorses “divisive concepts” related to gender, race and other topics.
Red states are also censoring faculty members indirectly by imposing ideological diversity mandates, weakening tenure, pressuring accrediting bodies and shifting power to partisan governing boards. Texas decreed that faculty members “may provide recommendations on academic matters” but gave its public university boards, appointed by the governor, “clear and ultimate decision-making authority.”
Federal and state censorship efforts have created what PEN America calls a “web of control” over academic life. Undertaken in the name of free speech and viewpoint diversity, this campaign is trampling on academic freedom, encouraging self-censorship and diminishing the value of higher education.
David Wippman Glenn Altschuler The writers are, respectively, a president emeritus of Hamilton College and an emeritus professor of American studies at Cornell University.
Executive Power After Trump
To the Editor:
Years from now, when the fog surrounding President Trump has lifted and calm has been restored by steady, rational presidents of both parties, history will examine with clarity how his rise to unprecedented political power and corruption allowed him to bend the levers of government to his will.
That reckoning should also prompt a lasting reassessment of executive authority, and a commitment to strengthen enforcement of existing limits on presidential power, mandate impeachment when those limits are defied and bar felons from ever holding the nation’s highest office.
Martin Geller Manhasset, N.Y.
The post When Should Judges Sound the Alarm? appeared first on New York Times.
