NYCLU Defends Wrong Side

How disheartening to read about the position taken by the New York Civil Liberties Union regarding the hostile academic environment that Jewish and pro-Israel students have faced at Columbia University [“Civil Liberties Official Defends Columbia Professors,” Jacob Gershman, New York, December 29, 2004].

In focusing on the “academic freedom” of professors, the organization has ignored that some professors are not only factually distorting the truth of the situation in the Middle East, but are also squelching the voices of students who question or oppose their views on the situation by denigrating and intimidating students to the point that students are afraid to speak up. To characterize the problem at Columbia as “simply about the rudeness of professors” is to ignore that the university must not only ensure ideological diversity, but also maintain an environment that respects and allows for differing opinions.

In fact, federal law requires that colleges and universities provide students with an academic environment that does not harass, threaten, or intimidate on the basis of their national origin, ethnicity or religion; they risk losing their federal funding if the law is violated. No one is contending that students should be immunized from ideas that they find provocative or offensive; the problem at Columbia is that students whose views differ from those of their professors are being harassed, threatened, and intimidated in the classroom, and an organization like the New York Civil Liberties Union should be standing behind those students, not dismissing them.

SUSAN B. TUCHMAN
Director, Center for Law and Justice
Zionist Organization of America
Manhattan

Derbyshire Forgets Joyce

In his rather unsympathetic review of a new biography of the English poet George Crabbe by Neil Powell [“What To Make of George Crabbe,” John Derbyshire, Arts & Letters, December 22, 2004], John Derbyshire questions how many modern readers outside of academia have taken any interest in Crabbe’s verse. One modern reader whom Mr. Derbyshire omits to mention is James Joyce, who found in Crabbe’s stubbornly local verse inspiration for his own explorations of the local in “Ulysses” (1922).

EDWARD SHORT
Manhattan

Pacino Ably Portrays Shylock

It is a puzzle to me, who doesn’t believe quality is in the eye of the beholder, that Thane Rosenbaum and I could differ so much about Michael Redford’s version of “The Merchant of Venice” [“Shylock & the Limits of Law,” Arts & Letters, January 3, 2005]. I was shaking my head as I read the complaint about Al Pacino’s Jew since exactly the sentiments and emotions Mr. Rosenbaum said were missing seemed to me clearly manifest when I viewed the film Sunday evening on a visit to New York City. Despite the outward appearance of legalism, Mr. Pacino projected an inner struggle and a depth of feeling. Indeed, Mr. Pacino acted like a man in grief, at the end, torn between excessive righteousness and clear understanding. And it is by doing so that Shakespeare’s “cautionary note” was delivered, with subtlety and nuance.

TIBOR R. MACHAN
Silverado, Calif.

Needed: Accurate Rhetoric

According to George Lakoff [“The Metaphor Analyst,” Steven Menashi, Opinion, December 28, 2004], the problem with many political issues is that they are framed by terms created by conservatives, but he appears to omit that the problem with many leftist stances on issues is a problem of truncated phrases.

For example, instead of “affirmative action,” it would be more accurate to call it “affirmative action to bolster lower minority scores ahead of higher white scores so that minority quotas may be achieved.” A mouthful, to be sure, but it would more adequately convey the true essence of a highly popular liberal stance.

“Pro-choice.” It sounds so democratic, but shouldn’t the Democratic Party fill in the blanks as to what the choice really is in order to communicate with the “nurturing parent model” of our brains that Mr. Lakoff extols as appealed to by liberal messages? How about, “pro-choice to kill a fetus as advanced as eight months into pregnancy”? That should certainly be enough ammo to counteract the patriarchal conservative model.

Doesn’t “animal rights” give short shrift to its cause? Wouldn’t “animal rights in cancer labs to inhibit the research on laboratory rats,” or, “animal rights to outlaw the consumption of meat or chicken,” depict the true crusade of that brand of activism?

And since symbols are also so important, Democrats, who believe in Mr. Lakoff’s theories of conservative conspiracies, should reflect long and hard on the symbol of their party, the donkey, and perhaps see in it an ass.

SHLOMO FRIEDMAN
Brooklyn

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.