Tag Archives: letter

Dropping The Pretense

So disappointing! A friend recently sent me a copy of a post that has been making the rounds: it shows the letter that Education Secretary Linda McMahon recently sent to Harvard–a letter filled with vitriol and announcing the cut-off of any further grants to that University–with copious red mark-ups correcting its numerous grammatical and spelling errors. The post suggested that Harvard had returned the letter with those mark-ups to the Education Secretary.

Unfortunately, it turned out not to be true. (Granted, had Harvard done so, it would have been petty and unnecessarily provocative.) As it was, the circulation of the post simply underlined the fact that McMahon–like all of Trump’s appointees–is massively unfit for her role.

One thing the letter did accomplish–probably accidentally–was the abandonment of what has always been a phony motive for Trump’s assaults on higher education: his purported concerns about anti-Semitism on the nation’s campuses.

As an article in the Atlantic recently observed,

What you will not find in the McMahon letter is any mention of the original justification for the Trump administration’s ongoing assault on elite universities: anti-Semitism. As a legal pretext for trying to financially hobble the Ivy League, anti-Semitism had some strategic merit. Many students and faculty justifiably feel that these schools failed to take harassment of Jews seriously enough during the protests that erupted after the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas. By centering its critique on that issue, the administration was cannily appropriating for its own ends one of the progressive left’s highest priorities: protecting a minority from hostile acts.

Now, however, the mask is off. Aside from one oblique reference to congressional hearings about anti-Semitism (“the great work of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik”), the letter is silent on the subject. The administration is no longer pretending that it is standing up for Jewish students. The project has been revealed for what it is: an effort to punish liberal institutions for the crime of being liberal.

As the article noted, McMahon’s letter contained a “disconnected grab bag of grievances.”

The original reason given for the assaults on academia–concern about anti-Semitism–was always laughable, especially given Donald Trump’s own amply documented history of anti-Jewish bias. Wikipedia even has an entry detailing that history. It includes everything from his constant use of anti-Semitic tropes, to his weird accusation that Jews who support Democrats are “disloyal to Israel” and that Jews who are Democrats “hate their religion.” (I assume this accusation follows his acceptance of the old canard that America’s Jews have “dual loyalties”– loyalties that mean we are supposed to favor Israel over other countries, no matter what Israel is doing at any given time and no matter how many of us see its government’s actions as grossly inconsistent with time-honored Jewish values.)

A gratifying number of Jewish organizations have issued denunciations of Trump’s efforts to pretend that his assaults on universities have anything to do with legitimate concern for the Jewish students on those campuses. These “not in our name” statements reject what they’ve accurately labeled as Trump’s effort to use Jews as pawns masking an overtly political agenda.

Trump’s animus toward universities–especially Ivy League universities–is undoubtedly rooted in his festering and well-documented resentment over his failure to be accepted by the graduates of those institutions who dominated elite society in New York, and who dismissed him as the needy and pretentious buffoon he was.

MAGA’s rage at institutions of higher education, however, has more ideological roots, as displayed in a 2021 speech by JD Vance, titled “The Universities Are the Enemy.” As the article in the Atlantic noted,

Then–Senate candidate J. D. Vance declared that universities, as left-wing gatekeepers of truth and knowledge, “make it impossible for conservative ideas to ultimately carry the day.” The solution, Vance said, was to “honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.” We’ve been seeing the aggressive part of that formula for two months. With the McMahon letter, the administration has gotten much closer to honesty.

I think Vance has confused “conservative ideas” with reactionary ones. Conservatives typically seek to preserve an existing social and economic order, while reactionaries typically want to return to a perceived golden age, and to reverse the current direction of society. Project 2025 is an excellent example of a reactionary document.

There’s a reason so many actual conservatives are “never-Trumpers.”

Trump himself is neither conservative nor reactionary–he’s the useful fool being used by the reactionary forces behind Project 2025. JD Vance is right about one thing: universities are enemies to ignorance and reaction.

The attack on them has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

Comments

Trump’s Phony War On Anti-Semitism

If there is any aspect of Donald Trump’s “character,” (note quotes) that has been amply documented, it has been his bigotries. (Extensive research has also confirmed that agreement with his racial animus is a characteristic of the vast majority of his supporters.) Trump’s own virulent anti-Semitism has been consistently displayed by his numerous reported comments and social media posts, and by his ongoing relationships with, and support from, various neo-Nazi figures.

So the administration’s assertion that its war on universities is an effort to stamp out anti-Semitism is ludicrous. What he wants to “stamp out” is intellectual inquiry and free speech. And plenty of Jewish academics are having none of it.

On Indiana University’s Bloomington campus, thirty-eight current and former Jewish professors delivered a letter to President Pamela Whitten, Provost Rahul Shrivastav and Board of Trustees Chair Quinn Buckner, urging them not to invoke their names or Jewish students’ names as justification for limiting free speech at IU.

Jeffrey C. Isaac, James H. Rudy professor of political science, signed the letter. Isaac said the group opposes antisemitism, and he’s been involved in activism against antisemitism.

Isaac said existing laws and the university’s regulations and policies already protect Jewish people from antisemitism. He’s never felt afraid on campus, and his students haven’t said they’re afraid either.

“I don’t mean to question every person who says they’re afraid,” Isaac said. “We need to listen to them. But that’s different than saying we need to shut down anything that disturbs them, and that’s what’s going on in this country now.”

In the letter, with which I entirely agree, the professors declined  to be used as “justification for any action that further limits academic autonomy or freedom of expression at IU.”

We, the undersigned, have all been “Jewish students on campus” somewhere. Our children have been Jewish students on campus somewhere. We teach Jewish students on this campus. And we—unlike Gov. Braun or Education Secretary Linda McMahon—have known antisemitism firsthand. But we also know that our identities, both as Jewish Americans and as public university employees, require respect for free speech and tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

Those values lead us to remind you that IU has a responsibility to stand firmly for freedom of speech.

In coming months, Secretary McMahon and Governor Braun will seek your compliance in enforcing their vaguely defined prohibitions against “antisemitic harassment and discrimination” from “radical organizations and individuals.” The lessons of last year’s overreaction to the protests on Dunn Meadow, withdrawal of Samia Halaby’s Eskenazi Museum retrospective, suspension of Prof. Abulkader Sinno, and imposition of an overbroad expressive activity policy are clear: censoring legal expression—even in the name of bringing us together—only tears us apart.

The letter concluded,

These are fraught times for universities and other American institutions asserting their commitments to the protection of the First Amendment. Still, we recall the words of Hillel: “If I am not for me, who will be for me? And when I am for myself alone, what am I?” This university’s best means to protect the well-being of all of its students will be to affirm its commitment to civil liberties and to protect its academic programs from political interference. We count on you to do so.

Although it remains to be seen, it is unlikely that President Whitten–a politically-connected appointee who has thus far survived several faculty votes of no confidence, and whose response to previous student protests has ranged from unsatisfactory to appalling–will defend civil liberties against the assaults by Trump and Braun. But those who signed the letter, and the many others of us who endorse its sentiments, have made it clear that they do not consent to be cynically used by the blatant hypocrisy of Rightwing partisans who have a long history of actual anti-Semitism. We recognize this ploy as an obvious and thinly-veiled smokescreen for their consistent assaults on basic American civil liberties.

We know our history, and its lessons.

And if there is one lesson Jews all over the world have learned the hard way, it is that–like all marginalized minorities–we can only thrive in an open society that respects the civil liberties and free speech rights of all citizens, whether we agree with them or not.

Comments

Take That, Dim Jim Jordan!

If I ever grow up, I want to be Fani Willis. That woman can cast shade!

I just read the 9 page letter she sent to Congressional buffoon Jim Jordan. Jordan had demanded that the hardworking Georgia prosecutor who indicted Trump and others provide him with all documents relating to the case.

Her response was epic. You can read it in its entirety here.

Vanity Fair is just one of the numerous media sources that reported on that response.Here’s the lede:

In a withering letter, the subtext of which was basically “You’re a f–king idiot and I can’t believe I have to take the time out of my day to deal with you,” Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis blasted House Judiciary chair Jim Jordan and his demand that she turn over all documents related to her case against Donald Trump and the 18 other people she indicted last month. If this letter doesn’t cause Jordan such embarrassment or shame that he leaves town immediately never to return, nothing will!

Nothing will. Although Willis’ takedown should humiliate Jordan, his bizarre histrionics suggest he is impervious to shame.

Willis’ letter addresses Jordan’s constitutional ignorance.

Your attempt to invoke congressional authority to intrude upon and interfere with an active criminal case in Georgia is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution … There is absolutely no support for Congress purporting to second guess or somehow supervise an ongoing Georgia criminal investigation and prosecution. That violation of Georgia’s sovereignty is offensive and will not stand.” Apparently operating from the assumption that the House Judiciary chair knows less about how the US government works than a third grader, she added: “As the Supreme Court has explained, ‘the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.’ Congress, in contrast, is barred by precedent from using investigations for ‘law enforcement purposes.’ You have thus violated the basic constitutional rule that ‘the power to investigate must not be confused with any of the powers of law enforcement; those powers are assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the Judiciary’.”

For its part, Politico quoted the part of Willis letter responding to Jordan’s contention that, as a candidate for President, Trump deserved different treatment:

An announcement of a candidacy for elected office, whether President of the United States, Congress, or state or local office, is not and cannot be a bar to criminal investigation or prosecution. Any notion to the contrary is offensive to our democracy and to the fundamental principle that all people are equal before the law.

Snarky parts of the letter that I particularly enjoyed:

Your public statements and your letter itself make clear that you lack any legitimate legislative purpose for that inquiry: your job description as a legislator does not include criminal law enforcement, nor does it include supervising a specific criminal trial because you believe that doing so will promote your partisan political objectives….

Chairman Jordan, I tell people often, “deal with reality or reality will deal with you.” It is time that you deal with some basic realities. A Special Purpose Grand Jury made up of everyday citizens investigated for 10 months and made recommendations to me.

A further reality is that a grand jury of completely different Fulton County citizens found probable cause against the defendants named in the indictment for RICO violations and various other felonies. Face this reality, Chairman Jordan: the select group of defendants who you fret over in my jurisdiction are like every other defendant, entitled to no worse or better treatment than any other American citizen.

Here is another reality you must face: Those who wish to avoid felony charges in Fulton County, Georgia — including violations of Georgia RICO law — should not commit felonies in Fulton County, Georgia.

I especially loved this:

Your questioning of the inclusion of overt and predicate acts by the defendants in the indictment’s racketeering count shows a total ignorance of Georgia’s racketeering statute and the basics of criminal conspiracy law. Allow me the opportunity to provide a brief tutorial on criminal conspiracy law, Chairman Jordan.

As I explained to the public when announcing the indictment, the overt and predicate acts are included because the grand jury found probable cause that those acts were committed to advance the objectives of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the result of Georgia’s 2020 Presidential Election.

For a more thorough understanding of Georgia’s RICO statute, its application and similar laws in other states, I encourage you to read “RICO State-by-State.” As a non-member of the bar, you can purchase a copy for two hundred forty-nine dollars [$249].

If we had more public officials with Fani Willis’ smarts and spine, MAGA blowhards like Jordan wouldn’t be embarrassing Congress–and America.

Comments

Our Allies No Longer Trust Or Respect Us, And Our Enemies No Longer Fear Us…

Today, I am ceding my digital space to the 780 retired Generals, Admirals, Senior Noncommissioned Officers, Ambassadors and Senior Civilian National Security Officials who recently signed this letter supporting Joe Biden for President. Feel free to share it.

_________________________________________

To Our Fellow Citizens:

We are former public servants who have devoted our careers, and in many cases risked our lives, for the United States. We are generals, admirals, senior noncommissioned officers, ambassadors, and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We love our country. Unfortunately, we also fear for it. The COVID-19 pandemic has proven America needs principled, wise, and responsible leadership. America needs a President who understands, as President Harry S. Truman said, that “the buck stops here.”

We the undersigned endorse Joe Biden to be the next President of the United States. He is the leader our nation needs.

​We believe that Joe Biden is, above all, a good man with a strong sense of right and wrong. He is guided by the principles that have long made America great: democracy is a hard-won right we must defend and support at home and abroad; America’s power and influence stem as much from her moral authority as it does from her economic and military power; America’s free press is invaluable, not an enemy of the people; those who sacrifice or give their lives in service of our nation deserve our respect and eternal gratitude; and America’s citizens benefit most when the United States engages with the world. Joe Biden will always put the nation’s needs before his own.

​Those who have served know empathy is a vital leadership quality – you cannot do what is best for those you lead if you do not know their challenges. Joe Biden has empathy born of his humble roots, family tragedies and personal loss. When Americans are struggling, Joe Biden understands their pain and takes it upon himself to help.

​We believe America’s president must be honest, and we find Joe Biden’s honesty and integrity indisputable. He believes a nation’s word is her bond. He believes we must stand by the allies who have stood by us. He remembers how America’s NATO allies rushed to her side after 9/11; how the Kurds fought by our side to defeat ISIS; and how Japan and South Korea have been steadfast partners in countering North Korean and Chinese provocations. Joe Biden would never sell out our allies to placate despots or because he dislikes an allied leader.

​While some of us may have different opinions on particular policy matters, we trust Joe Biden’s positions are rooted in sound judgment, thorough understanding, and fundamental values.

​We know Joe Biden has the experience and wisdom necessary to navigate America through a painful time. He has grappled with America’s most difficult foreign policy challenges for decades, learning what works – and what does not – in a dangerous world. He is knowledgeable, but he also knows that listening to diverse and dissenting views is essential, particularly when making tough decisions concerning our national security. Many of us have briefed Joe Biden on matters of national security, and we know he demands a thorough understanding of any issue before making a decision – as any American president should.

​Finally, Joe Biden believes in personal responsibility. Over his long career, he has learned hard lessons and grown as a leader who can take positive action to unite and heal our country. It is unthinkable that he would ever utter the phrase “I don’t take responsibility at all.”

​The next president will inherit a nation – and a world – in turmoil. The current President has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small. Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us. Climate change continues unabated, as does North Korea’s nuclear program. The president has ceded influence to a Russian adversary who puts bounties on the heads of American military personnel, and his trade war against China has only harmed America’s farmers and manufacturers. The next president will have to address those challenges while struggling with an economy in a deep recession and a pandemic that has already claimed more than 200,000 of our fellow citizens. America, with 4% of the world’s population suffers with 25% of the world’s COVID-19 cases. Only FDR and Abraham Lincoln came into office facing more monumental crises than the next president.

​Joe Biden has the character, principles, wisdom, and leadership necessary to address a world on fire. That is why Joe Biden must be the next President of the United States; why we vigorously support his election; and why we urge our fellow citizens to do the same.

______________

​This letter was signed by 780 National Security leaders of both parties, people who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. You can see the list of signatories here.

Comments