To the Editor:
Re “In High Court docket, G.O.P. Prevails on Voting Map” (entrance web page, Could 24):
The motion of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court docket, anchoring the 6-to-3 resolution to permit the South Carolina Legislature to go ahead with redistricting plans that clearly marginalize African American illustration within the state — and after a meticulous overview by an appellate courtroom to preclude the plan — is disturbing.
The persistent erosion of voting rights and obvious denial that racism continues to be a part of the material of American society are troubling.
Certainly there will be deference to choices made by states; concocting “intent” to disclaim true consultant justice in an obvious quest to return to the “Ozzie and Harriet” days of the Fifties appears too clear an try to “maintain America white once more” — as they might understand the problem of fixing demographics.
This specific ruling cries out for the necessity to increase courtroom membership.
Raymond Coleman
Potomac, Md.
To the Editor:
Writing for almost all, Justice Samuel Alito presumes the South Carolina lawmakers acted “in good religion” in gerrymandering the voting district map for the aim of favoring the Republicans, and never for racial causes, an inconceivable rationale on its face.
Astoundingly, he additional causes that the gerrymander is suitable as a result of it was for partisan somewhat than race-based causes (acknowledging that redistricting primarily based on race “could also be held unconstitutional.”)
Despite the fact that the gerrymander clearly moved a bloc of Black voters in order to disclaim them illustration, Justice Alito accepted the G.O.P. declare that it was completed for allowable partisan causes and was not race-based. This was an apparent subterfuge as a result of an individual can vote Republican right now and Democratic tomorrow, whereas one’s pores and skin colour is immutable.
Carl Mezoff
Stamford, Conn.
To the Editor:
Predictably, in writing for the Supreme Court docket, Justice Samuel Alito resorted to his accustomed verbal contortions. You’ll be able to in fact draw a neat distinction between the phrases race and politics within the summary, utilizing a dictionary’s definition.
However given the historical past of South Carolina’s electoral politics, the place the phrases have been, virtually talking, interchangeable, certainly the very last thing to depend on is a “presumption that the legislature acted in good religion.”
A presumption, implying a distinction already satisfactorily made, contradicts his name for the tough process of disentangling the 2 phrases, a burden apparently that, on this case, falls solely on the plaintiffs.
If that is the voice of the U.S. Supreme Court docket, it isn’t the voice of justices however the voice of sophists.
T. Patrick Hill
Winchester, Va.
The author is emeritus affiliate professor of ethics and regulation at Rutgers College and the creator of “No Place for Ethics: Judicial Assessment, Authorized Positivism and the Supreme Court docket of the US.”
Questions for Republicans
To the Editor:
Re “Settle for Election Outcomes? Republicans Received’t Say” (information article, Could 12):
Individuals have to cease asking Republicans merely if they’ll settle for the election outcomes. The query that basically must be requested is, “Will you settle for the election outcomes provided that your candidate wins?”
And the follow-up query must be, “If Joe Biden wins in a state that you simply contest, are you additionally surrendering the wins your different candidates acquire since you consider that the election was fraudulent?”
Elaine Edelman
East Brunswick, N.J.
The Case Towards the Purebred
To the Editor:
Re “Has Canine Breeding Gone Too Far?,” by Alexandra Horowitz (Opinion visitor essay, Could 19):
Ms. Horowitz’s takedown of grotesque canine breeding practices is spot on. As Individuals for the Moral Therapy of Animals (PETA) has lengthy stated, “purebred” means “inbred.” Breeders not solely exacerbate the animal overpopulation and homelessness disaster however — for revenue and perceived “status” — additionally price “purebred” canines their well being, happiness and even their lives.
Our nation’s shelters are overflowing with canines in want of houses — purebreds and mutts alike. Nobody must be breeding extra canines of any kind.
For those who care about canines, skip Westminster, breeders and pet shops and — when you’re able to welcome a canine to your loved ones — undertake!
Daphna Nachminovitch
Norfolk, Va.
The author is a senior vp of the cruelty investigations division for PETA.
To the Editor:
Kudos to Alexandra Horowitz for shining a lightweight on inbreeding amongst purebred canines. With restricted exceptions, most households don’t want a purebred canine companion. There are over three million canines coming into U.S. animal shelters every year.
With the lives of so many shelter canines on the road, buying a purebred signifies an unnerving stage of self-importance and discrimination. Right here’s to those that make adoption their first possibility and provides a second probability to homeless canines (and cats).
Evan Goldman
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Chatbot Remedy
To the Editor:
Re “Loneliness Is a Drawback That A.I. Received’t Resolve,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, nytimes.com, Could 18):
Ms. Grose’s current piece on loneliness and A.I. raises essential considerations about A.I.’s potential to switch human connection. As a regulation professor who has researched the intersection of psychological well being, expertise and the regulation, I agree that we should be cautious about overrelying on A.I. for emotional assist. Nonetheless, I consider that the dialog must increase past loneliness to embody the broader psychological well being disaster going through our nation.
Anxiousness and melancholy, not simply loneliness, are widespread issues that the pandemic has exacerbated. My analysis has reported on how chatbots have demonstrated promise in delivering cognitive behavioral remedy to people scuffling with these circumstances. That is significantly vital given the scarcity of psychological well being professionals and the obstacles many individuals face in accessing conventional remedy, reminiscent of price and stigma.
In truth, some people could really feel extra comfy discussing delicate points with a chatbot due to the expertise’s perceived anonymity and lack of judgment. Whereas A.I. will not be a panacea for psychological well being, it’s important to acknowledge its potential to enrich current remedies and attain those that would possibly in any other case go untreated.
We should stay of two minds about A.I. — acknowledging its potential to assist us, whereas additionally remaining vigilant about its limitations and the significance of preserving real human connection.
Michael Mattioli
Bloomington, Ind.
The author is a professor of regulation at Indiana College.
Criticism of Israel
To the Editor:
Re “Faculty Leaders Battle With Antisemitism Points” (information article, Could 16):
It’s disturbing to learn that expressing criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza in a classroom is robotically described as antisemitic. Israel is a political entity like some other. It must be acceptable to criticize its actions publicly, as one would possibly criticize some other nation for attacking civilians for months on finish.
Nobody would deny a rustic the suitable to reply to a horrific assault on its folks, as occurred on Oct. 7. Israel’s response, nevertheless, has been disproportionate, and lecturers and college students have a proper to say so.
Linda Nathanson
Brookline, Mass.
