To the Editor:
The preamble to the USA Structure teaches us that among the many foundational objectives of the American authorities was to “promote the overall welfare.” The Trump administration and Congress have overlooked that easy guideline.
The administration now demolishes foundational establishments; cruelly disregards human wants; betrays lengthy worldwide alliances; unconstitutionally assaults attorneys, universities, medical researchers and public servants primarily based on private vendettas; rejects science; and dismantles the extraordinary tapestry of companies which have benefited our nation and the entire world.
However, equally disturbing, Congress supinely surrenders its function as a coequal department of presidency.
The Senate has confirmed patently unfit and harmful nominees for management roles and abdicated its authority over irrational tariffs that already wreak worldwide and home havoc.
Not a phrase is heard concerning the grotesque due course of violations of transport immigrants off to international jails — or about indiscriminate disregard for residents’ fundamental privateness rights and authorities staff’ union contracts and experience, because the Trump-Musk administration eviscerates establishments that could be imperfect however have typically served our folks nicely.
Do any of those ongoing predations “promote the overall welfare”? Can’t our representatives, at the least, do higher than this?
Terri E. Simon
Scarsdale, N.Y.
The author is a retired lawyer.
To the Editor:
Re “The Battle Towards Trump Isn’t But a Motion, however It’s Beginning to Achieve Power” (information article, Could 2):
I’m heartened by the voices rising to oppose the Trump administration’s assault on democracy, decency and purposeful authorities. Subsequent, these voices should converge.
Leaders in regulation, schooling, drugs, labor, public well being, faith, business, the humanities, the sciences and different facets of civil society must work collectively to broadcast a unified message, discover factors of leverage the place they’ll stymie the administration’s overreach and coordinate a single, swelling mass protest. This effort must be bigger than any political social gathering.
Quite than ready for an anointed chief, those that serve a convening function of their fields ought to attain throughout skilled boundaries to kind alliances now. The hassle itself could yield the savvy new leaders we’d like.
With luck and arduous work, we could ultimately discover ourselves on the opposite facet of this disaster, the place we may even want this expertise to rebuild our authorities in a kind extra agile, equitable and proof against corruption.
Sally Murray James
Washington
To the Editor:
I applaud The New York Occasions for publishing “The Week in Trump.” It’s a invaluable file. However now it’s time to begin publishing “The Week in Resistance to Trump” (higher title wanted), which might even be a invaluable file.
Linda Schneider
Brooklyn
I Know Harvard. Harvard Gained’t Fold.
To the Editor:
Re “Some Donors Need Harvard to Again Down” (entrance web page, April 23):
I’m an alumnus of Harvard, a former professor there and a current critic of its previous governance, and I later convened about 100 faculty and college presidents, resulting in a daring joint assertion in assist of Harvard in its protection in opposition to President Trump.
Having spoken to Harvard’s largest donors, key school members and trustees, I do know that Harvard gained’t fold. Though there are nonetheless just a few vocal donors, I’ve spoken with main donors, prior critics, who are actually solidly behind the varsity’s management.
The unified voices of upper schooling leaders additionally solidly endorse Harvard’s new president, Dr. Alan Garber. Most of the 60 different faculties attacked by President Trump now additionally plan to combat again.
Morning Seek the advice of knowledge exhibits a surge of bipartisan assist for Harvard in public opinion polling. Actually, simply as President Trump has inadvertently reversed electoral politics in Canada and Australia in response to his insurance policies, assist for Harvard’s management has rallied throughout as soon as fractious school voices.
Harvard’s strides in governance reforms and progress countering antisemitism should not full, however even the as soon as harshly crucial Anti-Defamation League has lifted Harvard’s grade from an F to a C.
Harvard will prevail in courtroom; there isn’t a case to assist authorities receivership.
Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld
New Haven, Conn.
The author is a professor on the Yale College of Administration.
A Ruling on Transgender Troops
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Enable President’s Ban on Trans Troops” (entrance web page, Could 7):
The folks of our nation have historically seemed to the Supreme Courtroom to uphold the regulation, the Structure and our values and beliefs, together with equal remedy.
The courtroom has failed us with its ruling upholding, at the least for the second, the Trump administration’s purging of transgender folks from the navy.
Hundreds of people who’re transgender have served honorably and bravely as members of our armed forces. We’ve got been lucky to have them as volunteers to beef up our defensive capabilities. They’re now being advised by the president and the courtroom that there’s something fallacious with them, some deficiency that precludes them from persevering with to carry out their duties satisfactorily.
Transgender rights are human rights. They have to in the end be upheld and our nation restored to a spot the place tolerance and variety stay its hallmarks. This president should not be allowed to roll again the clock to the period during which those that had been completely different from others had been ostracized.
Oren Spiegler
Peters Township, Pa.
The Zen of A.I.?
To the Editor:
Re “Ought to A.I. Techniques Have Rights?,” by Kevin Roose (The Shift column, April 26):
This text about Anthropic’s worker tasked with detecting A.I. consciousness raises profound questions: Who could have the imaginative and prescient and knowledge wanted to make selections about machine rights which may power reconsideration of humanity’s moral and authorized frameworks?
Human societies have all the time maintained clear distinctions between individuals and instruments — boundaries that underpin our authorized methods, financial constructions and social stability. Extending rights to A.I. methods would create new complexities that our governance methods are sick outfitted to deal with.
This dilemma is perhaps avoidable. Machines needn’t evolve by way of the identical evolutionary struggles that led to our personal perceptions of enjoyment, ache and self-awareness. They might be designed with architectural selections that keep their energy whereas eliminating considerations about struggling or rights — maybe a sort of Zen Buddhism for A.I. that transcends struggling altogether.
It will likely be simpler to revamp the software program — avoiding considerations about machine rights — than to restructure society to accommodate advocates who could ultimately demand “full human rights” for ever extra superior machines.
Carl O. Pabo
Mill Valley, Calif.
