Terry Hansen’s letter (“Withholding Israel criticism,” Aug. 30) shows that our constantly proclaimed American values of freedom, democracy, human rights and justice are very selective — they do not apply to Israel. Grave injustice and gross violations of human rights by Israel are routinely ignored or explained away by our politicians and media under the pretext of fighting terrorism. The Israel lobby ensures that criticism of Israel is withheld, choking our freedom of expression for justice and human rights. We timidly and foolishly accept this curtailment.
Full-page ads in major newspapers by Israel supporters divert attention from the core issues of illegal occupation; mass killings; demolition of hospitals, schools and homes; and gross violation of human rights.
Humanists in Israel, such as the B’Tselem organization, speak out boldly to expose the inhuman atrocities that are being inflicted daily on the Palestinian people, but here we are scared to speak out. The irony is that we are giving our tax dollars and arms to Israel, but we are helpless in stopping Israel from committing the atrocities.
The world sees that we are helping Israel to commit atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank. When will we put our national interest ahead of Israel’s designs?
— Imtiaz Uddin, Darien
Purpose of universities
Regarding the op-ed “Northwestern University must embrace the First Amendment standard of speech” (Aug. 30): With due respect to the law professors, they left out the problem of there being no encompassing definition of antisemitism other than that offered by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which they don’t mention at all. Recall the embarrassing fiasco Columbia University recently endured in trying to determine a working definition. However, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Would any university, be it private or public, endure a demonstration with slogans and placards calling for reinstituting slavery? Segregation? Deporting any ethnic, racial or religious group? Cutting off all foreign aid to a particular ethnic-, race- or religion-identifying country? Taking the side of one nation merely because of its identity? Calling for the elimination of any particular country because it represents an identity some students dislike? Aside from Israel, the answer would be a resounding no. So, what is the particular problem at Northwestern University? Or anywhere?
Northwestern never promised to divest from any funds due to pressure. It did offer specific housing and food options for Muslim students, which is a respectful accommodation. If, and it’s a big if, protesting and its associated slurs are not allowed within the classrooms, what about preventing professors/teachers from making unrelated declarations of their personal beliefs, especially in social science classrooms with a mix of ethnicities and religions? What if professors fail students for writing essays, papers or theses going against the professors’ beliefs? For example, a Jewish graduate student in England successfully sued a school on that allegation, though the case set her back.
We all agree that universities are there to educate objectively and allow for disciplined and intelligent debate. The protests at our universities don’t fit into that category. It seems British universities push debates, backed up by facts and reasonable conclusions, as a means to air differences, foster at least mutual tolerance and develop critical thinking. That could/should be a model for Northwestern and others to consider, be it part of a classroom experience or as a scheduled extracurricular event.
What should never be allowed are outside agitators coming into campuses. My freedom to speak doesn’t grant me permission to invade a campus in which I play no role.
As Chicago well displayed, permission to use parks would suffice for those purposes.
— Rosalie Lieberman, Chicago
Terms for a cease-fire
The only acceptable terms for a cease-fire would be for Hamas to release all remaining hostages and surrender. Any other terms would not only result in more attacks on Israel, leaving more innocent Israelis dead, but they also would reward the terrorist group after it killed six more hostages in cold blood.
As painful and tragic as the situation is, Israel can accept no less in order for its state to continue to exist.
— JoAnn Lee Frank, Clearwater, Florida
Nuclear risk in Ukraine
I served in West Germany as a U.S. Army officer in the early 1980s when the Cold War confrontation with the Soviet Union was intense. I always had the feeling while I was there that a nuclear war could start any day. I get the same feeling now with the war in Ukraine.
Since the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk, Russia, began, the feeling has grown stronger. Ukraine clearly has a right to attack Russian territory, but the stakes are incredibly high. The question is: When will Russian President Vladimir Putin get so desperate that he launches a nuclear weapon? If and when Putin fires a nuclear device, he will cross the reddest of red lines, and it won’t end there. Nukes are like potato chips; one is never enough.
The world currently has a laserlike focus on the war in Gaza. Our attention should be on Ukraine. That’s where the danger lies.
— Francis Pauc, Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Facial recognition tech
Professor Sheldon Jacobson wants to assure Americans coming home from holiday travel that any delay and embarrassment they encounter at airports because of an inaccurate facial recognition match is completely justified because Transportation Security Administration agents identified a person who was being sought on a warrant in another state (“Facial recognition demonstrates its worth at the Tampa airport,” Aug. 27). Jacobson’s argument is essentially that it is hysterical to raise concerns about the widespread use of facial recognition technology at our airports because it might sometimes work. He labels anyone who would question the wisdom of his view as “not the best informed.” This reasoning sadly normalizes surveillance.
While Jacobson suggests that any false positives at the airport can be “quickly” resolved, what is the evidence of this? We know that people have missed flights, and their children and family members have borne witness to violence and incarceration by the state as a result of faulty identification by facial recognition systems.
The reality is that while Jacobson pointing to this one anecdote may comfort some, facial recognition software as used by law enforcement makes mistakes in identifying people, and it just so happens those people are disproportionately Black men. In Michigan and New Jersey, Robert Williams, Michael Oliver, and Nijeer Parks spent time in jail for crimes they did not commit after police relied on faulty facial recognition “matches” to arrest them.
These examples suggest that we should move slowly before further expanding the use of facial recognition software at our airports and limiting how, and if, law enforcement can use facial recognition technology.
The use of facial recognition technology at our airports may be part of our future. But we should not allow a singular anecdote of success block out the need for a robust discussion about how to best protect the privacy of millions of American who regularly travel through our airports and across our cites and the state. Simply, cheerleading these anecdotes does not advance that discussion.
— Stephen Ragan, policy and advocacy strategist, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois
Judging Gus Walz
Rick Wagner from Burr Ridge misses the point when he claims Amy Jacobson was a victim of an off-with-their-heads mentality (“Jacobson unfairly reviled,” Sept. 2). Jacobson was a coach at Amundsen High School. As a recently retired high school teacher, my first thoughts upon seeing Gus Walz’s emotional reaction to his father at the Democratic National Convention wasn’t one of how he was raised. If Jacobson was unable to see anything beyond that with which she mocked Gus, she does not belong in a school, mentoring and coaching our youth.
To the Walzes, I say, “Bravo!” Your children are absolutely lovely.
— Christina Cable, Frankfort
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.