Headlines concerning federal administrative complaints filed against Illinois schools over allowing public school students access to restrooms and changing areas consistent with their gender (“Federal complaints are lodged against Chicago, Deerfield for accommodating trans students,” Sun-Times, March 20) do not mention that federal law, Title IX, federal courts rulings, and our state’s laws require that students have access to these facilities.
Clearly, some parents and so-called conservative legal groups see the inauguration of Donald Trump to a second term as president as overturning federal court rulings and state law in Illinois. This action is part of a movement by Trump and his supporters to impose the values of MAGA on all of us, even if we have adopted different, more humane policies at the local level through the regular democratic process. It is that democratic process that is under attack, and while targeting trans students is where this administration is starting, other areas where we have set policy democratically — on immigration, diversity and inclusion, policing and free speech — also are under attack.
Attempting to federalize this question is ironic, given that the Trump administration has stated its intent to dismantle the Department of Education to return education decisions “to the states.”
School officials in Deerfield allow any student who is uncomfortable with the idea of using the restroom with other students the option of an alternative facility. This is a good approach.
Donald Trump is president. He is not a king, and he does not get to tell Illinois schools how to operate on important issues of welcoming all students. That is a bridge too far.
Edwin C. Yohnka, director of communications and public policy, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois
SEND LETTERS TO: letters@suntimes.com. To be considered for publication, letters must include your full name, your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes. Letters should be a maximum of approximately 375 words.
Trashy move to discard editorials
Look, I understand that newspaper readership is dead. And I know 20% of your folks took the buyout. But to just give up on editorials? Why do you even exist? For community news? The comics?
I’ve been reading the Sun-Times since for as long as I can remember. But this is the end. I mean, honestly. Shutter the shop and just let it go. You were an amazing part of Chicago, But it’s done. And it’s the saddest thing I can think of.
Mark Weiher, Chicago
Sun-Times cuts means fewer watchdogs
My parents used to subscribe to both a morning and an afternoon newspaper. So it was from their choice that I learned to value reading a newspaper, not only for its current stories, but also for its historical record. I still read a paper as a regular rider on public transit. But whereas in the past others also had a paper in hand, now I feel like a member of a cult as other passengers invariably have a phone in hand, clearly playing an online game or aimlessly scrolling.
The people celebrating newspaper retrenchment are those who do not want exposure of their activities. We have learned that a solid investigative story will often result in legal enforcement activity. The Sun-Times has an admirable history that did its part to call out those preying on the rest of us. So I am sorry to see the diminishing of the Sun-Times’ footprint.
Jim Halas. Norridge
Lawyers’ duty to preserve the rule of law
The 17th century’s English philosopher, John Locke, scribed, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” We are at that precipice.
As a member of the Illinois bar for 52 years, I have traveled the country to various courthouses in representing clients, my writings, organizational leadership positions and law school teaching and nationwide lecturing — all the while respecting the rule of law. No one is above the law, no one can prevent one from being held accountable to the law, no one can deny one the effective representation of the law guaranteed by the constitution and certainly no one can hold a Damoclean sword over lawyers based on who they want to have as clients or who they have represented in the past. But we have seen in recent days Donald Trump is doing just the opposite, pummeling through executive orders against prominent law firms for their current and past representations. No doubt more will come into the crosshairs of his scope and one wonders how many law firms will cut a deal to avoid punishment as Paul Weiss did.
Trump has also gone as far as to allow untethered the wailing to impeach judges and to have articles of impeachment filed in the U.S. House against federal judges, all due to (these) jurists using the rule of law in deciding legal cases against him and his interests. It is no doubt for this reason that the usually staid and apolitical American Bar Association issued a statement last month supporting the rule of law; a federal judge in D.C. lambasting Trump over one of his executive orders, writing in part, “The order casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportions across the legal profession”; and certainly the Supreme Court’s chief justice issuing a highly unusual public statement the other day, castigating Trump when saying that for over two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision, but, rather, the normal appellate review is intended for that purpose.
We lawyers are the sentries to preserve the rule of law, and if we do not do so, Locke’s admonition he advanced centuries ago referenced atop this writing will become reality.
Miles J. Zaremski, Highland Park