On the September issue:
Conserving the Canon
To the Editor:
Yuval Levin’s discussion of university-faculty revolutionaries and traditionalists is enlightening (“A New Hope for Saving the Universities,” September). It is the board of trustees, however, that oversees a university and defines its purpose. It’s no surprise that trustees aren’t rushing to fill the void left by years of neglect. Defining a school’s purpose is intimidating and not for the faint of heart.
History offers a tried-and-true solution to those trustees who are unsure of their purpose. The canon is the collected great works all students read, analyze, and debate. It provides the corpus for intellectual critique and developing informed views about people and culture and beliefs. It is the canon that is implicitly the purpose of the university. Parents and students can judge what a school values by perusing its approach to the canon and judging the wealth and breadth it presents. There is no monolithic dogma in the canon, and the only guiding principle is that other students need time immersed in well-articulated competing ideas to develop their own.
There is a lazy argument against the canon: Who gets to decide what’s in it? But adults serve on canon committees and choose works that best present the essential questions students should consider. It is a thankless job done by the those who are willing to sacrifice in service to the next generation.
Leon J. Leonard
Mansfield, Georgia
Overturning Chevron
To the Editor:
Thank you for Adam J. White’s recent article discussing recent decisions overturning the Chevron doctrine (“The Supreme Court vs. the Administrative State,” September). Among the most egregious and harmful uses of this doctrine was the decision by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to eliminate the Treating Physician Rule in 2017.
The Treating Physician Rule was the most important rule in the adjudication of disability claims, and it ceased to have controlling weight in the adjudication process, the largest such process in the world: The determination of whether a person and his family will receive benefits and Medicare is overseen by 1,500 administrative-law judges and involves hundreds of thousands of administrative hearings annually—which can be appealed in the United States district courts. That leads to more than 12,000 annual cases heard in those courts. This enormous adjudicative process was governed by a simple rule: The opinion of the treating physician should be given controlling weight if it is backed by substantial evidence. In the exact words of the regulation that was in effect until March 27, 2017, “If we find that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of … [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in … [the] case record, we will give it controlling weight.”
This rule was not reached easily. It resulted from much litigation and was adopted by the SSA in 1991 at the insistence of the federal courts. The SSA accepted the rule and assumed control over its implementation and, ultimately, its fate. Whether a person is disabled—that is, whether he is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity (work a 40-hour workweek) owing to a medical condition—was a medical vocational decision and not a legal one, until the rule’s elimination.
In the absence of a clear rule, litigation on this issue has descended into an esoteric and arcane mass of conflicting precedents that is often incomprehensible to attorneys and judges—to say nothing of the disabled claimants. Ideally, the elimination of Chevron will quickly lead to rectification of this matter.
Jacques M. Farhir
Bronx, New York
On Josh Shapiro
To the Editor:
Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik is wrong about Josh Shapiro (“The Shame of Josh Shapiro,” September). Governor Shapiro speaks often and with pride of his love of his people and his Jewish faith. He has been unequivocal in his support for Israel and his condemnation of anti-Semitism. His clarification regarding his IDF-adjacent volunteer service as a very young man was obviously a response to the current gotcha politics and finger-pointing journalism. He clarified this point so that he wouldn’t be accused of padding his résumé by claiming combat service. In an era when the GOP has attacked Governor Tim Walz, among others, for misstatements about their personal histories, it’s clear that Shapiro wanted to preempt the same fate. Nothing more.
Rabbi Soleveichik not only misunderstood Shapiro’s motives, but he accused the governor of running away from his Jewish identity. How in G-D’s name can a prominent rabbi’s public and unfair finger-wagging at the most promising proudly Jewish politician in America benefit the Jewish people?
Rabbi Michael A. White
Temple Sinai of Roslyn, New York
To the Editor:
After reflecting on Meir Y. Soloveichik’s column on Josh Shapiro, I’ll share a personal memory. Some years ago, when I was involved with the Holocaust Memorial and Education Center in Philadelphia, I had occasion to meet Shapiro. We didn’t discuss politics, but he still came across as yet another young politician on the make. I wasn’t very impressed.
As Soloveichik writes, Shapiro “historically and tragically whiffed.” And this, unlike the Dodgers game, was a loss indeed.
Where have you gone, Sandy Koufax? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Fran Meiers
Philadelphia
Meir Y. Soloveichik writes:
I appreciate entirely the instinct to embrace the time-honored Judaic virtue of limmud zekhut—to refrain from accusation and offer the best possible understanding of another’s actions. But the defense of Governor Shapiro offered by Rabbi Michael A. White—that Shapiro was merely clarifying what he did in Israel so that “he wouldn’t be accused of padding his résumé”—simply won’t wash. Why did he have his spokesman emphasize that all the governor’s activities in Israel took place because he “was required to do a service project” while in high school? Why did he not emphasize that he was proud of his volunteering in Israel, or as he later said at a political rally, “I am proud of my faith”?
The answer, I’m afraid, is quite clear.
As I write this at the turn of the new year, I wish my correspondents a year of blessing. May it be one of Jewish courage and Israeli victory.