More Worthy of the New Yorker

I am wondering why you thought your readers should know about the quixotic litigation in federal court by Stephen Young ’74 on a claim that equates environmental opposition to commercial logging in national forests to a religion [Fall 2000, p. 6]. This seems to me an item more worthy of a squib in the New Yorker as a wry commentary on the foibles of humankind. But you not only give this curious story more than a half-page of space, you offer your readers no counterpoint beyond noting the judge’s determination that Young’s suit was “unseemly” and “baseless” and worthy of a sanction. In effect, you have given one lawyer who advocates an extreme view in a matter of serious public policy a free platform to propagate his views. Do those of us who, as a matter of legal doctrine as well as personal philosophy, take strong issue with his twisted view of environmental activism get a chance to respond?