Rosenberg RejoinderDavid Randall ’93’s letter (“Repellent Rosenberg Read,” spring 2016) might have been more persuasive if he had responded to specific points raised by my brother and me in our op-ed in The New York Times and in my interview with the Bulletin. The fact that my mother was never given a code name and that David Greenglass in his grand jury testimony explicitly denied her involvement in any espionage activity (corroborating what Ruth Greenglass told the grand jury) were not mentioned. Instead, he invoked Ronald Radosh, co-author of The Rosenberg File. In 1997, I debated Radosh’s collaborator, Joyce Milton ’67, at Swarthmore—the video is not great, but it can be seen on the Bulletin’s website. Even after close to 20 years, the incompetence (if not dishonesty) of the Radosh-Milton book is evident. Perhaps the most egregious failing of Mr. Randall’s letter is the assertion that my parents were traitors. Even if every word testified against them at the trial were true, they could not have been indicted for treason because the Soviet Union was an ally during World War II. In my opinion, the best, most recent analysis of the case is Walter Schneir’s Final Verdict: What Really Happened in the Rosenberg Case. Those interested in our campaign to exonerate our mother can visit rfc.org/ethel, where the petition to President Obama with supporting documentation is available. I agree with Mr. Randall about one thing: If you are interested in the issues in my parents’ case, you need to read more; if the fine article in the Bulletin succeeds in stimulating readers to do so, it will have done a great service. —MICHAEL MEEROPOL ’64, Putnam County, N.Y.