Founding Myth
Editor: At a time when the majority of Americans were in favor of the war against Iraq, Ray Jenkins chose to publish some
unpopular opinions concerning our nation's history and belief in its own moral superiority. After an extremely negative and totally predictable reaction, he again had the courage to express his opinions in print. I congratulate him.
Concerning the overwhelming reaction to his opinions, allow me to quote from Marie-France Toinet, author of "Does Anti-Americanism Exist":
". . . the majority of Americans feel that they have succeeded as a nation and are therefore intimately convinced of American superiority. To them it is as plain as a pikestaff and they say as much with varying degrees of openness. Political institutions in America operate more democratically, and the rights and freedoms of the individual command greater respect. Quite simply, Americans are freer than anyone else and comparisons with other countries cannot fail to reflect favorably on the United States. Hand in hand with self-satisfaction, however, there goes an unspoken and vague anxiety about the permanence of what has been achieved. Any suggestion that American society might actually be affected by social struggles, national interests, racism or xenophobia, not to mention religious quarrels or ideological controversy, compromises the founding myth of the American nation, and is un-American."
In my opinion, Ms. Toinet's analysis is very insightful and gives a thought-provoking perspective on our unfortunate tendency to question the patriotism of anyone who doesn't agree with the majority opinion.
George J. McCool.
Timonium.
Envy's Society
Editor: George F. Will's word selection seems to be slipping of late. I refer to his article about Kitty Kelley's book on Nancy Reagan (April 15), wherein he speculates about the reason why people enjoy seeing famous names muddied. He suggests it has "something to do with the prevalence of envy in a democratic society."
I would suggest that the correct term is not "democratic" but "capitalistic." For it is capitalism, not democracy, which generates the gross inequalities that give rise to envy.
There was apparently a time when capitalism was kinder and gentler; but those days are long gone, and capitalism cannot be so easily equated with democracy as it once was.
Surely this is something Mr. Will understands.
Howard Bluth.
Baltimore.
Give Both Sides
Editor: I am writing in regard to the article about the University of Maryland foundation that appeared in The Sun March 24. The article, unfortunately, seemed to be biased against the Foundation. I have been in higher education for 27 years and the foundation is one of the best organizations that I have seen.
I have run short courses for industry through the foundation. The funds generated have been used to support graduate students and to buy equipment. By using my foundation funds I have been able to launch into a new research area, neural computation, much faster than would have been possible if I had to wait for federal or state funding. This neural network research was in turn generated additional industrial support.
In the coming decade we face budgetary problems at both the federal and state levels. We also face significant competition from abroad. The foundation provides a vehicle for obtaining industrial funding and for bringing industry and university dTC researchers together. A by-product of this relationship is the funding which flows into the Maryland economy. Our department currently has about $400,000 of industrial support.
I feel that when a story is done, every attempt should be made to get both sides. In the present case I don't believe that this was done.
Thomas J. McAvoy.
College Park.
The writer is acting chairman of the department of chemical engineering at the University of Maryland.
Wrong Targets
Editor: It is hard to disagree with Barry Rascovar's premise (Opinion * Commentary, April 7) that the 1991 General Assembly session produced little. However, his placing the blame where he did left a lot to be desired.
To begin with, Maryland voters made it clear in the last election that they would not stand still for increased taxes. Implicit in this is the very sound notion that nice-to-have and overtly wasteful programs should be eliminated before any increase in any tax is considered.
Neither house paid any attention to House Bill 1158, which mandated a commission on efficiency in Maryland government, a proposal that could at least restore a little trust in our elected officials. As long as the electorate allows Governor Schaefer and the General Assembly to emphasize the tax side of the equation without a very critical look at the spending side, taxes will continue to rise all but unchecked.
For example, since the governor took office, the state payroll has increased by at least 6,000. Then he tried to lay off 1,800. If the state's business can be conducted with 1,800 fewer employees, do we need the 1,800? Or the other 4,200-plus? There are dozens of other examples.
As a career serviceman, I have worked in 12 different states, moving my family as I went and paid taxes in each. We never saw anything like the annual goings-on in the Maryland General Assembly. And we never saw taxes like we pay here. Something is wrong somewhere; all the other states are not out of step but Maryland.
I applaud the legislature for putting even a light rein on spending, no matter how wild the resulting gubernatorial tantrum. It could have made a lot more cuts, had it had a way of knowing what to cut.
Government at any level cannot be all things to all people. It has no right to confiscate the earnings of those of us who get up and go to work, rain or shine, sick or well, rested or weary, to fuel "helping-people" programs that seldom, if ever, work. That's communism in its classic form -- and we all know how well that works, don't we?
Charles A. Frainie.
Baltimore.
Exploiting Untapped Student Potential
Editor: George Hahn's March 31 Perspective article on distance education gives a distorted and uninformed picture of the issues.
Unlike the European universities to which Mr. Hahn refers, the American system of public universities was established not just to educate the aristocracy but to ensure equitable access to all citizens. This distinctly different mission has shaped the evolution of American higher education.
Since their establishment in the last century, public universities in virtually every state have attempted to reach out to under-served populations.
In some states, this has resulted in the creation of branch campuses in smaller communities. In others, it has led to a network of continuing education offices. And, since 1888, at some of our best state universities -- including Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa and Pennsylvania -- this mission has fostered innovations in distance education. Today, distance education programs at our major state universities account for more than 200,000 enrollments nationally.
Distance education has become a fixture of the community college curriculum and is being used increasingly in public schools nationally to ensure that all students have access to high-quality instruction. As the success of institutions like the British Open University attest, distance education is an international movement as well.
Mr. Hahn argues that the University of Maryland System should follow the example of Oxford and Cambridge in the use of tutorials.
A close examination will reveal that personal attention is one major benefit to students in a distance education program.
Where typical instruction often pits the individual students against 50 or even hundreds of other students for the opportunity to interact with the instructor, distance education uses a tutorial approach to guarantee interaction with each student.
Each student is a class of one. She (for most of our students are women in their thirties who are returning to education while raising a family) interacts with her instructor through written essays that require reflection and analysis, through written responses from the instructor, through voice mail and by phone conferences.
It is not possible to slide through a distance education course without participating fully in the "friction between two minds" that not only yields the intellectual sparks to which Mr. Hahn refers, but that ignites the true fire of education.
Higher education is no longer the province solely of the 18-to-22-year-old who can afford to set aside four years to study on a campus.
Today, higher education is a lifelong need. Our job is to reach out to the work force, to women who want desperately to return to the work force, to minorities and others who missed out the first time around and to those who live too far from a campus to benefit from traditional programs.
ary E. Miller.
College Park.