Singapore Rod
I fully concur with the sentence handed down by the Singapore court on the American youngster. It's too bad that we cannot learn more from this.
Perhaps we in America can instill some respect for the law by imposing similar corporal punishment. As the old saying goes, "Spare the rod and spoil the child."
Otto B. Beyer
Ellicott City
Ira Cooke's Dope
Witch hunts are not an historical artifact, restricted to Salem and Sen. Joe McCarthy. They flourish today.
Ira Cooke is of no apparent danger to anyone -- beyond the extent to which any lobbyist may be dangerous.
Yet after the vegetable police picked through his trash for several weeks, they broke down the door to his home before dawn, threw him to the floor and handcuffed him behind his back.
What explanation is there for this overly testosteroned response? Mr. Cooke apparently owned one-half ounce of marijuana.
No one would accuse Mr. Cooke of being excessively bright. Having been arrested once before for marijuana possession, he should had known that our criminal justice system is irrational when it comes to citizens using the wrong plant. Fermented grapes are fine. Dried marijuana is a no-no.
But stupidity should not be a crime. There is no indication that Mr. Cooke hurt anyone, save perhaps himself.
I would think our police departments can be kept sufficiently busy without this Fearless Fosdick approach to crime fighting.
It's time these witch hunts ended. They are expensive. They are a potential danger to the police, and, other than perhaps making a few "holier than thous" feel superior, accomplish nothing.
Stanley L. Rodbell
Columbia
Larger Life
I was struck by the concurrence in the March 16 edition of Alice Steinbach's column about college preparation and the scholastic aptitude test and the editorial, "Adding up poor math scores."
In her column, Ms. Steinbach develops the theme of the anxiety students face with the SAT and their response to it and makes a metaphor with larger life issues.
But why stop there? There is a further lesson -- getting past the SATs and into college is not an end but part of a process. Students forget, or choose not to realize, that their high-school life is a precursor to their college and career lives.
Probably for no subject is high-school preparation more important than mathematics. And, as evidenced by your editorial, in no subject are students more at risk than in mathematics.
So many students believe that if they can just get out of high school, they will never need to look at mathematics again. In fact, mathematics comes right back at them in college.
In fact, colleges do not rely on the SAT. Virtually every college in the country gives a mathematics placement test to incoming students -- often as the first activity in orientation.
Students who are not ready for their college mathematics are a major drain. It costs many students an extra year in college. It costs many of them the major they want.
Perhaps one lives and dies by the SAT getting into college, but one lives and dies by the math placement test when one gets there.
We in the colleges desperately want to tell the students of the schools to take their courses seriously, and, in the words of Ms. Steinbach, comprehend the material, not just memorize it.
The changes in SAT may make a nice metaphor. But the SAT is not the last word.
James Alexander
College Park
Laughable Quote
In response to the March 27 article, "That new-time religion," I had to laugh at a quote from the Rev. Sandy Mason, the senior pastor at Grace Fellowship. He stated that, "Our foundation on the Bible is what keeps us from becoming a chic liberal church like the Unitarians."
Being a regular at the First Unitarian Church in downtown Baltimore, I embrace his description of us as liberals. But the word chic connotes a trendiness or superficiality that I resent.
If the reverend would check his religious history, he would discover that Unitarians have a rich history dating back hundreds of years, including basic beliefs dating back thousands of years.
Unitarians were active in the anti-slavery movement in the United States and continue to welcome cultural and ethnic diversity as well as religious tolerance.
The Baltimore church just celebrated its 175th anniversary and is still growing and changing to meet the needs of its varied congregation. The Unitarians accept all people who feel rejected by narrowly defined religious doctrine.
Susan C. Ingram
Randallstown
Cutting Costs
Your March 23 Business page article highlights the fact that "managed care" has nothing to do with care, only with cutting costs. But is not this saving from one pocket while spending more from another?
If one's diabetic father has a leg amputation and is sent home from the hospital in two days -- as actuaries and insurers have now mandated in Rhode Island -- is there no cost?
Who pays, even more -- in family stress, loss of time from work for taking care of the patient at home, dangers of complication not observed in time, perhaps a return to hospital under more dangerous emergency circumstances?
Mary O. Styrt
Baltimore
The State Police Raid on The Block
As the duly elected leaders of the various employee groups that represent both civilian and sworn employees of the Maryland State Police, we take great exception to the perspective recently enumerated in The Sun about the raid on "The Block."
Most recently, in the March 20 editorial, "Don't Elevate State Police," your staff grossly misinterprets the facts. What was printed concerning the separation was simply wrong. The agency, right at this moment, is prepared to operate individually without the creation of additional units. Because of our diversity, the units your editorial mentioned have existed and been functioning for years.
On March 15, The Sun ran a front page article about the raid that covered two and a half pages of newsprint. Quoting club owners, nude dancers and patrons, many of whom are defendants in criminal proceedings, The Sun managed to produce a very biased accounting of the facts.
Additionally, the article printed uncorroborated allegations against three troopers. The individuals were named, and charges which are yet to be corroborated were highlighted in the article. We think this treatment of law enforcement personnel was unfair.
On March 16, your editorial, "Showtime on The Block," again questioned the motive and operations of the raid. The editorial leads the reader to believe that it was the state police who came up with the idea of investigating The Block and that Baltimore police officials approved it.
Make no mistake about it, the Baltimore City Police Department was responsible for coming up with the idea and asked the state police for assistance in stemming the flow of drugs and violence on The Block.
The raid itself entailed 24 separate and distinct locations spread over an entire city block. The Block is well known for its disreputable clientele and employees. There is a communication network among the various clubs (including doorman, dancers, patrons, bartenders, etc.) that any Fortune 500 company would be envious of.
The need for simultaneous, well-coordinated and swift action by the raiding troopers is quite obvious. The risk of guns, drugs and other evidence being lost was great.
Closing down the entire city block, coordinating traffic, and having enough personnel to quickly and safely quell any problem speaks well of the training and professionalism of both the rank ++ and file and senior state police officials.
One of the questions that your editorial goes on to ask is, "Do senior state police officials know how to mount a large operation of this sort?" Perhaps The Sun has forgotten who protected the city of Baltimore when its own police force went on strike in the 1970s.
We also remember coming to the city's aid when looting broke out during the blizzard of 1978. The state police was also there when the Prince George's County police went on strike, and when any of the state's correctional facilities experienced a riot.
Yes, we believe that the state police is quite adept at mounting large police operations.
And because of the dedication of our members, we will be available to assist wherever and whenever needed, in spite of any abuse we must suffer.
In your editorial on March 17, "Squabbling Over The Block," your paper remarks that the raid on The Block should not be examined "as a political issue." The fact is, however, that your paper has made it a political issue.
Whenever someone takes exception to your reporting, such as the governor often does, you and your legion of writers mount an all-out offensive to embarrass, disgrace and humiliate.
There was no hyped-up arrest statistics handed out by the state police about the raid. The facts are that three very large drug operations, responsible for distributing cocaine, marijuana and heroin on The Block, were ferreted out and those responsible were arrested.
So far, 85 persons have been arrested resulting in 612 criminal charges and over $203,000 in drugs seized. The State Police did the job that Baltimore authorities asked us to do, and we did it well. . . .
We feel that it would behoove the editors to examine more closely the sources of their information and to report more objectively their findings. We feel strongly that the recent series of articles and editorials were unfair, malicious and heavily influenced by political motivation.
Our employee organizations and their members stand behind our superintendent, Col. Larry W. Tolliver. If any of our personnel acted improperly, as your paper alleges, we are certain that they will be dealt with firmly but fairly as specified under the Police Officers Bill of Rights.
We ask only that you judge your writers' performance at the same standard level as you judge those who sacrifice daily to protect society from the decadence as exemplified by those who inhabit The Block.
James Harris
Thomas Dupczak
Virginia Lewis
Bruce Harrison
Pikesville
The writers are presidents of, respectively, the Coalition of Black Maryland State Troopers, Lodge 69 of Fraternal Order of Police, Maryland Troopers Association and Lodge 76 of FOP.
Wattenberg Misunderstands Fertility Decline
The article by Ben Wattenberg in The Sun's Opinion * Commentary column entitled "A Dramatic Drop in Human Fertility" (March 18) was more political rhetoric than objective analysis of population demographics.
Mr. Wattenberg bemoans at length his prediction that the U.N. Conference on Population and Development will again be talking about "too many people" and "people spoil the environment."
Mr. Wattenberg offers declining fertility rates world-wide, particularly in parts of Africa, as prima facie evidence that concerns about overpopulation are blown out of proportion and are a plot by "power-hungry global regulators."
He then takes this dubious argument to prop up his assertion that population growth has no effect on food supplies or natural resources, and little if any impact on the environment.
He attempts to validate this position with a barrage of fertility rate statistics for various countries, using them to take issue with U.N. global population estimates for the next century. Mr. Wattenberg believes, or at least wants us to believe, that fertility rates are the only facet of population demographics we should consider in making population projections.
Mr. Wattenberg appears unaware of, or more likely chooses to ignore, several important facts in his analysis. Total fertility rates have fallen steadily in most of the world for the past 40 years. So their continued decline, including in Africa, is not as improbable as Mr. Wattenberg would have us believe.
What he doesn't mention is that mortality rates have been falling even more rapidly. Nor does he mention that greater numbers of people are now living long enough to have children, causing the total number of births worldwide to continue to climb despite declining individual fertility rates.
Mr. Wattenberg omits the fact that between 1950 and 1990 average life expectancies in developing countries rose by more than 50 percent and are continuing to rise.
Similarly, worldwide infant mortality rates have been cut by almost two-thirds in the past 40 years, and are continuing to decline.
These facts are wonderful news in most ways. What cold-hearted or mean-spirited person would not want people to live longer or for more babies to survive?
However, population growth issues and their impact on the environment are real issues that should not be trivialized for partisan political reasons.
In his article, Mr. Wattenberg states, "Paradoxically, [lower fertility rates] may mean that the U.N. will have a better case for more global family-planning money."
Ironically, a colleague of Mr. Wattenberg's at the American Enterprise Institute, Nicholas Eberstadt, wrote in a January, 1994 article in "First Things" a criticism of family planning efforts for the exact opposite reason.
Mr. Eberstadt claims that "evidence that voluntary family planning programs have resulted in sustained changes in fertility norms is still lacking." It appears that the American Enterprise Institute is intent on opposing family planning regardless of its impact. . . .
Mr. Wattenberg does not offer one shred of evidence to support his claim that population growth is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on natural resources and the environment.
This is far too complex an issue to offer bold unsubstantiated positions on the role population plays in environmental degradation. Man's effect on the environment can not be correlated to sheer numbers alone. It also depends on the consumer habits of individuals and their societies, as well as the technologies used in developing those goods and disposing of associated waste streams . . . .
At any rate, to assume that unbridled technological advancement, pricing systems and substitutes will always account for resource depletion and environmental degradation, (and always in time to avert any crisis), is akin to being an ostrich . . .
Michael Caughlin
Baltimore
A Professor's Life Isn't Leisurely
Despite the implied caveat of the question mark in your editorial on "The 'New Leisure Class'?" (March 30) and acknowledgment of the problems of using hours taught per week as a measure of faculty productivity, The Sun's position perpetuates the notion that most faculty are generously paid and aren't working hard enough.
But I would urge your readers not to accept that conclusion without thinking about how faculty productivity should be measured.
In the private sector, and even in many spheres of public responsibility, we routinely judge the productivity of various activities and organizations by their products or returns for a given level of investment of resources.
Why don't we evaluate the public investment in higher education in the same way?
The public and its elected representatives should be asking how much it costs to graduate a student, and how satisfied and how competitive the graduates of our public universities are.
Data on job placements, admission rates to further education and follow-up surveys of graduates can provide this information. The amount of federal funding attracted to Maryland by its public universities can also be tracked, and we could develop acceptable methods of measuring the impact of scholarly and service activities on the quality of life in Maryland, too.
Benchmarks could be established by type of institution, and both incentives and penalties might be used to encourage Maryland's public colleges and universities to adopt policies and strategies that show continuous improvement in these areas.
In fact, measures like these are already employed by most campuses to judge their own effectiveness, and significant improvements have occurred, even in these difficult financial times.
These results have been achieved by adjusting teaching loads in relation to the many other responsibilities of the faculty, changing methods of teaching and learning, rethinking curricula and employing new technology.
What should matter most are the results. If, instead, we continue to concentrate on regulating one aspect of faculty effort -- the hours spent teaching formal, scheduled classes -- then we will only succeed in making it more difficult for our universities to utilize their limited resources imaginatively to address the increasingly complex needs of society.
Ronald P. Legon
Baltimore
E9 The writer is provost of the University of Baltimore.
The headline of your recent editorial about university faculty productivity, "The 'New Leisure Class'?" is a question that demands an answer.
The answer is "No!"
There is nothing leisurely about the life and work of a university professor. Faculty are among the hardest working professionals in our society.
How can that be, you say, if, in the words of your editorial, "professors now teach an average of 9.8 to 10.5 hours a week." That sentence is simply false.
It's probably not a bad estimate of the time a typical research university professor spends lecturing to classes. But there's a whole lot more to teaching than standing before a class, just as there's lot more to being a legislator than sitting in a fancy hall and pushing vote buttons, or to being a surgeon than standing beside an operating table carving flesh.
Faculty teach students in myriad ways. They teach in classrooms, they teach in one-on-one arguments with students, they teach while working in labs with students struggling to discover how the AIDS virus works, they teach while judging student writing, they teach on ships in the bay and they teach at patients' bedsides.
Furthermore, teaching is not all faculty must do. All faculty are expected to engage in independent scholarship (often called "research"). For many it is a major part of their jobs.
The new knowledge research yields is the basis for humanity's future health -- social, economic and physical.
The quest for it pumps hundreds of millions of external dollars into the economy of our state every year. And it is what our faculty teach.
Then there's public service. Faculty provide expert advice to governments, schools, business and non-profit organizations. They help guide and govern their universities. They help keep the national and international academic communities functioning.
Most of this they do for free, on salaries that are pretty modest compared with those of comparably qualified professionals in other fields.
Now, having said that, I must admit that we in higher education have done a lousy job of explaining it to the people we expect to support us.
It's partly our fault that people's notions about what university professors do fail to account for activities outside the classroom.
We have also not done a credible job of publicly demonstrating how we hold faculty accountable for meeting established performance expectations.
As I said in testimony recently presented to Maryland legislators, faculty must be accountable in a manner that is responsive to new expectations, both internal and external, and we as a system must clearly communicate a reasonable set of performance standards.
We are doing that. We have recently reported our second study of the productivity of the faculty of the institutions of the University of Maryland System.
It shows that our faculty's teaching productivity is either comparable with or exceeds nationally recognized and accepted practices and standards.
We are also hard at work on a set of policies that will establish clear and explicit standard expectations for all the components of our faculty's productivity, consistent with their institutions' missions, together with mechanisms for comparing faculty performance with expectations and for holding faculty accountable for the results.
We expect that the necessary regents' and institutional policies will be in place by next October.
If we succeed in this effort, we will have done something that few American universities or university systems have achieved and, once again, will have shown the way for our peers all across the nation.
Donald N. Langenberg
Baltimore
NB The writer is chancellor of the University of Maryland System.