A letter to the editor written by Betty and George Merrill and published in June 4th editions of The Sun contained two typographical errors. It should have said that the opinions of black people on interracial dating are "worth noting." Also, it should have said that Bull Connor attacked black civil rights protesters with "fire hoses."

The Sun regrets the errors.

Interracial Dating

Gregory P. Kane's Opinion * Commentary column May 24, ("The Last Racial Taboo") exhibits some half-baked reasoning on the subject of interracial dating.

Mr. Kane revealed that he was appalled when his 14-year-old son dated a white girl, and he uses himself as an example to prove that all black people are not uniformly in favor of interracial dating.

Fair enough on both points: Mr. Kane is entitled to his own emotions with regard to his children (misguided though they may be), and it is certainly true and perhaps worth nothing that not all black people agree uniformly on the subject of interracial dating (but then, do blacks or any other ethnic group agree uniformly on any subject?).

But then Mr. Kane does something inexplicably wrongheaded. He equates his "honesty" with regard to the interracial dating of his son to the "honesty" of Hulond Humphries, the Alabama high school principal who banned interracial dating at his school prom.

There are several things wrong with Mr. Kane's reasoning.

First, being honest about one's bigotry does not exonerate it. We supposed that Bull Connor "honestly" felt that black people attempting to integrate the South deserved to be attacked by police dogs and fire horses, and we suppose the Afrikaner guardians of South African apartheid "honestly" believed -- and still do -- that black South Africans do not deserve and cannot handle equality.

Just because someone is honest about his or her bigotry does not make it OK. It just ensures that others know about it.

The second thing wrong with Mr. Kane's equation to Mr. #F Humphries' is that Mr. Kane overlooks the fact that he did not interfere in his son's decision to date a white girl, but Mr. Humphries did try to stop interracial dating in his school.

Mr. Kane at least kept his bigotry to himself. Mr. Humphries tried to impose his on all the young people under his charge.

Third, Mr. Kane is surprisingly naive in buying the Wedowee school board party line that Mr. Humphries' position was taken only to protect the youngsters from "racial tension" caused by interracial dating.

Please! If that were so, why did Mr. Humphries tell one girl, the daughter of interracial parents, that she was a "mistake"? Didn't that remark reveal Mr. Humphries' true motivation?

Besides, if Mr. Humphries truly feared that violence would result if interracial couples attended the prom, he could have taken other measures to protect his students.

Finally, even if Mr. Humphries was motivated solely by concern and caring for his students, even if there is not a bigoted bone in his body, he was still wrong.

Either we strive for a race-neutral society or we don't. If we do, that means that those in positions of state-sponsored authority such as Mr. Humphries must not take positions or issue policies that are based on race alone.

Note that parents do not fall within this group -- a critical difference between Mr. Kane and Mr. Humphries. Mr. Humphries was wrong for this reason as much as for any other.

One last note. Mr. Kane does not have to be so afraid of his !! children dating people of other races. Based on our more than 25 years of interracial marriage and our acquaintance with many other mixed-race couples, some married longer, we can assure Mr. Kane that interracial dating and marriage is not necessarily a curse.

Indeed, it can be a source of great enrichment.

The key, as with any relationship, is to find the right emotional and spiritual match. When that happens, the racial aspects suddenly become less significant.

George B. Merrill

Betty L. Merrill

Baltimore

When Parents Are Afraid of Their Children

Over the past 20 years of my teaching experience, publischool students haven't changed much, with the exception, perhaps, of the way they dress (which is, by the way, a whole lot neater looking than the shaggy-haired, denim-clad kids of the 1970s).

Today's students still struggle with grammar, need encouragement with their writing, and love a good short story. What have changed drastically are the attitudes of many of their parents, who increasingly refuse to make their children accountable for their own actions.

For example, one of my colleagues recently caught a student cheating on a test.

The young man denied it, and the parent said to the teacher, "I don't know who to believe, you or my son." Experimentation with lying is a normal developmental phase, but children who meet constantly with reinforcement instead of negative consequences for their lying will quickly learn to adopt it as an avoidance technique.

Just last month, I collected some compositions from a class and began grading them immediately following class, during my lunch.

One student's paper hadn't been submitted. As this was a major assignment, I contacted the boy's mother, whose response was, "He says he turned it in, and I believe him. Perhaps it blew off your desk."

After a little investigating, I discovered that this student had openly accused at least three other teachers of "losing" his homework, a lab report, and a project. In each case, the parent insisted that she knew that the work had been handed in.

All too often, I've been the target of anger born of a parent's disappointment with his or her child.

It has long been my policy to issue an interim-report grade-average to every student several weeks before the actual report card is issued. I'm not required to do this, but I think that the better students need acknowledgment of their hard work, and the weaker ones need warnings.

After receiving a D or E interim-report, it's not unusual for an angry parent to call me and literally shout, "Why didn't I know about this sooner?" So what does the parent want? An interim-report for the interim-report?

AWhen I suggest that the parent should regularly check his child's homework and notebook, I'll often hear, "I want to know from you when he gets a low grade!"

This year, I evaluate papers for 172 students every day; I can't possibly call the parents of the 10 or more students who perform poorly on an assignment on any given day. Parents must devise their own ways to monitor their children's progress.

In addition, I've been frequently horrified by the lack of respect that is accepted by some parents from their children.

During a conference I recently conducted, a young girl turned to her mother and snarled, "Shut up! You don't know what you're talking about!"

When I strongly expressed my disapproval of this behavior, the mother said, "It's OK; she's always had a smart mouth."

At that point, I left the conference room. I had never before heard this child speak in such a manner. Obviously, she'd tested the parental waters of authority and found them to be rather shallow.

Our children are not our peers; they need our love, tempered with guidance, positive modeling and restrictions.

Of all the responsibilities we parents juggle, raising our children must be our first priority. This isn't the case in many households.

Otherwise, we educators wouldn't find ourselves delegated with increasing number of parental duties.

Just this year, my school began serving breakfast to students, as well as holding required weekly classes for the purpose of "teaching" values and self-esteem to our students.

In conclusion, here's an old anecdote that rings more true than humorous.

A disgruntled teacher handed in her resignation with the following comment: "In our public schools today, the teachers are afraid of the principals, the principals are afraid of the superintendents, the superintendents are afraid of the board members, the board members are afraid of the parents, the parents are afraid of the children, and the children are afraid of no one."

Janice Miles-League

Hanover, Pa.

Executing Thanos Was Morally Right

Michael A. Millemann, professor of law at the University oMaryland, characterizes the execution of John Thanos as pandering to the public (Perspective, May 22).

Professor Millemann is unable to find a moral distinction between the acts of Mr. Thanos and those of his executioners. Society, he says, has imitated Mr. Thanos.

Professor Millemann sees Mr. Thanos' personal history as blunting the case for application of the death penalty. Mr. Thanos allegedly was abused as a child and perhaps suffered the effects of drug abuse, mental illness and lack of education.

Professor Millemann urges society to forego the costs of delivering to Mr. Thanos his due, and to instead seek out the root causes. I would characterize the execution of Mr. Thanos quite differently. I see society as finally exhibiting some backbone and standing up for itself.

I regret that Mr. Thanos may have suffered so. His life may have had its tragic elements -- but they pale beside the tragedies he has wrought: three capricious murders, one rape, other crimes of which we do not know.

Professor Millemann might regret these losses. He might even fret about what is to be done. But in the end, he and others of like mind will never stand up and say enough is enough.

There are always reasons, excuses and root causes. All of us are the helpless victims of some malady or mental illness to which psychiatrists, social workers and lawyers have attached a label.

The concept of personal responsibility is lost in a sea of doubt about anyone's ability to really control themselves.

Professor Millemann, ignoring the simple genius of common sense, also cannot find any deterrent value in capital punishment.

He cites the enormous cost of the appeals process and the uncertainty with which the punishment is dispensed.

Perhaps if he and the other opponents of capital punishment would step out of the way of the vast majority of the electorate who favor it and allow the appeal process to be streamlined so that it acts to address wrongs at the trial level instead of merely obfuscating, confusing and delaying, then the absurd costs and uncertainty could be eliminated.

The costs and uncertainties are created by these very opponents who twist and manipulate the system for years.

We all know that Maryland has only now seen its first execution in over 33 years because Mr. Thanos opposed every effort to avoid it.

Regardless of the obvious deterrent value of a regularly and fairly administered death penalty, the victim's family and friends, the victims themselves and society as a whole are entitled to retribution.

They and we are entitled to the small bit of relief that comes when the perpetrator is finally punished. Our process must be fair and steady, but if it is so, it should serve as the firm defender of victims of crime.

If our system is unable or refuses to do this, then the right to do so devolves back to the victims themselves.

Society has the right and the moral obligations to defend itself.

Professor Millemann's conclusion that the deliberative process of judge and jury condemning Mr. Thanos to death as the result of his brutal actions is the moral equivalent of Mr. Thanos' crimes is simply wrong.

It is morally right to acknowledge that in fact Mr. Thanos' crimes merited his execution. It is courageous to exhibit the moral strength to carry out that judgment.

:. Mr. Thanos' victims deserve that at least.

J. Kendall Huber

Baltimore

Old Boys in Rome

The Sun can do better than simply passing along tharchdiocesan will-we-or-won't-we press release about the possible closings of city churches (May 18).

There is really not much improvement in policy over the $l heavy-handed closures of past years except in appearance. The archdiocese still does not work cooperatively with the parishes; it merely says it does.

There is no sound pastoral reason, nor in many cases even a sound economic reason, to deprive so many city neighborhoods of their churches.

Many of these small parishes are quiet centers for the works of mercy in the neighborhoods. So much for the "preferential option for the poor"!

Bishop John H. Ricard turns the church away from its obligation to preach and practice the Gospel.

He seems unwilling to risk advancement up the hierarchical ladder by arguing with "the old boys" in Rome about our real problem: a morally bankrupt, outdated ordination policy.

Dan Sera

Baltimore

Another Side

Roger Simon's May 25 column finally said what nobody else said about Jackie Onassis -- that there was another side, not so attractive.

After the assassination, she breaks up one marriage so she can marry Aristotle Onassis, then later lives for years with another man who was still married. What an example to the young on how to live.

How does the Catholic Church explain the full requiem mass after the years "in sin," which would have barred the rites of the church not too long ago? Let's not make a complex person into a saint.

Andy Gardner

Westminster

Presumptions

I am delighted to have provided Peter A. Jay with fodder for his May 26 column when I wrote a letter about the coverage of President Clinton. Unfortunately, I find that Mr. Jay has built an elaborate structure of presumptions on my 113-word letter.

Mr. Jay asserts that I "said essentially that the newspapers ought to ignore Paula Jones."

I never mentioned Paula Jones. I didn't mention Anita Hill either, contrary to the impression he gives.

Mr. Jay then claims that "Mike thinks" there should be censorship of the president. After 42 years in the news business, I could hardly be in favor of censorship. But then, you have to fill out the column with something.

The point of my letter was that the Washington press has used a double standard in its treatment of Mr. Clinton in contrast to other presidents. If one had to write a column about it, the subject would be: What has happened to the press in the last 20 years, and isn't it a shame?

Michael Kernan

Baltimore

Cutback Effects

In your May 19 article on defense cutbacks, you cited "a Navy analysis of the years 1979 to 1988 [which] found that deployment of eight months caused an additional 12.5 percent of first-term recruits not to re-enlist."

Your reference is to a study entitled "Personnel Tempo of Operations and Navy Enlisted Retention" by the Center for Naval Analyses, an independent research institution under the Department of Defense sponsorship.

Our study estimated that increasing deployments from the standard six months to eight months reduces the re-enlistment rate by 2.1 percent of first-term recruits. Although this decline is significant, it is not devastating and is well below the 12.5 percent level.

Furthermore, we estimate that an additional pay increase of about 2 percent could entirely offset the decline in retention. Budget cuts are forcing the Navy to make some difficult choices. As the fleet shrinks, the Navy may be less able to keep ships in places like the Persian Gulf and the Adriatic Sea.

But less overseas presence may increase the risk of future conflict.

Increasing deployment lengths is one of several options to compensate for a smaller Navy. A CNA study shows that longer deployments with targeted bonuses may actually reduce the cost of overseas presence somewhat. Longer deployments without extra pay save more money in the short run, but will cause a steady erosion of readiness -- perhaps leading to a hollow force in the long run.

Donald J. Cymrot

Alexandria, VA.

D8 The writer represents the Center for Naval Analyses.

Amprey's Salary

The article of May 20 regarding Baltimore School Superintendent Walter G. Amprey's consideration of a possible takeover of Patterson High School by the Hyde School of Bath, Maine, quotes First District Councilman John L. Cain as saying of Dr. Amprey:

"He gets paid that kind of money because we have said that education is our most important product. His job is to administer that system, not to farm it out to somebody else."

I disagree. You don't pay that kind of money to administer a system. There are any number of people who could do that for half of what Dr. Amprey makes.

I hope he's being paid to see that children are educated, even if he has to scrap the system to do it.

Dr. Amprey's actions clearly demonstrate the difference between a true educator, who places the interests of the children first, and the kind of "administrator" (who is usually the lackey of the teachers' unions) that Mr. Cain wants to spend "that kind of money" on.

Instead of criticizing him, Mr. Cain would do better to applaud Dr. Amprey for his courage, vision and professionalism.

John D. Schiavone

Baltimore

Forgotten Heroes

I returned from the gulf war a hero. That's what my landlord said when I first moved to Baltimore after the war. That's what my 9-year-old nephew said when we attended the gulf war parade in Washington D.C. during the summer of 1991.

Unfortunately, the same kind of recognition has never been given to the men and women who came home from Vietnam.

On Memorial Day in South Baltimore, at Maryland's Vietnam Veterans Memorial, I saw forgotten heroes paying tribute to the soldiers who died in Vietnam.

These veterans gave up personal freedoms that you and I take for granted. Not the least of which, for 58,191 of them, was their lives.

Those heroes who managed to come home did so to a nation opposed to everything they had done in Vietnam. Many Americans seemed blind to the sacrifices that these veterans made.

Regardless of their belief in if the war was right or wrong, the protesters who shunned these soldiers failed to recognize that the men and women who fought in Vietnam, willingly or otherwise, deserve to be recognized for their service.

On Memorial Day, these veterans stood at their own memorial. A memorial that is engraved with the names of over a thousand of Maryland's war dead. They stood as a testament to endurance. They stood as survivors of the pariah of all modern wars.

Not many came. Maybe 200 people attended the memorial service. The men and women who wore the patch or ribbon signifying service in Vietnam stood proudly in remembrance of their fallen comrades.

However, these men and women were not welcomed home with parades, like I was welcomed home. When they returned they were ostracized and heckled, spit upon and ridiculed. Not much of a homecoming for these heroes.

Many veterans not directly participating in the memorial service, sat and listened to the speakers. Many wept openly for their lost friends, or maybe for their own lost youth.

At the end of the service, one of these veterans stood in the center of the circle and gazed out at the Chesapeake Bay. I imagine he was looking even further -- back to Vietnam.

I thanked him and shook his hand.

My sacrifices in the gulf war seemed small compared to the sacrifices that this man, in his tattered camouflage jacket, had made.

Yet the recognition I received far outweighed that which this man had been given. I realized that this man had lived through a particularly terrifying war. A war fought on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, against both Viet Cong and Americans.

Vietnam veterans deserve every bit of respect we can muster for them; just as much as the veterans from Normandy deserve for their laudable service; just as much as those who fought in Korea, Lebanon and Panama deserve and at least as much as those of us who served in the gulf war have received.

Brett G. Coughlin

Baltimore