The last paragraph in a letter to the editor from Garland L. Crosby published Monday should have read: "I am sure that if whites wanted to enter SSA or the Postal Service at the lower levels, affirmative action would not stop them. I suggest Mr. Geller take off his blinders, put on his eye glasses and clean out his ears."
The writer is executive director of Gun Owners of America.
The Mission of Historically Black Campuses
On Feb. 1, The Sun carried a letter to the editor by R. D. Bush of Columbia.
Mr. Bush criticized Morgan State University and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore for comments I made in a Jan. 10 article by Mike Bowler on the small numbers of doctoral degrees currently received by blacks.
My observations were based on an article I wrote which used as the source data the annual report of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mr. Bush's attack on Morgan and UMES are peculiar, because I was commenting as a researcher with a long-standing interest on the subject -- not on any matter related to my campus.
The writer should have tried to challenge me or my data and not attack the institution with which I am affiliated, or any other campus for that matter.
I would have made the same remarks whether I worked at MIT, University of Maryland College Park, Northwestern University, Colgate University or any of the other institutions where I have taught.
Mr. Bush begins with the false implication that I was concerned specifically with the large number of degrees received by Asians or Asian-Americans.
Not true.
These groups were not singled out by me. I emphasize, and have emphasized in the past, the high proportion of federally subsidized foreign students getting doctoral degrees, without reference to nationality.
In fact, Asian-Americans are classified as U.S. residents, not foreign students, and, hence, not even relevant to my comments.
In contrast, the heavily subsidized foreign doctoral students are many times the annual number of all American minority doctoral students combined (including Asian-Americans) and especially stand out in comparison to the numerous fields where all American universities combined have produced an average of less than one or two African-American doctorates a year over the last decade in many fields vital to both our national security and future economic development and competitiveness.
While it might be tempting to take credit for this new insight, my concern is not original. The issue of the rapidly increasing number of foreign students obtaining doctorates has been known for more than a decade.
I predict it will get more attention as the American research universities produce many foreign doctorates, while many Americans of all races who hold doctorates, especially in the sciences, face an increasingly difficult job market.
The writer made a very serious mistake in the data she used to support her central argument.
Mr. Bush compared the retention rates of white students at quite selective campuses with those of black students at less selective historically black campuses. This shows a dramatic disparity that does not mean anything.
By way of background, the average graduation rate for black students is a little more than half of that of white students, regardless of whether such a comparison is made at the state or national level.
In addition, selective campuses have higher retention rates of students of all races than less selective ones because their admissions criteria limit the students they enroll to those with the very best high school records.
Therefore, regardless of their educational programs, their retention rates are heavily influenced by the strong records their freshmen have even before they enroll. They seem to stress the quality of their institution by the quality of entering students.
Other campuses, including historically black campuses, have as their assigned mission the task of educating a broader segment of the young population.
These institutions stress their quality by how well students are prepared after they leave, not how strong they are when they enter.
It is critical to note that parental education and family wealth are strongly related to SAT scores and rates of college attendance ++ and retention. Half of black families with children of college age have annual incomes of less than $20,000.
College costs, therefore, are not only a major impediment for students from these families but they are not likely to have the academic credentials necessary to gain admission to selective institutions.
I should add that Morgan's retention rate, which Mr. Bush characterized as "horrendous," is actually about equal to the statewide average for black students attending all public institutions, most of which are considerably more selective than Morgan.
Finally, Mr. Bush's criticism was directed at a campus making a significant state and national contribution to the pool of African-Americans holding college degrees.
In Maryland, Morgan awards more bachelor's degrees to black students than any of the other campuses, most of which are much larger.
In addition, the National Research Council, which tabulated the survey which was the subject of Mike Bowler's article, also has published rankings showing that Morgan leads all public campuses nationally, regardless of their predominant race, in the number of black bachelor's degree recipients who eventually obtain a doctorate from a U.S. university.
I would suggest that this picture is a quite different one than that portrayed by Mr. Bush. What a difference the facts make.
Frank L. Morris Sr.
Baltimore
The writer is dean for graduate studies and research, Morgan State University.
Not Everybody Abuses Welfare
Recently we have all heard much about Supplemental Security and Disability Assistance and Loan Program recipients who squander this income on alcohol and drugs.
While this is undoubtedly the case with some, it is definitely not the case with the majority. I have a deep concern that the methods being put into place to correct the abuses will return to haunt us because of the devastating damage they will cause.
Let me tell you about "Jerry." When I first met Jerry he was drinking heavily. He was on the streets. He was sleeping in abandoned houses and on park benches. One leg was and is paralyzed. Jerry is physically unable to walk more than a block without sitting down to rest.
Jerry was receiving DALP benefits because of his alcoholism. This DALP payment amounted to $157 a month or $39 a week.
Since this was not enough even to rent a dirty little sleeping room in East Baltimore, he used it for alcohol to deaden his physical and psychological pain for a while each month.
About four months ago, Jerry was approved for SSI benefits and asked me to be his representative payee -- a person who agrees to receive a person's check and to manage their money for them.
He wanted to stop drinking. He wanted to get off the streets. Less than a month after his SSI payments started, Jerry had his own efficiency apartment and had stopped drinking. He is now always clean-shaven and neat in appearance. He is putting on some much needed weight.
Since he had no family available to him, on Christmas Day, Jerry joined me and my community at our home for Christmas dinner. We all had a delightful time that day, which ended with some singing, as Jerry -- who had not touched a guitar in over a year -- discovered that his old talent was still there. On the drive home that evening Jerry spoke movingly about how he was feeling so good about himself. He said his self-esteem was being restored.
There are those in positions of power now who would eliminate both DALP and SSI because of abuses. If anything, DALP needs to be increased so that persons in need can get back on their feet.
Jerry is but one of many who continued downhill partly because of the DALP benefits of $39 a week, which was insufficient to help him, whereas SSI payments were sufficient to enable him to begin actively to get his life together. Now Jerry is again a man making a positive contribution to the lives of many people, thanks to SSI.
When our legislators begin to talk about reform of social services and SSI, we all need to be sure that they have full knowledge of all the facts. I really believe that no American wants a "reform" that will totally devastate millions of people.
%Sister Mary Louise Zollars
Baltimore
The writer is the director of Outreach Services of Beans & Bread Homeless Outreach Program.
TC
America's Seniors Need to Think of Nation's Welfare
The media contention that senior citizens are opposed to changes in Social Security and Medicare is, hopefully, overblown.
My wife and I live comfortably on savings, modest investments, Social Security benefits and individual pensions.
Our mortgage was paid off several years ago, but we currently have an Equity Line of Credit for some long overdue renovations. We are still able to add to our savings.
In addition to Medicare, we have Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage. What troubles us is that over the past two years we have received health care benefits in the range of five figures, but our non-reimbursed expenses have been a pittance -- nothing approaching the 20 percent "rule" that is more than reasonable for folk in our or better circumstances.
Every American who is 65 or older today lived through at least part of the Depression and all of World War II. We represent two generations. The oldest among us were adults during the Depression and the youngest were children.
With certain greedy exceptions, we are the generations who did not believe the world or the nation owed us a living. The younger among us are the generation which has benefited from the government programs of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s -- the National Recovery Act, Social Security Act, Civilian Conservation Corps, and the GI Bill, to mention a few. That world war, like the first, also got more women out of the home into the job market and laid the foundation for the two-earner households of today.
This is not a testimonial for the Democratic Party. I am talking about our history -- especially our history as white Americans. Those of us in our late 60s and early 70s are the generation which has benefited much, and many among us have benefited the most.
We are also the generation whose children are projected to do less well than we have done in terms of employment and real income.
It's time, I suggest, for those of us who are comfortably well off or wealthy to start paying back or paying off our debt to this great country and nation.
Those of our generation who are poor or disabled, or who did not share as we did because of segregationist policies and practices of those three decades, should be held harmless.
The rest of us should be expected to ante up. Let's quit the phony argument, "It's my money so I deserve it!" In less than three years, my wife and I have ready received far more in benefits than we ever put in. To argue that our payments should have been earning interest like an Individual Retirement Account is also specious.
The Depression was disastrous for the nation. People, businesses and governments suffered greatly. Out of that time the Social Security Act of 1935 was designed more as a security blanket for the nation than as a savings plan for employees, when one-earner families were the rule, not the exception.
And the time is coming, if not already here, when our self-centered expectations are turning it into a blanket of national insecurity. It is my expectation that when Charles Schulz's Linus comes of age he will forego his security blanket. We have come of age, and should be prepared to continue to stand on our feet.
I don't pretend to know the best solution, whether to tax benefits more, reduce benefits, reduce or eliminate the cost of living allowance or raise the age of eligibility (which would not affect us).
But I believe our leaders in Washington need some freedom from misguided and misdirected intimidation to be able to think clearly and creatively about this current societal and generational impasse.
James C. Thomson Jr.
Baltimore