Counseling is available for SIDS families
Your Oct. 29 article, "Grief, Guilt & SIDS," did an excellent job in presenting the controversies associated with current risk-reduction efforts. October was Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Awareness Month, so the article was timely.
The backlash of increased SIDS awareness is that families relive the deaths of their babies and the "what if?" questions resurface. SIDS in the news produces conflicting emotions for families that are grateful for the visibility but saddened as they remember their babies.
For that reason, it is essential that such articles include resources available to families. Specifically, all Maryland families can receive counseling and support from the Maryland SIDS Information and Counseling Program of the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
Families new to Maryland may not be aware of our services, which are available at no charge. We can be telephoned at 410-706-5062 or 1-800-808-SIDS.
In addition, new and expectant parents may want information about the "Back to Sleep" campaign that the Public Health Service sponsors. Information is available, at no charge, by calling 1-800-808-CRIB.
The writer is director of the Maryland SIDS Information and Counseling Program at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
Hopkins is hostage to U.S. News rankings
I wish to comment on the Nov. 1 Opinion Commentary article by Nick Thompson concerning the annual college rankings by U.S. News and World Report. Mr. Thompson is vice president of the Stanford University student body and, presumably, an undergraduate. His well-written commentary concerning the fallacious nature of the magazine's rankings is probably a more accurate indicator of Stanford's academic excellence than its ranking by the magazine.
The rankings are dangerous. People tend to think of the rankings as absolute academic ratings rather than the composite evaluation of many criteria used by the magazine to evaluate undergraduate programs. During a recent gathering of parents of undergraduates at Johns Hopkins University, a parent of an incoming student told me that his son had considered another school besides Hopkins, but had selected Hopkins because it "was ranked" 15th while the other school "was ranked" 16th. When questioned, the father clearly had no idea what criteria were used; he assumed that it only included academics. In fact, the father was not even sure who did the rankings; I assumed that it was U.S. News.
The rankings also rely too heavily on questionable criteria. One category in which Hopkins always scores low is student satisfaction with social life. . . . For decades the administration has attempted to make undergraduate life at the school more sociable, yet the students still claim there is no social life. The alleged lack of social life is as much a part of the Hopkins culture as lacrosse. And yet U.S. News uses this as a criterion in its ranking.
The magazine should simply report on the conclusions reached under the various criteria, and forget the overall ranking. Or Hopkins should simply stop providing data to the magazine. . . . According to Mr. Thompson, there is only one school in the country that does not cooperate with U.S. News -- Reed College in Oregon. If more colleges and universities joined Reed College perhaps they all could escape what Mr. Thompson characterizes as being "hostage to the rankings."
Frank K. Krueger Jr.
Truly remarkable standards implied
What a remarkable society we have achieved.
We pay people not to work. We pay farmers not to grow crops. We pay teen-age girls not to have babies out of wedlock. We give SSI checks to imprisoned felons and to "disabled" drug addicts to buy more drugs. We give taxpayers' money to sugar growers to keep the price of sugar at double the world price. We pump money into a public education system that doesn't educate our children, yet deny help to private schools that do. We encourage the growth of job-creating small businesses, but burden them with taxes and impossible regulations.
An ABC exit poll says 53 percent of those who voted for Bill Clinton feel he is not an honest man. Yet, we elect Bill Clinton president. God save the republic.
Harry R. Shriver
Mandatory sentence was too much for Hurt
All day recently on television we got half-baked, half-hour, half-truths regarding the reason for the five-year sentence to Nathaniel Hurt. Even Michael Olesker added his Oct. 24 column, stating that Hurt was jailed for shooting a young boy.
He even takes a swipe at attorney Stephen L. Miles -- who does not need me to defend him -- but when something is incorrect, it should be clarified no matter who may be involved.
Hurt was presented with a plea bargain: (a suspended sentence and probation if he would plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter). He decided to go with the jury, (which found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter and use of a handgun in a crime of violence). The five-year sentence was a mandatory one for using a handgun. Instead of taking swipes at individuals, why not examine the mandatory-sentence law that evidently our media types do not understand?
Because of this, they rewrite this sad tale to give readers and watchers the impression that the jury and his attorney failed Hurt. It seems to me that his real enemy is the legislature.
C. L. Norris
Media message is loud and clear
Amazingly, Newt Gingrich blamed the media for the erosion of his personal popularity and of the Republicans' ill-conceived Contract with America during the '96 campaign. Has he forgotten the purpose of the media?
Were the media not obligated to report the anger, disgust and disbelief expressed by this country's citizens toward the approach used by those immature freshmen and supposedly learned legislators in their pernicious attempts to implement this contract or the unacceptable agenda contained in it? Or is Newt Gingrich just an autocrat in sheep's clothing?
The American people have spoken. They want no more of the dangerous partisan politics that engulfed the land from 1992 to 1996. They want those who have been elected to stop using that privileged office to only attack the other party and using taxpayers' dollars to cultivate their own party's propaganda.
The people want what's best for this country and its citizens. If the newly elected politicians refuse to address the people's pressing concerns and the issues affecting the future of this country, they will become the people's biggest problem and will deserve to be swept completely from the political arena by the years 1998 and 2000.
Robert L. Reynolds
John Quincy Adams didn't live that long
I noted with some dismay Carl M. Cannon's Nov. 4 misrepresentation of John Quincy Adams' tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Our sixth president did not serve 35 years in the House of Representatives following his presidency. He was elected to the House in 1831 and dropped dead on the floor of the House in 1848. His service therefore spanned 17 years.
As we live in an era in which history is somewhat out of vogue and in which many of our young people are unclear as to when events in our history took place, it is all the more important for Sun writers to set an example by clearly researching historical events.
I should add that this was, aside from this error, an excellent article.
John B. Ramsey III
Pub Date: 11/11/96