Congratulations on your excellent article on Tom Brown '29 ("Dr. Brown's Remedy," February 1996). Tom was one of my closest friends at Swarthmore, and we kept in touch after college. He was always single-minded in his pursuit of the truth. When he explained to me his approach to rheumatoid arthritis, even I (a nonscientist) could understand that there must be a cause. I was disgusted that Tom had trouble with many doctors and especially with the pharmaceutical companies. I am delighted that you have told his story so well.
Myer Cohen '29
Newtown Square, Pa.
I am saddened, though by no means surprised, that the Bulletin would publish a letter containing the utterly ridiculous assertion that "The Roman Catholic Church ... claims a consistent pro-life ethic, but it belies its claim to that ethic by failing to condemn capital punishment." (Letters, February 1996). The author of the letter claims to be a member of the Catholic Church but appears to be totally unaware of its most basic teachings.
In reality the Catholic Church has repeatedly criticized capital punishment as feeding into the "culture of death" so prevalent in countries like the United States. The 1995 papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae states that situations that could morally warrant capital punishment are extremely rare, if not nonexistent. There have also been countless denouncements of capital punishment by American Catholic bishops.
The writer's misconception is fueled by the fact that the media just doesn't find Catholic opposition to the death penalty to be very interesting. It's much more sensational to bash Catholics for dissenting from liberal orthodoxy on the issue of abortion.
While I was at Swarthmore, I observed shocking ignorance about Catholicism, which seemed to encourage the often vicious anti-Catholic rhetoric that abounds on that campus. Please, in the interest of fairness, don't buy into these bigoted attitudes that have made Swarthmore into a veritable training ground for latter-day Know-Nothings.
Maura Volkmer '93
New Haven, Conn.
maura.volkmer@yale.edu
To the Editor:
Thanks for ever-consistent nourishment and connections provided by the Bulletin. Last November's "Trapped Under Ice" not only provided a valuable perspective regarding the often dehumanizing effects of our penal system but also a great motivation for me to get back in touch with my old classmate from high school and Swarthmore editor and publisher Julie Biddle Zimmerman.
Susan Knotter Walton '68
Katonah, N.Y.
hawkmeadow@aol.com
To the Editor:
I found the essay by Christopher Edley Jr. '73 ("Are America's Values Changing?" February 1996) a very challenging discussion. As a nonlawyer I appreciated his explanation of the tensions involved in balancing a concern for values with constitutional rights, but I was bothered by some of his conclusions and characterizations. For example, Edley carefully makes a distinction between the agenda of the religious right, which is tolerable, and the rhetoric, which is intolerable. This is a judicious assessment, but to then generalize many "New Deal" social welfare policies as "historical aberrations," seems less than judicial and decidedly ahistorical. As a nation we are well served by having such programs as Medicare, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. While the growth and implementation of many programs can be faulted, new technologies and market-oriented experiments on the state and local level may improve the government's ability to promote social welfare without transgressing personal values.
Carlton Henry '75
University Park, Md.
chenry6502@pop.gnn.com
To the Editor:
Your concerns about technology ("Parlor Talk," February 1996, commenting on "Virtuoso Computing" in the same issue) are well placed. I'm also a technobuff, but the fact is that the march of technology is anything but value-neutral. It tends to exacerbate existing social inequalities in most (but emphatically not all) areas. Swarthmore's student body experienced a peculiar manifestation of this during the 1991 Parrish Wall debate [over allegations of racism], when a parallel debate took place on the College's VAX system, the precursor to the current computer network. People felt free to be far nastier to each other on the VAX than they were willing to be in person-even though, in most cases, they knew each other personally as well. That's not a "social choice," in Neil Gershenfeld's terminology, because nobody made that choice. It was made for the participants by the very presence and character of the technology.
Andrew Perrin '93
Berkeley, Calif.
aperrin@igc.apc.org
To the Editor:
Professor Stephen Golub's research ("`America-Firsters' have it backward," Collection, February 1996) shows a close but not perfect fit between wages and productivity. No problem there.
But then come the politics in the last paragraph: On balance, argues Golub, free trade brings more wealth into the country than it takes away, and therefore "it benefits the United States as a whole." This even though free trade exacerbates the "grave problems of income inequality and inadequate skills."
If you happen to think that income inequality is a graver problem than our inability to accumulate an even higher percentage of the world's assets, it's hard to see why an ideology that helps those on the top of the heap at the expense of those at the botton "benefits the United States as a whole," even when those on top are winning a little bit more than those on the bottom are losing.
The "freedom" in arguments for free trade is all one way. Our competitors maintain tariffs to protect their low-wage workers, while we do not. Golub provides the stock answer to these questions: The problem of income inequality should be "tackled directly," presumably by taxing free trade winners and spending the money retraining the losers. Trouble is, these answers are never part of the alphabet soup of free-trade laws that Golub nevertheless endorses. Maybe next time. Maybe they will amend those laws. At which time my mind wanders back to Alice: "Jam tomorrow, jam tomorrow, but never jam today." I know it's too much to expect a trade policy that helps "the United States as a whole." But can't we at least have one that does not hurt it?
Mark Schneider '77
Rockville, Md.
To the Editor:
Professor Meta Mendel-Reyes has a point when she says, "The real question is ... how to bring values into American politics." ("Are America's Values Changing?" February 1996) So does Professor Rob Hollister in his realistic assessment of America's problems. However, I feel that setting up a supposed "battle" between supposed right-wing Christian values and supposed liberal values is bogus-a replay of the media Battle of Good and Evil.
America itself is founded on a history of Europeans taking over a vast land, enslaving Africans, killing native peoples, cutting down forests, building factories-all in the name of its Manifest Destiny. The "gangsta rap," "cyberporn," "skinheads," and "swastikas" decried by Christopher Edley '73 are symptoms of a deadened materialist society. The authoritarian, patriarchal values of the religious right and the secular values of the humanist left both mask and serve the underlying values of competition, individualism, materialism, self-righteousness, pride, and greed that are basic to our modern technological society.
Truly radical religious values (like the Upanishads, the teachings of Buddha, Christ, and Mohammed, basic Jewish ethics and mysticism, taoism-and my Swarthmore favorite, Baruch Spinoza) suggest that unity with the divine makes material success unimportant. I prefer to be committed to values that have to do with material success (even intellectual success!) and power. Oddly enough these values are not in conflict with the old-fashioned Marxist ideals of economic justice. I'm not a Christian, but Jesus certainly puts things well when he suggests giving to the poor to get into heaven.
Ann Erickson '65
Guerneville, Calif.
To the Editor:
I was sad to read in the February Bulletin of the death of Frank Pierson '34. I was also filled with gratitude that I had been able to study under him. None of my family had ever studied economics, so I signed up for his introductory course. He turned me on to it so much that I ended up with a minor in economics. While I have had a career as a social worker, my whole life has been enriched by a deep understanding and appreciation of economics. All because of Frank Pierson.
David A. Fisk '53
Long Beach, Calif.
The Bulletin welcomes letters from readers concerning the contents of the magazine or issues relating to the College. All letters must be signed and may be edited for clarity and space. Address your letters to Editor, Swarthmore College Bulletin, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore PA 19081-1397, or send by electronic mail to bulletin@ swarthmore.edu.
Bulletin Home Page / Swarthmore College /
Swarthmore College. All rights reserved. 1996