ball league, 80 percent of whose playersnare black), JTG could make a goodncase in claiming discrimination againstnblacks on the coaching and managerialnlevels.nNo one would claim that Jimmy thenGreek is a beacon of intelligence ornmaster of tact. But if these were requirementsnfor television, we’d still benlistening to the radio. The basic factnhere is that JTG was pretty muchncorrect in everything he said, save fornhis incorrectly seeing a close cause andneffect connection between black athleticnsuperiority and the conditions ofnslavery. From a scientific point of view,nJTG’s statements are far more defensiblenthan his “predictions” on whonwould cover the point spread. The factnthat his “predictions” were as looselynworded and incapable of proof as annastrology chart did not bother CBS innthe slightest.nThe fact is that there is nothing innwhat Jimmy the Greek said to justifynthe mindless and sanctimonious responsenit has elicited. Most of what hensaid was basically correct, and none ofnit was insulting to blacks. There was nonjustification for dismissal, even bynthose who are willing to deny truthsnthat hurt someone’s feelings. The outragenof CBS executives has nothing tondo with racism and everything to donwith their fear of any controversy thatnmight threaten profits.n—Steven GoldbergnThe genderless society is just aroundnthe corner. Eager to oblige, the Pentagonnhas ordered a series of “reforms”nthat will admit women to some 4,000nmilitary positions previously reservednto men. The only restriction remainingnis the congressionally mandatednban on women in direct combat, andneven that barrier is increasingly porousn(“we will now go as far as we cannwithin these legislative constraints,”nsays the head of the task force thatnrecommended the most recent changes).nWomen are now to serve as Marinensecurity guards at U.S. embassies,naboard Air Force reconnaissance craftnand Navy ammunition ships, and innArmy forward support battalions. Polls,nmeanwhile, show growing numbers ofnAmericans favoring an expansion ofnthe female role in the military, evenninto combat.nWhat is left out of this social policynis, of course, the mission of thenmilitary — which has something to donwith defending the nation and its interests.nThat mission is seriously complicatednwhen a large number of soldiersncannot perform the most routine tasks.nMost Army jobs require lifting at leastn65-85 pounds, and many require liftingnover 100 pounds. While only 3npercent of women can lift “verynheavy” weights (as opposed to 80 percentnof men), the Army has assignedn42 percent of its women to jobs requiringnjust that. The average female soldierncannot lob a grenade far enoughnor carry a light machine gun at lengthnor drag a soldier from a burning helicopternor even do the push-ups andnchin-ups that are the stuff of basicntraining.nMore important are the effects onnmorale. The presence of women doesnnot, to say the least, enhance discipline.nMen resent taking orders fromnwomen. In combat, men tend to disregardnunit goals in order to protectnwomen. And, of course, men competenfor women. As Michael Levin noted:n”Conventional military wisdom takesnmale-female bonding to be a disruptivenmatter of chemistry, against which regulationsnare powerless. If so, there isnnothing to be done about sexual fraternizationnbeyond eliminating the conditionsnof its occurrence.” But suchnnotions are for those who think thenmilitary’s purpose is to fight; today’snmilitary is more concerned with curryingnfavor among the enlightened classes.nThe Pentagon has just launched annew campaign — but not against thenRussians. “Sexual harassment” is thenenemy, and our chief weapon is “sensitivityntraining courses.”nUntil a year ago, the principal opponentnof women in the service wasnnovelist and Veterans Affairs DirectornJames Webb. After his appointment asnSecretary of the Navy, Webb keptnsilent about the feminization of ournarmed forces, apparently in the hopenthat he could do some good. But thensame Frank Carlucei who, as Secretarynof Defense, was busy putting womennin near-combat situations, was alsonbent on emasculating the U.S. Navy.nResigning in anger and disgust, Webbnwas almost the last man to leave ansenior post in the administration. (Mr.nMeese is still, technically speaking, thennnAttorney General.)nIf the feminization of the servicenraises questions about our ability tondefend the country, the number ofnAmericans who favor women in combatnraises the question of whether thencountry is worth defending. The shortagenof articulate opponents of feminismnhas left many people unable tonrespond to the most outrageous assertionsnwhen couched in egalitariannterms. But there remains an intuitivenunease which may yet be tapped. OnenLt. Lorrie Hayward tells Time magazinenthat “the American people arensimply not ready for women comingnhome in body bags,” implying thatnsome day, inevitably, we will ben”ready.” If we would prevent that daynfrom coming, we must begin by repudiatingnthe notion that obliterating sexualndishnctions is “progress.”n—Matthew KaufmannWhose man is in Haiti? He wasn40ish, of medium height, powerfullynbuilt on the way to being stout, andnwith an obvious gift of speech — henoverrode his listeners, particularly sincenthey were in their early and late 20’s.nHe was Leslie Manigat, the place wasnCaracas, and I was a guest lecturer andnfull-time participant at the two-weeknFor Immediate ServicenChroniclesnNEW SUBSCRIBERSnTOLL FREE NUMBERn1-800-435-0715nILLINOIS RESIDENTSn1-800-892-0753nMAY 19881 7n