On Those WhonCan’t Do . . .’nI must commend Jacob Neusner for hisnreview of Profscam: Professors and thenDemise of Higher Education (Junen1989). I should like to note two importantnscams that Sykes does not address. ^nSykes would have us believe thatnprofessors are, generally, extremelynwell paid and cites average salariesnfrom prestigious institutions as evidence.nBut the fact is that only thosenfaculties whose disciplines are alliednwith science and especially industrynreceive those high salaries, now pushingnsometimes into six digits. Thenfaculties of liberal arts and humanitiesndo not generally receive anything nearnthe emoluments commanded by theirnother colleagues, often receiving asnlitde as one-fourth the salary of annengineer or a professor of business.nAdministrators claim that they aren”compelled” by alleged “market forces”nto discriminate in this manner.nGrade inflation continues to pollutenthe humanities, particularly in stateninstitutions. It is driven from above byndeans and chairmen who are morenconcerned with passing large numbersnof students than with real learning, fornthe monies the universities receivenfrom their legislatures are based onn”formulas” of x dollars per head. Thisnis especially true in the so-called “service”ndepartments (usually English andnforeign languages), where professorsnfound failing large numbers of studentsnwill be denied raises and promotionsnno matter what their publication recordnmay be, since large numbers of highngrades are viewed as signs of “excellence”nand “teaching effectiveness.”n— Edward A. CowannArlington, TXnOn ‘LetternFrom Washington’nIn his June 1989 column (“Our Nation,nYour Money”), Samuel Francisnclaims that Cad Hagen’s Progress Partynin Norway is one of the right-wingnEuropean parties that are nationalistnand socialist. In fact, the Progress Partyngrew out of the Norwegian tax revolt; itsnplatform combines immigrant-bashingnwith a healthy distaste for government,nthus making the organization an anti-nsocialist nationalist party. (Other examplesnof anti-socialist nationalists: thenProgress Party in Denmark and thenFreedom Party in Austria.)n— Martin Morse WoosternSilver Spring, MDnOn ‘Letter Fromnthe Southwest’nReally now, is not Odie Faulk’s “DoctoringnHonor” (June 1989) a bit finicky?nAs a clergyman I have alwaysnenjoyed checking the year’s roster ofnthose receiving honorary doctorates ofndivinity. Usually it says all too muchnabout the current ideology of our seminaries.nMr. Faulk missed the ideologicalnsideline in the business of grantingnhonorary doctorates. In the EpiscopalnChurch it is de rigueur to grant everynnew bishop a D.D. Just this past year,nhowever, we witnessed the previouslynunheard of spectacle of a seminarynpublicly withdrawing its proffer of anD.D. to a bishop. Apparently the feministncontingent was outraged at thenbishop’s refusal to support the ordinationnof women. Oh well, there arencompensations: bishopess Barbara Harris,nwho hasn’t even an undergraduatendegree to her name, to say nothing of anseminary degree, will undoubtedly soonnacquire a doctorate, if she hasn’t alreadynacquired one. Should, God forbid, Inever meet her, it will give me somethingnto call her, since I certainly can’t call herna “bishop.” O tempora, O mores.nWhen I went to seminary, all we gotnwas a mere Bachelor of Divinity, butnthe powers that be decided that itnwould be more dignified and presumablynmore honorable to grant a master’s:nso years later ex post facto we allngot upgraded. Ain’t academia wonderful?n—Father Winston Frithiof ]ensennSuperior, WInOn The Costnof Revolution’nGeorge Watson, in his article “ThenCost of Revolution: England andn1789” (June 1989), goes to extensivenlengths to distinguish between “revolutions.”nGiven the “preservative” naturenof the pre-1789 experience, one won­nnnders whether the term “rebellion” maynbe more apposite. Discarding the commonndictionary distinction, which hingesnon the issue of success and does notnallow for a “trespasser” theory of interpretation,nthe latter concept provides andistinction with perhaps more of a difference.nNot only does it accommodatenWatson’s insight that opposition to thenFrench Revolution is not opposition tonchange but merely its method, it alsoncaptures the uniqueness of the Englishnand American experiences (as well asnthe Dutch). The fruits of these “rebellions”nwere borne from an appreciationnfor and incorporation of the past, not anrepudiation of it.n— Gordon D. PaynenMadison, WInOn ‘Burden ofnLiberalism’nYou can’t imagine how refreshing it is tonfind a conservative publication that notnonly mentions immigration, but actuallynknows that there is massive illegalnimmigration, as your July issuen(Cultural Revolutions, “”The MarchnChronicles”) indicates.nProbably one of the problems is thatnconservatives like the competition in thenmarketplace for jobs, which is fine as farnas it goes. When the employer exploitsnthe illegals, by paying far less thannminimum wage, paying them so little innthe fields that they live outdoors with nonrunning water, no toilet facilities, noncooking facilities; when employers canneven decide not to pay for work alreadyndone—that’s not the free market atnplay. That’s a new form of slavery.nThere are sections of California thatnlook like the worst slums in Mexico, andnmost of the illegals are horribly treated.nOn the other hand, a good 25% of thencars stolen in this area are stolen bynillegals, sometimes to drive furthernnorth, often to re-sell on either side ofnthe border. Other thefts add up to aboutnthe same percentage of our crime rates.nWe’re seeing too many of the uninformednurging that we let everyone innwho wants to come. Romantics all— ,nwho will let somebody else cope withnthe problems.n— Barbara McCarthynSan Diego, CAnSEPTEMBER 1989/5n