when he sees it, apparently, and knowsnto go with talent and track record overn”qualifications” on a resume.nAs to Lynne Cheney, she has beennand remains a superb chairman of thenNational Endowment for the Humanities—nprecisely because she hasncourageously and effectively raised thenbanner of standards and scholarshipnagainst the trendy deconstructionistsnand know-nothings of the academy. Asnchairman she has been receptive to thenkey role of the Division of ResearchnPrograms within the Endowment, andnfunds and percentage of the budget ofnNEH itself devoted to research havenincreased — not diminished — undernher leadership.nShe has carried the fight for standardsnand substance at all levels ofnhumanities education to opponentsnthroughout the country. It is, in fact,nLynne Cheney far more than any ofnthe other (certainly very estimable)npersons mentioned in favorable waysnby Kopff^ who has made precisely standardsnthe issue for American higherneducation day in and day out over thenpast several years.nWhile petulance has its Menckenesquenallure as good clean fun, itnmay be useful to remind Chroniclesnthat blasting fellow underworkmen innthe vineyards of political and educationalnsanity is more than merely wastednpowder and shot. It is a form ofnpsychological Russian roulette. Withnsuch friends who needs enemies?nMore generally, it may be worthnsuggesting that a siege mentality, anninability to labor in tolerance in concertnor coalition with any who differ by onencentimeter from your own convictions,nblasting for the sake of blasting withnfacile pen and speech, tend to diminishnthe coherence and capacity of somenself-described “conservatives” to pullntogether toward common objectivesnand to act and speak moderately andnresponsibly.n—Ellis Sandoz, DirectornEric Voegelin InstitutenBaton Rouge, LAnDr. KopffnResponds:nI did not attack Dr. Cheney’s fine worknas chairman of the NEH nor hernthought-provoking report, “Humanitiesnin America.” I pointed out the difficultiesnof improving the humanities whenneven so good a person can write (“Humanitiesnin America,” p. 11):n”It is also important to recognize thatnresearch and learning need not alwaysninvolve publication. Observed DeannBaldwin of Pennsylvania StatenUniversity’s Behrend College, ‘Therenare other ways to do scholarship besidesnpublication in a refereed journal.’ Reading,nthinking, exploring imaginativelynover a number of areas in a way that willnbenefit students is also scholarship andnshould be so acknowledged.”nI, too, would like to acknowledgenreading and thinking as scholarship, butnwhat objective criteria shall we use tonevaluate that reading and thinking?nSuppose a teacher is preparing as Dr.nCheney describes, by rereading a worknof literature or history—in the originalnlanguage, of course, perusing the standardncommentaries and monographs,nand keeping up with the periodicalnbibliography, so as to do more thannmerely repeat what was rememberednfrom graduate school. Can that teachernreally find no new insight on the text ornno mistaken trend in contemporarynscholarship? All we are asking is for thenteacher to take a few of the insightsncurrently “published orally in the classroom”nand share them with the professionnas a basis for evaluation.nUsing refereed publication as thenbasis for objective evaluation is not anperfect system. It is better than nothing.nChronicles has praised Dr. Cheney’snwork at NEH, has praised “Humanitiesnin America” in an editorial, and hasneven published a favorable review ofnher novel. If we are to be mutuallynsustaining, it is time to come up withnnew objective and relevant grounds fornevaluating good teaching, or else admitnthat, in our imperfect world, publication,nconfirmed by the winning ofnextramural grants, comes closest tonproviding the criteria that are mostnlikely to reward the kind of creativitynthat is the basis of learning and teaching.nOn TolstoynTradition’nAlthough I enjoyed Sally S. Wright’sn”Writing in the Tolstoy Tradition” innthe April 1989 issue of Chronicles, Innnmust point out at least one error.nThe caption underneath the photographnof Nikolai Tolstoy states, “thenMacmillan government participated innatrocities in Austria in 1945,” implyingnthat Harold Macmillan was the Britishnprime minister then. There were twonPM’s during the year 1945, but Macmillannwas not one of them. WinstonnChurchill was replaced as PM bynClement Atdee during the PotsdamnConference, held from July 17 tonAugust 2, 1945.nIn 1945, under Churchill, Macmillannwas minister resident in the Mediterranean.nHe was PM from 1957nuntil 1963.nAlso, the word “atrocities” seems anlittle strong. At the end of the war, thenBritish and Americans returned displacednpersons to the Soviets, as agreednat the Yalta Conference. This was badnenough but can hardly be called atrocities,nwhich occurred when the Soviets,nand also the Tito partisans, executed,ntortured, and jailed the DP’s.nI do not know whether Macmillannwas responsible for what happened, butnit appears that Churchill and Rooseveltnshould also be blamed for making thendeal with Stalin to return the displacednpersons.n— George A. BorgmannWestwood, MAnOn ‘BrightnShining Liar’nFrom the May Chronicles, top of thenfirst column on page 31: “…nGeneral Vo Nguyen Giap . . .napologized publicly for torturenexcesses. . . . The Vietcong were ‘forbiddennto execute the accusednsavagely’. . . .”nRuss Braley seems to give the ‘Congnname to all the Communist forces innVietnam, an error not unknown innjournalism. The North VietnamesenArmy (NV) were a force distinct fromnthe Vietcong (the enemy indigenousnto Saigon’s republic). Indeed, eachnfought under its own flag.nVietnam veterans get cranky aboutnsuch things.nNow to get back to my Maynissue. …n— Robert J. PowersnCol., USAF (Ret.)nShreveport, LAnAUGUST 1989/5n