gold mine of arguments directed againstnthe would-be eliminators of job discrimination.nEpstein provides many reasonsnwhy discrimination in hiring is notnthe equivalent of racial slavery, or evennof segregation. He correctly observesnthat an employer’s preference for one labornpool over another does not leave thenless favored applicants without other jobnoptions. The same employers mightnlikely take their second-best choice asnmarginal workers. Applicants who havenbeen rejected might also find employmentnwith others who favor their distinguishingncharacteristics, a point thatnThomas Sowell demonstrates in severalnstudies on black and female academics.nSowell has proved statistically that bothnblack and female teachers and professorsnwere as much represented in the worknforce in the early 20th century as in thatnof the 1970’s. The major differencenconcerned the institutions that werenlikely to employ them. Blacks and femalesnhad been predominantly associatednwith black and female institutionsnof learning in the past, but were lessnlikely to be so in the present. What thatnindicates, however, was not the absencenof economic opportunity or professionalnposts in the early 1900’s, but the lacknfor many of what today would seem tonbe the most desirable prospects. Epsteinndoes not believe that our alreadyndiminished property rights need to benfurther compromised for the sake ofnguaranteeing everyone a dream job.nNeedless to say, this guarantee is notnnow being made available to quite everyone;nat least in the short run, onlynbureaucratically designated victims willnbe encouraged to pursue it.nI should finally compliment ProfessornEpstein for his willingness to considernthe employer’s right to discriminatenin favor of compatible job applicants.nThere are certainly compelling eco­nnomic and social reasons for hiringnworkers who are likely to get along withnothers in the same work force. Moreover,nthe imposition of minority quotasn• on employers creates an aura of suspicionnabout the politically preferred jobnrecipient that must adversely affect hisnrelationship with both employers andnco-workers. Epstein is willing to defendna position that only the truly courageousnwill take these days: namely, that employersnshould be free to hire anyonenthey get along with. In a political worldnof social democrats separated only byndifferent labels, he is a welcome anachronism,nnot exactly an old-fashionednconservative but at the very least a feistynclassical liberal.nPaul Gottfried is a professor ofnpolitics at Elizabethtown Collegenin Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.nGreat Escapistsnby Paul HollandernThe Flight From Truth:nThe Reign of Deceitnin the Agenof Informationnby ]ean-Frangois RevelnNew York: Random House;n408 pp., $25.00nWhile M. Revel’s critique of Westernnleftists and fellow travelers isnfully shared by me, I part company withnhim when it comes to the issue of thendurability of communist systems. Bothnhe and I were among the vast number ofnobservers and critics of such regimesnwho did not anticipate their spectacularnand rapid disintegration. I am morenLIBERAL ARTSnLESSONS FROM DOWN UNDERnthan happy to admit that I was mistakennin attributing to them greater powers ofnsurvival than they actually possessed; M.nRevel, however, is reluctant to do so.nEven in the introduction to the Englishnedition (which seeks to update the originalnpublished in France in 1988) somenof his observations are dated: “the politicalnsystem of communism … is extraordinarilynresistant . . .”; “Moribundnbut incapable of dying communismnseems able neither to cure itself nor tonpass away”; “the fundamental principlesnof Soviet foreign policy under its newnguise, remain the same.” In fact, thenmost interesting question in analyzingnthese systems is what made them finallynso fragile, despite their enormous concentrationnof political and economicnpower.nIn The Flight From Truth, M. Revelncontinues the wholly laudable enterprisenof exposing and criticizing Western misperceptionsnof communist systems andnthe left-liberal attitudes and biases ofnWestern intellectuals (and quasi-intellectuals)nwith special reference to thenmedia people. In doing so, he repeatedlynexpresses astonishment at the humanntendency to resist information, theninability or unwillingness to draw thenproper conclusions from available information,nthe capacity for self-deception,nthe displays of hypocrisy, and the stubbornnattachment to outworn leftist ideasnand ideologies. M. Revel is also a connoisseurnof intellectual double standards,nfor which he provides impressive documentation.n(“Two taboos joined forcesnto create the joint silence . . . the sempiternalnfear of being taken for anreactionary in criticizing a so-called ‘progressive’nstate and that of seeming to bena racist if one condemns the massacre ofnAfricans by other Africans.”) He alsonnotes the cordial relations between UN­nESCO and the UN, and genocidalnAs reported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform last May, Australia’s minister for immigration, Gerry Hand, hasnannounced that his country’s immigration quota will be reduced next year to 80,000. In the I980’s Australia had the highest perncapita immigrant intake, and in 1989-90 immigration totaled 170,000. When experts “warned that population would double everyn40 years,” the government reversed its pro-immigration policy and reduced intake to 111,000. Australian environmentalist MarknO’Connor said “the media and the public became convinced that high immigration was causing unemployment and increasing ournforeign debt.” The new quota will especially affect extended family reunification, “non-targeted skills,” and immigrants withoutna proficiency in English. A spokesman for the political party Australians Against Further Immigration observed “there may be a moralnin this for any U. S. and Canadian politician who wants to stay in office.”n34/CHRONICLESnnn