Horowitz's rant seems to be an attempt to channel the voice of the late Alan Bloom into the pages of Salon. While there is much to be criticized in postmodern thought, the part that Bloom, and apparently Horowitz, miss is that thought does not end with Plato: His writings are not a bad place to start, but like kindergarten, you do have to leave someday.

-- Mike Hellwich
Saint Paul, Minn.

David Horowitz claims that Louis Farrakhan is "the most influential anti-Semite in America." I am not a fan of Farrakhan by any means, but surely the title of "most influential anti-Semite" goes to Pat Buchanan. Anybody can criticize the hateful leader of the Nation of Islam. But very few Republican, born-again conservatives or members of the mainstream media will take Buchanan to task for his decades of not-so-thinly veiled anti-Jewish ranting. I'm sure George W. Bush has not a kind word to say about Farrakhan, but he wishes to keep Pat's "voice" within the Republican Party. Who is the more influential anti-Semite?

And while we're looking for African-American empty suits with pretensions of intellectual rigor, let us not forget Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the poster child for conservative affirmative action.

-- David Agosto
New York

For those of us who are not and do not aspire to be academics, Cornel West is no more an "empty suit" than most academics, whose posturing bores us until our eyes glaze over. As far as the "PC conditioning" Horowitz refers to with regards to minority students, something is better than nothing. West's personal politics do not impact or inform my decisions on any type of politics or policy. Could it be that Horowitz resents West's six-figure income or the acclaim? Don't be bitter, babe.

-- Renee Foster

Street-fighting man
BY JAKE TAPPER
(10/11/99)

While Jake Tapper's piece was more colorful and accurate than anything I read in the local Iowa media, I must take exception to one of his observations. I was at the Bradley post-dinner gathering, which Tapper described as resembling a PBS fund-raising-style, brie-and-chablis event. Trust me, the Bradley bash was strictly Iowa pork burgers and keg beer. Bruce Hornsby played wonderfully and Bill Walton delivered the political equivalent of a Bill Laimbeer moving pick for his buddy Bill Bradley.

Finally, while some marveled at Al Gore's newfound energy, it seemed to me the vice president had spent a little too much time at the Starbucks kiosk at Des Moines International.

-- Tim Boyle
Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Dump the big bang, bring on the blue ox
BY VICKI ROSENZWEIG
(10/11/99)

Although I am completely opposed to the Kansas Board of Education's idiotic ruling, I am also opposed to the continued bashing of an entire state by people from the coasts who know nothing of the context of the situation.

Unfortunately, this board of education was voted in by a minority population and made this ridiculous decision. However, before others continue to throw stones at "those rednecks in Kansas," please keep in mind that all but one school district has decided to continue teaching the same curriculum that was taught before the board's decision. Evolution is not dead in Kansas and will most likely be "officially" reinstated after the next elections.

I am aware that people in New York and L.A. think there is nothing out here but cows and wheat -- certainly nothing that resembles intelligent life. Articles like this only reconfirm this faulty opinion. In addition, they belittle the real warning behind the Kansas school board issue: If intelligent people everywhere -- liberal and conservative -- do not consciously protect their rights through voting and other political activity, the highly motivated nut cases will take over. Kansans are at fault not for being stupid, but for being complacent.

-- Whitney Davison-Turley
Quinter, Kan.

While Rosenzweig's essay is amusing and somewhat entertaining, it shows a complete lack of tolerance on the author's part. Rosenzweig obviously believes in a world that just exists. The majority of the decision makers in the state of Kansas believe in a God who just exists -- and who created a world. Either way, it's a matter of faith. I don't find Rosenzweig's to be any more compelling than that of the Jayhawkers.

-- Frank Thomas

As a resident of Kansas, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry after reading the satire of the Kansas Board of Education decision to omit evolution and the big bang theory from state science standards. There seem to be so many people in our state who are completely out of touch with reality that it isn't beyond comprehension to imagine a future meeting of the board at which they discuss some of the fictional scenarios you mentioned in your article. Those of us who oppose the board's action are delighted each time we see an article from outside the state ridiculing the board. It's the only way we'll overcome this nonsense and cleanse the Board of Education of the fools who are running the show.

-- David Vogel
Wichita, Ks.

Maybe Kansas should adopt Calvinball as the only school-sanctioned sport. After all, the only rule is that everyone gets to make up the rules!

-- Owen Williams

Oh Deer!
BY DEBRA OLLIVIER
(10/09/99)

Not only does this usage of deer-antler velvet promote the hunting and death of deer for cosmetic reasons, the article is trendy and misleading. The promotion of this product is nothing but a cheap Hollywood ploy to encourage people to purchase a useless product to make themselves feel "wholesome." Surely there is a more cost-effective way to produce the proclaimed essential pantocrine. Although the author claims that animals are not harmed, the trauma of being captured and having samples removed is most definitely not best or most natural for the animals. Promoting the use of deer antler velvet will certainly give hunters more leverage in their argument for deer killing. It will also provide them with more money and another market. Next time, I would encourage your writers to focus on a topic that does not encourage the harm of any living being.

-- Tara Echo DellaFranzia

Crashing the top
BY ANN DOUGLAS
(10/11/99)

As someone who spent six years as a graduate student at Cornell University, I found many of Ann Douglas' observations to mirror my own experiences as a woman in the ivory tower.

What Douglas does not mention, however, are the myriad ways that female professors contribute to other women's bad experiences. It seems that once women get tenure, they feel no sense of sisterhood with the women coming behind them. In fact, often it's women who are shafting women. In my case, my decision to combine motherhood with graduate school was seen as a bad career move. If you really want to make it as a woman in academia, you'd better remain childless. And if you choose to have children, don't expect any support from your department.

I worked closely with a female professor who became an important part of my dissertation committee. One day, several years into our working relationship, she explained to me that the thing she liked best about me was that, despite the fact that I had children, I never mentioned them. "In fact," she said, "I didn't realize for almost a year that you even had kids. I thought that was great how you didn't shove your kids down my throat." This sentiment was echoed by another woman who also mentored me, who once told me, when I was trying to talk to her about how hard it could be sometimes to combine motherhood and work, "I'm not very interested in the 'mom' part of your life." Needless to say, I didn't look to her for support either.

When I decided to abandon a "promising" career, I did so because I realized that in order to be a female academic, I would only ever get to be half a person. The irony of being surrounded by feminist academics who defended the rights of working mothers in the abstract, but who sneered at them in person, proved more than I could bear.

-- Lorraine Berry
Ithaca, N.Y.

Sigh. You would think that, sooner or later, tenured women holding very desirable positions at our most prestigious universities would get tired of whining about how badly they've been treated. But I guess not. You would think that such superbly intelligent women could figure out that tenure fights and power disputes and personality conflicts and academic pettiness --- all of which were common enough in the Bad Old Days when women were indeed all but frozen out of high academic position -- are continuing today just as they always have, and that, therefore, such goings-on are not necessarily evidence of male chauvinist piggery. But, again, I guess not.

If Ann Douglas truly believes -- as she seems to -- that men in academe were not the victims of academic pettiness, jealousy, fear and resentment in tenure fights and power plays in the Bad Old Days of male-centered universities, her training as a historian has, perhaps, not been as thorough as one might have hoped.

-- R. Becker
Baton Rouge, La.

Exactly what are the men in the top positions afraid of? Why are they so opposed to having more women in their environment? What need is served by having an all-male elite, and what other means can be used to satisfy this need? Until these questions are answered, men will continue to find ways to preserve their environment. Addressing the root cause of the problem is the only way to alleviate it.

I don't pretend to be immune to prejudice. Every time I read an article about sex discrimination, I come away from it feeling ashamed and puzzled. I am ashamed because I can understand where the men in question are coming from, and I imagine I would probably act the same way if I were in their place. But I am puzzled because I am never able to figure out why many men discriminate against women in an almost reflexive manner. Some need is satisfied by having a male-dominated environment, but it is a very elusive one.

-- Aaron D. Haney