_______________OUT OF ACADEMIA BY ANNALEE NEWITZ (11/06/98)
	I was impressed by Annalee Newitz's essay. I am also a 29-year-old nonteaching Ph.D. from an academic family, and from that perspective, I'd like to comment on some things she said. Whereas I do agree that there is a job crisis in academia, I believe that, ultimately, it is a mistake to confine the analysis of the problem to academia itself. In her struggle to make a place for herself, a struggle which seems all out of proportion to her obvious talent and passion, Newitz has run up against the oldest cliché in the book: Life is not fair. This is a serious lesson. Indeed, it is the foundation of at least three major world religions (Buddhism, with its great teaching "suffering exists"; Judaism, with its eloquent and terrifying texts of Job and Lamentations; and Christianity, with its tragic central image of the crucified Christ). But I did not learn this lesson from religion. I learned it from school. My own years in high school, college and graduate school were deeply disappointing to me, personally and in terms of what I witnessed of the system. Among other things, I saw three gifted, passionate instructors get screwed out of their jobs. I'm not sure what happened to one of them, but two of them had to take jobs at what the academic establishment would consider lesser institutions -- so I would like to point out to Newitz that even if you do stay in academia, academia can still label you a failure. Nor is any other field (her friends are going into screenwriting? God help the poor bastards) likely to be any more just. I would encourage Newitz not to criticize academia, nor to love it, but to learn from it. Not postmodernism, nor what Rodin ate for lunch the day he sculpted "The Thinker," but: how to be disappointed, confront failure and carry on. -- Savannah Jahrling I have just read Annalee Newitz's article "Out of Academia." It seems that the serial displacement of Ph.D.s and other postgraduates is a global phenomenon. I live in Melbourne, Australia, and have already completed an undergraduate degree and master's degree by research in English. I am about to begin my Ph.D., and I have to say that many of the fears I have about my own "employability" in the future were clearly outlined in Newitz's article. I am, however, encouraged by the underlying positive nature of her approach to the subject. I feel that it is most important that as graduates of the humanities, we make ourselves as marketable as possible, because nobody is going to do it for us. In my country, humanities graduates are conventionally viewed by potential employers as the lowest form of animal life in the graduate food chain. The saddest fact for postgraduates is that one degree in the humanities is often considered a waste of time. Three degrees, rather than signifying high intellect, strong work ethic and commitment, seems to be held as a triple waste of time. While the objective of most Ph.D.s is to become full-time academics, we have to accept the fact that we are fighting a shrinking job market and must become as multiskilled as possible. I think Newitz's article will make sense to any one presently involved in postgraduate study in the humanities. -- Craig Horton Templestowe, Australia
_______________DR. LAURA, HOW COULD YOU? BY PATRIZIA DILUCCHIO (11/03/98)
	Patrizia DiLucchio's article is one of many all over the media brimming with delight over Dr. Laura Schlessinger's past indiscretions. If there is anything publications like Salon can't tolerate, it's someone who dares to challenge the moral relativism of our times. Let anyone speak about values and morality, and they become instant targets for abuse. And Schlessinger is one such voice, so she has to pay through this kind of mean-spirited piece of "journalism" or in plain English, muckracking. I am no fan of Schlessinger, but whatever her past, it really doesn't matter. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all quite clear that a closet full of skeletons and peccadilloes are of no importance whatsoever if your present life is committed to following a moral, ethical lifestyle. Call it repentance or baal teshuva, it seems those who subscribe to "absolute morals" have a greater capacity for forgiveness and acceptance of those who seek to change for the better than secular relativists like Salon's denizens. DiLucchio thought she was exposing a hypocrite. Wrong. What she exposed is your intolerance and spite. -- Guillermo Madrid Washington I enjoyed Patrizia DiLucchio's article on the Schlessinger photos, but I thought she skimmed a little too lightly over what strikes me as one of the nastier aspects of this dreary little business, which is the remarkable capacity, displayed by a certain class of reactionaries that includes Schlessinger, for self-forgiveness when their own odious performances come to light. From the Bakkers to Jimmy Swaggart to Laura Schlessinger, everyone is sure that God has forgiven them and that it's now all OK. It's not just them, of course. How many times do we read about some killer or rapist who discovers God in prison and then proclaims that he's now redeemed and is a different person from who he was before? -- the implication being that he really can't be judged for what he did, because he's no longer that "he." That in a nutshell seems to be what Schlessinger is saying. Schlessinger, William Bennett and others like them who use the language of morality to cloak deeply right-wing social and political purposes seem to be exactly the type of people who most avail themselves of this handy ethical fire escape. The real moral geniuses of the century, people like Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer, walked their talk, lived by it and didn't grant themselves absolution for those same offenses for which they excoriated others. That kind of double standard distinguishes third-rate hacks like Schlessinger from people who really have moral authority. -- Bob Levine Columbus, Ohio
_______________BODY SLAM BY MICAH L. SIFRY(11/06/98)
	Thank you for your thoughtful article on our new governor, Jesse Ventura. I didn't vote for him, but that's OK. To me, he represents a great stride for the democratic process. He has energized people in a way I have never seen. I suspected that Ventura had a chance. You could feel the tide rising and the electricity in the air. It's a movement, a revolution, an American beauty. I couldn't be more proud of the people of Minnesota -- and to hell the intellectual snobs who promote status quo politics. If the two major parties can't get a grip on reality, then populist renewal is the order of the day. -- Eric Oines Minneapolis Micah L. Sifry's analysis of the Jesse Ventura victory in the Minnesota governor's race was excellent. The media and political elites who dare condescend to Ventura (or any other future non-establishment political candidate who wins a big race) do so at their peril. The open, unabashed elitism that so many in the news media (especially Tom Brokaw, Forest Sawyer and the unctuous Peter Jennings, who, after the Republican landslide in the last election, sniffed: "The American people had a temper tantrum") and mainstream political parties display is wearing thin on a good many people. Shame on Robert Scheer for his elitism. And who is Hillary Clinton to poke fun at anyone's "road show"? What on earth has she been doing for nearly a year? What does one call her road show? She certainly was right: She's no Tammy Wynette; Tammy would have shot her husband, cut his balls off and left a long, long time ago. -- Tom Gordon New York
_______________SHOULD A STUDENT BE EXPELLED FOR THOUGHT CRIMES? BY SALLIE TISDALE (11/05/98)
	Sallie Tisdale starts off her treatise by trying to draw a parallel between the story she wrote as an 8-year-old girl about a bronzed lover and the story of 28 murders and a suicide written by 16-year-old James LaVine. She does mention that her mother and the other teacher did think this was abnormal and she was counseled lightly for it. My point is this: If people are concerned about an 8-year-old girl with murderous fantasies, shouldn't they be even more concerned about a 16-year-old boy's murderous and suicidal fantasies? I am not advocating expulsion for LaVine's questionable subject matter. That is not any kind of answer. I do advocate a nonintrusive and subtle psychological review to insure that LaVine is merely a creative writer and not a frustrated and angry young man who may take a child's life due to his psychological "issues." Even if he is an aspiring Steven King, there comes a point where one has to draw a line in the sand. Like pornography, we should be able to discern it when we see it. Two nude lovers wrapped in an embrace is a far cry from a couple where one whips the other until blood flows. Where does potential become reality? I don't know, but we still have to investigate and discuss. LaVine should probably learn to use better judgment as to his subject material until he becomes an adult and has all the rights of an adult. I don't believe in thought control, but I don't believe in encouraging unbridled indulgence. -- James T. Surdick SALON | Nov. 12, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| HEAD OF NEWT BY JOE CONASON

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.