Missing the point on Harvard

In your Off the Tower excerpt (March, “Hackles rise for women in the sciences,” by Ruth Marcus), the issue is not that [Harvard president Larry] Summers raised the question “Could there be innate differences between men and women in mathematical abilities?”

The issue is that neither Summers nor Marcus knows that the research has already been done and reported many times over. The differences are small and have continued to decrease over time as we enroll more females in more math and science classes. Where have Summers and Marcus been? Why doesn’t the president of Harvard know this information? Why didn’t he check before he opened the topic? Doesn’t Harvard have access to the research on gender differences in math?

—Merrikay Boylan
Sacramento, CA

Unfair to wolves

As an adjunct instructor at SUNY Empire State College, one of the courses that I innovated and teach is Wolf Studies covering the history, mythology and persecution of wolves throughout history, including current reactions to reintroduced populations and the unfortunate lessening of endangered species protection.

Every time I think we’ve come a long way, I have my breath taken away by something like the cover page illustration and title “A wolf in sheep’s clothing” for the article on Social Security in the March issue of AFT On Campus.

There is no “tongue in cheek” reference when it comes to wolves: Passions run high on both sides, and every time a reference harks back to historical prejudices, wolves suffer for it. They are a keystone predator species and occupy a critical place in the ecosystem.

Please think of the effect these references continue to have, and do not use wolves to make your point.

—Sandy Snyder
Kingston, NY

President Bush is no wolf and to portray him as such is a significant disservice to wolves! If he were a true wolf he would be far more concerned about the welfare of his pack—current generation and future alike. Wolves are one of the most intelligent, family-oriented and environment-oriented animals. True, wolves are predatory, but that predation helps keep a balance wherever wolves reside. They take little more than they need and leave for others that which they cannot use, providing not only for themselves but for other species. They care for their young and their elders. Pack government tolerates little or no wasted effort. Sheep are not scholars!

Whether it involves education funding or Social Security, the current administration is hardly lupine in its approach. You clearly present that premise. In this enlightened era, I find it sad that apparently neither author Don Kuehn, nor illustrator Paul Zwolak, nor the feature editor, know much about wolves, or sheep. All have relied on the antiquated, omnipresent, wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing cliché to make a visual point. Au contraire, they have unknowingly and unintentionally commended the very person with whom they vehemently and thoroughly disagree.

For an education-purposed publication to express its disapproval of government plans or policies is noteworthy, instructive and thought- inspiring. For that same publication to perpetuate an archaic and factually unsubstantiated image, however cartoonish it may be presented, places it in the same stereotype class as Little Red Riding Hood, the Three Little Pigs, and even Aesop! A more fitting and productive illustration might have been one of a common thief, stealing whatever he could from your pockets, mine and those of our children.

—Michael I. Kaplow
Huntington, NY