Johns Hopkins Magazine -- November 2000
Johns Hopkins 
     Magazine Home

NOVEMBER 2000
CONTENTS

O U R    R E A D E R S    W R I T E

Letters


Send your letters via email to
smd@jhu.edu.

Buttoned up against McCarthyism
A ringside seat for the "moonshine"
Positively an error
A namby-pamby position
"Reverse" McCarthyism?
Respect renewed
Lectures packed with insight
It can still happen here
Early tenacity
On the premed pressure cooker
A journey remembered
Photo shoot ignores gun safety
The fundamentals of safety
An influential "family tree"


Letters galore, re: Lattimore...

September's cover story, "Seeing Red," about the hardships Hopkins scholar Owen Lattimore faced at the hands of Senator Joseph McCarthy, drew more letters than any story we've done over the last decade. Many alumni wrote to share personal remembrances of the China expert, while some chided Johns Hopkins University for not having done more to support him. A few thought Lattimore got exactly what he deserved. "Lattimore was a cheap traitor!" wrote one man on the front of his envelope; he also advised writer Joanne Cavanaugh Simpson: "Stop the bull!"

Buttoned up against McCarthyism

"Seeing Red" [September] was a nostalgia trip for me. In August 1953, I returned from 14 months in Korea just in time to enroll for the fall semester in the graduate Writing Seminars. I was appalled to learn of Senator McCarthy's un-American antics. Several of us Seminarists had lapel buttons printed up that read: "I Don't Like McCarthy," and we distributed them to any willing takers. I wore my button everywhere I went in Baltimore and never encountered a dissenting word.
W. R. Mobley (MA '54)
Fort Lee, NJ


A ringside seat for the "moonshine"

"Seeing Red" was well done. Having come to Baltimore as Executive Secretary of Levering Hall YMCA, and Coordinator of Religious Activities and Lecturer in Religion for Johns Hopkins University in 1953, I had a ringside seat for much of Lattimore's struggle against McCarthy's "moonshine."

Referring to an invitation [I] extended to Owen Lattimore to speak on academic freedom that was barred by Hopkins administrators, the author mentions that I have "long courted controversy." Actually it was difficult not to court controversy at Hopkins over freedom of inquiry and discussion, or civil rights and equal opportunity.

Faculty polarization was embarrassingly evident on the occasion of a dinner for well-known historian Arnold Toynbee. Since Toynbee was Owen Lattimore's houseguest, we invited Mr. Lattimore and his wife to the dinner and innocently seated them across from famous Johns Hopkins Professor William Foxwell Albright and his wife. Neither man spoke to the other during the meal although each would converse with the other's wife. Professor George Carter, who fingered Lattimore, also attacked the idea of an open platform on the campus. He spoke of Levering Hall as "the center of anti-religion and Communism on the campus," and wanted it purged.

Although Hopkins paid his salary, Lattimore for years felt shackled by the university's refusal to let him lecture, and the elimination of his department. He had been unfairly beaten up and the university had not really stood with him. When he left Johns Hopkins for the University of Leeds in 1963, he said it was like "getting out of jail."

It's true that Lattimore didn't suffer fools gladly whether on campus or in Congress, but that is no excuse for what happened to him. He felt deeply the hypocrisy in government and the behavior of some of its main actors. Of Johns Foster Dulles, Secretary of State and prominent churchman, Lattimore said, "He can think of more Christian reasons for being a sonofabitch than anyone else in the world."
Chester Wickwire
Chaplain Emeritus
Baltimore, MD


Positively an error

I could not put down the article on Owen Lattimore, but I'm confused about one thing: You state "Carter and Lattimore avoided each other like positive and negative charges." However, positive and negative charges attract. Am I missing something?
James R. Dire (PhD '97)
dire@dcseq.uscga.edu

Oops! You're right! Thanks to all who wrote to point out our goof. --SD


A namby-pamby position

Owen Lattimore was a brilliant, widely read, utterly decent man, and probably the finest Far East scholar of his time. It is ironic that the thuggish and drunken Senator Joseph McCarthy who, more than anyone else, created the Red hysteria and its subsequent paralysis of intellectual and political life in the U.S., pursued Lattimore on spurious charges. How much more ironic is it that the syndics of Johns Hopkins, in keeping with their invincible gentility, took a namby-pamby position on the issue, and sniffed at Lattimore's incivility towards members of Congress?

I am proud to have been Owen's frequent cycling companion.
Gerald Kamber (PhD '62)
Allenhurst, NJ


"Reverse" McCarthyism?

On today's campuses we find a strong sense of Political Correctness, which seems to censor and attack those who disagree with the prevailing dogmas. To what extent have we entered into a new age of "reverse" McCarthyism, in which the left smokes out and attacks those with traditional views?
William B. Smith
willsmithusa@netscape.net


Respect renewed

As a science major, I will always treasure [Owen Lattimore's] course in Far Eastern History as one of the high points of my four years at Hopkins. "Seeing Red" renews my respect for his courage and sense of honor as well as his clarity of thought, the last of which he so clearly demonstrated in class.
Martin L. Pall '62
martin_pall@wsu.edu


Lectures packed with insight

I do suspect that there were more than just three of us interested in Mongolia.

[Lattimore's] lectures on that subject were always well attended. I remember his talks as rambling, unorganizable, and absolutely fascinating. They were packed with information, wisdom, and insight. Though much of his content was about Mongolia 3,000 to 4,000 years ago, the lessons I learned still serve me well today. We are all very fortunate that he was at the battlefront when our freedom was so seriously attacked.
Jack Lochhead '66
jacklochhead@mindspring.com


It can still happen here

I thought it was very ironic that "Seeing Red" should appear just at the time the Los Alamos scientist Dr. Wen Ho Lee is being subjected to further psychological torture by having his promised release delayed once again.

It seems we are again entering a period of political and ideological witchhunts, during which common sense and reality are submerged beneath waves of racism, suspicion, and paranoia. Curiously enough, as in Dr. Lattimore's case, much of the panic in Dr. Lee's case focuses on the "yellow peril," dredging up racial stereotypes and an irrational dread of all things Asian, and in particular, Chinese.

As Americans, we tend to be complacent and think "Thank goodness it can't happen here!" when we read of such episodes in other countries. It is good to be reminded by articles such as "Seeing Red" that it can, it has, and it still does happen here.
Helen F. Stanbro
Los Alamos, NM
stanbro@ix.netcom.com


Early tenacity

As a ninth grade student, Joy Igonikon was in my Algebra II class. I saw then the tenacity and doggedness described in "Pride in Joy" [September]. If there was material that she didn't understand, she was back after school to figure it out. She was very concerned about grades, and succeeding. For years I had a policy of permitting students to re-take tests after getting help and more practice (not the exact same test) if they felt their original score was not representative of what they knew. Joy repeatedly took advantage of this opportunity.

That she did not become a doctor is not a surprise....that she will be successful in whatever direction she wishes to go will be no surprise at all.
Roy Sachs
rpsachs@home.com


On the premed pressure cooker

Joy Igonikon's story of failure, doubt, and desperation as a biology pre-med and her subsequent hard-won success as a Writing Seminars major, made for agonizing reading. In my 11 years as a professor in the Department of Biology, and as an undergraduate advisor, I knew more than a few Joys--bright kids whose circumstances had not prepared them to compete in the heartless pressure cooker that is the Hopkins premed tradition.

The article quotes deans' and advisors' thoughts on why bright young people such as Ms. Igonikon fail, listing all of the usual suspects: immaturity, poor study skills, and personal crises. I was sorry to note that no one addressed the complementary question--why do bright schools like Hopkins fail (which they do when they admit students, then let them spiral downward into despair)? I sat on many a committee during my years at Hopkins, with fellow members of that subset of faculty and administrators who sincerely wished to see the school do better. We produced reports, offered recommendations, sought and gained millions of dollars in grants to improve undergraduate education. Alas, all were duly noted and forgotten, and the dollars always seemed to end up directly or indirectly supporting someone's research program. It always came down to one immutable truth: we, the faculty, would have to work harder at tasks that offered no possibility of acclaim, prestige, and research grants. It was much more prudent to simply throw the Joy Igonikons to the wolves, and justify it in the name of "weeding out the weaklings."

Joy's Hopkins story ended well, despite all odds. She will undoubtedly do spectacularly well at whatever she sets herself to in the future. Alas, I can't help but think that she probably would have been a wonderfully caring and competent physician, had we done our jobs better. I'm sorry, Joy. All I can say is, thank God for the Writing Seminars.
William B. Busa
busa@prodigy.net


A journey remembered

"Pride in Joy" brought back many emotions by capturing the journey from child to adult, and the exploration of quality relationships with faculty mentors. I remember when I, too, struggled with premed courses and switched my major to English. I found professors like Dick Macksey and J. Hillis Miller willing to engage and inspire me to discover the world apart from my perception of what my parents wanted for me. Dean Shaffer was a patient counselor who helped me focus on my strengths. In the process I also learned that my parents' love was unconditional.

I still thank Hopkins for its rigorous challenges. It made me grow up. Since leaving Hopkins 37 years ago, I hope I have given back some of what I got in my social work, teaching, instructional design, and management consulting career. Keep up the great work.
Jeffrey Lickson, PhD (BA'63)
jlickson@theconsortium.com


Photo shoot ignores gun safety

Your article about two engineering students developing a child-proof gun lock was interesting but the accompanying picture was most telling [ September, p. 50]. Three rules taught in every firearm safety course are: 1) never touch the trigger until a safe target is acquired, 2) consider every firearm to be loaded at all times, 3) always wear eye protection while handling firearms.

The picture shows student Bryan Rydingsward handling a Berretta semi-automatic blank pistol. His finger is on the trigger, his thumb is behind the slide which would cause a serious injury if the gun fired; neither student has eye protection and the pistol is within a foot of another student's face. Had this "unloaded" pistol fired, Mr. Rydingsward might lose half a thumb, and he stands a good chance of receiving a hot shell casing in his eye.
Michael Liebman, MS '82
promanco1@worldnet.att.net


The fundamentals of safety

I am appalled by the photograph showing [Bryan] Rydingsward holding his finger on the trigger of a Berretta pistol, as well as holding the pistol so near to his [research] partner's head. Licensed gunowners know never to place their finger on the trigger unless they are about to fire their weapon. Otherwise, the finger is placed outside the trigger guard. Fundamental gun safety by handgun owners prevents more accidental shootings and deaths than any technological safety features.
Peter Lifton '77 (MA'77)
Massdetect@aol.com


An influential "family tree"

One of the 118 "students" in the year 2000 Short Course in Medical and Experimental Mammalian Genetics last summer was a last-year medical student from the University of Iceland, Hans Thomas Bjornsson. The Johns Hopkins Magazine was indirectly responsible for his being there in Bar Harbor. He found on the Internet the account by Elise Hancock in the November 1996 issue titled "The Short Course That's Long on Influence." He concluded that this course is exactly what he needed to launch a career in medical genetics

Hancock's article may also have had something to do with the unusually cosmopolitan "student" body. Icelandic was only one of 21 native tongues represented by the student body. Eighty-eight of the 118 students were academics (including some full professors and department chairs); seven came from biotechnology or pharmaceutical industry; 23 were trainees, mostly post-docs, with selected pre-docs.

The Short Course, which has been two weeks throughout, began in 1960 with 45 students; this year's crop brought the total number up to 4,056. A considerable number of these students are represented also among the 459 faculty members [who have taught over the years].
Victor A. McKusick, MD
University Professor of Medical Genetics


RETURN TO NOVEMBER 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS.