Editor: As Reg Murphy departs The Baltimore Sun, somebody should point out that his decade there included a remarkable, overdue increase in the number of women and of black persons on the news and editorial staffs. Their hiring and promotion extended even into management. Rare, in that large regard, is Reg Murphy's record.
James H. Bready.
Editor: Moise Goldstein's Oct. 28 letter, ''Deaf Children and Hearing,'' is puzzling for a number of reasons.
First, as a consultant for the Food and Drug Administration's panel on cochlear implants, he pejoratively states that implants are expensive and highly experimental. The very tone of his letter indicates he is not one who supports the use of implants for young children. He also employs the old canard that children must first learn to sign.
Cochlear implants are costly. But if deaf children and adults can be given a reasonable degree of hearing, is any cost too expensive?
Should a child who has an implant also learn to sign?
Mr. Goldstein states that learning to sign will not prevent a deaf child from learning the spoken language. He claims that it helps. Therapists who work with implanted children would disagree because they know signing impedes progress. Children who sign rely too heavily upon signing to communicate and will not make the effort needed to use the hearing afforded by the implant.
When implanted children receive proper auditory training, i.e. learning to listen, as well as proper post-operative auditory management from a qualified audiologist, the results can be phenomenal as evidenced by those implants at the New York University Medical Center.
Our four-year-old granddaughter, who has had an implant since she was two-and-a-half years old, is proof of the potential of the cochlear implant. Born deaf, she now understands language almost at a three-year-old level.
She is not an exception. Most children who have received an implant followed by proper training in learning to listen are as successful as our granddaughter.
`Kay and Allen Kershman.
Is Baltimore Art-Bashing?
Editor: I read with interest Edward Gunts' Oct. 27 and Nov. 1 articles regarding Lane Berk's problems with a B-A-L-T-I-M-O-R-E
NTC pylon on her roof on Montgomery Street. Yes, the city is still art-bashing.
I am a black artist who hoped to place a sculpture in Druid Hill Park. But my work was literally smashed in a city warehouse and no responsibility was taken by the city.
I am horrified to see the city at it again. In neither case was it costing the city any money to build or mount the art. In both cases the city has impoverished its citizens.
I don't live in Federal Hill, couldn't afford to. I am a starving artist, but I would like to see any part of the city made more interesting with exterior art. That way, children and old people, rich and poor -- even criminals needing to raise their consciousness -- can see things which are usually cramped up inside the houses of the rich.
Don't spend our money dragging down good civic elements that would attract tourists when we're looking so hard for money.
Editor: As a former Baltimore area resident now residing in the flatlands of Texas, I was bemused to learn of the lawsuit filed against Lane Berk.
When I lived in the Baltimore area, I remember coming up from the Inner Harbor, seeing the pylon and thinking of it as fun and wonderfully promotional of the Baltimore spirit.
In this same fashion I found Baltimoreans to be cultured, philanthropic, witty and intensely aware of life and their own history. In short, I came to appreciate Baltimore and its people.
I hope the city will appreciate its own promoters by finding worthier dragons to slay than Lane Berk and her pylon.
Editor: I happened to be in Washington for a few weeks. Ed Gunts' article aroused my curiosity.
When I saw the sculpture, it seemed so unobtrusive that I wondered what the fuss was about. All I could see seemed to be consonant with the improvements that Baltimore has so impressively undertaken and so splendidly achieved since I last visited the city some years ago. I perceived the sculpture as an enhancement of the charmingly revived quarter of the historic town.
Editor: Ray Jenkins' column decrying President Bush's reference to Congress as a ''privileged class'' (Nov. 3) was an educational exposition of the biographies of our legislative emissaries to Congress, but as criticism of the president, it was just a lengthy red herring!
Bush's point, as Jenkins certainly well knows, is that Congress, having exempted itself from many laws, and in short-cutting decent standards of behavior (check-kiting, fixed tickets, free lunches . . . on and on) has made itself into a privileged class. The contention had nothing to do with anyone's pre-congressional background, social standing or the like, as Jenkins must be aware.