Order in SchoolsEditor: As a member of the ''old school...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

December 10, 1991

Order in Schools

Editor: As a member of the ''old school,'' allow me to violently disagree with the letter (Nov. 26) castigating Boyse F. Mosely for a number of sins, including being an autocrat and a failure, for blaming others for his ''lack of success'' and spending too much time ''maintaining order.''

The writer said that maintaining equilibrium, flexibility, consistency, equality, positive and negative consequences for behaviors are more important than ''order'' in the schools.

The writer seems to forget that the very things she advocates have been used in the city schools for decades. And with predictable consequences.

You will find the schools with the most ''order'' are simply the best schools. Permissiveness, buddy-buddy stuff, let them do their own thing are nice, but don't produce sharp students.

Youngsters need discipline -- first in the home and second in the school.

Ask any successful person one of the main reasons for his or her success, and he or she will mention ''self-discipline.'' Where, may I ask, did they learn it?

Private city schools are, by and large, successful institutions; public city schools are, by and large, failures. Why? Perhaps, just perhaps, it's because in the private schools the administrators run the school.

Boyse F. Mosely has justly earned the respect of those who count the most -- his students. Like a former Lake Clifton student told me, ''I hated him while I was there, but I love him now.'' That is the supreme compliment.

All the rest is pure balder--.

& Robert F. Kennedy. Baltimore.

Not So 'Ravenous'

Editor: The editorial "Ravenous Baby Bells" in the Oct. 18 Sun, contained several misstatements and inaccuracies.

You state, "The appellate decision overturns a careful balancing act begun by U.S. District Judge Harold Greene . . ." In actuality, the appellate court stated that there simply is no evidence to support Judge Greene's stay of the order lifting information services restrictions and that Judge Greene had abused his power by issuing the stay. That's quite a different view from your portrayal of the decision.

Another matter I would like to address is your statement that newspapers "favor competition in both news and advertising." Your claim that the Cooper bill offers "reasonable protection for news publishers" and is necessary for fair competition, however, is disingenuous. The Cooper bill is purely a special interest bill designed to protect the newspaper industry from competition from companies like C&P. It would actually ensure that the newspapers would be the players with the "stacked decks."

The bill effectively prohibits the Bell operating companies, such as C&P, from providing electronic publishing; but does not prohibit other companies from such endeavors. Ironically, it purports to permit the Bell operating companies to offer information services other than electronic publishing, but under a new set of restrictions.

It should be noted that The Sun does not have a major newspaper competitor in its marketplace. In order to place a print advertisement to reach Baltimore area readers, I have no alternative to The Sun.

You claim that newspapers do not wish to "block new ways to speed information to the public." If that were the case, surely they would have found a way over the past decade to sell news and advertising electronically.

C&P and Bell Atlantic are willing to take the risks necessary to create a new information age -- to bring exciting new telecommunications services to the American public.

We welcome the opportunity to get out from under artificial restrictions and to bring the benefits of information-age technology to all citizens. In addition to electronic publishing, we hope to offer educational opportunities for our children, home health monitoring for the elderly and homebound, and special services for the disabled.

# John W. Dillon. Baltimore.

The writer is vice president-external affairs for C&P Telephone Company.

Roads and Bridges

Editor: One of the biggest myths circulating around Maryland this holiday season is the idea that state highway and transit capital programs have adequate funds to maintain a responsible program. Contrary to comments in Peter Jay's column of Dec. 2, here are the facts.

The Maryland Department of Transportation's draft consolidated transportation program for fiscal years 1992-97 projects capital spending of $3.2 billion. This represents a 27-percent drop in estimates compared to last year's six-year consolidated transportation program and is about the same funding level as programmed for nine years ago. Many projects committed to in the past will not be built. The department has placed 66 major transportation construction projects worth $1.7 billion on permanent hold.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.