While it is nice to see that CAUT still upholds family values and allows the president's relatives to write feature columns ("Whither Jill?", April, p. 6), one ought not for that reason to neglect some of the other standards of yesteryear.

Example 1: The standard of accuracy. The accusations brought against Prof. Irvine should be made to correspond to things he has said.

Example 2: The standard of coherency. Readers would be interested to know the meaning of enigmas like "Professor Irvine remains silent on his answer to this moral question." How does he manage these silent answers?

One’s curiosity is also piqued by the cryptic claim that "the idea of publish or perish may not be attractive to anyone, man or woman, who wants to ... write lots of words." One understands, of course, how perishing could be unattractive even to men. But as long as it remains possible to publish instead and one desires to ‘write lots of words’, it is difficult to justify that heightened presentiment of danger that the author clearly means to arouse.

The above examples bring me to my main point. Given the manifest will of CAUT to support affirmative action I think the editors should offer Mrs. Bruneau a regular column. This would have the dual advantage of leading the readers into a deeper understanding of her ideas for university reform and aiding her in her upward struggle for literacy.

Graeme Hunter
Philosophy, University of Ottawa

CAUT does not vet articles or research from outside contributors, assuming academic integrity. Professor Andrew Irvine has been offered space to write a rebutal. - ed.