Naturally, I subscribed to their publicationnto help support the new endeavor.nAfter months of editing and revision bynmail, they accepted the short story fornissue number two to be published innApril of 1988. I am still waiting fornissue number two.nBut, however disillusioning, thensmall press is still better than the alternatives:ntrying futilely to get the attentionnof a major publisher, or nevernbeing published at all.n— Jeifrey L. WatersnDes Plaines, ILnOn Peter Berger’snResponse ton’Letter From BU’nPeter L. Berger’s response (Novembern1988) to my “Letter From BU” (Septembern1988) encourages further discussionnabout the problems of higherneducation in general and BU in particular.nI wrote the piece not just because itnis an interesting testimony, but becausenit illustrates the need for greater accountabilitynin academia. Members ofnthe academic profession, irrespective ofntheir philosophical dispositions, are notnabove legitimate criticism about theirnperformance in delivering an increasinglynexpensive service.nThe fact that most Ph.D. students,nmyself included, receive fellowship aidnshould not stifle this kind of discussion.nIt is neither “monumental ingratitude”nnor “distasteful” (as Berger states) tondiscuss problems concerning those responsiblenfor administering the educationnthat is the basis for those fellowships.nStudents should demand highnstandards regardless of who pays the bill.nOn the other hand, professors may notnbe as enthusiastic for high standardsnbecause it will entail more work.nThe problem is that universities arenrelatively unaffected by the disciplinenand accountability imposed by marketnforces. Not only are most academicsnbiased and out of touch with reality, butnlarge universities, BU included, havenincreasingly come to resemble inefficientnbureaucratic socialist enclaves.nBerger’s assertion that “Americannacademia is indeed dominated by liberalismn[and that] no administration,nwhatever its ideological coloration, cannalter this within the canons of academicn6/CHRONICLESnfreedom” is defeatist. John Silber’s administrationnof BU could be facilitatednby more active support from facultynmembers committed to sound curriculumnand high standards. More could bendone within the canons of academicnfreedom at BU to alleviate liberal mediocritynif concerned faculty members,nlike Berger, became more engaged inntheir own university instead of beingnpreoccupied with their own world.nThere is certainly some truth tonAdam Smith’s observation that “thendiscipline of colleges and universities isnin general contrived, not for the benefitnof students, but for the interest, or morenproperly speaking, for the ease of thenmasters.” But the fact is that Americancan no longer afford this ease of thenmasters. Berger is well aware that liberalnarts education is largely failing in itsnbasic purpose: to train students’ criticalnfaculties for responsible citizenship andnleadership. If the future historian looksnback to explain the decline of America,nhe or she will undoubtedly find thenuniversities bearing a large portion ofnthe blame.nProfessor Berger states that it is ludicrousnfor me to suggest that I was givenna hard time for my libertarian views atnBU. Yet he was present at my dissertationndefense in April 1987 when theneconomist on the committee insistednthat I delete favorable references to thensuccess of supply-side economics. Sixnweeks later, this same economist toldnBerger’s conference on the debate betweenncapitalism and socialism that henwas impressed with comparative statisticsnon East and West Germany, Northnand South Korea, and Cuba and Caribbeanncounterparts, that demonstratednrelative equality in the economic outputnof communist and noncommunistncountries. This is the economist thatnBerger refers to as “a very distinguishednmember of the BU faculty.” It wasnmore than his bumper stickers that Indisapproved ofn— S. Steven PowellnStanford, CAnOn ‘Darwinnfor Sissies’nNo question about it: those touchyfeely,npantheistic environmentalists whonsupport human abortion should shutnnnup. But in his attack on evolutionn(December 1988) Mark D. Rentz’snslashing irony carelessly wounds bothnreason and religion itself. We shouldn’tnthrow out the condor chicks with thenbath water.nDarwin’s theory of evolution by naturalnselection in no way implies thennonexistence of God. It’s an explanationnfor why organisms change overntime. It’s the only theory we have ofnwhere different species come from, andnit’s a pretty good one.nBut Mr. Rentz protests that merennatural selection couldn’t have made anrational creature like man — instead,nGod must have. That just begs thenquestion, how did God do it? I see nonreason why He could not have usednnatural selection if He chose.nSo, Mr. Rentz asks, what’s wrongnwith stamping out condors, pandas,nand tsetse flies, if natural selection andnextinction are all part of the Plan? Tonbe a conservationist, must one be angodless, Bambi-eyed supporter ofnDukakis? Mr. Rentz overlooks thenpoint that it isn’t fitting to turn up yournnose at the irreplaceability of thenLord’s handiwork.nTo take the still longer view, Godngave man dominion and stewardshipnover His other creatures. I don’t wantnto be the one who must explain thingsnto St. Peter if we turn the world into anparking lot. Do you?n—Duncan Maxwell AndersonnNew York, NYnMr. RentznReplies:nAs I wrote in my article, I no longernbelieve in the theory, of evolution, exceptnto say I agree with C.S. Lewisnwhen he said, “It can even be arguednthat what Darwin really accounted fornwas not the origin, but the eliminationnof species.” Too much critical of Darwinismnhas been written for anyone tonsay, “It’s the only theory we have ofnwhere different species come from, andnit’s a pretty good one.”nBut the main point I was trying tonmake is simply this: a Christian is commandednto be caretaker of the earth,nincluding California condors and babynseals; the evolutionist has no similarnmandate to be his brother’s zoo keeper.n