34 / CHRONICLESnMontana to reduce the fine for speedingn(up to 75 mph) to $1.00, thusntechnically complying with the Federales’nsilly 55 mph speed limit whilenensuring that no one will be inconveniencednby it.nUnfortunately, it probably won’tnwork. The Feds are making it plainnthat they intend to cut off highwaynfunds to states that post limits andnignore them. Florida recently gotnthreatened with some proviso aboutnthe percentage of drivers who mustncomply, and the Sunshine State meeklynstarted arresting folks.nTo me, this bespeaks a serious failurenof the imagination. Regular readersnwill know that I’m not hog-wildnabout highways in the first place, butneven if we accept the need for them,nthere are alternatives to the Federalndole (better: make that Dole, after thenex-Tar Heel now in charge of DOT).nBack in the bad old days of regionalnantagonism (about 1968), for instance,nFloridians’ neighbors in Georgia outlawednstudded snow tires. The penaltynfor this insult to Georgia highways wasna $1,000 fine. Most miscreants paidnreadily enough, since the alternativenwas a year spent at repairing the damagenand at other forms of roadworknunder armed supervision.nOf course, the law was just an exaggerationnof Georgia’s ancient speedtrapntradition, directed at New Yorkersnpassing through en route to Florida;nfew Georgians felt the need for snowntires, studded or otherwise. I think thenlast Yankee who’d made it throughnGeorgia without being stopped wasnGeneral Sherman; for decades afternthat, Georgians took care that it didn’tnhappen again.nBut the law not only pandered tonunworthy xenophobic impulses, it wasnalso a potentially nice little moneymaker.nI never did hear how much itnraised in fines and unreimbursed services,nbut Florida might want to considernsomething similar, if the Departmentnof Transportation wants to getnnasty about it.nThe problem with this approach, ofncourse, is that the quarrel isn’t withnhapless Northern tourists. For starters,nthere’d have to be a blanket pardon fornMidwestern farmers: those hay shipmentsnduring the drought were downrightnneighborly. But I have an alternativento suggest.nAsk yourself How do the Federalnboys determine how fast Florida driversnare going? Of course. Floridiansnought to think about making it illegalnfor anyone but the state police tonoperate radar equipment. A few DOTnhighway engineers on Florida chainngangs would be an edifying spectacle.nEven if their fines didn’t make up fornthe Federal money cut off, it might benworth it. Sic semper tyrannis.nJohn Shelton Reed drives 55—give orntake a little—hut believes in thenFirst Amendment right to high-speednself-expression.nLetter From thenSouthwestnby Odie FaulknThe Return of Professor XnIn 1973, at the tag end of the riots andndisruptions of the late I960’s and earlyn1970’s, he ventured into print with ansmall volume entitled This BeatsnWorking for a Living: The Dark Secretsnof a College Professor. He did thisnunder the pseudonym “Professor X”nnot to hide his identity (this he readilynadmitted on national and regionalntelevision, radio interviews, and numerousnstories in newspapers). Rather,nthe pseudonym was meant to lend annair of humor to ramblings, musings,nand observations about antics in thenhigh groves of academe. The volumenwas meant as satire—humor with thenbite of truth.nThe reaction was swift, for apparentlynhe had touched an exposednnerve. Today there still are academiciansnwho explode in outraged angernwhen this book is mentioned, particularlynthose who received anonymousncopies with selected passages underlined,nthe gift of students—or colleagues.nThe following year this same authorndemonstrated his complete lack of wisdomnby repeating his folly with ansecond Professor X volume, this onenentitled Never at a Loss for an Opinion.nHe dedicated it “To my friends,nthe two I have left.”nWhat followed the publication ofnthese two books was curious. The au­nnnthor received telephone calls from andozen and more professors at variousncampuses to ask, “When did you teachnat the University of Minnesota?” ornWashington? or Texas? As Professor Xnhad written, the malaise of that erantouched every campus equally, andnthe frauds and pretensions and hypocrisynof bad professors, which he hadnestimated at 75 percent of the total,nwere not confined to the MidwesternnA&M college where he taught, butnrather were universal. His message wasnthat professors were human and thusnas subject to frailty and foible as everyonenelse but that they refused to admitnthis; instead, they huffed and puffednabout with much hypocrisy. In short,nhe said the emperor had no clothes.nYears later, he was told by the presidentnof that A&M school that whennthese books appeared, his vice presidentnfor academic affairs had said ofnProfessor X, “Let’s get rid of him. He’sna troublemaker.” In 1977, after anchange of presidents. Professor X wasnasked to resign from that institution,nwhich he did despite the tenure he hadnbeen awarded. He had maintained innthe Professor X books that tenure was ansadly abused system and that he believednanyone paying his salary had anright to ask for his resignation. Whennit was asked, he resigned, saying, “Tonhave done anything else would havenmade a lie of everything I have stoodnfor.”nAnd when his resignation was requestednby the administration, therenwas no murmur of protest from hisncolleagues or from the local chapter ofnthe American Association of UniversitynProfessors. There was only a collectivensigh of gratitude that he no longernwould disgrace their campus with hisnconservative thought and his laughternat their pretensions.nNow comes a footnote to the episodenof Professor X. The story I herenrelate was told to me by a retirednmember of the department in whichnProfessor X taught at that MidwesternnA&M college. I have no documents tonfootnote the story, only an eyewitnessnaccount, but there is an unmistakablenring of truth to it.nRecently this A&M school advertisednnationally for a director of minoritynstudies and at the conclusion of thensearch hired a black woman with anfreshly minted Ph.D. in history.n