left our board because of his advocacy,nin a paper circulated at a conference onnurban crime at Long Island Universitynlast spring, of public policies involvingnthe disparate treatment of individualsnbased on race. Among other things, hensuggested that separate subway cars benset aside for male black students travelingnto and from New York City’s publicnschools.nThe NAS takes no position withnrespect to disputes in demography or,nfor that matter, with respect to those innmost other areas of scholariy controversy.nWe do, however, have strong principlednconvictions that inform our viewsnabout academic policy, one of which isnthat individuals should be treated on thenbasis of personal merit rather than ancestry.nTo ensure that there could be nonconfusion about our continued adherencento this principle (now so routinelynflouted in the academy), we requestednProfessor Levin’s resignation from ournboard.nI should note, in addition, that ournlegitimate concern for maintaining thenintegrity of the NAS’s principles doesnnot affect our commitment to defendnthe academic freedom of those whonmay differ with them.n— Stephen H. BalchnPresident and Executive Director,nNational Association of ScholarsnPrinceton, NJnOn ‘Restoring IslandnPark’nSuppose the proposal set forth by Johnnand Ramona Baden and Ron Coopern(February 1991) to put Island Parknunder an “Ecological EndowmentnBoard” is implemented in a way “carefullyndesigned to avoid incentives thatngive rise to [the profit motive].” Whatndoes that imply about the remainingn195 million acres of National Forestnland? That it be parceled out to hundredsnof “Ecological Boards,” eachn”carefully designed” to restore somenvague “ecological heritage”? Does onenhave any doubt that such a systemnwould evolve finally into a decentralizednbureaucracy that would still bensupported by taxes and would be evennless efficient than the present one?nRestoring ecological heritage cannotnbe regarded as a logical managementngoal for any piece of land, and outlaw­ning the profit motive entirely is annalmost certain program for eventualnresource devaluation. It is the profit thatnland generates under management thatnguarantees value and stability of thenresource. No matter how noble thengoals, profit and loss computations cannotnbe forever avoided. The point thesencritics glide over is that resource-usengoals can be cleady defined and systematicallynapproached, while maximizingn”the restoration of ecological heritage”nremains forever vague andnprobably unattainable. The latter is notna goal in itself but only a vague andninadequate criterion for choosing goals.nThe program offered by the Badensnand Mr. Cooper is further weakened byntheir misleading analysis of the problemsnin Island Park. All wildlife managersnI know will list cutover land as betternungulate habitat than full forest covern(particularly coniferous cover that promotesnvery little forage near thenground). If there are more elk in Yellowstonenthan in Island Park, can it notnbe that hunting has long been preventednin the National Park and permittednin the National Forest? Furthermore,nthere is no experimental evidence thatncutting trees above trout streamsndamages the sport fishery (most of thenmarvelous trout and salmon streams ofnthe British Isles run through open sheepnpasture). To be sure, bad roading andnsite preparation for planting can damagentrout habitat, but the authors make nonmention of this fact, preferring to ridenthe tired old anti-clearcutting hobbyhorse.nThe authors ignore the justificationnfor the clearcutting in Island Park,nnamely a bark beetle infestation ofnunprecedented scope and intensity.nThe Forest Service was surely justifiednin salvaging dead and infected timber,nnot only to utilize as much of the dyingnmaterial as possible but to dampen thenextreme fire hazards that miles of contiguousndead conifers posed to the propertiesnnearby (among these, YellowstonenPark).n— John D. HewlettnAthens, GAnOn ‘Letter From Paris’nCurtis Cate makes some interestingnobservations in the March issue, butnwhen he disserts on railroads he tends tonderail.nnnPassenger service was the bane ofnvirtually all American railroading, innthe old days accepted and subsidizednby the various companies as a matter ofnpride, a showcase, a standard bearer fornthe system. Those days are with thensnows of yesteryear; now it’s all dollars,ndemographics, and dullness. Butnwhere we do have the population Amtrakndoes far better than “shake andnrattle uncontrollably as the speed approachesn80.” Service at 125 mph is ancommonplace on most of the 227nmiles between Washington and NewnYork, and I’ve never had a drink sonmuch as slosh a drop onto the parlorncar seat-tray.nThe TGVs that dash across Francenare a technological marvel, but thenpoint must be made that the TGVnlines on which the high speeds arenattained are dedicated to the TGVnsolely. Where, between New York andnWashington (and Boston, if we discussnthe entire Northeast Corridor), could anuseful right-of-way possibly be found?nOr purchased? Or even condemned?nEmotionally, I agree with Mr. Cate.nEvery time I ride SNCF (or DeutschenBundesbahn, for that matter) I firidnmyself wishing I could whip down tonNew Orleans from home with suchnspeed and comfort — until realityncatches me up: French National railways,nGerman Federal Railway, governmentnoperations since 1938 andn1920, respectively. And because ofncertain well-known demolition activitiesnin the mid-1940’s, France (andnmost of Western Europe) has a dazzlinglynmodern rail system even withoutnthe TGV; nothing like starting offnfresh.nAs corridors develop in this country,nsomething like the present British 125mphndiesel-electric train sets, whichnoperate quite successfully on existingnrail lines, will find a market. But thisnwill not occur without a fight; it’s onenthing to tax a homogeneous nationnsuch as France for TCV lines, but we’llnhave to fight to get the citizens of EastnGulch, Montana, to pay for Boston-nWashington playtoys. The more onenlooks, the more one realizes thatnthere’s not a lot that the rail systems ofnAmerica and Europe have in common,nexcepting the track gauge. (Sigh.)n— Robert /. PowersnShreveport, LAnJUNE 1991/5n