In John Hewitt’s essay on English 200 (Monday, Nov. 12),
many points deserve examination, but two stand out.
First, he should know – had he done his research – that
with the advent of SOLs, the finer “analytical, interpretive,
and critical thinking skills” he so admires have been
minimized somewhat in high schools, relegated more to
AP courses than found in the general curriculum – and
not necessarily by choice of the schools. There is too much
teaching to the tests. Teachers know this. Students know
this. Administrators turn a nervously blind eye to this.
Is is right? No. Does it happen? Yes. That “unmotivated
students who never read and who generally have no passion
for learning will never be able to write” is a profound
observation. However, these are the very students who are
entering VCU – as well as every other college across the
country – and who must learn these same skills if they
wish to succeed in the global marketplace. Practice is
necessary, and students must learn now if they want any
hope of achieving the careers they envision.
Second, Mr. Hewitt’s definition of research is very
misleading. He should know that the research he catalogues
is “primary” research, unique to the sciences (including
medicine, sociology and economics). Students in English
200 are not doing that kind of work. Rather, they are doing
“secondary” research (and tertiary): examining sources that
are already out there and attempting to come to a new
understanding of a topic they wish to pursue – because
they wish genuinely to know more about it. They are
usually dissuaded from the three he mentions (pollution,
advertising, sexism) unless there is greater depth to the
question(s) they are asking.
Mr. Hewitt exhibits a typical use of the Internet: Google
it, then treat the results as if they were some profound
treasure trove of intellectual nuggets, holding rare delectable
worth. Many students are untrained in what it means to
research, i.e., “re-search” – look again for information
that may be out there. As a result, too many think it is
perfectly fine to just take whatever Google throws at them
and treat it as sacred writ. Doesn’t everyone? Why think
about significant questions and read serious articles and
write multiple drafts when the damage to the little gray
cells could be incalculable?
If Mr. Hewitt wanted to do some real research, he
might investigate why VCU decided to implement this
course seven years ago, rather than carp about what he
thinks it is right now. I’m sure the results would startle
him – and he could even write a paper about them for
everyone’s benefit.
Sincerely,
Stanley Kustesky
Dear Editor:
Paul Armentano asks in his letter on Thursday, Nov.
8, “Why is cannabis being withheld from patients if it has
all these positive effects?”
This question is answered with one word:
euphoria.
Believe it or not, euphoria is the only side effect
in U.S. medicine that is absolutely intolerable. Pain
medications are regularly withheld from patients
based upon worries that they might “enjoy it.”
If one listens to the warnings on any given
pharmaceutical that is advertised on morning or
evening national news programs, one finds politically
tolerable side effects that range from dry eyes or
mouth to gastrointestinal distress, including inability
to hold bowel movements until one reaches the
toilet, and even death. That’s right, death. Our old
favorite acetaminophen, better known as Tylenol,
causes big problems, according to the National
Institutes of Health: “Acetaminophen overdose is
the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers
(>100,000/year) and accounts for more than 56,000
emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and
an estimated 458 deaths due to acute liver failure
each year.”
But these advertised pharmaceuticals and OTC
pain relievers don’t deliver any euphoria, save that
of being relieved from one’s pain or other medical
condition. Unless, of course, the substance does
not kill or injure one first (read the fine print on
packaging) – for example, destroying one’s liver, in
the case of acetaminophen.
Cannabis, on the other hand, is not known to
be dangerous, except to one’s future employment
prospects. It does not kill as a direct result of its
use, nor does it cause lung cancer or brain tumors,
despite the decades of awful lies told about it in
service to the war on illegal drug users.
But it does provide a fleeting and artificial euphoria,
and for this reason alone, it must be suppressed
at every turn. It must be lied about, impugned and
mischaracterized on a consistent, unrelenting basis,
lest some sympathy for the sick and dying show.
Cannabis prohibition does not have anything
to do with health concerns. It only serves to keep
euphoria within the realm of Big Religion, which
claims it as its own exclusive territory.
Do you have some other justification that would
see Viagra advertised at dinnertime (talk about
artificial euphoria!), beer and wine existing with
impunity, and efficacious medicine withheld from
the sick and dying (such as OTC cough medicine
requiring ID with purchase limits and shared
information about purchases among local cough
medicine outlets)?
Eric Johnson
Los Angeles