History Review
Bill Kirtz's last column ["N.U.'s Space Program,"
Talk of the Gown, January] contains both incorrect and unsubstantiated
information. The history department is not "research-unintensive,"
as Kirtz says. In the last ten years, members of the department have published
twenty-six books and numerous other scholarly works. Our citation rate
and outside funding level are also quite high by the standards of history
departments nationally or by the standards of social science and humanities
departments at Northeastern. Professor Kirtz could have found this information
on the Web without even leaving his desk. I wonder if he even uses the
Internet, since the university directory lists neither an e-mail address
nor a Web page for him.
Furthermore, professor Gerald Herman does not
have an office in Churchill Hall. The story also contains two anecdotes
about office space which are missing the customary journalistic accouterments
of name, place, date, and source. Are those anecdotes just folklore?
Clay McShane
Meserve Hall
McShane is a professor of history.
Natural Blunders
My main criticism of Jonathan Taylor's review
of Nature's Bounty: Historical and
Modern Environmental Perspectives [Books] in
the March 2000 issue is his failure to acknowledge that I wrote this book
with the expectation that readers would begin to comprehend the deep-seated
values held by the mainstream of seventeenth-century European settlers
and the generations of Americans who followed them to dominate and control
nature in what they perceived as a "new world." This conquest
mentality expressed itself historically in many understandable yet destructive
and capricious ways. One vivid expression of this destructive impulse was
the wanton violation of wildlife species and their habitat. For many species,
cutting old-growth woodlands and market hunting for pelts, furs, plumage,
and feathers, as well as enriching the diets of settlers, townfolk, and
city dwellers, meant extinction or endangerment.
The point of this and other equally descriptive
historical narratives about the ways in which human action transformed
nature, often to the detriment of an unknowing public, is the most important
analytical construction used in Nature's Bounty. Unintended consequences
in the form of changing weather patterns, soil erosion, unpredictable floods,
biting winter winds, and scorching summer heat became regular occurrences
because the former natural barriers to these extreme conditions had been
destroyed or altered in important ways. In the modern era, cities became
the "heat islands" that every resident experiences, primarily
because asphalt paving, heat-absorbing roofing materials, and heat exchanges
in the form of air-conditioning units create an "unnatural" environment
for humans.
Much of the above Taylor captures in his thoughtful
review. But criticism for what he regards as faulty analysis misses the
mark in my view. For example, he reads environmental awareness into nineteenth-century
household construction, imposing present attitudes and values to past behaviors
and practices, where there was none. Household construction changed primarily
because the price of lumber increased as logging companies and lumber merchants
had to reach further inland for a source of supply. Changing economic conditions
motivated the change, not environmental efficiencies. The distinction is
important because once economic conditions became more favorable, the inefficiencies
returned. The SUV motor vehicle phenomenon of the 1990s is a recent case
in point, motivated primarily by economic considerations, namely cheap
fuel prices.
As Taylor correctly points out, Nature's Bounty
contains material and documents by public officials, scientists, and citizens
deploring the wasteful practices of individuals, businesses, and government.
I was frankly amazed how so many of their warnings and predictions agreed
with our own current knowledge of the ecological effects of environmental
overexploitation. Yet there was little public awareness;
legislative efforts to curtail excessive cutting
of forests, hunting of wildlife, polluting of streams, rivers, and lakes,
and fouling of the air we breathe went unheeded. Local and state laws simply
could not be uniformly enforced.
Cutting continued on public land, hunting regulations
(including bag limits and off-season prohibitions) were violated and ignored,
and there was neither the enforcement capacity nor the "national will"
to do much about the violations and the violators during much of our country's
history. Taylor's question about legislators having the tools to enforce
and regulate implies the existence of a modern government with expansive
powers. Government at all levels during much of our history was severely
limited. Compared with the reach of government today, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
regulations were more dependent on goodwill than policing power. "Men
on the make," not preservationists, conservationists, or legislators,
made decisions at all levels; the momentum to develop the land and the
incentives to make money ruled in private life as well as in public affairs.
Not a citizenry conscious about overuse and overconsumption, as Taylor
implies by his criticism.
Anthony Penna
Meserve Hall
Penna is a professor of history.
Sports Naught
Referencing letters
concerning N.U. athletic rankings [January],
or lack thereof: No big deal! Northeastern should continue to provide students
with an education combined with the work experience. N.U. is unique in
this type of education and does not need big, expensive athletic programs
to be an outstanding college. At one time during the '50s, the school was
going to drop all major sports. It should have done so then. The goal was
to provide facilities for all students to use and enjoy. When my brother
and I attended N.U. in the '50s, we had class/club teams that played games
and we worked out during our lunch hour in the gym.
Reading the latest reports and figures, I see
N.U. is accepting freshmen from a very large number of applicants. It should
be obvious from the record that these kids are not attempting to go to
N.U. for the big sports name. N.U. has never had a problem in getting quality
students. N.U.'s problem, along with other colleges, is keeping costs to
students down and affording top professors and facilities. They don't need
to waste money on big sports and jocks; spend it on facilities, research,
professors, co-op, etc. Hiring a big-name football coach will not produce
a top-ten team. It takes millions of dollars to pay for large staffs, tutors,
equipment, practice facilities, full scholarships, and make-work jobs.
N.U. does not need teams that rank for school
spirit. School spirit is and has not been lacking at N.U. Neither my dad,
brother, nor I at N.U. ever attended a big sports game; we didn't have
the time, as we were studying and on co-op. We have all done well in our
lives. When I travel back to N.U., I visit the school to see the fine facilities
and students.
N.U. needs to continue to educate people with
work experience and let the jocks go elsewhere. There are plenty of colleges
for them, and they can grow up to be the Dennis Rodmans and drug users
of professional sports. Keep the money and effort going to produce useful
citizens and leaders for our country. Many of New England's quality colleges
have dropped the big sports. What is MIT's football ranking?
Bradford Craig, E'61
Crowley, Texas
We welcome your letters and reserve the right to edit them for space
and clarity. Send them to: Letters to the Editor, Northeastern University
Magazine, 360 Huntington Avenue, 598CP, Boston, MA 02115. Fax: 617-373-5430.
Click here to e-mail letters now.
Return
to top of page