Shakespeare alive and well in college

On Sept. 28, the Review-Journal ran a piece by conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly lamenting a terrible crisis: She claims that Shakespeare has “disappeared” from most English departments at U.S. universities. Ms. Schlafly goes on to name some 18 allegedly misguided universities. I decided to spot-check the online course catalogs of three of them: Vanderbilt, Columbia and Swarthmore.

Here’s the play-by-play: The leadoff hitter is Vanderbilt, offering two undergraduate courses and a graduate seminar on Shakespeare. Strike one on Schlafly. Next at bat is Columbia. They offer four different courses on Shakespeare. Strike two. Batting cleanup is Swarthmore, which offers two Shakespeare courses this fall semester. Strike three, you’re out.

For the sake of completeness I checked out UNLV, which turns out to offer three different courses in Shakespeare this fall semester. Nobody gets a fourth strike.

Ms. Schlafly’s broader accusation is that, “Current works promoting multiculturalism written by women and minorities replaced the classics of Western civilization written by the DWEM, Dead White European Males.” Ms. Schlafly particularly decried a course at Columbia on “Promiscuity and the Novel.” In the course description, the possible writers to be studied included Daniel DeFoe, Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Charles Dickens, Charles Flaubert, Emile Zola, Thomas Hardy, and Marcel Proust, a familiar and indeed conventional list of writers. All DWEM, except for Austen and Bronte (DWEW).

Works by women and minorities have supplemented the classics but have not replaced them. Dead White European writers (men and women) are very much alive in the English course catalogs of U.S. colleges and universities.

Ms. Schafly’s piece was headlined: “Guilt-ridden, PC professors don’t teach classics anymore” and “Where Art Thou, William Shakespeare?” The first statement is dead wrong. And for the last question, “Where Art Thou, William Shakespeare?” the simple answer is that Shakespeare is in the university curriculum, where he and other DWEMs have been for a century.

John W. Farley

HENDERSON

Driving rules

To the editor:

There are two common opinions on freedom. Some feel they are free to do what they want. Others recognize that their freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Only one group has it right.

There are three common opinions on responsibility. Some feel they have no responsibility for their actions. These people typically end up in jail. Others feel they are responsible only for themselves. The rest believe they are responsible for themselves and how their choices affect others. Only one group has it right.

The answer can be found in the Golden Rule: treat others the way you would like them to treat you.

It’s very easy to identify the people who don’t follow this rule on our roads. The tailgaters, red-light runners, lane-shifters and overall predatory drivers believe it is their right to drive that way. They don’t feel any responsibility toward the safety of their fellow commuters. They are the reason we pay outrageous insurance rates. They are the reason for major backups on our highways.

Any primate can push down on a gas pedal. Only those of us that have evolved can drive with intelligence.

TRAVIS BOWKER

LAS VEGAS

Neff crusade

To the editor:

I’m sure many Review-Journal readers are as tired as I am of Erin Neff’s crusade against Rep. Jon Porter. In her Sunday column, Ms. Neff was clearly upset that Rep. Porter voted for the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program because now she couldn’t attack him for voting against it. She is so obviously gearing up to support his opponent in 2008 that she has lost all credible perspective.

From trashing the congressman personally to baseless attacks on his policies, I would suggest that Ms. Neff rein in her anger and try to focus on issues that actually affect the lives of our families.

DAVID GIBBS

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Harry vs. Rush

To the editor:

At last, our own Sen. Harry Reid has the chance of a lifetime. After his Senate floor explanation of Rush Limbaugh’s horrible attacks on the U.S. military, Sen. Reid has been asked to now go on Mr. Limbaugh’s radio show and face him man to man in front of 20 million listeners instead of the few thousand who watch C-SPAN. They can play the tapes of what Mr. Limbaugh actually said about a “phony soldier” and expose him once and for all for the military denigrator that he is.

I can only think of one possibility why Sen. Reid would not jump at this opportunity.

Bill Olson

LAS VEGAS