Letters.

Cleaning House

In last month's "Tilting At Windmills," Charles Peters bemoans the "deadwood" in the Civil Service, which the Office of Personnel Management figured was 3.7 percent (but with an average tenure of 14 years). Even more, he laments that the "minimum-acceptable performers" are more numerous and more demoralizing.

It's also worth considering what happens to those who want to do a crackerjack job. About 25 years ago, I was working as a resident physician-in-training at a VA hospital. I remember one quiet weekend afternoon when a bag of rubbish in a utility room spilled open. The unit secretary called the janitorial service and asked for someone to come clean it up. Then I joked about it with her that it probably wouldn't be touched until time came to take the trash out next Monday. To our pleasant surprise, a janitor came promptly, and picked up, swept up, and mopped up the mess. The secretary was so impressed, she asked the man if she could put in a good word about him to his supervisor. He answered, "Please don't!"

I've puzzled about why ever since. I'm sure the janitor knew what was good for his career, and keeping his head down and not standing out was part of it. But why would an outstandingly good performance pose a risk of getting him in hot water? Would it make his supervisor look bad because everyone else in the

department wasn't doing so well? Somehow, I have the idea that this is a common, if not typical, attitude in the civil service and perhaps in any "mature" bureaucracy. Excellence makes waves; mediocrity gets you to retirement. Whoever finds a cure for this attitude deserves to be the first Charles Peters Professor of Bureaucratic Studies at a good business school. Maybe Warren Buffet will endow the chair at Mr. Peters' alma mater.

DAVID GRANT San Antonio, Texas 

Bad IDEA

I'd like to add a few words to Robert Worth's excellent article, "The Scandal of Special Education" (June 1999). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. Congress must define the word "education" and state what competencies and skills educated adults should be expected to have.

Some handicapped children are in school to prevent regression and other children to learn self-help skills. If I stay at home to toilet train my child, I am a mother. If I send my child to school to be toilet trained, it is labeled and funded as education. Keep the service but don't fund it as education.

If behavior problems are disability-related, students are protected by the stay-put rule issued by the Supreme Court. This means that suspension cannot be for more than 10 days a year. Unless the Court is petitioned and grants a restraining order, the pupil is returned. He can have abused other children, hit a teacher, and even brought a gun into the classroom. This is still another reason why Congress should change the law.

JANE GOLDBLATT East Northport, N.Y.

Still a Rose

I am delighted to inform you that the florists have not stamped out all the scented roses ("Tilting at Windmills," July/August 1999). While the professional growers are looking for "shelf life," home gardeners still aspire to fill their backyards with the sweet scent of summer. As proof that the scented rose is still alive, well, and living in California, I would refer you to Roses of Yesterday and Today, a grower in Watsonville, Calif., that is famous among gardeners for providing incredible antique roses. The company, founded in the 1930s, is now run by the third generation of the Stemler family. (However, old rose growers still think of it as Tillotson's, in memory of Will Tillotson, the owner from 1948 to 1957.) If you're interested, they recommend these very fragrant roses: Just Joey, Reine de Violettes, Rose de Rescht, Sombreuil, Zepherine Drouhin, and Cornelia.

Lots of other growers still cater to gardeners who want to fill their evening with the overpowering scent of roses in full bloom. So don't worry about the future generations being content with on-line photographs of roses. And by the way--tasty tomatoes are coming back, too.

I'm afraid I can't do much to allay your fears that scientists will breed dull people. However, I would like to point out that there's a huge movement afoot to find and preserve vintage plants and seeds. Perhaps you could help the next generation along by having some of your tongue scrapings preserved for posterity.

ELIZABETH AUSTIN Oak Park, Ill.

Loyal Enough

Of all the critiques I've come across of Stephanopoulos' book, All Too Human, yours is the first that's made me want to buy and read the book ("History vs. Loyalty," by James Fallows, June 1999).

First, any person who takes a public office (elected or appointed) serves the public first. He/she is paid by American citizens' tax dollars, not by the president. Your idea of loyalty is as twisted as that of the Democratic and Republican parties, which is the precise reason why voter turnout decreases with each election.

Second, Stephanopoulos gave his assessment to the public, the most appropriate authority. Whether one considers his book immature, Freudian, self-motivated, or disloyal to the President is irrelevant. The point is he exercised his right to free speech/free press, voicing the truth as he saw it to the public.

Third, there has been no president in my lifetime, nor years prior, that has enraged the public (including lifelong Democrats) more than President Clinton. His loyalty to Americans walks a tightrope, with many falls to the floor.

MAUREEN J. EHENSTROM Wincbendom, Mass.

Don't Tax Us

Just a quick comment about an item in your "Tilting" section in the June Monthly. The provision in the president's budget proposal was to tax investment income on all 501 (c) (6) organizations. Some of those organizations are, indeed, trade associations ... which is the point of your item. On the other hand, many professional association such as ours are also (c) (6) organizations. Our (modest) investment income does allow us to extend our efforts in professional education beyond what might otherwise be possible strictly based upon member dues, and thus we also found fault with the president's proposal.

ROBERT GRAHAM EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS Kansas City, Mo.

Just ask Bill

Sorry, I don't see any contradiction between the awards for the Good Housekeeping article on colon cancer and to Cigar Aficionado, unless there's some way to smoke cigars that I don't know about.

LEONARD MYERS via e-mail

False Bard

You are so profoundly right about so many public issues that it is reassuring now and then to see you stumble, as I believe you did in the matter of Shakespeare's identity ("Tilting at Windmills", May 1999).

The Oxfordian view that Shakespeare was and had to be a highly educated, widely traveled, stage-struck member of the Elizabethan aristocracy, writing perforce under a pseudonym, has nothing to do with the alleged class-conscious snobbery of its advocates but everything to do with three underlying circumstances:

* The astonishing absence of documentable evidence that the grain merchant/real estate promoter from Stratford ever went to school, owned a book, wrote a line, or was known to his contemporaries as a poet/playwright. All of the biographies of the Stratfordian--including the one you cite--are no more than tissues of hopeful inference and generous conjecture. Despite all the scholarly digging, the Stratfordian remains to this day, as Mark Twain described him in 1909, "... a Brontosaur: nine bones and six hundred barrels of plaster of Paris."

* The countless, stunning parallels between the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and the events, situations, and characters in the plays--together with the transparent clues the author scattered throughout his works to help make sure that others would, as Hamlet implores Horatio in his dying words, "Report me and my cause aright/To the unsatisfied."

* The culture and politics of Elizabethan England which made it unthinkable that an intimate of the Court should become known to the general public as the author of popular plays that poked fun at courtly foibles, lampooned grandees, hinted scandal, and even risked overtones of sedition in portraying the crimes and misadventures of their kingly characters.

J. ALLAN HOVEY Green Spring, W. Va.

Losing Grants

"Styron's Chance" (May 1999) perfectly encapsulates the realities faced by students financing a higher education: small grants, high debt loads, and skyrocketing tuition. Interestingly, the article fails to explore the diminishing value of the GI Bill. Although Pell grants and HOPE scholarships don't match up to the GI Bill of Styron's day, neither does the GI Bill of today. A four-year commitment to the military nets thirty-six months of payments, currently $525 per month (minus the $1200 a soldier must pay to enroll in the program). Every bit helps, and this money definitely helps with rent, food, and books. As a recent University of California graduate, however, I can attest to the modest contribution this makes to tuition payments.

The problem is that the GI Bill, modest as it is, displaces grants instead of loans. For example, by reporting the GI Bill on financial aid applications I suffered a reduction in both university and Pell grants, with no corresponding reduction in loans. In my third year I refused the Bill and my grants increased proportionally to the lost payments made under the bill.

BRIAN T. HOLMEN Williamsburg, Va.