Letters to the editor

OPINION:

The ALA and Castro

Readers of the The Washington Times who read Nat Hentoff’s recent article criticizing the American Library Association (ALA) should know that, contrary to Mr. Hentoff’s statements, ALA did respond to the arrest and jailing of 75 dissidents in Cuba in 2003 (“Kowtowing to Castro,” Op-Ed, Monday).

ALA is a democratic organization whose 65,000 members elect a 183-member council from the wide spectrum of librarianship to represent them to make policy for the association.

In 2004, ALA joined the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) that speaks for library associations around the world in expressing its deep concern over the arrest and imprisonment of these dissidents. For ALA and IFLA statements, please visit https://www.ala.org/ala/iro/iroactivities/alacubanlibraries.htm.

Mr. Hentoff has lauded IFLA’s statements on this issue but seems to have a problem when ALA takes a similar stance.

MICHAEL DOWLING

Director

ALA International Relations Office

Chicago

Dubious defense analysis

Peter Huessy’s “Back to the 1930s” (Op-Ed, Monday), criticizes Congress for reducing funding for the Airborne Laser (ABL), and for the missile defense site and radar in central Europe. Mr. Huessy suggests that the failure to deploy the ABL and other critically needed missile defense elements could have a profound effect on world events.

If his assessment of the value of these elements were accurate, we would be the first to agree with him. We have been active participants and proponents involved in the development of missile defense activities since before President Reagan initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative program that led to the possibilities now described by Mr. Huessy.

We are concerned, however, that the claims in Mr. Huessy’s editorial present only part of a far more complex situation. Even Lt. Gen. Henry A. “Trey” Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency, has admitted that deployment of ABL may not be operationally affordable. Providing sufficient aircraft to keep a yet unspecified number permanently on station is unlikely to provide an economic way of achieving deterrence or an effective defense.

It is equally important to point out that the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) proposed for the European site, is as yet an unproved missile in the early stages of development. We recall proponents of the Theatre High Altitude Area Defense missile (THAAD) proposing its early deployment in 1996, yet it is only now close to being ready for deployment 11 years later than originally planned.

Confirming the military effectiveness of advanced concepts is time-consuming and expensive, but it is premature to make claims about the importance of rushing these items into production before demonstrating they are able to meet their design criteria.

In an earlier op-ed on May 28 (“Nuclear fantasies”), Mr. Huessy expressed concern that critics of the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program were undermining the future of U.S. deterrent capabilities. In a letter on June 1 (“Explaining deterrence”), we pointed out that Mr. Huessy appeared to be jumping ahead of a full assessment of the role such a new warhead would play in national security.

Readers deserve balanced op-ed pieces on defense issues in the future. By all means, support the development and deployment of advanced capabilities that hopefully will provide U.S. forces with first-class offensive and defensive capabilities, but let us also have a balanced view of the status of progress.

At this stage it is unfair to criticize Congress for exercising its proper role of ensuring that our tax dollars are expended cost-effectively. When genuine, realistic tests demonstrate that a capability has indeed been achieved, we shall be the first to applaud and support the arrival of an operational missile defense system.

STANLEY ORMAN

Rockville

MAJ. GEN. EUGENE FOX

Army (Retired)

McLean

Reducing achievement gaps

The study by economists Derek A. Neal and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach reinforces previous research showing that high-stakes tests, such as required by the No Child Left Behind act, lead some teachers to give up on the most-challenged students (“Leaving children behind again,” Commentary, Friday). However, the “triage model” (dividing the student achievers into the highest 10 percent, lowest 20 percent and middle 80 percent) can be improved.

It is more likely that teachers divide students into four groups based upon assumptions about their expected performance on the test:

1) Students who won’t meet the minimal cut point for the test;

2) Students who will score slightly above or slightly below the cut point;

3) Students who are or will be eligible for gifted classes; and

4) Students who will score comfortably above the cut point but are not or will not be eligible for gifted classes.

Would it not make the most sense for teachers to concentrate on the second group? If so, students in groups one and four will suffer. Some have called this latter group “the forgotten middle.” The ramifications for the latter group are particularly problematic; they may drop out or at best not even try for advanced-placement courses.

Standards are not set too high. Most states’ test-cut scores barely reflect grade-level knowledge or skills. Moreover, Karin Chenoweth’s book “It’s Being Done” reports on 15 schools with low-income, high-minority student populations that have closed or significantly reduced achievement gaps. One of the attributes common to these schools (none of which were magnet or charter) was teaching “increasingly complex and sophisticated material, aiming their students to exceed state standards.”

JOHN SULLIVAN

Arlington

Flawed House, Senate energy bills

Ben Lieberman is right: Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will benefit if the Senate-passed energy bill or the pending House bill become law (“Untapped oil supplies,” Commentary, Sunday). And not only OPEC Congress apparently wants to give a competitive advantage to all foreign oil companies.

As Mr. Lieberman said, both bills continue to block access to billions of barrels of domestic oil placed off-limits by government rules. Because U.S. companies are denied access here, they drill overseas more than might be the case otherwise.

U.S. companies pay income taxes to countries where they earn profits. Under U.S. law, they deduct those payments from U.S. income taxes (as you and I would if we lived here but worked in Canada or elsewhere). Both Senate and House bills would repeal U.S. tax-law provisions that allow the oil companies to deduct foreign income-tax payments; you and I can still work in Canada without being penalized.

U.S. oil companies pay more than $50 billion per year in U.S. income taxes; they collect and pay another $50-plus billion in fuel taxes to federal, state and local governments. Congress keeps talking about energy independence and moving in the opposite direction. By double-taxing U.S. companies (ignoring foreign tax payments for U.S. tax purposes), Congress would hand an enormous economic advantage to all foreign competitors (OPEC national companies, Venezuela’s Citgo, the Chinese National Offshore Oil Co., BP and many others). Our elected representatives remain consistent and misguided.

JOHN L. RAFUSE

Principal

Rafuse Organization

Alexandria