Letters

Who's sexist now?
Editor: I read with some interest the column by Charles N. Wheeler III, appearing in April (see Illinois Issues, page 6), and entitled "Netsch vs. Edgar promises airing on taxes, education."

In the final paragraph Mr. Wheeler states, "One important unknown is the extent to which the Democrats' all-female team of Netsch and her running mate, state Sen. Penny Severns of Decatur, will pull crossover votes from Republican women, or lose the votes of Democratic chauvinists."

I wonder, Mr. Wheeler, whether you consider as sexist Republican women who would vote for Netsch/Severns simply because they are female. From your statement, it appears you believe that a gender-based vote cast in favor of Netsch/Severns, and therefore against Edgar because he is a male, is not sexist. Dale A. Righter Mattoon

Higher education not for everybody
Editor. I just read the May issue, and I find that I must make a few comments about the article entitled "Finding a way to pay for college" (see page 24).

First, we must face up to the fact that higher education is not for all people. Fifty percent of all high school students do not go to college (not interested, no financial support, perhaps other plans, marriage, must work, etc.). Of the 50 percent who attend college only around 25 percent actually graduate. Thus, only one out of nine Americans secure/earn a degree. Perhaps we should be more realistic and begin to look at the 80 to 90 percent who do not graduate from college. This tells me that we should spend more time in developing and encouraging the success of trade/technical/skill-based, short-term training/education programs and businesses. I am not attempting to be a Jeffersonian; however, I am realistic and practical. Society needs good auto mechanics, heating and air conditioning technicians, house repair people, garbage haulers, grocery store personnel, gas station service people, road workers, house painters, etc. There are thousands of jobs that do not require expensive college-university seats now available. What we need is to keep the best of our excellent community colleges and colleges and universities, close down the few that do not need to exist, and expand our trade/technical/skill-based businesses and education programs.

For Illinois to continue to talk about higher education only (95 percent of all education articles in newspapers today) is poor thinking. Let's get real. We do not have sufficient jobs for thousands and thousands of additional college-educated people. We need to supply people who can earn a living in service-based and technical fields. Americans have been somewhat proselytized (by teachers, the press, a few high-paid people in the community, and the good old American dream) to believe that college education is the answer to success and wealth.

Illinois should be talking about vocational-technical education at the same level as college-university education. In addition, the federal guidelines that indicate that a family with an income of $60,000 can afford to pay the entire cost of attending ISU, listed at $7,700, might not be a realistic assumption. I could make a number of personal comments about this assumption; however, I must state that careful and long planning on the part of the family is necessary to pay the $7,700 cost at ISU. Many families will never have the necessary dollars (and the state can no longer afford to pay the dollars that the family does not have available). Many families are poor. Vocational-technical, short-term alternative training and education is a big answer to the problem of lack of educational dollars. We must face facts and taxpayers' resistance to increased taxation for support of higher education and state government spending.

I do not believe in universal higher education. I do not believe in paying taxes to support all who wish for the American dream (a college-university education and three automobiles). I will pay for my children to attend college, if they have the grades, intelligence, interest, desire, need and test scores that indicate they will be successful. And I believe that my children should compete with the best and the brightest for a seat in higher education. I believe that I must pay my own way through higher education, even if I must go in debt before it is all completed. For thousands of people to believe that they have a basic right to a paid college-university degree is fallacious logic. The state of Illinois cannot afford the high cost of higher education for all people. It just will not happen! Priorities must be established and alternative opportunities must be provided.

I would sincerely like to see a companion article in some future edition of Illinois Issues on alternatives to the higher education dream!

Jerry Metzger Springfield

Term limits restore value of ballot
Editor: In your June issue (see page 6), Charles N. Wheeler III did a reasonable job of discussing the conventional objections to the introduction of term limits for our elected legislators. Not one of those objections, even if valid, can stand alone as justification for resisting the imposition of term limits, and Mr. Wheeler failed to comment on my favorite reason for supporting them — restoration of the value of my ballot.

Mr. Wheeler laments the loss of "institutional memory" should limits be imposed. I suggest that "institutional memory" can just as easily be negative as positive and that its loss would be a wash in terms of total effect. I am more aware of instances in which unexpected or enforced loss of "institutional memory" caused or allowed the institution to address significant structural problems previously ignored or covered up. The prolonged existence of "institutional memory" had acted as a crutch for those who preferred not to face the changes necessary for improvement. Our state and national legislatures are now leaning heavily on that crutch.

Mr. Wheeler notes that lame duck legislators would face greater temptation from special interests than those who still had hope of victory at the next election. That is certainly true for legislators whose votes were motivated by that kind of thing while serving in office. I see no reason to presume that the otherwise pure-in-heart (to the extent such exists) lame duck legislator would become any more bent by term limits than is now the case...

Neither Mr. Wheeler nor Mr; Quinn addressed what I consider to be the overriding reason to support term limits: enhancement to the value of my ballot. Today I can vote to throw my rascal out or work to convince my representative of the wisdom of a position only to find that my action was for naught. When said representative gets to Springfield, he or she hasn't a prayer of being heard through the seniority-laden committee hierarchy. Those voters in other districts who have chosen to tolerate their rascals for extended incumbencies have the power to thwart my interests for as long as they wish, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. So much for one man, one vote representative democracy. With term limits, I could at least look forward to the possibility of a hearing every eight to 12 years. Earl Gates Decatur 

4/August 1994/Illinois Issues