Letters

From the March 1994 issue

(Page 2 of 4)

Andrew Dulaney
San Francisco, CA

Mr. Henderson replies: Mr. McAulay questions the likelihood that Nevada rancher Wayne Hage would spend five years in prison for clearing irrigation ditches on his land. At the time I wrote the story, Hage was under indictment for violations of the Clean Water Act. Feder-al prosecutors took the case very seriously indeed. Mr. Hage has been a thorn in the side of land-management bureaucrats. He is suing the federal government for seizing some 2,000 head of cattle that wandered near the edge of the unfenced boun-dary of his ranch. As long as vague, punitive laws are on the books, persons like Wayne Hage can be selectively targeted for prosecution. The National Law Jour-nal's survey of corporate general counsels underscores my arguments. Only 30 percent of the attorneys questioned believed full compliance with environmental laws is even possible. When everyone is guilty, no one is safe.

The Washington Monthly story Mr. McAulay cites takes The Wall Street Journal to task for defending Bill Ellen. I believe the Journal has unwisely portrayed Ellen as a poster child for the victims of overzealous environmentalists. Tudor Farms is a place to shoot ducks, not a wildlife preserve. And Ellen did violate the law when he let construction workers proceed in defiance of a "cease-and-desist" order. Ellen's actions, however, took place on private property and did not justify a prison term.

Here are the only factual differences between my story and The Washington Monthly's account: Author Bill Gifford says Ellen illegally authorized work three times; I cited only one violation. And Gifford says, "Ellen had filled or altered close to 1,000 acres." Gifford doesn't mention that Ellen had a permit to alter that property. Gifford apparently believes that modifying private property--even with a permit--can merit a prison term. This says something about his values.

Mr. Dulaney doesn't get the point of the analogy between environmental crimes and vices. I consider vices to be those actions that cause no harm to others but still carry criminal penalties. I do not argue that environmental laws should not exist. In most cases, however, fines or other administrative sanctions should be used to punish offenders.

"Midnight dumpers," and other persons who intentionally cause harm to others, may deserve prison terms. I did not deal with those cases, and said so early in the story. Instead, I reported about persons who faced the loss of their liberty because they violated what former Attorney General Thornburgh called "the sanctity of...the earth's environment." Sending people to jail for such offenses indeed conveys a message about values. It does nothing to protect people or their property, the traditional sphere of the criminal law.

As for Mr. Dulaney's contention that environmental crimes should be treated differently from other criminal violations because the "risk of harm is great and the consequences are often irremediable," I agree with Peter Huber--this approach borders on witchcraft.

I thank Nancie Marzulla for her comments.

Do Teachers Learn?

I didn't think anyone was ever going to notice that there isn't much research in a lot of educational "research" ("Why Johnny Can't Teach," Dec.). As a former teacher, I appreciate Jonathan Marshall's comments on Project STAR and Henry Levin's work. Why don't educators pick up on these methods? In real science, others would try to repeat the work.

Mary R. Kahn
Morgan Hill, CA

As a recent graduate of a master's degree program in education, I can identify with Jonathan Marshall's article. Learning to evaluate the quality of research was not a goal of the program in which I participated. No student was required to conduct empirical studies or to take statistics. Most teachers who cited research seemed to do so without concern for its quality, and reliable and accepted results were rare.

I was dismayed, however, to see Mr. Marshall's praise of "cooperative education." This system of learning could roughly be described as educational Marxism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In it purer forms, cooperative education involves assigning learning tasks to small groups of students with varying academic ability. The members of each group are expected to solve a problem or learn a skill and make sure all other members of the group understand the solution or skill.

In a 1990 article published in the Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Ann Robinson suggests that regular use of cooperative education exploits talented students. With regard to gifted children, Ms. Robinson criticizes the research on cooperative education for being weak and over-generalized. Robert Slavin, whom Mr. Marshall applauds, is among the researchers whose work she reviewed.

Cooperative education may be worthwhile in some settings, and its occasional use wouldn't likely be harmful. But as yet another avenue for placing the group's interests above the individual's, it should be viewed with skepticism.