THE PUBLIC MIND: READER RESPONDS TO CRITICISM OF `GREAT BOOK' PROGRAM

Dear Editor:

I rarely feel compelled to writer letters to the editor of a newspaper, but Peter Kinder's invidious article of Sept. 25, 1991 demands a response. Mr. Kinder appeared to be incensed that a professor at Southeast Missouri State University had received a small grant to establish a book discussion group; his article was titled "Are Great Books or Indoctrination?" The title, and the article itself, indicate to me that Mr. Kinder has failed to understand the issue involved.

As previously reported in the Southeast Missourian, the discussion group is precisely that. Participation is voluntary; this is not a required course. Participants are free to form their own opinions of any book discussed in this group; discussion may even include pointing out flaws, errors, and inconsistencies within the book being examined. No one is required to agree with any point of view that is expressed, nor with perspective of the author. Indoctrination, by definition, implies an involuntary acceptance of a particular perspective; that is by no means the purpose of this discussion group.

Mr. Kinder takes issue with the books that have been chosen for the group to discuss; he appears to be offended by the fact that they are called "great." Again, we seem to see a failure to understand the meaning of the term "great" can be legitimately used as an adjective to describe a book that had an impact upon its readers or upon society in general; it does not necessarily imply that the impact was positive or negative. The developer of the group entitled it "Great Books that Made a Difference." The books proposed for discussion have had a significant impact on society, and therefore deserve discussion; whether that impact was good or bad is open to debate in a free society. Mr. Kinder suggests a list of "great" books that he would prefer to have discussed, all of which are written from a conservative political perspective. The exclusive use of books such as these suggests an attempt at indoctrination; Mr. Kinder appears to think that indoctrination, as long as it involves the perspective he favors, is appropriate.

Finally, Mr. Kinder implies that the recent upheavals in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are the direct result of former President Reagan's philosophy and efforts, but provides no evidence to support that viewpoint. This view is an oversimplification of vast proportions, and it denigrates the efforts and sacrifices of those who are actually living the revolution.

In short, Mr. Kinder implies that free and open discussion of books should be permitted only if the "right" books are chosen. I only hope that our American tradition of free thought is strong enough to survive critics such as Mr. Kinder.

Sincerely,

Leslee K. Pollina

Cape Girardeau