
In the above photograph, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt is speaking at the Ethical Culture Center in New York City in 1945. Martha is seated to the right of Eleanor in the first row. She is wearing a white hairwrap.
February 1980
To the Editor:
I feel that both the title and the contents of Murray Friedman's article serve more to intensify group fears than to foster constructive intelligence among readers who consult COMMENTARY for the clarification of issues.
Further, I question Mr. Friedman's cursory presentation of poll data showing bad marks given to one group by another and presenting the suspicions and negative opinions of one group about the other at a time when intergroup tensions are most sensitive.
It is axiomatic that fears can be generated and hate aroused simply by publicizing the negative remarks of authority figures. Even apart from the conflicts arising from the Andrew Young-PLO issue, black and Jewish leaders have been involved in a controversy over domestic goals. The two groups, each with a different ethnic history, disagree about the means by which affirmative action should be translated into more jobs and educational opportunities for blacks (without sacrificing the principle of merit in the workplace). Jewish spokesmen who have vociferously supported the protection of constitutional prohibitions against discrimination have been accused by black leaders of undermining the cause of affirmative action.
While genuine controversy exists among special-interest groups, it is my view that the media, in reporting the painful past and dwelling on demagoguery and bigotry, interfere with contributions by responsible agencies toward the resolution of America's pluralistic dilemmas.
Martha S. Cherkis
Brooklyn, New York
April 1981
To the Editor:
In his brilliant article, William J. Bennett somewhat dampens my optimism about the latest approaches to ethics instruction. . . .
It had been my understanding that beyond providing a background in the ethics of Western civilization, the new values-clarification classes were conceived to crystallize ethical awareness during secondary educational years so as to awaken students earlier to their partnership in shaping personal attitudes and individual pursuits.
Through such rousing exercises, I imagined the possibility of generations of individuals becoming more aware of their rights to moral choices and creative initiatives as they emerged from the age of innocence. I envisioned students made alert to positive and negative values transmitted to them during formative years in family and cultural environments. The new texts promised to be an improvement over the scholasticism that dominated the teaching of ethics and logic when I was a student in the 1940's.
Perhaps I am less distressed with educators who fear “moral indoctrination,” however, because I see a possibility that while trying so hard not to influence moral behavior, they may be impelled as well to abandon a dogmatic style of teaching. Rather than project a teacher-preacher stance, they may take on the educator-facilitator mandate that will encourage students to engage more freely in controversy and expose conflicts of conscience that may be interfering with their moral awareness.
Further, I entertain the possibility that, with mankind's ethical and moral heritage taken out of the realm of vague and theoretical concepts, students may be energized to put their own values to work in comprehending and dealing with the crises of their life and times.
Martha S. Cherkis
New York City