David Charbonneau’s recent (March 30) letter supporting the JLS belies a common problem those wrapped up in fiction often make. Unable to differentiate between intellectual activity and stupidity, David believes that the JLS “…serve(s) as a needed alternative to smartly-dressed automatons.”

Ah, but t’were it only a matter of fashionability that discredits the JLS’s stance on current issues. Clearly, the wardrobe ensembles of that group are merely epiphenomenal of a deeper problem.

Continued support of the JLS in the name of intellectual pluralism implies that any idea is on par with another for cogent validity.

But as anyone who can tell the logical difference between a novel and a newspaper knows, there are some ideas better left in philosophy class. Which is why and how teachers of marxism and phenomenology don’t emigrate to the Soviet Union or go nuts, respectively. At least they have the humility and sense to realize the limits reality imposes on the abstract. At least on paydays.

But the JLS is in love with the abstract and routinely runs afoul of common experience. Maybe that explains why the majority of CHA residents applaud the recently heightened security requirements imposed on them while the JLS calls it a racist lockdown of oppressed minorities. I wonder how long the abstract value of freedom would last in the mind of someone getting a gun stuck up their nose by a freaked-out crack dealer come by without a visitor’s pass.

No, you won’t hear of the JLS donating time and energy to the problems of racism, homelessness or civil rights beyond fact-distorting diatribes.

You won’t see them investigating problems from both sides’ perspectives. You won’t hear any reasoned, dialectical inquiries into the nature of societal ills. What you will hear is a lot of superficial doubletalk about racist institutions, white male supremacy and the evils of capitalism.

Trouble is, while these problems exist, the JLS would rather pour gasoline on the fire(s) than remove the sources of ignition and fuel.

Problem solving is a long, frustrating, time-consuming process. It doesn’t get done with inflammatory slogans, the disruption of meetings and intellectual arrogance. But there’s no self-aggrandizing payback in organizing letter-writing campaigns to elected representatives, or donating time to a nursing home or daycare center. What’s really fun is to daydream about revolution and shout about injustice.

As a college exercise in goofing off, I applaud the JLS. But as a realistic approach to reengineering society, I would equate them with a bad horror story.

Michael T. Adams

graduate student

political science