Actually this response should be written by a political science major, but, as a lapsed political science major, I will probably do as a substitute. I am responding to David A. Hrejsa’s letter in the March 21 edition of the Star—a letter that should be an affront to all political scientists who wish to even pretend to the discipline named by that word, science.

Mr. Hrejsa, in a moment of brilliant insight, informs us, and the JLS, that the ‘60s are over. And that since they are over, the JLS should realize that “long hair is passe” and start to address the issues in a “serious and professional manner.” He accuses the JLS members of “living out an adolescent fantasy and purposely isolating themselves from the populous.”(sic) (Apparently, Mr. Hrejsa identifies himself, and everyone like him, as “the populous.”(sic))

“The 1990s are approaching quickly,” Mr. Hrejsa writes, (Yup, T-minus 285 days and counting, Dave), and that, therefore, the JLS needs to “wake up.”

Now here’s where the “science” comes in, or rather, here’s where it doesn’t come in, for Mr. Hrejsa offers no analysis of the JLS stance on any of the issues. He does not fault the bases of their grievances. He does not point out the erroneous theorizing that may underpin their actions. He does not even explain why, from a political standpoint, their tactics of demonstration and confrontational protest may be ineffective in the political climate of 1989. It is almost banally clear where Mr. Hrejsa is coming from, which group he casts his lot with. For the sake of argument, let’s call it the dress-for-success, what-you-wear-is-what-you-get set.

These people believe that what matters is what is perceived, immediately and on the surface. They are the sugar plums that dance in the heads of advertisers who dream of electric sheep, the people who will lap up whatever pablum the establishment spits out. For Mr. Hrejsa and people who think likewise, life is simple, distinctions easy, their thought predetermined by formulas of almost arithmetic elegance: long hair = foolishness, homelessness = laziness, Soviet = dangerous, etc. Not all of these people believe all of the formulas, but it is a habit of thought they live by however one fills in the variables.

I do not always agree with the methods of the JLS, or even with their political assumptions. But I do know that they engage the issues in an informed and intellectually-active manner and that they serve as a needed alternative to smartly-dressed automatons who think a person is a professional if they wear their hair “right.” (By the way, Dave, a point of style: is long hair passe for women, too, or just for the women of the JLS?) If Mr. Hrejsa thinks he can do better than the JLS, he should try to do just that: think. He might find it to be, as the soda pop people say, a refreshing change of pace.

David Charbonneau

instructor of english