JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
To the Editor: In your February, 1948, issue (p. 115) V. A. Kalichevsky tells us that the survival of civilization depends on our developing men who are not narrow specialists but who are capable of broad, coordinating efforts. He then proceeds to raise a number of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions which have as their goal the promulgation of an antidemocratic theory that educatiou should be denied to all but an elite stratum of society. Questions about the utility and effectiveness of our educational system arevery much in order a t the present time, but Mr. Kalichevsky's attack from the standpoint of returning to 18th century practices of exclusiveuess, less education, and more child labor is hardly designed to remedy the evils of the present system. The leading nature of his questions is obvious when he asks, "Should taxpayers be bled for the support of students with limited capabilities?" The answer to this question is, obviously, "No." But what has it to do with reality? Are the taxpayers really being bled for education? The total expenditure.by all agencies in this country for the educatiou of all students (includmg those with "unlimited" capabilities) is about 20 per cent of the armament budget and less than 2 per cent of total national income. The poor, bleeding taxpayer might better look elsewhere for relief.
Again, he inquires, "Is the overproduction of educated classes an asset to the country?" Is there, indeed, an overproduction of educated classes? Or is the sad truth that too few of us have an adequate education? Mr. Kalichevsky seems to fear that the lower income classes will become dissatisfied with their position in life if they become educated when he asks, "Does the educational level interfere with the type of work which a person expects to do in the future?" "Are educational institutions in a position to weed out the less capable studeuts. . . ?" Should the less capable students be weeded out ruthlessly or should they receive an education more adapted to their needs? Do not the less talented among us need and deserve assistance more than do the more fortunate? And does not the continued existence of democracy depend on educating all of us for good citizenship? Space does not permit me to point out the similar fallacies in the rest of the questions. In conclusion, I must reluctantly judge from his undemocratic a& titude and his inability to come to grips with the real problems of educatiou and society that Mr. Kalichevsky is one of those same narrow specialists whom he has found wanting for being "unfamiliar with the basic problems involved in handling people." RALPH SPITZER
