Eleanor Iadonisi

To the editor,

My “Candy Man” and “Don Quixote” letters were meant to lampoon Leo Sandy’s lofty idealism. Many times my writing is satirical in nature and the “ad hominem” tone was meant purely tongue-in-cheek. Opinions are usually subjective and placing one’s in a public forum is consenting to the risk of scrutiny. I highly suspect the controversy brings a welcome spotlight to Professor Sandy’s column as it potentially increases his readership. I do appreciate the comments from Mr. Laudabaugh and Sandy regarding my writing ability. Thank you.

Lynn Rudmin Chong’s criticism is rather like a donkey scolding an elephant for its big ears. I gave Cervantes and got Gene Hackman. Certainly, Sandy is “widely read.” However, all information comes from the viewpoint of the source. Therefore, it must be considered suspect and flawed. Self-interest influences the “what, how, when, and why” of a presentation. Further, the “unseen” is just as important. Every person or group (and government) has an opinion which inevitably seeps into a presentation. Many times information is deliberately given from a particular viewpoint in the best light possible. Sandy is presenting a biased viewpoint, no matter how widely read he is (or unbiased he may claim to be). It is impossible for any writer not to do so.

Rudmin Chong seems to assume Sandy’s critics haven’t considered his viewpoint. (Has she applied her own advice to the abortion debate?) While the professor and I may have similar concerns (poultry “concentration camps“ excluded), we differ on solutions. To the notion of “missing” something, “there is no rational basis for the notion that by mixing a number of conflicting views you are likely to arrive at the truth. You cannot construct truth from a mass of dissonant and disparate material. You cannot "construct" truth at all: you can only "discover" it (Harry Blamires, "The Christian Mind").” As for being “stuck,” please refer to the old cliché about opinions.

There is a kaleidoscope of extremes among the left, right, and religious on the concepts of social justice and peace. One’s definition of these is based on myriad factors as class, religious and political background, and social philosophy. Moreover, a definition is difficult arrive at and even harder to achieve. The concepts of “equal” and “fair” are questionable. If the ideal is to unite the world globally under a single, panoptic state governed by the UN, then whose moral compass is to be followed? Tossing in a “liberal” dose of moral relativity, why is a “Sandy” compass any better than another?

Lastly, intellectual and academic freedom are wanting in some Plymouth class rooms. Tutors professing to be broad-minded tend to marginalize and exhibit a bias against heterodox thinkers. While claiming tolerance and diversity, it’s more of a type, as described by Harry Reid, “where no one looks the same and no one ever thinks differently.” There is little “diversity” of opinion on most college campuses; left is orthodox. If the goal of “liberal” education is to question and find one’s own voice, then mine was indeed successful. The left drove me right.

Eleanor Iadonisi

Laconia