This is in response to your editorial (Nov. 20), "Big Brother on Campus."
It is unfortunate that The Times chooses to portray Reed Irvine as a thought policeman, or disciple of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, in his efforts to discourage academic institutions from employing Marxists to educate our youth--". . . what it really wants is conformity with its own political opinions . . ." and ". . . Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia . . . are based on the assumption that there is one, and only one, politically correct way to think . . ."
Does a fundamental opposition to Communist ideology in our tax-supported and private educational systems equate to an intolerance of all other political opinions? This is reminiscent of Norman Lear's organization's opposition to Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority--i.e., it is politically acceptable for liberal-minded religious figures to speak out and march for disarmament, in favor of abortion, or for women's rights; yet when Falwell holds forth opposing views, America is suddenly in peril of losing the separation of church and state. What hypocrisy! Isn't that Lear's argument? As the Moral Majority disagrees with his political tenets it therefore must believe there is only one acceptable way to think?