In response to a letter Professor Sternberg wrote to The News, I questioned the felicity of the faculty buying out their teaching and other duties with grants obtained from third parties, in exchange for services provided to such third parties.

In the instant case, the funding is granted to enable Professor Sternberg to engage in professional practice. Research and scholarship are, so he informs us, not in play. This makes the construction even more questionable.

For there are many architects in private practice. They rent space, they employ an office staff, they pay taxes, and they compete to meet the acid test of the market. None such for university denizens: The infrastructure support is at one's beck and call, taxes are not levied, and so we can readily underbid the private sector.

The winners are the university (saving on salaries and overhead); the professor (garnering summer support and, often, additional benefits); and the granting agency (paying less than they would in the private sector).

The losers are students, who must deal with the backups of no proven distinction or long-run commitment; and private practitioners, whose bids are not (cannot be) competitive. The winners are readily identifiable units, the losers are somewhat anonymous. In the nature of things, pointed beneficiaries will win out over diffuse victims.

Professor Sternberg does what the university expects him to do, but not what society expects him to do, and pays him for doing. I am troubled by that, the more so because nobody else seems to agree that there is a problem here.

JOHN C.G. BOOT

Professor and Chair

Dept. of Management Science and Systems

Support Events Noting National Hispanic Awareness Month

Sept. 15 through Oct. 15 is the period of National Hispanic Awareness Month. The Office of Multicultural Affairs would like to encourage all students to support events planned by various organizations on campus in celebration of this rich and vibrant heritage.

Some of the events planned are as follows: Oct. 9-13, "Semana Latina," sponsored by the sisters of Lambda Phi Delta; Oct. 12, Latin American Student Association meeting, 5 p.m., 145 C, Student Union; Oct. 12, Latin American Student Association dinner and party, 8 p.m.-1:30 a.m., Social Hall, Student Union, $6 for both events, $3 for one; Oct. 12, Oct. 13, Latin American Art and Food Festival, sponsored by the Latin American Student Association; Oct. 18, Film, Student Union Theater, 6:30 p.m.; Oct. 19, Latin American Student Association meeting, 145 C Student Union, 5 p.m.; Oct. 26, movie night, 145 C Student Union, 5-7 p.m.; Nov. 13-18, Lambda Phi Delta Sorority, Week of the Butterflies, cultural awareness week.

These events and many more are planned to educate the UB community about Latino culture as well as to share the rich legacy of this heritage.

For a complete calendar of all events planned for this month and throughout the semester, stop by the Office of Student Multicultural Affairs in 220 Norton Hall, North Campus.

MICHAEL STOKES

Director, Multicultural Affairs

Controversy and the Academic Calendar

TO THE EDITOR:

A number of Jewish faculty members are not happy with either John Boot's explanation of why the calendar committee recommended that the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur be no longer treated as university holidays (Reporter, Sept. 7) or with both the tone and substance of some of the letters engendered by Boot's column (Sept. 14).

Along with other Jews, I share the distaste for Boot's gratuitous and insensitive comment that Jewish students who are unhappy with the recommended changes can always go to Binghamton or somewhere else in the SUNY system; aside from the merits of his argument, which are at best debatable, the tone and phrasing of it unavoidably translates as: "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else."

Similarly, Boot is justly chastised for his remark that the original decision to treat Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur as university holidays was "forced by political realities." To be sure, it is probably true that state policies had something-maybe everything- to do with the decision; on the other hand, it is preposterous and even inflammatory to say that the decision was a "forced" one, as opposed to one freely chosen to win support in democratic politics.

Nonetheless, the heart of the reasoning of the calendar committee, as explained by Boot, strikes me as persuasive. First of all, it is either entirely or almost entirely a principled decision; by contrast, in my judgment the critics come uncomfortably close to special pleading. The principle, of course, is the separation of church and state, a principle that should be especially important to religious minorities. By recommending that the calendar recognize only national holidays-that is, no religious holidays- the committee acted perfectly appropriately and in a principled manner, one that is superior to any other alternative not only in principle but in democratic politics as well.

But what about Christmas, it is asked, or for that matter the observance of Sunday as a national day of rest? There are two ways to look at this question. One could quite reasonably take the position, as do Boot and the calendar committee, that Christmas and Sundays are different, and not merely because they are official national holidays. Unlike purely religious holidays, Sunday is in fact treated as a day of rest by the overwhelming majority of Jews as well as Christians. Indeed, even Christmas is at least partially observed by many Jews, not because it is Christ's birthday but because it is a wonderful family holiday.

Alternatively, one could take the strict constructionist position and refuse to recognize any differences between Christmas and Sunday and any other religious holiday. In that case, however, the critics' quarrel properly should be addressed to the nation as a whole, not to John Boot and the calendar committee for conforming to the national norm.

Here I will speak quite personally, as a Jew who has greatly benefited from America's not mere "toleration" but warm-hearted acceptance and genuine integration of Jews into the national society. Even if the observation of Christmas and Sundays should be regarded as a departure from principle-a position with which I disagree-it is a quite minor departure which Jews and other minorities should accept in good grace, or at least in a spirit of compromise with the over 90 percent majority.

Aside from the issue of principle, there are also practical matters, and here, too, the judgments of Boot and the calendar committee seem more persuasive to me than those of the critics. It is plainly undeniable that universitywide observance of three Jewish holidays (recently reduced to two) at least somewhat disrupts the fall academic calendar, although the costs of such disruption may fairly be debated. Of course, it is equally plain that the withdrawal of the official status for the Jewish holidays would impose some costs on Jews. What therefore is crucial is the size of the minority that is adversely affected and the precise nature of the costs that would be imposed.

Let us assume that Jews continue to constitute roughly 10 percent of the student body, as in the past. However, of those 10 percent, a not-insignificant number are completely secular, and do not observe the holidays at all. Beyond that there are a probably larger number of essentially secular Jews who partially observe the Jewish high holy days-for example, by family celebrations, attending synagogue, fasting on Yom Kippur, etc.-but who do not feel the need to refrain from work, classes, or (in the case of faculty) teaching. Finally, there is some proportion of Jews who regard themselves as essentially religious rather than secular but who nonetheless do not follow the strict requirements that no work shall be done. In short, the number of Jews who strictly observe the religious requirements of the high holidays is far less than the totality of Jews who comprise the 10 percent minority; while I have no figures, my intuition and experience tells me it is only a minority of the minority.

But perhaps the most crucial argument is this: it is hardly necessary that those who comprise this small minority insist that the entire university accommodate it by cancelling classes. All that is necessary is that the university continue its current practice (recently affirmed by Provost Headrick) that those whose religious beliefs preclude their attending classes be excused without academic penalty. Indeed, it is hard to see why this principle should not be applied to other religious minorities as well, for example, to Catholics who observe Good Friday or to Muslims observing an analogous high holy day. Such a rule will allow us to dispense with special, pleading and, in my judgment, it is only with such a rule that principle, tolerance, and respect for multicultural diversity all can be truly served.

JEROME SLATER

Professor,

Department of Political Science