LETTERS ­

Tribute to Daniel R. Acker

Daniel R. Acker passed away May 12, 1997. The man whose life had been defined by indefatigability succumbed after a gallant five-month struggle against formidable health complications. For those who do not know, Acker was a part-time faculty member at UB for well over a decade. How he found the time and energy to teach is a major wonder. He also counseled students, advised them and sometimes responded to their late-night calls for help. For seven years, he served as president of the Minority Faculty and Staff Association, longer than anyone. During his tenure, the Martin Luther King Commemorative program achieved prominence, helped students with scholarship, and publicly recognized area citizens across racial lines for their contributions to society in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. Only his serious illness stopped him from teaching‹even then he hoped to return. At age 87 and counting, he may have been UB's oldest faculty member‹certainly one of the oldest ever.

It is with sadness and a feeling of inadequacy that I attempt this tribute to my friend Dan Acker. When I say he was my friend, I hear a deafening response from a multitude of voices shouting in unison, "Mine, too." "Mine, too." "He was my friend, too." Dan Acker was that kind of man.

Daniel was born in West Virginia. He overcame an educational background impoverished in resources but not in caring, and attended the poorly funded, segregated West Virginia State College. He continued his education and earned a master's degree in chemistry at the University of Michigan. Subsequently, Dan taught high school mathematics and chemistry before joining Union Carbide, where he worked for 30 years. During World War II, he was one of the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project

that produced the atomic bomb and secured America's military supremacy. Later he helped create Prestone Antifreeze, liquid nitrogen used in cryosurgery and freezing blood. Dan was particularly proud of the domestic breakthroughs.

Much has already been said about Dan's serving at the helm of the NAACP for over 25 years, his successful battle to integrate the Buffalo school system, and numerous civic, service, and religious organizations to which he gave so much quality time. The news media correctly called him a legend. He seemed to be everywhere, always on time, without ever appearing to be hurried. He seemed to know and like everyone, the judiciary, local, state, and national legislators, industrialists, mayors, educators, activists, religious leaders. Yet he never lost the common touch. He literally treated everyone the same‹as somebody important. For all, Dan had this outstretched handshake, quick smile, warm greeting, and endless supply of funny (but clean) jokes.

He accomplished much, and was often honored. Yet in all this he remained modest almost to a fault and altruistic to the core. Dan fought hard for positive change yet his patience was legendary. He and his family endured hate messages and vile threats but never did he respond in kind. He encountered many roadblocks, disappointments, and seemingly insurmountable odds. Yet he was the most positive person I knew, his character unsullied by bitterness.

Less than two years ago Dan lost his beautiful Louise, his wife of 60 years, his constant companion, the mother of his three adored children. She suffered from a long debilitating illness that almost inevitably leads to a home for special care. Yet, despite his advanced age, Dan cared for her in their home, until her decease. Whenever I inquired about Louise, Dan would talk about the wonderful ladies, and his children who helped him. He never complained. He loved her. To him, she was not a burden. Upon her passing, he told me, "It is hard to bear." When Dan Acker spoke like that, you knew he was hurting. When he became seriously ill and underwent major surgery, his children cared for him. The old warrior quietly told me that he was in for a tough fight‹ a rare personal admission for him. In spite of his own serious condition, he went on to inquire about my wife's health. That was Dan Acker. Yes, he was that kind of a man.

I will miss Dan Acker. As I say that, again I hear the massive chorus in quick response. "I will, too." "I will, too." "I will miss Dan Acker, too." That's because when we needed him, he was always there. He inspired us, made us laugh, made us hope. And so we should and must be grateful that we knew this wonderful man who lived among us and stood for something. We knew what he stood for. Remem-

bering him we can say without fear of contradiction, "There stood a loving husband, a caring father, grandfather, and great-grandfather." "There stood dignity, gentleness and compassion." "There stood integrity." "There stood determination" "There stood a petrel for justice."

"There stood Daniel R. Acker."

EDWARD S. JENKINS
Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Education

Giving tax credit for children sends a wrong message

There are currently three tax proposals for debate, the House version, the Senate version and the President's version. All three have one thing in common: they propose $500 tax credit per child.

It is debatable whether a tax cut at this time is necessary and wise; however, giving tax credit for children certainly sends a wrong message. With the world population at more than 5.7 billion and still growing at an annual rate of 1.5 percent (doubling time 46 years) we certainly do not need to encourage more population growth. Obviously, the fastest population growth occurs in developing nations, yet of all the industrialized countries, Canada and the United States have the highest rate of population growth, 1.2 and 1.0 percent, respectively. Although this is a relatively slow growth as compared to Africa, South America and Asia where the annual rates of growth are 2.5, 1.7 and 1.6 percent, respectively, we should not become complacent about our own population growth.

Considering our extravagant lifestyle and high consumption, every baby born in the United States has a future environmental impact of 30 babies born in India because we are using 30 times more resources than they. More people means more housing, more automobiles, more consumer goods, more agricultural land taken for development, and in consequence more pollution and more stress on the already overburdened environment. The conventionally thinking economists may consider that population growth is good because it keeps the economy growing. However, this logic assumes that economy has to grow for its own sake. It puts the carriage in front of the horse, it makes people serve the economy and not the economy serve the people.

Our present tax law already provides for exemptions for children, so why give still an additional credit? It only encourages people to have more children and unjustly penalizes those who prudently chose to limit the size of their families. Stabilization of population at the earliest date and decrease in consumption should be our goals, and not a continuous growth.

SIGMUND F. ZAKRZEWSKI
Professor Emeritus