To the editors:
I commend the Reader for its policy re letters to the editor. I have been reading your paper for many years now and although I don't always agree with some of the articles, the letters column is unique in that it prints letters without signatures (something the Sun-Times and Trib don't do) as well as epithets and four-letter words (unnecessary in my view and revealing the writer's youth).
Most of your readers probably don't know that the letters column is the most widely read column (unless things have changed since the 60's). But in my opinion, they read this column simply to find confirmation of their own views (substitute the word biases).
In contrast to that, I was persuaded to become political not by reading someone's letter, but by a personal conversation I had with a student at the U. of Wisconsin during the summer of 1964. He convinced me that the war in Vietnam was morally wrong and thenceforth I became a vigorous opponent of the war.
Saying that, permit me to air one of my own biases--that concerning abortion. The link between this most controversial issue and the piece "Teaching America" [July 21] is as follows: many of the immigrants to the U.S. in the last 16 years are not political refugees. Why then does the government grant them visas? I believe it's to avoid a declining population which would have otherwise occurred because of abortion. A capitalist economy needs producers and consumers to maintain growth. Witness what has happened in Ireland, for example, for the past several decades. A dismal economy due to their declining birth rate. No wonder they outlawed abortion!
I await the inevitable opposing views.