To the Editors of The Crimson:

I would like to be fair in my appraisal of the editorial comment Lectures "Darwin Vulgarized" found on page 2 of The Crimson, 13 April 1978. I attended the lecture in question. And as a student of anthropology and psychology I have been studying these subjects for over ten years and have been learning the literature and model of "sociobiology" for the past three years--three more years, I would propose, than J. Wyatt Emmerich, author of the editorial, has been studying this new and thought-provoking paradigm of social science.

Except for the tone of the entire article, which I found to be quite negative and void of a stabilizing "scientific" analysis, there were sparks of intuition and awareness concerning Irven DeVore's lecture. True, Professor DeVore did concentrate quite heavily on non-human animals in his explication of social behavior.

Yet when Emmerich states that "Although these controversial theories are interesting, DeVore is simply out of his league...He and his fellow sociobiologists are seemingly unaware of the existing disciplines which deal superficially with human behavior and social structure..."I become outraged at the ignorance of a person so banal and uninformed who could possibly think such a statement. First of all "he and his fellow sociobiologists" is a cop-out. We're talking about DeVore here, and only DeVore. And Irven DeVore did his graduate work in social anthropology at what was (and maybe still is) the leading intellectual center in the United States: University of Chicago. DeVore has studied in depth the disciplines of psychology and social and cultural anthropology and could utter in five minutes more knowledge on subjects in these "human" fields than Mr. Emmerich might be able to come up with in five hours.

Furthermore, Emmerich "wonders how DeVore can make such a statement [on the narrow cleft between humans and other species] when the human evidence for his theories is simply nonexistent." Evidence is sparse at the moment, and this may be a valid criticism of the paradigm but I am sure Mr. Emmerich is not at all familiar with the body of data being generated to support sociobiological theory. To say it is "simply nonexistent" is to engage in a polemic which is neither fair nor scholarly correct.

Up to this point in the article, I could have felt that Mr. Emmerich was taking a rather strong position against sociobiology but one which, in the spectrum of human opinion, is as justifiable and allowable as any other. Yet when J. Wyatt concludes that "It [sociobiology] serves as a powerful force of legitimization for the elites of a hierarchical society that is kind to those on top and harsh to those on the bottom." (Anyway, what kind of sentence is this!) I must take strong objection. If, with any degree of writing skill and thematic continuity Emmerich employed in composing his statement, how did he jump from his "no evidence" criticism to a rather strong and unconfirmable remark of DeVore's politics. I am sure that Irven DeVore and the students who applauded his words that night in Science Center Lecture Hall B have as much "guilt" about inequalities existing in the world today as J. Wyatt Emmerich; and secondly, that Irven DeVore has served the process and cause of correcting those inequalities, through the publishing of books, articles, and the presentations of lectures, at least as much, if not more, than Mr. Emmerich has done.

All in all, I think this editorial by Mr. Emmerich reeks of conservatism, for he himself, given the platform of The Crimson newspaper does not expose any specific, concrete knowledge of an enlightened, spiritual nature which shows us how humans do qualify as "qualitatively unique organism," or how DeVore's statement lacks such a quality.

All in all, Mr. Emmerich's rhetorical style lacks the coherence and continuity necessary in formulating a credible and forceful critique of "sociobiology" or of delving into the spirituality and political inclinations of Professor Irven DeVore.

I can only hope that before writing his next critical comments on a social scientist and his theories, Mr. Emmerich might do more background homework research. This is not a funny matter. For in making the sweeping generalizations against DeVore and "sociobiology" J. Wyatt Emmerich displays the inconsistencies and foibles to which he attributes DeVore. And this tactic is conservative politics at its very worst. --Steven P. Stepak