LETTER: So Vulnerable

To the Editor: He immediately demonstrated this claim is untrue, by speculating that Professor Helen Davies' statement that his appointment to the National Endowment for the Humanities is "bad for women's interests" is tracable back to a dispute he had with her husband, who she naturally defends. Helen Davies' statement would, I believe, be agreed to by virtually any feminist and progressive on campus, but Kors does not allow her an independent view -- she must be "standing by her man," in his words. How could Kors, who must be somewhat more intelligent than Dan Quayle, display his antifeminist bias so grossly and leave himself so vulnerable to attack for self-contradiction? It must be because his biases are so deep-seated, and appear to him so much a part of nature, that identifying a woman's natural role and place -- standing by her man -- cannot be properly designated antifeminist. EDWARD HERMAN Finance Department Annenberg School