Reading Comprehension

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was pleased to learn that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is scheduled to lecture at the Kennedy School in April. There are some urgent questions regarding the integrity of the legislative process which I hope he will address.

In June, 1981, Senator Moynihan introduced a resolution in the Senate which provided that no bill could be sent to the House or to the President which a majority of Senators present and voting "cannot attest to having read." Mr. Moynihan assured his colleagues that the resolution was not in just, though it is unlikely he expected it to be adopted.

Recently, however, Mr. Moynihan voted for a bill providing that grants for magnet schools may not be used for "courses of instruction the substance of which is secular humanism." It is clear that he read the bill, because he defended his vote as "the price I had to pay to get school desegregation money." But, though he read it, he apparently didn't understand it. According to a report in the Times (February 22), Mr. Moynihan said. "I have no idea what secular humanism is. No one knows."

I'm willing to allow that, if Mr. Moynihan doesn't know, it's likely no one else does either. But the Department of Education, which has charge of implementation, has instructed local school districts to determine for themselves what secular humanism means. Thus the law has created a host of mini-legislators around the country entitled to give their own meaning to the provision Mr. Moynihan failed to understand.

I'm certain he regards this as an unforntunate development. I would like to suggest, therefore, that the Senator consider resubmitting his original resolution, with the added provision that no bill may be voted on which a majority of Senators "cannot attest to having understood."

Or could that be done only in jest? Kenneth I. Winston   Research Follow, KSG