Police & Public
To the Editor:
After reading Thomas R. Brooks's article [“New York's Finest” August 1965] and the discussion among David B. Durk, Ronald Reis and Mr. Brooks in your February issue [“The Police”], I feel that Brooks, as a layman, based his criticism of the police department on purely personal feelings. . . . I am glad to see that COMMENTARY is willing to publish articles explaining police operations and procedures. . . .
Al Muir
Department of Police Science
California State College at Long Beach
Long Beach, California
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . Mr. Brooks is obviously a damaging influence. . . . He has injured the efforts of all policemen, like myself, who are striving toward professionalism—a goal which cannot be achieved without cooperation from the public. You surely can't expect those readers who accept Mr. Brooks's article to develop a more positive attitude toward the police. . . .
The New York Police Department should be proud of Messrs. Durk and Reis. . . .
Robert F. Schraeder
Department of Police Science
California State College at Long Beach
Long Beach, California
_____________
To the Editor:
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Durk and Mr. Reis regarding the distorted picture of police functions that Mr. Brooks presents. It is always possible to find one or two examples in support of an . . . idea, no matter how far from the truth it is. . . . In recent years, there has been a conscious and successful effort to raise the caliber of police personnel and functions. The public has a right to know and respect the police as they really exist.
James Sutton
Department of Police Science
California State College at Long Beach
Long Beach, California
_____________
[Further correspondence on the Durk-Reis-Brooks controversy will appear in our July issue.]
_____________
Errata
In Jack Richardson's “The Best of Broadway” [March], it was incorrectly stated that Peter Weiss recently took up East German citizenship. Mr. Weiss is, in fact, a citizen of Sweden.
In Oscar Gass's “The U.S. Economy—1966” (April), the average number of persons who worked part-time though desiring full-time jobs in 1965 was incorrectly given as 1.9 million. The right figure is 2.2 million—F.d.
