SHADOW OF DOUBT

Siegel’s well-written, objective reporting on the Johnson family’s efforts to clear their name of a child-molestation charge contained one element that reflects the Catch-22 of American social life: the role of “appropriate anger” in such circumstances. David Johnson admitted that he was bordering on going out of control when threatened with the loss of his children, and the social worker advised Mrs. Johnson that it “is not good that your husband is showing such aggressive behavior. This is going to impact negatively.” Under such circumstances, how should the man have reacted?

The most frightening aspect of the whole article was the enormous power that social workers and psychologists have over people in such situations. Had David Johnson remained passive, it is possible the worker would have interpreted it as equally negative behavior, using the yardstick of sociopathic dispassion.

Inasmuch as the humanistic sciences are unable to agree on absolute definitions for much of our behavior--to define what is acceptable and what is not--I suggest we put less faith and effort into easy threats and snap diagnoses and more work into researching the truth of such situations. Such government employees are here to serve, not to create their own forms of abuse.

RUDI LOGAN

West Hollywood