DEFENDING DURHAMITES
CHARLOTTE ALLEN writes in "Duke's Tenured Vigilantes" (Jan. 29) that Mike Nifong participated in a May 2 Democratic primary for reelection as district attorney and that he "handily" won both the primary and the general election. But the May 2006 election was not technically reelection, since Nifong had been appointed to the post in April 2005 and was running for the first time. Additionally, "handily" might not be the best description of Nifong's election victory.
In a three-way Democratic primary, Nifong won with 45.1 percent of the vote, and he had just 883 more votes than the second-place candidate (41.6 percent). Nifong's victory margin in the November election was much more substantial, but the circumstances had changed by the fall of 2006. Democratic candidates had entered the campaign season with a clear path to the district attorney's job. No other candidates were vying for the office. Nifong should have run unopposed on the November ballot.
But the outrage over his conduct prompted two other men to enter the race after the Democratic primary. One was a Republican who failed to secure enough petition signatures to appear on the ballot; he waged a write-in campaign instead. The second candidate was a popular Democratic county commissioner who did secure enough petition signatures to appear on the ballot as an independent candidate, then baffled supporters by telling them he didn't want the job. His campaign strategy seemed to suggest that voters should cast ballots for him so that he could then turn down the district attorney's post and force the governor to appoint someone else.
It is not surprising that Nifong was the winner in this confusing three-way race with a noncandidate and a candidate whose name did not appear on the ballot. Despite this campaign advantage, Nifong secured only 49.5 percent of the vote. So Mike Nifong has never won the support of a majority of Durham voters.
MITCH KOKAI
Raleigh, N.C.
GOOD COUNSEL?
SALLY SATEL, in "First, Do Harm" (Feb. 5), is concerned that Dr. Miriam Grossman's "discussion of protection against HPV [a sexually transmitted disease] seems too negative regarding the value of condoms." I think college counselors should be negative about the use of condoms to prevent viral infection: The facts against the effectiveness of condoms in preventing disease transmission are well documented.
Grossman believes that traditional values of faith and family are essential to leading a rewarding life, but Satel worries that those struggling students not sharing these convictions might fail to benefit from Grossman's other messages. Well, so what, if students do not believe in these things? They still need exposure to such ideas. Faith cometh by hearing. Failing to expose troubled students to all the possibilities for help is doing them harm.
WILLIAM M. FITTRO
Marshall, Mich.
CORRECTION
THE CAPTION for the photograph associated with Robert Zarate's "First Lady of Intelligence" (Jan. 22) incorrectly describes President Reagan as giving Roberta Wohlstetter the Medal of Honor. She received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, one of the highest American civilian honors, not the Medal of Honor, which is the nation's highest military decoration.