On Tuesday, the day the DEN published two letters said to characterize its “Occupy Eastern” editorial as “wrongheaded,” I stopped in front of Doudna to chat with the young man beside the sign which points up the divide between the 99 percent and the 1 percent.

He was lucid, rational, well-informed and courteous; not only aware of the statistically indisputable trend that over the past 30 years has been concentrating more and more wealth (and hence power) in our country into fewer and fewer hands (bank accounts), but concerned enough to donate some of his time standing in a public place on a cold, rainy day to offer to talk about it.

Most of the reliable reports regarding the Wall Street group and the many others who met last Saturday in many cities stress the disciplined, orderly and peaceful nature of these demonstrations.

It is quite wrong to slur them, as one letter does, with words like “anger” and “ugly,” invoking scenes of violence, for there has been very little of that.

It would seem from news reports that pepper spray was used gratuitously against some unoffending women in New York, but this did not lead to disorder and the policeman involved has already been disciplined.

The other letter writer suggests that “sober thinking” would direct demonstrations against corporations like Fannie Mae and GM, which he seems to hold responsible for the financial pickle we are in.

He sees the problem as “excessive government spending” rather than corporate greed and skillfully manipulated markets.

It is wrongheaded, I submit, to tax the Occupy Wall Street movement at this point with lacking a “focused program.”

Like Ronald Reagan in 1980, they are asking us all to consider whether we are better off than we used to be, and if we are confident the country is going in the right direction.

Do we agree that this 99-percent-to-1-percent divide is what we want? Or what the almighty Markets decree is to be? If not, what can and should we do?

Bailey K. Young

History Dept.