Published in New York Times Sunday, January 28, 1990

To the Editor:

While ''America Needs Its Nerds'' (Op-Ed, Jan. 11) by Leonid Fridman, a Harvard student, may be correct in its message that Americans should treat intellectualism with greater respect, his identification of the ''nerd'' as guardian of this intellectual tradition is misguided.

Mr. Fridman maintains that anti-intellectualism runs rampant across this country, even at the ''prestigious academic institution'' he attends. However, he confuses a distaste for narrow-mindedness with anti-intellectualism. Just as Harvard, as a whole, reflects diversity in the racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds of its students, each student should reflect a diversity of interest as well.

A ''nerd'' or ''geek'' is distinguished by a lack of diverse interests, rather than by a presence of intellectualism. Thus, a nerd or geek is not, as Mr. Fridman states, a student ''for whom pursuing knowledge is the top priority'' but a student for whom pursuing knowledge is the sole objective. A nerd becomes socially maladjusted because he doesn't participate in social activities or even intellectual activities involving other people. As a result, a nerd is less the intellectual champion of Mr. Fridman's descriptions than a person whose intelligence is not focused and enhanced by contact with fellow students. Constant study renders such social learning impossible.

For a large majority at Harvard, academic pursuit is the highest goal; a limited number, however, refuse to partake in activities other than study. Only these select few are the targets of the geek label. Continuous study, like any other obsession, is not a habit to be lauded. Every student, no matter how ''intellectually curious,'' ought to take a little time to pursue social knowledge through activities other than study.

Mr. Fridman's analysis demonstrates further flaws in his reference to Japan. He comments that ''in East Asia, a kid who studies hard is lauded and held up as an example to other students,'' while in the United States he or she is ostracized. This is an unfair comparison because Mr. Fridman's first reference is to how the East Asian child is viewed by teachers, while his second reference is to how the American child is viewed by fellow students. Mr. Fridman is equating two distinct perspectives on the student to substantiate a broad generalization on which he has no factual data.

Nerdism may also be criticized because it often leads to the pursuit of knowledge not for its own sake, but for the sake of grades. Nerds are well versed in the type of intellectual trivia that may help in obtaining A's, but has little or no relevance to the real world. A true definition of intellectualism ought to include social knowledge.

While we in no way condone the terms ''nerds'' and ''geeks'' as insults, we also cannot condone the isolationist intellectualism Mr. Fridman advocates.

DAVID LESSING  DAVID HERNE; Cambridge, Mass., Jan. 12, 1990; The writers are members of Harvard's class of '93.

There is something very wrong with the system
of values in a society that has only derogatory terms
like nerd and geek for the intellectually curious and
academically serious.
A geek, according to Webster’s New World
Dictionary, is a street performer who shocks the
public by biting off heads of live chickens. It is a
telling fact about our language and our culture that
someone dedicated to pursuit of knowledge is
compared to a freak biting the head off a live chicken.

Even at a prestigious academic institution like
Harvard, anti-intellectualism is rampant: Many
students are ashamed to admit, even to their friends,
how much they study. Although most students try
to keep up their grades, there is a minority of
undergraduates for whom pursuing knowledge is
the top priority during their years at Harvard. Nerds
are ostracized while athletes are idolized.

The same thing happens in U.S. elementary and
high schools. Children who prefer to read books
rather than play football, prefer to build model
airplanes rather than get wasted at parties with their
classmates, become social outcasts. Ostracized for
their intelligence and refusal to conform to society’s

anti-intellectual values, many are deprived of a
chance to learn adequate social skills and acquire
good communication tools.

Enough is enough.

Nerds and geeks must stop being ashamed of
who they are. It is high time to face the persecutors
who haunt the bright kid with thick glasses from
kindergarten to the grave. For America’s sake,
the anti-intellectual values that pervade our society
must be fought.

There are very few countries in the world where
anti-intellectualism runs as high in popular culture as
it does in the U.S. In most industrialized nations, not
least of all our economic rivals in East Asia, a kid
who studies hard is lauded and held up as an example
to other students.

In many parts of the world, university
professorships are the most prestigious and materially
rewarding positions. But not in America, where
average professional ballplayers are much more
respected and better paid than faculty members
of the best universities.

How can a country where typical parents are
ashamed of their daughter studying mathematics
instead of going dancing, or of their son reading
Weber* while his friends play baseball, be expected to
compete in the technology race with Japan or remain
a leading political and cultural force in Europe?
How long can America remain a world-class power
if we constantly emphasize social skills and physical
prowess over academic achievement and intellectual
ability?