On Sept. 18, you published the law school report card of Sen. Joseph Biden. The import was to reveal his failing grade in one class 25 years ago because of plagiarism.

If one's conduct 25 years ago purports to reveal one's character and suitability for office today, then I respectfully request that you publish the report cards of all the candidates and place them on one page to facilitate comparison.

Adam Levine Banning Dogs (Cont'd.)

I assume Colman McCarthy knew what he was talking about when he suggested banning dogs {op-ed, Sept. 12}; in fact, he probably relished the prospect of a public outcry. Since letters against his stance probably ran 1,000 to 1, as indicated by last week's Free for All page, let me be the one to support him.

His arguments are, in the main, compellingly logical. But since when have Americans ever been logical? If we were, handguns would have been banned long ago. If we can't ban handguns, how are we going to ban pit bulls, much less cocker spaniels?

What we have is the pitting of individual rights versus societal rights. Dogs violate (at a minimum) societal rights to sleep through the night without being awakened; to walk in one's yard without slipping on huge deposits; to bike through one's neighborhood without the adventure of outrunning a yapping dog at one's heels, etc.

Saying dog owners must be more responsible is begging the question. I've been there with three loving tail-waggers of my own. Even the best of dogs will occasionally jump fences, bark out of boredom, chase cats and otherwise regress to their less-evolved states under certain environmental conditions.

May I make some suggestions?

1) Promote pets that don't violate others' rights. Try a rabbit, for example. They are noiseless, can be litter-box or yard-trained, rarely attack mailmen and are so docile that their worst habits (chewing the woodwork, for instance) can easily be expunged by a sharp word or two. If they do get loose in the neighborhood, they blend charmingly into the local flora. Admittedly they have an impaired object-relations capacity -- that is, they do not bond with humans they way humans want them to. But if pet lovers can accept the premise that humans should bond with each other and not with pets, that objection is overcome.

2) Provide incentives against the procreation of pets. Instead of charging people to neuter their pets, how about free neutering plus payments to pet owners to bring their pets in for neutering? It would most likely be more cost-effective and humane than the incredible and unnecessary cost of rounding up and destroying unwanted and maltreated "pets."

3) How about, as a last resort, laws that make it financially unappealing to own a pet, laws that levy stiff fines against owners for their pets' malfeasance, laws that exact a surcharge against people who propagate and sell "purebred" dogs? We've got gas, alcohol and cigarette taxes -- what about a pet tax that goes into a fund that pays for the regrettable consequences of pet ownership -- the extermination of unwanted puppies, the compensation of dog bite victims, the clean-up of dogs' messes, etc.

Colman McCarthy has taken a brave stand. Marita M. Danek

Hidden Comics

I felt compelled to write to you to say how much I enjoy the daily search for the Comic/Crossword portion of your newspaper. On Sept. 16, however, you surpassed your usual poor planning by not only hiding it, but going one step further by stating at the top of E section that that was where it hid for the day. But, surprise, it was not there. Diligent detective work disclosed that C Section was the choice of the day.

I'm sure that such a world-class newspaper has excellent reasons for not putting this section in the same place daily. I wish you'd share that reasoning with your readers.

Margaret A. Morningstar Cruel Comics I usually force my eyes over, under and around Doonesbury in avoidance. My diligence failed on Sept. 22, and I read the tasteless strip dealing with the moment of William Casey's death. I dug out the previous day's entry, which had Casey emitting "wheeze" and "croak."

Garry Trudeau is showing us a vulgar, obnoxious, insensitive and cruel side of himself, and he is both trivializing and poking fun at a man's death. I'm disappointed that The Post never muzzles this man by rejecting some of his "comics."

Diane Yaworski