|
November 8, 2000 Letters Citigroup matches gifts once more PAW welcomes letters. We may edit them for length, accuracy, clarity, and civility. Our address: Princeton Alumni Weekly, 194 Nassau St., Suite 38, Princeton, NJ 08542 (paw@princeton.edu). To print or not to print I was ashamed to be a Princetonian on Friday, October 6. When I awoke to that morning's Wall Street Journal, I found an op-ed piece by Professor Robert P. George entitled, "The Clinton Puzzle: Why Do Liberals Love Him So?" The Journal prefaced it by writing that "conference planners" had "prevailed upon the editors of the Daily Princetonian not to publish" the piece on the day of President Clinton's visit to campus. Editor-in-Chief Richard Just '01 replied that Professor George's column was meant to be published as a companion to a pro-Clinton piece by Professor Sean Wilentz, apparently the "conference planner" in question. Upon learning that his column would be printed next to Professor George's, Professor Wilentz withdrew his contribution. In response, Mr. Just decided not to run Professor George's. Whether one agreed with it or not, Professor George's essay was an elegant, cogent critique of President Clinton. It would have made fine reading whether standing alone or in a point-counterpoint format, as Mr. Just had intended. But for the many who recall Professor Wilentz's tireless and tiresome opposition to impeachment, they also remember that Professor Wilentz garnered himself enough media attention to fill several hundred issues of the Prince. Rather than capitulating to Professor Wilentz by withdrawing both articles, Mr. Just should have told the weak-kneed professor to take a hike. We've already heard his opinions. Instead, Professor Wilentz scored a victory over the Prince. He accomplished his objective of producing a conference cleansed of dissent, and demonstrated once again that no task is beneath him in playing the president's aide-de-camp. The Prince's decision to omit Professor George's essay not only represents a betrayal of the First Amendment, it also exemplifies the degradation of dialogue that has plagued colleges for nearly a decade. Only five years ago, Princeton and its slick marketing team took pride in fostering "Conversations That Matter." Now I guess the only "Conversations That Matter" are those that matter to Professor Wilentz. Andrew J. Dubill '96
See related story on page 13. I would like call an important issue to the attention of alumni: the Millstone Bypass. I was raised in Princeton, earned a degree in architecture in 1996, and currently reside in Princeton Borough. This decade-old issue, and the university's current position, is of great concern to me and many other alumni. In order to remove three traffic lights on U.S. Route #1, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) plans a two-lane (but four-lane-wide) highway that runs directly alongside the Millstone River and the Delaware and Raritan Canal. The unique peaceful quality of the canal towpath and Lake Carnegie would be lost to the smells, noise, and lights of passing traffic. The alignment also bisects five historic districts, major archaeological sites, and extensive wetlands. The most important loss would be the grand elm allée entrance to Princeton along Washington Road. The elms form a majestic gateway, physically representing a university and town that respect both history and the environment. The current Millstone Bypass alignment would destroy all that magic - homogenizing Princeton into yet more New Jersey sprawl. There are lower-impact alternatives to the bypass, and the sacrifices are minor compared with the benefits. The NJDOT presented one such alternative to the university that required a few additional acres of land. The university refused to make this small sacrifice even though a larger contiguous parcel for future campus development could be preserved, and the NJDOT could not pursue the plan. Both Princeton Township and Princeton Borough strongly oppose the current NJDOT alignment and are calling for a study of alternatives along with a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is surprising that the university has not joined these efforts. The university is standing in the way of a plan of preservation that would benefit students, alumni, and the surrounding community. I know no alumnus who supports this roadway, nor the loss of the elm gateway. I encourage you to speak with university planners and urge them to withdraw their support of the current Millstone Bypass alignment. It is time to join with the surrounding community and pursue low-impact, effective alternatives. This would repair our relations with the community, protect our precious natural resources, and save the cherished entrance to our campus. Adam Bromwich '96
The From the Editor column of September 13 was sophomoric and self-congratulatory to a new standard, but you guys gulped, cutely no doubt, out the wrong side of your mouths in going with your "renowned-designer"(cuneiform? hieroglyphic?) logo and with one gush disguising the fact that the magazine, while available to sophomores, is aimed principally at Princeton alumni. If PAW is different from other alumni magazines, as Princeton is different from other universities, is it not the very name that best symbolizes that distinction? If so, why sacrifice it at the twin altars of hip design and change for the sake of change? What did need attention is the claim to "weekly" status for a publication that appears, according to your small print, only 17 times over an 11-month period. As for the rest, which you report was easy, your guru almost matched the proverbial small print with his custom-tailoring, foisted off laughable pagination, and came close to oranging out the identification of hardworking class secretaries. All in all, the new format stinks. As you almost say, the new look is a spectacle. Alan Berlind '56
Rarely would I take time to write you, however, although perhaps not tsunamic, my reactions were so strong that I felt they should be shared. This is regarding your September 13 issue, which I just received. If PAW were one of my normal magazine subscriptions I would not renew because I find the new format totally unappealing, even though I am still interested in the content. Does that statement more or less summarize my general feelings? Yes. The new logo: Is there a reason all the other alumni magazines have the institution's name front and center on the cover? I believe it is because they are going for clarity, for they believe their alumni will want to turn the page to find out what is inside. Your graphics, type, etc. are more powerful than the content. The front photo is great, but the logo seems to be a trendy western ranch brand of PAW . . . you don't need it. Think of Coca-Cola Classic. Why change what works? You are not appealing to a buyer in front of a magazine rack at the airport. Layout/Type: The font you have had created is supposed to be more readable. Than what? I find it squat and cramped. I also dislike the lack of justified columns and the way the titles are almost off the pages. Visually from a distance it looks great, but close up it just seems disorganized. Your final Snapshot page is trite, very National Geographic (which is known for its photographs so there it makes sense). Do you think Princeton alumni don't read? An article on the New York Film Academy's summer program at Princeton would have been more interesting. Why not put the Letter from the President on the Snapshot page? A nice place for those of us who have a habitual tendency to read our magazines back to front. Princeton Exchange: You seem to have the classifieds in a larger font size than the class notes. It doesn't make sense, although perhaps this is just a visual illusion. People wanting to read the classifieds (personally, I always do; it's a compulsion) will do so. You don't need to space the ads so much. When flipping the pages from classifieds to Class Notes I get the impression of flipping through the white and yellow pages, with about the same degree of excitement. At least if you wanted to hear from alumni who don't normally correspond with you, you have hit upon a sure winner. With each issue in the new format, I am sure this urge will surface again. Julie Foyer '78
We won't really know if it's "tinkering" or a "thorough overhaul" until we see what the next editor says about it. As to the renowned designer responsible, apparently I am not well enough informed to be familiar with alumni magazine designers, even those of renown. What is the APW? Or is it the upside-down VPW? Compositionally it worked better without the black-and-oranged-out corner (October 13). Even though you managed to get the name of the publication in the little tab at the top (September 13), it would be a better photo full width and shortened to make room for a banner. Most pictures will not be even this amenable to the odd shape (unless creative strictures laid on the photographers are severe). I am no fan of the redesign. However, I no longer worry that PAW is not standing as a bastion of the classy, the classical even, in a world given over to the new and the trendy. Now I'm counting on our friends in Cambridge. Charles Rissel '75 I don't understand why the June 7 cover concerns as many readers as it apparently does. Get a grip, old-timers and old-thinkers. Do you actually expect that PAW would not be a mouthpiece for the university and the pervasive rah-rah mentality that oozes from the pores of virtually all Princeton materials? We live in an age in which the news media have become an endless tedium of talking heads and "spinning" and are now commonly referred to as the "info-tainment" industry. Wake up, high and mighty thinkers who read PAW and expect it to compete with Foreign Affairs or the Economist for objectivity and incisive reporting; this is a magazine that costs readers nothing if they choose not to donate to class dues. Kevin P. Warner '71 Boise, Idaho
That other Ivy League alumni magazines are said to be editorially controlled, financed, and published by their respective universities is one of the best reasons why Princeton's alumni magazine should not be. The PAW staff are now university employees. The allegedly independent board, because of the affiliation of its members and staggered tenures, seems also de facto under university control. With adroitness bordering on subterfuge, the university has thus obtained yet another medium for management of alumni relations and for the promotion of fundraising. (It already has made use of other media, university staff, and organized alumni volunteers for these purposes.) With the university's takeover of PAW, alumni have lost their independent medium for exchange of information and the only effective forum for candid discussion of the university's plans, policies, operations, and future - including the ongoing and continually changing relationships between the university and its alumni. The university should be willing and able to pay for its new piper. Advertising revenues are expected to be much increased. Editorial chores can be minimized and editorial costs reduced by the use of already prepared public relations material and enlargement of the class notes compiled by volunteer class secretaries. Thus it should be possible to reduce or eliminate the assessment of alumni class budgets to pay for PAW subscriptions. Charlton R. Price '48
Editor's note: As has been reported twice in PAW (February 23 and September 13), the funding structure of the magazine changed in August. Whereas before the magazine's budget came 60 percent from the class budgets, 30 percent from advertising, and 10 percent from the university, now each area funds one-third. Editorially, PAW remains independent.
Every day of my Princeton undergraduate days, it seems, was perfect. Yes, I worried about upcoming exams, imperfectly prepared precepts, and "bad days" on the soccer field or squash courts, but those anxieties and disappointments really were nothing as I took stock at the end of each one of those glorious days. Last spring, when I visited Princeton for a day of lectures, culminating a 15-week Alumni Studies course on religious poetry, was another one of those perfect days. While I had missed earlier campus visit days in the Alumni Studies curriculum, the lecture tapes had prepared me well, and I felt right at home with the vocabulary of "poetry and humanism," the "spirit and the flesh," and "Romantic alignment with a close observation of the natural world." Dr. John Fleming was a fabulous lecturer - witty, urbane, patient, brilliant (all the characteristics we undergraduates 30-plus years ago thought we possessed!), and my preceptor, Harold Ramdass, was so good at comparing Eliot's "Ash Wednesday" with Auden's "Shield of Achilles" that I attended his class twice! I know that these alumni courses have been in place for several years, but for one reason or another they missed my radar screen until now. They really do afford a great way for alums to reconnect in a meaningful way with Princeton, so I hope the university keeps them coming. Walter Smedley III '66 Citigroup matches gifts once more On December 31, 1998, the chairman of Citigroup, Sanford I. Weill, eliminated matching gifts from the company's philanthropic programs. Since the cost to the organization was only 0.12 percent of its profits, I felt it was unjust, unwise, and unfair. I began a campaign to restore the program. Initially, I submitted a shareholder proposal. Citigroup's general counsel wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting permission to omit my proposal from the proxy. The SEC denied the request. At Citigroup's annual meeting in April 2000, my proposal received 5.13 percent of votes cast. Subsequently, Mr. Weill restored a matching gift program for employees. My reason for bringing this to your attention is to alert present Citigroup staff who are Princeton graduates to take advantage of this opportunity to support our university. I would like to add that my son Tim '79 played a significant role in the success of our efforts to restore the matching gift program. Tim wrote the letters to the SEC that helped. Clinton Weiman '47
I am writing a book about the demonstrations at Princeton during the 1960s and '70s and I would very much appreciate hearing from anyone who recalls those times. Any written materials would be returned, and permission would be requested to publish any recollections you would be willing to share. I am especially interested in the ways people and institutions were changed by those events. Please send them to me at lpn@idaccr.org; or at 144 Prospect Ave., Princeton, NJ 08540. Lee Neuwirth '55
Alan V. Pavilanis '69 Montreal, Quebec
|
||||||||||
I
am writing to you concerning the January 26 From the Archives. I
believe that the young man who is looking to his right in the front
row at the left side of the picture is Greg Hess and that the young
woman in front of him is his wife. Greg was a member of the Class
of 1968, and this would presumably have been one of the events like
Junior Prom. I don't remember being at the event, although I attended
several such events that year. Undoubtedly, Greg could tell you
exactly when that event occurred and maybe some anecdotes about
it. In fact, his wife would probably have a better memory.