December 6, 2000:
buildings and those who use them
defense of PAW
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 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
I suspect I'm not the
only Princeton graduate who fervently believes the next president
of our university should be William Jefferson Clinton. The presidential
search committee should most definitely reach the same conclusion.
Marc W. Murphy '73
San Antonio, Tex.
The October 5 issue of
the Daily Princetonian contained an article entitled "The Real
The article tried to
expound on why William Jefferson Clinton would be a "catch"
as the next president of this great university. I strongly disagree.
Princeton deserves a
president whom the students, faculty, and alumni can look up to
for leadership and who will be an example to be emulated.
An impeached president
who lied to a grand jury, cheated on his wife, dallied with a young
staff member, and supported the killing of innocent unborn lives
through partial-birth abortions, does not fit that bill.
I would like to add the
names of two people who I feel would do an exceptional job as Princeton's
next president: Bill Bradley '65 and retired General Colin Powell.
Both have integrity, intelligence, honesty, and a belief in the
power of our young.
Stephen Sipos '71
Is there really a gender
discrepancy in faculty salaries at Princeton, as you report in your
October 25 issue (Notebook)? Mere averages prove nothing. If women
with equivalent experience, time in rank, and qualifications are
in fact being paid less than men, then Princeton should hang its
head in shame; but if the men generally got there first and have
been there longer, then the discrepancy is to be expected.
I must say it is worrying
that even at the rank of assistant professor the average of women
is lower, since I would imagine that among that recently appointed
group, length of service, qualifications, and so forth are pretty
Nicholas Clifford '52
New Haven, Vt.
Why are female professors
at Princeton ("as at virtually every other university")
paid less than male professors? Are supply/demand issues at work
within the specific fields of study (i.e., fewer women apply to
be, say, engineering professors, who are paid more due to low supply)?
Are the women less demanding in final negotiations and simply agreeing
to work for less? Could sex discrimination possibly be occurring
even at our institutions of higher learning?
Sandra Grace Susino '95
New York, N.Y.
There will be strong
alumni reaction to the Daily Princetonian's decision not to run
the piece by Professor George ("The Clinton Puzzle: Why Do
Liberals Love Him So") that appeared on the op-ed page of the
Wall Street Journal on October 6, followed by publication on October
12 of a Letter to the Editor from Richard Just, the Prince's editor-in-chief,
defending that decision. I am holding my own considerable ire in
abeyance pending confirmation of the facts as stated by Mr. Just,
and the revelation of other facts and circumstances, if any, which
might more fully explain what happened.
Publication of the George
article in the Journal was accompanied by a suggestion that the
Prince had bowed to outside pressure in deciding not to print it.
Responding, Mr. Just asserted that "Prof. George's column had
been slated to run opposite a column from Prof. Sean Wilentz. .
. . The articles were meant to coincide with the president's visit
to the campus on Oct. 5. Prof. Wilentz was to write the pro-Clinton
column, while Prof. George was to write the piece that would be
critical of Mr. Clinton. However, Prof. Wilentz, upon learning that
he would be writing opposite Prof. George, said he would withdraw
his column unless we refused to publish Prof. George's column."
Mr. Just went on to express his editorial staff's anger at Professor
Wilentz's threats and to defend as the only acceptable action his
decision to run neither column, despite his preference for running
both. There was also reference to a possible personal feud between
professors Wilentz and George.
Wow! If this is the full
and fair story, some cherished principles got blown sky-high. On
these facts how could any alumnus, Clinton-lover or Clinton-hater,
conclude other than that Professor Wilentz is unqualified - by reason
of temperament and judgment, not political inclinations - to serve
on the faculty of any university worthy of the name, let alone Princeton's?
Perhaps there is a slot for him in Belgrade -- or maybe Beijing.
Back to the initial point,
is there anything more which is relevant to understanding what actually
happened? I hope Professor Wilentz will offer an explanation. A
hint in this regard: Assertion of need to neutralize a vast right-wing
conspiracy won't cut it.
Charles R. Kinnaird '54
St. Helena Island, S.C.
Editor's note: A story
in PAW's November 6 issue reported on this matter; see page 13 in
this issue for an update.
buildings and those who use them
recent cover showing the new campus center prompts me to write.
Consider, please, some of the construction that has happened to
the campus. Leaving aside the question of taste, of style, of class
- what concern was given to the people who have to live with, and
sometimes in, these buildings? Who consulted whom? The architects'
self-expression has certainly been untrammeled. Do these architects
talk to each other, if not to students, faculty (that is, general-purpose
faculty), alumni? Do they try to outdo each other in outré
statements? Do they giggle?
When the new football
stadium was proposed and then, unfunded, built, many alumni were
alarmed. Actually, it looks innocuous enough from the outside. It
is only when you enter that you realize that the thing was actually
built for players and spectators. The architect has been original,
indeed, but the stamp says "athletics."
I have not been back
for two years and so I am having trouble finding another recent
construction that embodies the needs and interests of its constituents
as the stadium does, though I can picture plenty of modern architectural
delights. As for consonance with the campus . . . well, that horse
rotted long ago.
Paul Kalkstein '65
Before my most recent
visit to campus, I would probably have agreed with Robert Louis
Stevenson's comment, quoted in the October 11 issue of PAW (From
the Editor), to the effect that every alum inevitably perceives
the finest years of his alma mater's existence to coincide with
his undergraduate years.
However, I recently had
an opportunity to stop by the campus on a weekday evening on my
way up the northeast coast. Rather than head to my favorite off-campus
dining establishment - Chuck's Spring Street Café - I decided
to give the new Frist Campus Center a try. While the food wasn't
quite in Chuck's league, I must say that the center is a fantastic
addition to a university long in need of such an institution.
As soon as I entered
the renovated Palmer Hall (which is basically unrecognizable on
the inside), I recalled that the campus center debate had been a
major issue during my undergraduate years. We had argued loudly
in favor of its construction, while the administration had replied
with Bush-the-elder style "prudence," warning about the
dangers of constructing a "white elephant."
While I suppose I'm pleased
the university took its time to do the job right, I can't help but
also feel that the classes of the '80s and '90s missed out on what
is sure to become an essential part of the Princeton experience.
Jack Goodman '89
New York, N.Y.
Regarding the Alumni
Weekly, you need in place better mechanisms to pick the brains and
understand the feelings of alumni. The magazine's oversight board
does have 10 alumni members, but all graduated between 1969 and
1989. Earlier classes, those expected to fill a hefty share of the
university's financial needs, are not represented. Similarly, there
is but one (hopefully not token) male on the magazine's eight-person
staff. Nothing wrong with that. But it puts a huge burden on staff
to put themselves effectively in the heads of still predominantly
In the Alumni Weekly's
next round of experimentation, let's try some structural innovations
that lead to better bonding. It can only improve the magazine.
Donald Stroetzel '42
W. Redding, Conn.
defense of PAW
I am disappointed by
the overwhelmingly negative tone of other Princetonians' letters
regarding the new design of the magazine. I do not think "appallingly
ugly" is an appropriate or even remotely accurate description
of PAW's new design (as a former graphic designer I commend it).
Self-indulgent? Tacky? Offensive? I would suggest that those complaining
read some of the other letters, in particular the comment of Dallas
Brown '78 (October 25), if they are eager to use those adjectives:
"One of the most important things about our alumni magazines
is to be able to display them in our offices, studies, living rooms,
etc. Guess I'll just have to put my monthly Harvard magazine...on
top of the stack."
I think the extreme pretension
of comments like this is much more offensive than the graphics of
an alumni magazine. I hope Mr. Brown will display his Harvard magazine,
as his attitude only succeeds in reinforcing Princeton's negative
I am embarrassed that
our community cannot be more open-minded to change, and, moreover,
channel its energies into contribution and suggestion rather than
Injudicious? I'll say.
But certainly not about PAW's new look.
Isabella Califano '95
San Francisco, Calif.
I know I am old-fashioned,
but I do not like the implications of the advertisement that appears
in PAW (and in the Harvard magazine) with the headline "Good
Genes." The wording follows: "An institution of Pairing.
Princeton, Tufts, MIT, Wellesley, Brandeis, Harvard, Columbia, Clark
U (Worc., MA), UC Berkeley, NYU, Wesleyan, Brown, Stanford, UPENN,
accredited medical and law schools," followed by a phone number
and Web site.
And, yes, I've read the
Ted Gallagher '67
Whoever is pushing for
increasing the size of undergraduate enrollment must be unaware
of poll results reported in the September 25 issue of Newsweek that
reports that "in surveys, today's freshmen (polled across the
country) say an ideal college has 5,000 students . . . " i.e.,
the size of Princeton.
Are our undergraduates
pushing for this increase? I doubt it! Are alumni pushing for it?
I doubt that, too. Likely it is the same administrators and/or faculty
who on one hand decry the "elitism" of eating clubs but
preen in the elitism of Oxford-like "colleges" and in
the elitism of a choice student body and Princeton's general reputation,
and who support homosexuals but not ROTC in a highly selective,
hypocritical claim of "diversity," and who moralize hypocritically
against drinking in the clubs while winking at cohabitation in the
Perhaps they just wallow
in the fact that Princeton's is the largest endowment per capita
and her alumni seem prepared to donate endlessly, unlimitedly, for
"whatever," i.e., they have "holes in their pockets"
except when it comes to erecting a decent-sized stadium reflective
of Princeton's (more) glorious past and (hopefully) perhaps glorious
I suggest that the student
body, at approximately 5,000-5,200, ranks as "ideal" to
many/most undergrads and alumni, in keeping with the cited poll
and that in view of the growing likelihood that the current booming
economy can't and won't keep up forever, we shepherd and build that
endowment, rather than squandering it on the additional buildings
and faculty we'd need for the proposed expansion, and use the monies,
instead, if they are to be used, to reduce Princeton's exorbitant
tuition and/or to increase student aid.
John J. Auld, Jr. '50
Editor's Note: Following
the recommendations of the Wythes Committee, Princeton's current
undergraduate enrollment of 4,600 will increase to 5,100. A fuller
explanation of the Board of Trustees' decision appeared in our May
17 and June 7 issues.
In your October 25 issue
you do less than justice to the achievements of Angela Davis, who
spoke at the 30th anniversary of the Third World Center (Talks on
Campus). You describe her as an "author and activist and professor
at the University of California," but do not mention that she
also ran for vice president on the Communist party ticket.
Did you consider that
datum irrelevant? Given the fact that one of her topics was "human
rights," I should think it very relevant indeed.
William A. Rusher '44
San Francisco, Calif.
Anne Powell's letter
(October 25) brought to mind a funny little story from my time at
Princeton. I had recently completed John Martin's course on the
Old Masters, and knowing that I lived in New York, he arranged with
the Duveen Gallery, then occupying a town house on East 79th Street,
for a visit.
Accompanied by my fiancée,
who was in college in New York at the time, we arrived one afternoon,
and were taken by one of the directors to the viewing room on an
upper floor. The room was small, a perfect cube, lined with brown
velvet drapery. After a while an attendant wheeled in a covered
painting, unveiled it and revealed Velázquez's great portrait
of the Marquesa de Medina-Sidonia. The director took some 15 minutes
to explain the provenance, along with a few bits of intriguing trivia.
The Velázquez was then covered, wheeled out, to be replaced
in short order by a Rubens, depicting a rather well-endowed naked
lady whose name I don't recall. After two more Old Masters, we were
taken to the conservation rooms, where the mysteries of preserving
and restoring paintings were explained to us.
We left an hour and a
half after we came. It had been a gracious gesture by John Martin
and the folks at Duveen.
Stephen A. Kliment *57
New York, N.Y.
I was greatly saddened
to read of the passing of Professor Gerald Garvey (Notebook, June
7). When I arrived at Princeton, I, like many before me and many
since, aspired to meeting that one professor who would serve as
an inspiration and intellectual guiding force. Not everyone actually
realizes that goal, but I did when, as a sophomore, I found myself
in an introductory American Politics preceptorial led by Professor
Garvey. He gave me my first exposure to American constitutional
law, deftly demonstrating the multiple ways that a single constitutional
decision could be analyzed and interpreted.
Not coincidentally, I
wound up becoming a constitutional and appellate lawyer, practicing
some of the very analytical skills and techniques I learned in Professor
So awed was I with Professor
Garvey's creativity and intellectual passion that I almost immediately
decided that I wanted him to be my thesis adviser. My choice was
a good one. I came to him with a proposal to expand on a topic I
had covered in one of my junior papers. He suggested that I read
Niebuhr's The Children of Light, The Children of Darkness. I wasn't
sure why since it had nothing to do with the topic I had planned
to tackle (the electoral advantages of incumbency), but after reading
it, I realized that he was challenging me to be more ambitious -
to take a stab at political theory. I accepted that challenge and
subsequently spent virtually all of my waking hours producing an
independent work of political theory. The project was enormously
stimulating and rewarding. I will always regard it as the highlight
of my Princeton experience.
Professor Garvey challenged
me to stretch myself to the limits of my abilities. He taught me
that I could think creatively. I know that I am a better lawyer
today because I had the privilege of being exposed to Professor
Garvey. I hope that his loved ones will find solace in knowing that
he made a mark at Princeton and will be greatly missed.
Evan Tager '82
The archives photograph
in October 11 is of Myron Lee '55, my classmate at Princeton and
Yale Medical School. A telephone call confirmed my impression. He
told me that freshman year he had a job for a while delivering papers
and that picture must have been taken in October 1951; a long time
ago. I guess we're getting old.
Herbert Kaufmann '55
Mount Kisco, N.Y.
Lee was also identified
by G. S. Glaser '55.
For those keeping track
of the stellar records of the class secretaries in turning in columns,
the issue of October 25 will forever be marked with an asterisk.
Due to editing errors in that issue, the Class of 1961's column,
which secretary George Brakeley had not missed in 15 years, was
inadvertently left out. Instead, the Class of 1962's column ran
under Mr. Brakeley's address and class year. In addition, the November
8 column from the Class of 1946 ran under the Class of 1954's banner.
PAW regrets the errors and promises that Mr. Brakeley's record will
be kept clean in our books.
Heartfelt pleas from
class secretaries and memorialists have persuaded us to reinstate
the 200-word limit for class memorials.
In the memorial to Stuart
Atha, Jr. '50 (September 13), we misspelled the name of the school
that he attended before coming to Princeton. It was Woodberry Forest.
In our October 25 issue,
we neglected to give credit for the photograph of Louis Bayard '85.
Don Montuori was the photographer.
PAW regrets the errors.