November 20, 2002: Letters
PAW
Letter Box Online
PAW
has expanded its Web site to include a feature called Letter Box, where
many more letters than can fit in the print magazine are published. Please
go to
Letter Box to read and respond.
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
In its choice of the architect for Whitman College, the Board of Trustees appears to be basing its decisions on a perceived sentimentality among alumni. (Cover story, October 9)
When was the line in the sand drawn between the so-called “historic” and the “post-1960s” zones? The campus has always felt more continuous, like a laboratory of some of the more rigorous architectural thinking from each “cultural period,” than such an arbitrary division would imply.
I applaud the commitment to durable construction methods. (This seems especially critical when one is discussing dorm life.) Picturesque siting seems appropriate to the broader context of the campus. Pitched roofs make sense. All of these, and other characteristics of Demetri Porphyrios *80’s espoused principles, feel appropriate. Must we resort, however, to a particular, essentially predetermined idiom, as implied by the decision to engage Porphyrios? Shouldn’t the history of architecture be considered something more than a catalog of styles? Our culture has seen vertiginous change since the teens, when much of the neo-Gothic fabric was built. I’d venture that most of that change has been positive.
Jim Moses ’88
Arlington, Mass.
I was saddened by the news of Professor Richard Challener’s death. I remember him well, and fondly; in the fall of my senior year, I took his course on American Foreign Policy, and served him breakfast.
I worked as a breakfast cook in the Student Center in East Pyne, and Professor Challener used to eat breakfast there a couple of times a week. After a time, I knew his order by heart, although, sadly, I can’t remember what it was. Sometime during the semester, I screwed up the courage to introduce myself, and was delighted when the great professor asked me to join him now and again. He would sit in a booth in the back, read his paper, smelling of pipe tobacco and venerable wisdom, and quiz me gently about the readings. In the photo album I keep in my head of my four years at Princeton, this is one of my favorites.
Charles D. Collins ’88
Norwalk, Conn.
I enjoyed the October 9 ad for the new position of coordinator for Dialogue@ Princeton (page 10). It was chock-full of savory morsels of politically correct
psychobabble and related hot-button topics deliciously crammed into a mere half-page.
I recommend you research the availability of one of Pol Pot’s former “re-educators” for the job. Not only would such an individual be highly skilled in ensuring the “appropriate” dialogue and views are held on race, gender, class differences, and social justice, he (or she) would know how to handle those who resist learning “correct thought” and need to be weeded out for their heresies. In a few years Princeton could be assured of achieving a 100-percent success rate in the “assessment to measure learning and attitudinal changes.”
Doug Sproull ’72
St. Louis, Mo.
Thank you for printing my letter regarding research cloning together with Professor Robert George’s response (October 9). He tenders some questions to me, and this is my response.
An embryo produced outside the womb, which can become a human being only if the massively invasive process of implantation is employed, is not a “moral person,” with rights equal to those of living, breathing human beings. The use of such embryos in research, which might benefit grievously afflicted people, is in no sense immoral.
I do not argue that my position is morally superior to his, but his support of legislation that would impose his arcane views on scientists seeking to alleviate human suffering is at best insensitive.
Charles Blackmar ’42
Jefferson City, Mo.
