Letters - January 27, 1999
Report on admissions
I read with interest about the proposal by the Faculty Study Group on
Undergraduate Admissions to increase the number of undergraduates by 125-150
per class (Notebook, November 18). I can understand the reasons for increasing
the number of undergraduates. It would make the remarkable Princeton experience
available to a larger and more diverse population of deserving students,
increase international representation without decreasing the numbers of
U.S. and Canadian students, occupy a faculty expanding with the diversity
of the curriculum, and increase the tuition rate base in support of the
university's growing costs for faculty and increasingly complex facilities
and services.
On the other hand, the scale and setting of Princeton as both a scholarly
and social community are very important to its special place in the firmament
of great universities. They enable the greater level of personal interaction
between teachers and students which is vital to Princeton's success. They
provide the best chance to realize the benefits of diversity within a small,
cohesive community, rather than compartmentalization within a larger one.
Expansion, even modestly toward the populations of notable peers such as
Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, might cost Princeton exactly the advantage
it enjoys in comparison.
The historic leap to Princeton's current enrollment was essential to
achieve coeducation. But it's hard to see such a compelling case today.
Robert B. Rodgers '56
Princeton, N.J.
One of Princeton's greatest attractions is its small size and the close
ties it fosters among students. The spirit and enthusiasm one finds on campus
already attract what the Study Group's report calls "intellectually
engaged students." But adding 500 to 600 such students would potentially
dilute Princeton's spirit, for students narrowly focused on academics would
not take part in the activities that make Princeton special.
Our competitors are duly impressed with the level of accomplishment of
our athletic teams. Princeton's dedicated athletes reach a level of excellence
in sports while tackling our rigorous academics, and as alumni they go on
to become some of our greatest contributors. All special admissions categories
-- athletes, legacies, and minorities -- bring talent and diversity to the
campus. We can further improve the quality of the student body by doing
a better job of publicizing Princeton's character and spirit, not by inflating
the size of the undergraduate classes.
James MacWilliam '54
Houston, Tex.
I appreciate the effort being devoted to the Princeton of the future
and the makeup of the student body. Diversity and attracting the best and
brightest legacies, athletes, and students with special aptitudes are all
important. But I hope we won't neglect men and women who at that early age
may not be academic 1's or 2's but who have shown character and leadership
and hard work. Every Princeton class can cite examples of members who barely
got in and weren't stars in their first years, but who in later life made
great contributions in their particular fields and to this country and their
communities. Let's save a few places for them.
Ward Chamberlin '43
Adamsville, R.I.
I take issue with two points of those suggesting an increase in the size
of the student body:
First, their basic premise is that there has been a substantial increase
in the strength of applicants to Princeton and that too much academic talent
(academic 1's and 2's) is being turned away. In examining the supporting
table, I find that at least the increase in academic 1's appears to be illusory.
Academic 1's as a percentage of enrolling students was constant at about
16-19 percent (by eyeballing the data) for the classes of 1993-1999, and
jumped to 26 percent, 28 percent, and 32 percent over the following three
years, just as the new SAT point scale was being introduced. Assuming that
enrolled students reflect applicants, the change suggests insufficient adjustment
and rating creep rather than a sudden increase in the strength of the applicant
pool. The increase from 51 percent of academic 1's and 2's for the Class
of 1993 to 72 percent for the Class of 2002 probably results from increased
grade inflation in high schools; certainly, Princeton's reputation and the
preparedness of high school students have not changed so drastically over
this period.
Second, the Study Group suggests that the way to increase the quality
of intellectual life on campus is to admit more students who have demonstrated
strong contributions to activities such as acting, painting, creative writing,
and so on. I disagree. It would never be possible to admit a sufficient
number of students in any of these areas to have a strong effect on overall
campus life, and just admitting a few of each differs little from current
policies of attempting to admit a class with diverse talents.
A far better way to increase the intellectual engagement of most students
would be to promote intellectual activities in highly available venues,
such as after-dinner poetry readings (by professors or students) in dining
halls, or painting exhibits in residential colleges. By analogy to sports,
admitting 10 more varsity athletes is not going to change the overall athleticism
of the student body as much as would putting exercise rooms in every dorm
or expanding intramurals.
Dan Mytelka '87
Burke, Va.
Campus architecture
Count me among those hopeless philistines who believe that the modern
world would be a far better place if the infant Frank Lloyd Wright had been
discreetly strangled in his crib.
My narrow-mindedness is not a symptom of creeping middle age, for I have
always been an architectural arch-conservative. As a freshman I told the
Housing Office I did not care which dormitory I lived in, so long as it
was one of the soaring Collegiate Gothic edifices that first drew me to
Princeton. If the university had ignored my request and exiled me to Wilson
College, or, worse, to that brown-brick obscenity then known as the New
New Quad, I would have undoubtedly opted for Yale.
Thus it has been with mixed emotions (specifically, revulsion, horror,
and sadness) that I have viewed the various photographs of recent campus
construction that periodically appear in paw. I am unimpressed by the raves
(ravings?) of the professional architectural establishment. I have not seen
a single inspiring or distinctive design. Indeed, most of the university's
new buildings would seem at home in just about any architectural setting,
from the office multiplexes lining U.S. 1 to a shopping mall in Seattle.
To my eyes, the much-ballyhooed Wu Hall resembles nothing so much as a suburban
post office. The new stadium is the one recent campus structure I admire,
but it does not belong at Princeton. It would look quite appropriate at,
say, MIT (if MIT had a football team) or among the sleek, modern structures
of the Air Force Academy. Princeton should be more traditional. We fielded
one of the very first collegiate football teams, and we ought to have a
venerable athletic venue that recalls those days of glory. We also need
to blow up Jadwin Gym, that cavernous, multilayered seashell which so strongly
suggests the fossilized husk of some primeval crustacean.
If I had $500 million to spare, I would give it all to Princeton with
but one unbreakable string attached: the money would have to be used, first,
to raze every campus building erected after, say, 1950, and second, to ensure
that every subsequent structure would fit into the university's prewar architectural
scheme. I know there was a lack of architectural coherence even before World
War II, but let's face it: Even Alexander Hall beats the Woodrow Wilson
School.
Stewart Harris '83
Green Cove Springs, Fla.
I was pleased to read of the ongoing renewal of campus walkways (President's
Page, March 25). As a past Orange Key historian and student in Professor
Robert J. Clark's seminar on campus architecture, I have strong feelings
about maintaining Princeton's beautiful landscape. The walkways are more
than paths -- for many alumni they are associated with our first impressions
and fondest memories of Princeton.
I was also glad to read about plans to improve landscaping east of Washington
Road. As an engineering student I long suffered the second-class feeling
of all who trudged to the E-Quad on the "nerd highway," past parking
lots and chain-link fences. U.S. 1 was more scenic.
Dave Thom '96
Toronto, Ontario
A pox on prox cards
I was distressed to read Kruti Trivedi '00's article on the new "prox"
cards (On the Campus, October 21) and an article in the November 12 New
York Times on the same subject. Princeton's new electronic security
system puts it in the ranks of government officials bent on destroying the
right of privacy -- more like what you'd expect of a correctional institution
than a place for the free exchange of ideas. When I was an undergraduate
I don't recall people even locking their doors.
Frederick H. Bruenner '41
Port Washington, N.Y.
In the Good Old Days, doors
opened to knocks.
But we've changed our ways and
now open to prox.
Some students say that privacy's
assaulted.
Others think, "Okay, the system
can't be faulted which protects
you from predators, misanthropes,
and creditors."
As an Old Alum, mind on the
bum --
I'm thinking anal, basic, and
banal --
My criterion is how well the
john locks,
Or if Princeton's Presbyterian, do
we cling to john knocks?
Joe Illick '56
San Francisco, Calif.
Peter Singer
The many wrathful comments greeting the appointment of Peter Singer (Letters,
October 21, November 4 and 18, and December 2) have moved me to read his
books. So far, Practical Ethics. Next, Rethinking Life and Death.
Why the tzimmes? Professor Singer is a philosopher who thinks rigorously
and writes clearly about longstanding ethical dilemmas whose resolutions
-- whichever directions they take us -- will have far-reaching consequences
for all earthly life. Such matters seem worthy of our attention.
I bid Professor Singer welcome to our campus, applaud Princeton for acquiring
him, and wish I were still an undergraduate so I could enroll in his courses.
Adie Suehsdorf '38
Sonoma, Calif.
Ideas have consequences. Cheapening the value of human life always precedes
arguments for its extermination. The systematic programs of mass murder
carried out in this century in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and other
countries did not emerge from an intellectual vacuum. Even Dr. Jack Kevorkian
claims a philosophical basis for his actions. Why, then, would Princeton
embrace, and supply a platform for, a philosopher who provides the intellectual
rationalization for the slaughter of innocents by defining groups of human
beings as nonpersons lacking basic human rights?
In contrast to Professor Singer's ethical framework, I wonder how many
of the faculty members associated with the University Center for Human Values
accept divinely revealed Biblical truth as the basis for morality in human
conduct? This perspective, after all, inspired and guided the founders of
Princeton and the nation. It is the foundation for much of what we value
in western civilization, but it tends to offend intellectual elites by denying
them the privilege to play God with people's lives.
G.K. Chesterton wrote of the vanity of "giving a pestilence a place
in the sun," yet this is exactly what Princeton has done in the appointment
of Singer as a professor of bioethics. There is little that is ethical about
his bioethics; a more appropriate title would be professor of infanticide
or euthanasia.
Lance F. James '76
Marblehead, Mass.
Convincing Professor Singer to leave Australia to join the faculty is
a major coup. It is time for the "welcome" of defamatory brickbats
with which alumni have showered him to cease.
For years doctors confronted with newborns whose lives (such as they
are) can be prolonged by surgery, but whose long-term prospects can never
be made to amount to more than constant suffering or vegetation, have opted
to let them die (increasingly, one gathers, after consultation with the
parents). A sadder moral dilemma is difficult to imagine, but surely Professor
Singer is to be praised, not vilified, for attempting to put it in the realm
of general moral debate, rather than continuing to let such decisions depend
so heavily on the individual beliefs of the physician who happens to be
on duty that day.
John Hart Ely '60
Miami, Fla.
The creation of a University Center for Human Values should give greater
meaning to a merely technical education. One would expect that it would
teach the highest human values and that its teachers would be persons comparable
even to Gandhi or Mother Theresa, capable of demonstrating how altruistic
ideals can be applied to practical life. The irony of Professor Singer's
appointment is not that he is controversial, but that his views fit so closely
with those who already teach at the center. Rather than opening up new areas
of debate, he will only reinforce the dominant secular, relativistic world
view already promoted.
William Park '51
Bronxville, N.Y.
Will Princeton choose Dr. Kevorkian to fill its next available chair
of bioethics? A half-century ago millions died in the Nazi juggernaut, and
now one of the bastions of western civilization has planted that seed again.
Who will be the next victims of this philosophy of death -- us old fogies
as we become too decrepit to donate our millions to Princeton? Diabolei
sub numine viget.
Paul F. Perreten '55
Old Saybrook, Conn.
In building up umpteen thousand dollars' worth of student debt, it was
not my plan to see my good name dragged through the mud of paw's letters
pages. I'm not sure what has prompted this vitriol from fellow alumni, but
I insist that it end. O.K., so I was bit late on my class dues, but is this
really a reason to send me "Dear Hitler" e-mails?
It seems odd that so many feel free to criticize my personal morality
and academic work without ever taking the time to get to know me or read
even one thing I have written. I urge such people to check my senior thesis
in the University Archives; nowhere will they find that I advocate the beating
of defenseless orphans or running over grandmothers in the streets.
If these ad hominem attacks don't cease, I'll be forced to transfer allegiance
to a certain school where I am now a graduate student. Not all Peter Singers
are evil, and some of us are quite likable.
Peter Singer '97
Cambridge, Mass.
Larry Ellis
With the passing of Larry Ellis, Princeton lost not only one of its greatest
coaches but one of its finest teachers (Notebook, December 16). He coached
track, but by word and deed he taught a generation of Princetonians how
to live, and to a significant extent he shaped my Princeton experience.
Coach Ellis and I both arrived at Princeton in the fall of 1970. He was
a successful high-school track coach from Jamaica, New York, and I was a
freshman from Los Angeles. My arrival was nothing special, but his created
a stir in the media and a buzz in the Princeton community, for he was the
first African-American to assume a head-coaching job at an Ivy League school.
Some questioned whether he belonged at Princeton. They wondered whether
a black man could teach even the sport of track to the fine young (and mostly
white) men who constituted the vast majority of students. As an African-American,
I knew that these same people also questioned whether I or any person of
color belonged at Princeton.
I was hurt by such questions, which came from within the very community
I was working hard to be a part of, and wondered how I should respond to
them. I decided to observe how Larry Ellis dealt with them to determine
my own course of action. To my amazement, he seemed to ignore these racist
attacks on his ability. He displayed class and grace as a coach and a human
being, proving every day that the decision to bring him to Princeton had
been right. Coach Ellis silenced his critics by laying the foundation for
a resurgent track and field program, and through his example he taught us
to cope with a sometimes ugly world.
The world of track and field has lost a great coach, but the Princeton
community has lost much more. Larry Ellis was a professor of life. My sons
did not have the opportunity to be taught directly by him. But I have transmitted
the lessons he taught me, so his influence continues into the next generation.
Arnold G. Hyndman '74
Belvidere, N.J.
Eating clubs
In Daniel A. Grech '99's December 2 On the Campus column, he closes his
discussion of Princeton's elitist club system by referring to his own hypocrisy
in participating in bicker and its attendant prejudices and cruelties.
As a former president of Cap & Gown, I join him in admitting to my
own selfishness and weakness in bowing to the social pressures that Princeton
presented to me when I showed up there 44 years ago. Had I been a more courageous
person, I would have opted out of bicker and faced the isolation of the
loner at Princeton: few social opportunities, few places to eat, dorm rules
that precluded cooking for yourself, no supermarket within walking distance,
and no cars allowed on campus.
Given my personal mea culpa here, could I now please hear one from Princeton's
administration and Board of Trustees? Talk about hypocrisy! It is time for
the trustees and the administration to meet the needs of all the students
by making the eating clubs irrelevant.
When the social center of the university moves from Prospect Avenue to
the environs of Nassau Street, and when Princeton finally accepts its clear
responsibility for the welfare of all its students, it could then truly
see itself as a major university, not the preppiest of prep schools.
Asa Baber '58
Chicago, Ill.
I take exception to Daniel Grech's sweeping generalization that bicker
clubs boast a "legacy of racism, sexism, and antisemitism." While
I cannot vouch for the other clubs in question, my experiences as an undergraduate
member of Tower Club prove otherwise.
During my years there, I enjoyed the company of a vastly diverse group
of friends who never felt the need to call attention to themselves by virtue
of race, gender, or religious denomination. It was this merciful disregard
of politically correct posturing that led me, a native Puerto Rican, to
assume the club's presidency during my senior year. I inherited the position
from Mel Gaylord '92, an African-American, who himself succeeded Maureen
Hagy '91, a woman. Subsequent to my own tenure, Scott Wurman '94, who is
Jewish, took over. None of us ever considered indulging the bleeding-heart
mandate to maintain any sort of demographic quotas at bicker. We simply
allowed for members to vote their own conscience, and, not surprisingly,
they always managed to embrace a new group of equally diverse individuals
to our club.
As to Grech's disdain for the Street's "dominant culture of beer
guzzling and random hook-ups," I know of at least five marriages that
were forged through the course of Tower's own social activities, and countless
others that grew from the equally spirited interaction between ours and
other club's members. I agree that alcohol abuse continues to be a problem
on the Street, but eliminating the entire selective club system isn't the
solution. I find no specific correlation between bicker selection and alcohol
abuse; the latter is endemic to colleges, regardless of the clubs, fraternities,
or sororities they house. One would be better served exploring how youth
culture manages to foster substance abuse, both within and without college
societies.
In addition, Grech's reference to club members eating "meals cooked
by a private chef served ... by minority employees," as if this were
somehow closed-minded and elitist, strikes me as resolutely unfair. The
staff at Tower has always benefited from exceptional salary and benefits
packages that, in some instances, have included paid education. Club employees
have also won the hearts of members, and vice-versa, often fostering fond
mutual relationships.
F. Javier San Miguel '93
Los Angeles, Calif.
As a former obviously bigoted and alcohol-challenged member of Cottage
Club, I've never had anything good to say about Ivy Club until now, for
it must have proudly rejected Mr. Grech's bid for membership. On behalf
of all the leaders in our society and others, such as myself, who were All-America
athletes and honors graduates, I thank him for pointing out the profound
differences between people like him and alumni who were members of the selective
clubs.
Bill Chaires '75
Annapolis, Md.
Human statue identified
In your issue of June 4, 1997, you published a From the Archives photo
of an unidentified man in a toga perched in one of the statue niches on
East Pyne Hall while a group of graduates streamed by beneath him. The mysterious
prankster was Jeffery A. Smisek '76, then my boyfriend and now my husband.
I had gone to photograph him and belatedly discovered that my camera had
no film. I had no idea someone else had taken a picture of him. Jeff is
now executive vice-president and general counsel of Continental Airlines.
Diana Strassmann '77
Houston, Tex.
Community service
Soon after my graduation last June, I accepted the position of Class
of 1998 Community Service Chair. My decision was made in the hopes of providing
my classmates and current students with eye-opening service opportunities
such as those I experienced as a student. During my undergraduate years,
my community service focused on fostering relationships between Princeton
students and villagers in Belize. Through teaching children, mapping caves
in a national park, and living closely with villagers, I learned innumerable
enlightening lessons. For my senior thesis in the geosciences department,
I was able to examine and extend that learning in an academic framework
by studying the caves in the national park and suggesting plans for managing
the caves and educating visitors and villagers about them.
More than 60 other Princeton students have had similar experiences in
Belize. The complex cultural and legal issues of international volunteerism
call for a knowledgeable full-time staff person to provide stability and
continuity for the program. The other 1998 class officers and I are exploring
the possibility of sponsoring such a position in an annual 14-month internship
for a Princeton graduate. Chad Oliver '98 decided to fill the need by volunteering
in the park last fall. He returns to campus this spring to train students
for future trips, provide administrative oversight for the program, and
work with faculty to establish a course based on ecotourism as a development
strategy.
Because the Class of 1998 is so young, we have limited financial resources
to support Chad as an intern. His costs would be significantly reduced if
a resident of the Princeton area would be willing to let him stay in an
extra room. In addition, the program would be helped substantially by donations
of airline tickets earned by frequent-flyer miles. Classes or individuals
interested in becoming involved should contact me at bertucci@alumni.princeton.edu
(718-474-0847).
Sarah Bertucci '98
Princeton, N.J.
Robert Dicke '39
I would like to clarify some points made by Robert A. Winters '35 in
his November 4 letter describing his encounter with Princeton physicist
Robert Dicke '39 shortly after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background
radiation (CMBR).
The CMBR was first predicted by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman *40 in
a paper published in Nature in 1948. This seminal paper followed
up on some ideas presented in a paper published that same year by Ralph
Alpher, Hans Bethe, and George Gamow, in which they suggested that the light
elements could have formed in the hot, dense conditions of the early universe.
Alpher and Herman showed that they could explain the abundance of helium
in the universe, and that the CMBR was a necessary consequence of their
model.
Alpher and Herman tried to convince radio astronomers to search for the
background radiation. It is a difficult experiment, and at the time there
were no attempts.
The serendipitous discovery, in 1965, of the CMBR by Arno Penzias and
Robert Wilson, of Bell Laboratories, and the awarding of the Nobel Prize
(in 1977) for this discovery are well known. Penzias and Wilson did not
realize at first what they had discovered because they had no knowledge
of the work of Alpher and Herman. For a theoretical explanation of what
they had found, they quoted an accompanying paper in The Astrophysical
Journal by Dicke and others which made no reference to the work by Alpher
and Herman, who only later were properly credited.
I was an undergraduate physics major when the CMBR was discovered. It
made a strong impact on me, and is probably responsible for the fact that
of 18 physics majors in my class, six of us became astronomers. I had some
interesting conversations with Dicke about this. While a graduate student
at Columbia, I worked with Penzias and Wilson and got a good feeling for
their strength as experimental physicists and how that played into their
discovery.
Marc L. Kutner '68
Astronomy Department,
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Tex.
Forrestal Research Center
I am writing a history of the James Forrestal Research Center, which
flourished on U.S. 1 from its dedication in 1952 until the mid-1970s, and
would like to hear from former undergraduates and graduate students who
conducted research or attended laboratories or classes there. I am particularly
interested in anecdotes about faculty involved in aeronautical research,
including Dan Sayre, Nick Nikolsky, Lester Lees, and Joe Charyk. I can be
reached c/o Princeton Alumni Weekly, 194 Nassau St., Suite 38, Princeton,
NJ 08542 (609-258-4931; merritt@princeton.edu).
J.I. Merritt '66
Princeton, N.J.
paw@princeton.edu