Letters - January 26, 2000
All-century football team
I enjoyed the all-century football team feature
in the December 15 issue (cover story), and as a man who has followed Princeton
football since 1920, thought the selections almost beyond dispute. Almost.
How could the selectors pick 1936 as "the greatest football class,"
and the 1933 team as the best, and never mention a single back from that
era? Specifically, I'm thinking of Garrett LeVan '36.
Peter Schwed '32
New York, N.Y.
For some strange reason, the coach named was Bill Roper '02 and not Charlie Caldwell '25! With all due respect, there is no comparison. Charlie had the best coaching record. In his time, he beat Yale nine out of 10 consecutive games, while coaching three of Princeton's greatest teams, in '49, '50, and '51. He was the innovator of single-wing football by inventing the buck-lateral series, which completely changed the single wing into an exciting and most successful style of play. He was the century's innovator, not Crisler with his helmet. Note that seven of Caldwell's players made this team, and, if Glass and Flippin were included, it would be nine; that says a lot.
L. Talbot Adamson '44
Devon, Pa.
I am ordinarily not much interested in all-star athletes or all-America teams. But when I got the December 15 issue of PAW, I opened it expecting to see my father's picture and name. Much to my unhappy surprise, there was nothing about him.
Edward L. McMillan '26 was captain of Princeton's 1925 football team, which defeated Yale 25-12 and Harvard 36-0, the largest combined margin of victory up to that time and not surpassed until 1935. He was chosen first team on every all-America team I have been able to locate. At the end of the season, he was chosen for an all-star team that played Notre Dame with its famous "Four Horsemen."
Princeton teams of that era were among the best in the country and drew big crowds. Nearly 78,000 people watched Princeton beat Yale in the Yale Bowl in 1925.
My father was an assistant coach at Princeton with the 1926 team and joined Tuss McLaughry at Brown as an assistant coach of the famous Brown team known as the "Ironmen." That team was invited to the Rose Bowl but was pressured by the administration to vote not to go. My father regretted his no vote the rest of his life.
Edward L. McMillan, Jr. '57
Middletown, Conn.
Princeton Football Association's selection of the all-century football team was certainly a daunting task. One omission that I would like to point out is that of David Patterson '96. To many, the crushing hits of Dave ("DPat" to his friends) still reverberate clearly, as he captained Princeton to its first outright Ivy League championship in 30 years. His on-field distinctions are impressive: second-team All-Ivy ('93), first-team All-Ivy ('94 and '95), two-time award winner of the Poe Cup, 1995 Bushnell Cup Award Winner (Ivy League MVP), Princeton's all-time leading tackler.
DPat perhaps did not garner enough of the national spotlight to earn recognition on Princeton's all-century football team. This is no doubt a reflection of the current state of Ivy League football, more than anything else, especially considering that football is the only Ivy League sport not allowed to participate in postseason play. On the other hand, when you look at the respectable list of Ivy Leaguers in the NFL, one can certainly argue that DPat's skills rivaled the country's best.
Carter Westfall '96
Seattle, Wash.
I read your article on the football all-century team and thought back to a Princeton-Rutgers game-I think in 1975, give or take a year-which possibly qualifies for the most exasperating football game of the century.
As I recall, Rutgers was ahead 6-0 with a few minutes to go. In an uncharacteristic display of offensive prowess, Princeton marched down the field and scored the tying touchdown with seconds left on the clock. Before we could line up to attempt the extra point, a sea of rowdy Rutgers fans stormed out of their seats on the far side of Palmer Stadium and ripped down the goal post through which Princeton could have sent the winning point-after try. The officials conferred and concluded that, under the circumstances, Princeton would be allowed to attempt the extra point at the other end of the field.
The red hordes then stormed the opposite goal post and tore it down. Princeton was forced to try a two-point conversion, which failed, and the game ended in a 6-6 tie.
Andy Baxter '78
Syracuse, N.Y.
It was a fascinating article on the Tiger all-century football team. I assume the omission of the word "football" from the title was an oversight, as I can easily think of any number of Tiger athletes over the years in a variety of sports who should be listed on a true all-century Tiger team. Maybe you should consider an article on an all-century, all-sports Tiger team.
Bill Hicks '64
Phoenix, Ariz.
The trustees' rebuke of Steve Forbes '70 (Notebook, December 1) is unfortunate at best. They say they must defend Princeton's core values. But what if core values conflict? Isn't one of Princeton's core values a commitment to excellence? Yet Peter Singer is considered a second-rater by his peers on campus, according to a two-page editorial entitled "Princeton and its Principles," in the November 1, 1999, issue of The Weekly Standard. The editorial goes on to say: "This is a man who has no real standing in bioethics, no significant publications in ethical theory, no major importance even in his own narrow world of utilitarianism."
If this is true, then Princeton must choose between core values. I suppose it is up to the trustees to make such a choice, and the choice shouldn't be that difficult. Most people, I think, would regard the commitment to excellence as first among Princeton's core values.
William T. Galey '38
Falmouth, Maine
When I heard about the trustees' criticism leveled against Steve Forbes at the request of some faculty members, all I could think of was, "Is all this really necessary?" Singer himself has dismissed any notion that there was any real chance of his removal. The graceful response to Forbes's announcement would have been to thank him for his past generous support and drop the subject. Instead, we're treated to what looks like the very same grandstanding that Forbes is being accused of. Forbes is a politician-what excuse do his critics have?
If they are so concerned that an alumnus expressing his displeasure is going to intimidate faculty members, why has there been no comment on the way foreign governments have been allowed to manipulate scholarship? For example, China has been denying visas to scholars who are critical of their human rights record. In a particularly noxious case, they detained Perry Link, professor in the East Asian Studies department, at the airport-holding him overnight before sending him back. You might have thought our defenders of academic freedom would have raised a stink. Instead, not a peep from anyone. Indeed, another of our professors, Yu Ying-shih, has suggested that scholars in his field have toned down their criticism of China to avoid Link's fate.
Our protectors of academic freedom would do well to extend to genuine examples of coercion of scholars a portion of the outrage they feel toward the remarks of an alumnus.
Greg Arzoomanian '79
Providence, R.I.
I appreciate and welcome Trustee Forbes's exercise of his academic freedom (or am I naive to assume that trustees are permitted to think independently?) and his financial freedom (or does his money belong to someone other than him, according to the university?).
The other trustees ought to stop hiding behind "academic freedom." Evidently Mr. Singer is free to hold his views of right and wrong, but Mr. Forbes is not. Perhaps Messrs. Rawson et al. could enlighten the university community by setting forth the principles upon which they make such distinctions. I would like to hear them stated plainly.
Katharine Givotovsky Birkett '85
Montville, N.J.
It comes as little surprise that the Board of Trustees has lashed out at Steve Forbes for his repudiation of Peter Singer and his views-but it was interesting that it chose to imply that Forbes does not respect "academic freedom." This is further evidence of the extent to which the lurching behemoth of political correctness has managed to convert simple English into convoluted nonsense.
"Academic freedom" would no more be threatened through rejection of Singer's views on the value of the lives of the disabled than it is through existing university policies on racism and sexism. On the contrary-the university created a fabric for free discourse when it dared to state that one life (that of a white or male) cannot be considered of greater inherent value than others (those of minorities or females). The hiring of Singer, who has written that disabled infants might be better off put to death, has now rent that fabric.
The question is whether it was appropriate for the university to fund the promotion of Singer's views, through the granting of a chair at the Center for "Human Values"-another phrase rendered meaningless through the hiring of this advocate for infanticide. The board forces itself into the untenable position that it is not merely appropriate for the university to hire Singer, but even incumbent upon it to do so-for to pay any attention to the moral repugnance of a professor's views would encroach upon "academic freedom." One wonders how quickly a Holocaust revisionist will find a place in the Jewish Studies program, or an advocate for return to slavery in the African-American Studies program, using this same approach.
Bravo, Steve. Perhaps thanks to the efforts of people like you, we won't live to see expressions like "higher education" and "Western Civilization" similarly redefined.
Ken Menken '86
Baltimore, Md.
Rarely do I agree with Steve Forbes '70, but more frequently I disagree with the university administration and its Board of Trustees. In defense of the professorial appointment of Peter Singer, who endorses the practices of infanticide and euthanasia, the board, as reported in your December 1 issue, said it must protect the core values of the university which include "the essential principles of academic freedom."
Every child knows that there are limits to freedom. We are not free to rob, murder, or rape. Should academic freedom permit a professor to endorse any of those crimes or, for example, praise Hitler and the Holocaust? It would appear that by Princeton's current standards he would not be reprimanded for doing so.
Hugh M. F. Lewis '41
St. Louis, Mo.
I must add my voice to the expressions of dismay and outrage at the appointment of Peter Singer as "the first full-time tenured professor of bioethics" at the university's Center for Human Values.
Princeton's founders acknowledged the Judeo-Christian heritage of the God of the Bible and God's authority over His creation. Princeton is proud of its traditions that prepared us to reason for ourselves. It should also place high value on the moral expectations it taught us through such traditions as its honor code and even its Christian roots. It is embarrassing to have to defend Princeton against the most egregious quotations from the writings of Mr. Singer.
Painful though it is to me, the university has seen my last donation. I salute the current excellent student body, who are showing such great promise. And I apologize to my classmates and other alumni for encouraging them to support Annual Giving.
Herbert F. Slade '59
Fisherville, Va.
Peter Singer has said that his doctrine of equal consideration of the interests of all beings, human and nonhuman, will never take effect in this country as long as we cling to existing American social and economic arrangements. He has advised that his doctrine "would be better served by a society that adopted the famous Marxist slogan: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and that "capitalism is a wasteful, irrational system, a system that controls us when we should be controlling it."
Nor does Singer flinch from depicting precisely what new moral calculations would result if his quasi-Marxist, quasi-utilitarian doctrine were to gain wide acceptance. Take infanticide, for instance, a frequent subject in his works. He writes that "in thinking about this matter we should put aside feelings based on the small, helpless, and-sometimes-cute appearance of human infants. . . . Nor can the helplessness or the innocence of the infant Homo Sapiens be a ground for preferring it to the equally helpless and innocent fetal Homo Sapiens, or for that matter, to laboratory rats who are 'innocent' in exactly the same sense."
Singer appears to be genuinely bewildered at the reaction to his views. He states that since "the aim of my argument is to elevate the status of animals rather than to lower the status of humans . . . it is excessively pessimistic" of his critics to worry about unintended consequences.
In the final chapter of one of his books, Singer admits that almost all of the basic economic predictions made by Marx have been flatly contradicted by experience and that the Marxist conception "contains within it a difficulty Marx never sufficiently appreciated, a difficulty that can be linked with the tragic mutation of Marx's views into a prop for murderously authoritarian regimes." I find it remarkable that the author of these observations, made in 1980, can so easily dismiss widely held fears concerning the kindred doctrine he now promotes among Princeton undergraduates. I find it even more remarkable that so glaring a contradiction in the published writings of this "rigorous" thinker (to quote President Shapiro and others) has been ignored by the segment of the university community which has given Professor Singer the platform he now enjoys.
Dial Parrott '66
South Glastonbury, Conn.
During the 36 years since my graduation, I have supported changes in the university's admission criteria and academic curriculum. These have allowed Princeton to maintain its preeminent role in undergraduate education.
I cannot support, however, the selection of Peter Singer to a tenured position on the faculty at the Center for Human Values. This implies acceptance of his values, which are foreign to most of the civilized world. They are so controversial that guards secure his classroom doors. This is not Princeton "in the nation's service."
Princeton has the responsibility to nurture the souls as well as the minds of tomorrow's leaders. In committing to Professor Singer, the university chooses to minimize the soul in the very important area of bioethics, man's respect for the life of his fellow man. Until Princeton's bioethics become more charitable, my contributions will be directed to institutions whose mission is to make this world a better place for all mankind.
Thomas W. Newsome '63
Dallas, Tex.
Reluctantly, I add one more letter on Professor Peter Singer. I feel compelled to do so by a recent e-mail sent by a member of my class to all e-mail addresses on our class roster, excoriating Singer's presence on campus and concluding that classmates should direct contributions for the university to an escrow account to be held until Singer leaves. It is sad to see that such bright people still don't get it.
I disagree with some of Singer's conclusions. That is just the point. The role of an eminent teacher at a great university is to stimulate thought, discussion, and criticism. This is not a grammar school. The undergraduates would not have been admitted if they hadn't had the capacity to disagree with and criticize other's views. I suggest that ethics is the best discipline in which to inject controversy. Value judgments reached after considering, analyzing, discussing, and criticizing various views, including generally unacceptable ones, are the most strongly held and the most likely to be soundly grounded. Students who can't reject the opinions of a teacher with whom they disagree should not be at Princeton.
If a student wants his ethical principles handed to him neatly gift-wrapped and tied with a ribbon, not to be examined intellectually, he should not take Singer's course. I hope there are few such students, if any, at Princeton.
My congratulations to President Shapiro and the trustees (including Steve Forbes) for bringing Singer to Princeton.
Frank T. Gray '42
Baltimore, Md.
Where is it written that Princeton's scholars may encounter only tired, noncontroversial ideas, lest they feel motivated (gasp) to debate anything outside of their preceptorials?
That such impassioned debate occurs merely over the ethical and logical merit of Peter Singer's theories stands as evidence that this man already has made a tremendous contribution to our university's intellectual life.
Until Professor Singer threatens personally to "euthanize" an infant, there should be no question as to his remaining a valued member of Princeton's faculty. To suggest otherwise smacks of the book-burning, thought-police mentality embraced by the Nazis. Ideas themselves cannot be dangerous. Would that the ideas expressed by all of Princeton's professors inspire such impassioned debate on campus and in the intellectual community at large.
Elaine Boxer '95
New York, N.Y.
May I propose a moratorium on letters, pro and con, regarding Professor Peter Singer? It's time to put this obsession behind us and move on to more interesting matters.
Stephen C. Bandy *67
East Hampton, N.Y.
My husband and I thoroughly enjoyed Steven G. Kellman's exhaustive article, "Princeton in the Movies" (cover story, November 3). I think it was Robert Benchley who wrote that no college he had ever visited remotely resembled those depicted in films. It would be interesting to explore how Princeton in particular won the reputation as a school for playboys and snobs. When Paramount decided to make Varsity in 1927, my father, director Frank Tuttle, appealed to his alma mater for permission to shoot the picture in New Haven. Yale declined and he turned to Princeton. It is news to me that Varsity was withdrawn from circulation in response to President Hibbens's objections. Tuttle's grandson, incidentally, is a Princeton graduate, Class of 1968.
Helen Tuttle Votichenko s'40
Scottsdale, Ariz.
In his otherwise admirable survey of Princeton's place in the American cinema, Steven G. Kellman makes at least one significant error of omission, director Jonathan Demme's unbelievably wretched 1979 thriller The Last Embrace. This ersatz Hitchcockian exercise stars Roy Scheider as a federal secret agent recovering from a lengthy mental breakdown. Immediately upon his release from the hospital, Scheider survives the first of several attempts on his life, and then returns home to discover that his New York apartment has been sublet to a comely young female graduate student (Janet Margolin) from the Princeton anthropology department who has come to the city to do field research on prostitution.
Intuiting that a mysterious note bears some relation to his recurring brushes with death, Scheider accepts an offer of help from the grad student, and they travel out to Princeton several times to confer with her adviser. Twenty percent of the film is shot on campus, primarily interior scenes of Firestone Library and the Graduate College. On one of his campus visits, Scheider engages in a lengthy gun battle with a government assassin inside Cleveland Tower. Although he runs out of bullets, Scheider handily dispatches his assailant by activating the carillon bells in the tower, the clamor of which drives the assassin mad and sends him plummeting to his death.
Cliff Doerksen *92
Chicago, Ill.
Why hasn't the riveting story of Hobey Baker '14 ever been made into a movie?
Sara Gillespie s'40
Delray Beach, Fla.
At least two talented alumni were left out: Cecil Hoffmann '84, who starred in the television show LA Law, and appeared in the movies Tombstone and Stargate; and Doug McGrath '80, who wrote for Saturday Night Live, directed Born Yesterday and Emma, cowrote Bullets over Broadway with Woody Allen, and appeared in a cameo role in The Insider.
Kabir S. Mahadeva '81
Raleigh, N.C.
"Princeton in the Movies" overlooked Ian McLellan Hunter '38, whose delightful, original story, Roman Holiday, introduced Audrey Hepburn to American audiences in 1953. Ian also received credit for the screenplay (with John Dighton). Gregory Peck starred, William Wyler directed, and Ian and Audrey both won Oscars.
Adie Suehsdorf '38
Sonoma, Calif.
Your From the Archives picture (December 15) brings back memories from
long ago. Our game plan at the time was to race "Super-Spokes Shultz"
(Class of '56 or '57) from Vassar to Prospect Street to begin Houseparties
weekend 1956. He was to give us an hour's head start.
Shultz was a national bicycle competitor. Unfortunately, while he was riding his bike he was struck and killed by an automobile. This was several weeks before the challenge event. Obviously this dampened our spirits, and the long ride did not occur.
We did ride the bike all around Mercer County. I recall we also went to the Jersey Shore and back. We even considered a training ride from Smith College. It was a lot of effort, requiring teamwork and all of us pedaling together. Speed also required that we all lean together on curves.
I don't remember where we obtained the bike. I believe it was a window promotion for a bicycle shop along Nassau Street.
Bill Carruthers '58
Cincinnati, Ohio
PAW was unable to identify "Super-Spokes" Shultz, nor confirm his class or demise. Perhaps one of our readers can help.
Why when so many of Princeton's men's and women's varsity sports teams now compete at the national championship level do you devote so much coverage to the men's varsity football team, probably the least competitive team of all?
Thomas McKay '69
New York, N.Y.
I wish that in the future, PAW would spare alumni any more self-congratulatory tripe written by undergraduates of the sort typified by Christine B. Whelan '99's First Person essay, "All the news that fits the Prince" (October 6), about her recently completed tenure as editor-in-chief of The Daily Princetonian. PAW should stop wasting alums' time with such self-indulgent student memoirs.
Steven M. Warshawsky '90
Baltimore, Md.
The article on Katherine Betts '86 (cover story, November 17) reads much more like a slick public relations promotion than like intelligent journalism. Certainly it fails to address any of the important ethical and social issues that a moment's serious thought about the fashion industry ought to raise nor does it suggest that they have ever crossed Ms. Betts's bright mind.
One need not be a Buddhist to be impressed by the precepts of the Noble Eightfold Path, which include right livelihood. Is it right livelihood to persuade men and women to spend thousands of dollars on
articles of clothing solely for the ego-satisfaction of
appearing fashionable? Is it right livelihood to serve an industry that distorts the self-image of millions of women who do not fit the aesthetic norms of high fashion, giving rise to great anxiety, often expressed in eating disorders? Is the subculture surrounding high fashion models an example of right understanding, right action, right effort, or right mindedness? Unlike your earlier and excellent feature about the promotion of public service careers by alumni of the Class of 1955, your article about Ms. Betts is an example of Princeton in self-service rather than in national service.
Jeff Green '66
Jerusalem, Israel
When I read the obituaries of Joe DiMaggio, which of course mentioned Marilyn Monroe, it occurred to me that I had never met a Princeton undergraduate named Marilyn. The Freshman Herald booklets, which have first-name indices going back to 1995, confirm my impression: There is no one named Marilyn in the classes from 1995 through 2003.
Did Marilyn Monroe put the kibosh on giving her name to Princeton-bound baby girls? Is there an unconscious bias in admissions?
I had the impression that the stage name chosen for Norma Jean Baker was at that time a common name. If the paucity of students named Marilyn is real, it is a long-lasting effect. The class of 1995 was born 10 years after Marilyn Monroe died.
Kenneth Deffeyes *59
Princeton, N.J.
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).
GO TO the Table of Contents of the current issue
GO TO
PAW's home page