|
More letters from alumni
about Alumni Trustee ballot How disappointing it was to receive the 2002 Princeton Alumni Trustee Ballot. There was not a single mention of the family status of any of the six candidates on my ballot. As we elect the leaders of my great alma mater, is it now considered "politically incorrect" to discuss whether or not any of these leaders have children of their own? What could be more important than understanding whether the stewards of Princeton students have ever raised any of their own children? This is every bit as important a qualification as some of the other meaningless trivia that is included as part of the trustee profiles. Everybody is now so afraid to discriminate against somebody that you are discriminating against those of us who believe "family values" are very relevant to selecting Princeton trustees. You've taken away our right to factor somebody's family status and family values into our decision about who should lead Princeton into the future. I am saddened and insulted. I hope the decision to remove any mention of family will be reconsidered in future ballots. Buck Brown '85 Respond
to this letter Congratulations to the Alumni Association for having captured the
Florida ballot design expert to render the Alumni Identification
Authentication Form (known to its intimates as the AIAF.) I'm sure
there must be a sizeable population eager to hack in to the election
of Princeton trustees. After studying the form diligently, I mailed
in my ballot. My concluding threat is that if my ballot is disallowed,
I'm taking my appeal to the Supreme Court. Respond
to this letter I used to agree completely with Charles W. Bray ’55 (Letters, December 5) that one could not make an informed voting decision based on the information, or lack of, contained in the trustee ballot. Several years ago, I changed my mind after receiving a reply from university representative Thomas Wright ’62 to my letter of protest. I remember him stating that this was not comparable to a national political election, so one should not expect candidates to reveal positions on issues. He also stated that the Alumni Council nominating committee did such a thorough job of selecting excellently qualified candidates that whoever won was superbly qualified to serve, so we did not need any more information than the background provided with the ballot. Since coming around and now understanding the true meaning of these elections and how the nominating committee knows what is best for me and the university, I now summon up all the knowledge and critical thinking skills acquired by me as an undergraduate. I vote for the candidate with the most pleasing photograph or the one with the easiest name to spell. Max Maizels '72 Respond
to this letter I wholeheartedly support Russell R. Willis's '66 criticism of the alumni trustee ballots as they have evolved in recent years. His letter in the June 7 paw is right on the mark. It is always helpful to learn of a candidate's personal and professional attainments and some such information should be on the ballot, of course. But the gut issue ó the only one that really matters, since we can assume the Alumni Council nominating committee has done due diligence ó is what the candidate thinks about one of the great educational institutions of the modern world. What is the candidate's vision of Princeton's future? How would she or he want the university to change over time? In what respects should Princeton not seek to change? What does the candidate most value in a higher education? What specifically does "Princeton in the nation's service and the service of all nations" mean to the candidate? These are the grounds on which alumni should be asked to reflect and vote. Charles W. Bray '55 Respond
to this letter I agree that the ballots are wasteful. Few alumni have any way of making an intelligent choice. Barry A. Cruikshank
'52 Respond
to this letter Is every candidate for alumni trustee barren, unmated, or simply opposed to reproduction? Do these success-driven supermen and women even like children? Bios of trustee candidates shipped to us for evaluation-before-voting don't reveal whether candidates are mothers or fathers, and the number of their children. This information was standard in candidate bios for decades. Trustees function as "parents" to thousands of Princeton students by helping shape university policies that facilitate or impede the success of their education. It's important to some of us that most (not all) of the professionally proven alumni we're asked to consider for trustee think enough about the next generation that they also participate in creating it. Thus they will care about kids, have firsthand experience in coaching and financing their march to maturity, and thus can make informed decisions about how best to underwrite and educate promising sons and daughters in the Princeton environment. Superfathers and supermothers should dominate the trustee candidate roster for these reasons. By the same token, the few of us who take the time to review candidate bios and vote for these key delegates should be given a broader snapshot of their priorities and achievements, including parenthood. Rob Mack '62 Respond
to this letter How could
Mr. Baumgartner determine that
his choices for trustee were a liberal, a liberal, or an ultra-liberal?
Does he get more information than I do? I can only determine
the candidate's age, sex, location, occupation, and volunteer work.
I wish I could be informed of his poliical, social, and Princeton
views. There is no meat in the bio. When I have complained
to the univeristy in the past about the inability to make an informed
vote, Vice President and Secretary Thomas Wright '62 has replied
to me that it doesn't matter. This is not comparable to a national
political election. The nominating committee does such an excellent
job of prescreening, that you cannot go wrong with whomever you
elect. My take is: Then why
bother and waste the expense of this sham election? Max Maizels '72 Respond
to this letter I could not agree more with the letter of Terry Wintroub '69 with regard to the complete waste of the present balloting procedures but would like to add a different reason. As a conservative I find I almost always have the choice of a liberal, a liberal, or an ultra-liberal. Why bother? Donavin Baumgartner, Jr. '52 Naples, Fla. Respond
to this letter I fully agree that alumni ballots for trustee have become a farce although I have taken great pains to vote as responsibly as possible until the last few years, when the Alumni Council excluded all personal references to the personal convictions of candidates: religious affiliations, philosophies, political opinions, educational theories, moral practices etc. I have no basis to select one clone over another and cannot separate rubber stamps from creative contributors. My tolerance level is very broad but I believe anyone influencing education of youth should have some religious faith and moral principles. The Presbyterian founders of Princeton would be much less tolerant, and I am surprised the alumni have not rebelled at the scheme that could permit us to be blindly selecting secularists. I doubt that is the case as I suspect the typical trustee is theologically traditional but forbidden to tell us what he stands for and what changes he foresees for Princeton education. This is not some hidden attack on coeducation, modern architecture, or even Professor Singer but rather a vigorous defense of academic freedom for conservatives and liberals alike. Are we only permitted to support rebellious attacks on traditional values? This spin doctor control of information also extended to publicity releases about our new president -- no way to judge her value system -- no comparison with Dr. Dodd's criteria [http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/more/more_17.html]. Nothing but blind faith in the selection system and hope that Presbyterian predestination or God's providence is still protecting the school they created. Frank Hirsch '54 Lookout Mountain, Tenn. Respond
to this letter Two years ago on the TigerNet discussion group Princeton-Matters, we kicked around the practice of sending trustee ballots to alumni. I argued that the printing, mailing, and tabulating are a colossal waste of time and money. The Alumni Council Executive Committee appoints a nominating committee, the nominating committee winnows hundreds of nominees down to a handful of sterling finalists, any of whom would make "fine trustees." Then the university sends short bios to us alums and we cast our votes based on coin flip, she's cute, he's a classmate, I knew him, I like doctors/corporate execs/do-gooders/whatever, or some other nonsubstantive factor. The ballots tell us essentially nothing to distinguish the candidates' intended or probable effect on Princeton. This year, over and above the costs of printing, mailing, and tabulating, the Alumni Council took out a full page ad on the back cover of PAW telling us how important our vote is, even though 80 percent of us don't think so. "If you care about issues like increasing the student body, the state of the residential colleges, financial aid policy or the current alcohol initiative, then you should vote for your alumni trustees." Why should I vote just because I care about these matters? Are some of the candidates opposed to the increase, satisfied with the state of the colleges, amused at the silliness of the alcohol initiative? Even if some are, how would I know? There is nothing in those bios that tells me anything about the candidates' beliefs on issues of concern to me. These elections are a complete waste of Princeton's resources. If we aren't going to be given a substantive basis for selecting one candidate over another, then drop the charade. At least stop aggravating the charade by taking out ads telling us it's not a charade. Terry Wintroub '69 Respond
to this letter Go back to our online Letter Box Table of Contents |
||||||
