|
September 13, 2000 Letters Seth Raynor, golf course designer Alumni trustees, what do they think? 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).
The recent fuss over whether the university should take over paw seemed a bit overwrought, since paw appears to reflect the university's views anyway, and I assume that the whole matter has been resolved. However, the dispute, in calling attention to paw, might be an opportunity to rethink the nature of this venerable publication. I make the following serious suggestion: That the Princeton Alumni Weekly become the Princeton Alumni Monthly. Week after week, paw floats on with the flimsiest of stories, and the various class secretaries dredge up the recollections of not very interesting parties that four or five alumni attended. The sports section repeats information already published in the daily newspapers, and President Shapiro comes up with something to say (usually very gracefully). In other words, there is seldom as much information as there is wasted ink. I feel fairly confident that a substantial percentage of my fellow alumni would agree to this overdue change. Philip Atchison '51
I agree with Jon Murphy '57 with regard to paw's frequency (Letters, March 8). Don't let the dazzling skill of the numerous writers who contribute to paw blind you to the fact that Class Notes is a key part of the magazine. Fatter issues of paw at less frequent intervals are unlikely to yield more space for Class Notes, thereby putting more strain on class secretaries and probably causing even greater lags between the occurrence of personal events and the time when they appear in paw. Martin Schell '74
Up here in the outer fringes of the Ivy League sphere, I have heretofore regularly and eagerly welcomed my copies of paw. I've become a fan of the President's Page and have always been a happy reader of On the Campus. Out of range of TV and radio and even newspapers (other than Boston's Globe) I always used to look to some cogent sports reporting (beyond stale scores) that used to spice up the athletics coverage. Sad! Now you include under sports the later exploits in worthwhile endeavors of aging varsity stars - articles that belong nearer the front of your now floppier issues of paw. Gone are summaries and helpfully analyzed aspects of games we weren't able to see or read about regularly. I certainly hope you will in future switch out-of-budget such dull and frivolous spreads as The Making of the 25th (Cover story, May 17) and restore some really interesting writing about the current sports struggles. Bob Allyn '46
I am sure the magazine represents the work of many people, but in the final analysis the basic credit must go to the new editor. I have been reading paw for 62 years, and it has had its ups and downs, but the improvement of late has been outstanding in appearance, content, and general interest. From the Editor is especially noteworthy as an innovation. The reunion issue is the best ever. Three cheers! Duncan Augustine '38
While paw's appearance and content continue to improve since her arrival, Ms. Martin's From the Editor column is self-indulgent and frankly tedious. Bob Gebhardt '67
In his letter to the editor (May 17) Herbert S. Bailey, Jr. '42 sounded a note of concern regarding the independence of paw, which appears "to be putting itself under the thumb of the university." Continuing to read the letters, I came upon the one written by John Stryker '74 regarding control of memorial funds (May 17). The two letters appear to go hand in hand, for if paw does put itself under the thumb of the university would we again read in the magazine letters such as Mr. Stryker's? Henry R. Martin '48
I am sympathetic to the positions taken by Herbert S. Bailey, Jr. '42 (Letters, May 17) and Alvin R. Kracht '49 (Letters, July 5) regarding the desirability of paw's remaining an independent publication, inasmuch as its mission is not, and should not be, the same as for the university's own publications. Some indication that the danger is real that our alumni magazine could easily slip into a public relations role for Princeton - of institutional use, but inappropriate for an officially disinterested alumni organ - is the recent cover of the June 7 issue. There, we encounter an attractively posed senior and are told in bold headline type that she is "smart, athletic, high-tech, and civic-minded. Meet the Princeton student, 2000." That little word "the" does a lot of work, doesn't it? It suggests that this talented young woman is somehow typical of the university's many undergraduates, not the exceptional individual that the internal profile shows her to be. What seems wrong to me here is not praise for a singular student's accomplishments, but the puff which it implicitly gives to Princeton's various admissions, curricular, and graduation policies. The scarcely subtle tone of self-congratulation is one that has crept gradually into paw's presentation of the undergraduate scene over the years. If you don't recognize the trend, you are probably younger than 35. No alumnus from a class graduating earlier than the mid-1980s would ever have seen a classmate featured solo as a paw cover with the explicit editorial intention of lauding his or her merits. Yet what was once quite unimaginable has gradually become not just accepted but expected. Had I a loose million or two to rally to Alvin Kracht's plea for gifts to underwrite a financially independent, and thus more likely an editorially disinterested alumni magazine, they might end up in the service of that valid cause. C. Webster Wheelock '60
*67
The June 7 cover confirms that Princeton's institutional orgy of self-celebration has only gathered steam since I was a student. No offense to Molly Hall - I'm sure all those adjectives apply - but Princeton's love affair with itself is getting unseemly and I think unhealthy. The steady stream of praise for All Things Princeton in the university's publications, only rarely interrupted by deeper probing or criticism, reinforces in students and alumni the too-common convictions that the institution has no room for improvement, and that its constituents always know best. Yes, of course Princeton is a marvelous university, and Princetonians are a very accomplished bunch - but the well-deserved celebration should be tempered by more soul-searching about how Princeton could be made a better institution, and Princetonians would do well to consider not only what they have to offer, but what they still have to learn. Jud Mathews '97
I could not have been prouder than when I saw the June 7 issue. What a great cover, what a great person. How proud we all are to be associated with such a fine person who really is the essence of the future of Princeton. David A. Greenberg '58
Someone please explain again: Why do we need to increase the size of the university? As an Alumni Schools Committee interviewer, I have tried to identify which candidates would be a positive influence on campus, and which would not. Of the dozens I have recommended, only one has ever been offered admission; I have seen many fine young men and women turned away. I shudder to think of Dean Hargadon wasting precious class slots on the sort of people who would moon and masturbate for a group of concert-goers (Notebook, June 7). It is a shame that the Family and Educational Privacy Act of 1974 requires the admission office to destroy interview reports; I, for one, would be curious to see what was written on theirs. Perhaps boys such as these would be happier in another school. That would leave room at Princeton for a couple of additional scholars, without having to increase the size of the class arbitrarily. Stephen Lardieri '94
I was greatly saddened to learn that Princeton plans to significantly increase the size of its student body. Great teachers, state-of-the-art facilities, and a bright student body may be found elsewhere; what makes Princeton incomparable is that a demanding educational program is provided within an atmosphere of relative tranquillity, spaciousness, and ease. Without this special quality of life, Princeton is just another top-flight Eastern university. Increasing the population density of Princeton may not deleteriously affect the measurable parameters of academic excellence, but it will most assuredly destroy the one thing that really makes Princeton Princeton. If we are to remain in the nation's service, we can best do this not by accepting more students, but by retaining our unique character. Stephen E. Silver '58
What is the lesson implied when the university strongly defends hiring a controversial professor, Peter Singer, but, on the other hand, complies (or kow tows, to use an 18th-century expression) with a Chinese government demand that Princeton in Beijing censor its teaching material (Notebook, July 5)? Freedom of thought is good here, but bad there? Academic freedom is essential in the U.S. but a luxury in China? Jonathan Coopersmith
'78
I was astonished to read the following item in the July 5 issue: "The nine-year-old Princeton in Beijing program came under attack this spring by the Chinese government for publishing course materials that government officials and some Chinese academics considered politically sensitive or that made China look bad." In all the commotion over Professor Peter Singer's appointment to the faculty, no one seems to have noticed the egregious assault on academic freedom involved here. If American academics are going to be invited to China, they should have free rein to teach and say what they wish without interference by government authorities. That's how intellectual inquiry works, and if the Chinese government can't deal with that fact, it should stop pretending to be interested in intellectual inquiry. Academic life doesn't take place at gunpoint. In light of the obvious threat to academic freedom involved here, I am deeply disappointed by Princeton's response to the Chinese government's actions. The news item tells us that Professor C. P. Chou, director of Princeton in Beijing, asserted that because the changes that the Chinese officials wanted were "extensive," "not negotiable," and took the form of a "threat," Princeton had no choice but to comply with them rather than risk the existence of the program. That is flatly unacceptable. If the price of the program is abject acquiescence to a totalitarian dictatorship, the program is worthless and should be discontinued. What intellectual value can be achieved in China, or anywhere else, at the price of the freedom to think, inquire, teach, and speak? I also find myself puzzled as to why, despite the prestige and learning of its faculty, Princeton finds itself so pathetically helpless in the face of a direct attack on one of its professed core values, academic freedom. When the threat to academic freedom takes the form of Steve Forbes '70, everyone seems ready and willing to take to the barricades. Now that the threat takes the form of a dictatorship's literally coercive threats against Princeton's faculty, however, mention of it is relegated to a paragraph in paw. Apparently, we're supposed to believe that Steve Forbes is a bigger threat to academic freedom than the functionaries of one of the bloodiest tyrannies in modern history. I've always intensely disliked the slogan "Princeton in the nation's service." This episode makes the problem with that slogan vividly clear: Scholarship and servitude do not go together, and should not be mentioned in the same breath. It is, after all, no great distance from Princeton's being "In the nation's service" to its being "Every nation's humble servant." When we travel to a dictatorship with a motto like that, we shouldn't be surprised when they treat us accordingly. Irfan A. Khawaja '91
I fear the Alumni Weekly may have fallen prey to a 65-year-old scam. Re: page 72 of the July 5 issue (100 Years of paw). The center item on coeducation gives photo credit to Ephraim E. DiKahble '39. If my memory serves me, Ephraim DiKahble '39 never existed! He was a figure of the imagination of the likes of Frederic Fox and other clever members of the Class of 1939. Classmates surely will spot this scam, but I believe that DiKahble matriculated at Princeton in 1935 and graduated in 1939, having never been born. He was an imaginary Princetonian who fooled the university for more than four years. And here he is more than 60 years later! John C. Stone II '53
Reprinting the cover of the July 5, 1967 issue (100 years of paw, July 5) brought back happy memories of my graduation. Christine Jones (Wellesley '69) was pictured in cap and gown with my class at graduation in a "'form of protest (against Princeton's discrimination against women)." The article noted that she is the daughter of Herbert Jones, Jr. '43; but it failed to mention that she is also the wife of my classmate Joel Huber '67. Alas, Chrissie and Joel's daughter spurned an acceptance from Princeton and is now a student at Brown. Is this, perhaps, two generations of protests? Edward L. C. Pritchett
'67 Seth Raynor, golf course designer
Paul W. Earle '61
It was with considerable nostalgia that I read in the July 5 issue about the plans for celebrating the Graduate School's 100th anniversary. Of special interest was the Summer Carillon Concert Series from July to September every Sunday at 1:00 p.m. To this day, I recall with great fondness the many times I, as a member of the golf team, would tee off on Sunday afternoon, play a few holes, and then retire to stretch out under a tree to listen to the magnificent music emanating from the graduate tower and the bells. That experience will always be a big part of my life, and for that I am eternally grateful. John F. Bryan '52 Alumni trustees, what do they think?
I wholeheartedly support Russell R. Willis '66's 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 - the only one that really matters, since we can assume the Alumni Council nominating committee has done due diligence - 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
I am leaving the Princeton family after nine great years. I want to thank all the good people of Princeton. Thanks to the young men on the football team. We have worked, we have won championships, and we've lost, laughed, and cried. All-important is that we did it as a team. I appreciate your effort and your friendship and will never forget you. Thanks to all the student-athletes at Princeton. You are exceptional in your effort to excel. You have been role models for my children, and I thank you. Thanks to the alumni with whom I worked at Princeton. I appreciate your efforts in support of our program. Thanks also to my colleagues in the athletic department. Every day that I came to work I felt privileged to be a part of such a great group of coaches. I know that you will continue to teach young people what it takes to work to win. I also want to express my deep appreciation to the people that support the coaches and the great people in the training and the equipment rooms. I have always seen Princeton as family and will miss that most of all. Thank you all. Joseph G. Susan, Jr.
and family
John Dippel '68 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
addition to John Bredemus '12, another Princeton alumnus, Seth Raynor
(Class of 1898), is among the most highly regarded golf course architects
and builders. He has several of his own designs in the Top 100 (Fishers
Island and Shoreacres, to note a few) and got his start as the engineer
who mapped out and built some of the most well-known golf courses
in the world, working for Charles Blair Macdonald as the lead engineer
in creating The National, Yale Golf Course, and Chicago Golf. In
addition, Allister McKenzie (Augusta National, Cypress Point), in
a recent publication of some of his previously lost manuscripts,
credits Raynor with mapping Cypress Point and actually turning the
famed 16th there from a par 4 to a par 3. Oddly enough, Raynor did
not play golf himself. He died well before his time in 1926.
In
the February 23 From the Archives photo, it would appear that Rollin
Olson '70 is correct: The student on the far right appears to be
Robert J. Weber '68, with the one just to his rear and right possibly
Stuart Halstead '68 (or Richard Cass '68?). My guess would be it
was taken in 1965 or thereabouts. 