|
December 6, 2000: Letters Campus buildings and those who use them 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). I suspect I'm not the only Princeton graduate who fervently believes the next president of our university should be William Jefferson Clinton. The presidential search committee should most definitely reach the same conclusion. Marc W. Murphy '73
The October 5 issue of the Daily Princetonian contained an article entitled "The Real Campaign 2000." The article tried to expound on why William Jefferson Clinton would be a "catch" as the next president of this great university. I strongly disagree. Princeton deserves a president whom the students, faculty, and alumni can look up to for leadership and who will be an example to be emulated. An impeached president who lied to a grand jury, cheated on his wife, dallied with a young staff member, and supported the killing of innocent unborn lives through partial-birth abortions, does not fit that bill. I would like to add the names of two people who I feel would do an exceptional job as Princeton's next president: Bill Bradley '65 and retired General Colin Powell. Both have integrity, intelligence, honesty, and a belief in the power of our young. Stephen Sipos '71 Is there really a gender discrepancy in faculty salaries at Princeton, as you report in your October 25 issue (Notebook)? Mere averages prove nothing. If women with equivalent experience, time in rank, and qualifications are in fact being paid less than men, then Princeton should hang its head in shame; but if the men generally got there first and have been there longer, then the discrepancy is to be expected. I must say it is worrying that even at the rank of assistant professor the average of women is lower, since I would imagine that among that recently appointed group, length of service, qualifications, and so forth are pretty much equal. Nicholas Clifford '52
Why are female professors at Princeton ("as at virtually every other university") paid less than male professors? Are supply/demand issues at work within the specific fields of study (i.e., fewer women apply to be, say, engineering professors, who are paid more due to low supply)? Are the women less demanding in final negotiations and simply agreeing to work for less? Could sex discrimination possibly be occurring even at our institutions of higher learning? Sandra Grace Susino '95 There will be strong alumni reaction to the Daily Princetonian's decision not to run the piece by Professor George ("The Clinton Puzzle: Why Do Liberals Love Him So") that appeared on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal on October 6, followed by publication on October 12 of a Letter to the Editor from Richard Just, the Prince's editor-in-chief, defending that decision. I am holding my own considerable ire in abeyance pending confirmation of the facts as stated by Mr. Just, and the revelation of other facts and circumstances, if any, which might more fully explain what happened. Publication of the George article in the Journal was accompanied by a suggestion that the Prince had bowed to outside pressure in deciding not to print it. Responding, Mr. Just asserted that "Prof. George's column had been slated to run opposite a column from Prof. Sean Wilentz. . . . The articles were meant to coincide with the president's visit to the campus on Oct. 5. Prof. Wilentz was to write the pro-Clinton column, while Prof. George was to write the piece that would be critical of Mr. Clinton. However, Prof. Wilentz, upon learning that he would be writing opposite Prof. George, said he would withdraw his column unless we refused to publish Prof. George's column." Mr. Just went on to express his editorial staff's anger at Professor Wilentz's threats and to defend as the only acceptable action his decision to run neither column, despite his preference for running both. There was also reference to a possible personal feud between professors Wilentz and George. Wow! If this is the full and fair story, some cherished principles got blown sky-high. On these facts how could any alumnus, Clinton-lover or Clinton-hater, conclude other than that Professor Wilentz is unqualified - by reason of temperament and judgment, not political inclinations - to serve on the faculty of any university worthy of the name, let alone Princeton's? Perhaps there is a slot for him in Belgrade -- or maybe Beijing. Back to the initial point, is there anything more which is relevant to understanding what actually happened? I hope Professor Wilentz will offer an explanation. A hint in this regard: Assertion of need to neutralize a vast right-wing conspiracy won't cut it. Charles R. Kinnaird '54 Editor's note: A story in PAW's November 6 issue reported on this matter; see page 13 in this issue for an update. Campus buildings and those who use them
When the new football stadium was proposed and then, unfunded, built, many alumni were alarmed. Actually, it looks innocuous enough from the outside. It is only when you enter that you realize that the thing was actually built for players and spectators. The architect has been original, indeed, but the stamp says "athletics." I have not been back for two years and so I am having trouble finding another recent construction that embodies the needs and interests of its constituents as the stadium does, though I can picture plenty of modern architectural delights. As for consonance with the campus . . . well, that horse rotted long ago. Paul Kalkstein '65
Before my most recent visit to campus, I would probably have agreed with Robert Louis Stevenson's comment, quoted in the October 11 issue of PAW (From the Editor), to the effect that every alum inevitably perceives the finest years of his alma mater's existence to coincide with his undergraduate years. However, I recently had an opportunity to stop by the campus on a weekday evening on my way up the northeast coast. Rather than head to my favorite off-campus dining establishment - Chuck's Spring Street Café - I decided to give the new Frist Campus Center a try. While the food wasn't quite in Chuck's league, I must say that the center is a fantastic addition to a university long in need of such an institution. As soon as I entered the renovated Palmer Hall (which is basically unrecognizable on the inside), I recalled that the campus center debate had been a major issue during my undergraduate years. We had argued loudly in favor of its construction, while the administration had replied with Bush-the-elder style "prudence," warning about the dangers of constructing a "white elephant." While I suppose I'm pleased the university took its time to do the job right, I can't help but also feel that the classes of the '80s and '90s missed out on what is sure to become an essential part of the Princeton experience. Jack Goodman '89 Regarding the Alumni Weekly, you need in place better mechanisms to pick the brains and understand the feelings of alumni. The magazine's oversight board does have 10 alumni members, but all graduated between 1969 and 1989. Earlier classes, those expected to fill a hefty share of the university's financial needs, are not represented. Similarly, there is but one (hopefully not token) male on the magazine's eight-person staff. Nothing wrong with that. But it puts a huge burden on staff to put themselves effectively in the heads of still predominantly male readers. In the Alumni Weekly's next round of experimentation, let's try some structural innovations that lead to better bonding. It can only improve the magazine. Donald Stroetzel '42 I am disappointed by the overwhelmingly negative tone of other Princetonians' letters regarding the new design of the magazine. I do not think "appallingly ugly" is an appropriate or even remotely accurate description of PAW's new design (as a former graphic designer I commend it). Self-indulgent? Tacky? Offensive? I would suggest that those complaining read some of the other letters, in particular the comment of Dallas Brown '78 (October 25), if they are eager to use those adjectives: "One of the most important things about our alumni magazines is to be able to display them in our offices, studies, living rooms, etc. Guess I'll just have to put my monthly Harvard magazine...on top of the stack." I think the extreme pretension of comments like this is much more offensive than the graphics of an alumni magazine. I hope Mr. Brown will display his Harvard magazine, as his attitude only succeeds in reinforcing Princeton's negative stereotypes. I am embarrassed that our community cannot be more open-minded to change, and, moreover, channel its energies into contribution and suggestion rather than rebuke. Injudicious? I'll say. But certainly not about PAW's new look. Isabella Califano '95 I know I am old-fashioned, but I do not like the implications of the advertisement that appears in PAW (and in the Harvard magazine) with the headline "Good Genes." The wording follows: "An institution of Pairing. Princeton, Tufts, MIT, Wellesley, Brandeis, Harvard, Columbia, Clark U (Worc., MA), UC Berkeley, NYU, Wesleyan, Brown, Stanford, UPENN, accredited medical and law schools," followed by a phone number and Web site. And, yes, I've read the First Amendment. Ted Gallagher '67 Whoever is pushing for increasing the size of undergraduate enrollment must be unaware of poll results reported in the September 25 issue of Newsweek that reports that "in surveys, today's freshmen (polled across the country) say an ideal college has 5,000 students . . . " i.e., the size of Princeton. Are our undergraduates pushing for this increase? I doubt it! Are alumni pushing for it? I doubt that, too. Likely it is the same administrators and/or faculty who on one hand decry the "elitism" of eating clubs but preen in the elitism of Oxford-like "colleges" and in the elitism of a choice student body and Princeton's general reputation, and who support homosexuals but not ROTC in a highly selective, hypocritical claim of "diversity," and who moralize hypocritically against drinking in the clubs while winking at cohabitation in the coed dorms. Perhaps they just wallow in the fact that Princeton's is the largest endowment per capita and her alumni seem prepared to donate endlessly, unlimitedly, for "whatever," i.e., they have "holes in their pockets" except when it comes to erecting a decent-sized stadium reflective of Princeton's (more) glorious past and (hopefully) perhaps glorious future. I suggest that the student body, at approximately 5,000-5,200, ranks as "ideal" to many/most undergrads and alumni, in keeping with the cited poll and that in view of the growing likelihood that the current booming economy can't and won't keep up forever, we shepherd and build that endowment, rather than squandering it on the additional buildings and faculty we'd need for the proposed expansion, and use the monies, instead, if they are to be used, to reduce Princeton's exorbitant tuition and/or to increase student aid. John J. Auld, Jr. '50 Editor's Note: Following the recommendations of the Wythes Committee, Princeton's current undergraduate enrollment of 4,600 will increase to 5,100. A fuller explanation of the Board of Trustees' decision appeared in our May 17 and June 7 issues.
In your October 25 issue you do less than justice to the achievements of Angela Davis, who spoke at the 30th anniversary of the Third World Center (Talks on Campus). You describe her as an "author and activist and professor at the University of California," but do not mention that she also ran for vice president on the Communist party ticket. Did you consider that datum irrelevant? Given the fact that one of her topics was "human rights," I should think it very relevant indeed. William A. Rusher '44 Anne Powell's letter (October 25) brought to mind a funny little story from my time at Princeton. I had recently completed John Martin's course on the Old Masters, and knowing that I lived in New York, he arranged with the Duveen Gallery, then occupying a town house on East 79th Street, for a visit. Accompanied by my fiancée, who was in college in New York at the time, we arrived one afternoon, and were taken by one of the directors to the viewing room on an upper floor. The room was small, a perfect cube, lined with brown velvet drapery. After a while an attendant wheeled in a covered painting, unveiled it and revealed Velázquez's great portrait of the Marquesa de Medina-Sidonia. The director took some 15 minutes to explain the provenance, along with a few bits of intriguing trivia. The Velázquez was then covered, wheeled out, to be replaced in short order by a Rubens, depicting a rather well-endowed naked lady whose name I don't recall. After two more Old Masters, we were taken to the conservation rooms, where the mysteries of preserving and restoring paintings were explained to us. We left an hour and a half after we came. It had been a gracious gesture by John Martin and the folks at Duveen. Stephen A. Kliment *57 I was greatly saddened to read of the passing of Professor Gerald Garvey (Notebook, June 7). When I arrived at Princeton, I, like many before me and many since, aspired to meeting that one professor who would serve as an inspiration and intellectual guiding force. Not everyone actually realizes that goal, but I did when, as a sophomore, I found myself in an introductory American Politics preceptorial led by Professor Garvey. He gave me my first exposure to American constitutional law, deftly demonstrating the multiple ways that a single constitutional decision could be analyzed and interpreted. Not coincidentally, I wound up becoming a constitutional and appellate lawyer, practicing some of the very analytical skills and techniques I learned in Professor Garvey's preceptorial. So awed was I with Professor Garvey's creativity and intellectual passion that I almost immediately decided that I wanted him to be my thesis adviser. My choice was a good one. I came to him with a proposal to expand on a topic I had covered in one of my junior papers. He suggested that I read Niebuhr's The Children of Light, The Children of Darkness. I wasn't sure why since it had nothing to do with the topic I had planned to tackle (the electoral advantages of incumbency), but after reading it, I realized that he was challenging me to be more ambitious - to take a stab at political theory. I accepted that challenge and subsequently spent virtually all of my waking hours producing an independent work of political theory. The project was enormously stimulating and rewarding. I will always regard it as the highlight of my Princeton experience. Professor Garvey challenged me to stretch myself to the limits of my abilities. He taught me that I could think creatively. I know that I am a better lawyer today because I had the privilege of being exposed to Professor Garvey. I hope that his loved ones will find solace in knowing that he made a mark at Princeton and will be greatly missed. Evan Tager '82 The archives photograph in October 11 is of Myron Lee '55, my classmate at Princeton and Yale Medical School. A telephone call confirmed my impression. He told me that freshman year he had a job for a while delivering papers and that picture must have been taken in October 1951; a long time ago. I guess we're getting old. Herbert Kaufmann '55 Lee was also identified by G. S. Glaser '55. For those keeping track of the stellar records of the class secretaries in turning in columns, the issue of October 25 will forever be marked with an asterisk. Due to editing errors in that issue, the Class of 1961's column, which secretary George Brakeley had not missed in 15 years, was inadvertently left out. Instead, the Class of 1962's column ran under Mr. Brakeley's address and class year. In addition, the November 8 column from the Class of 1946 ran under the Class of 1954's banner. PAW regrets the errors and promises that Mr. Brakeley's record will be kept clean in our books. Heartfelt pleas from class secretaries and memorialists have persuaded us to reinstate the 200-word limit for class memorials. In the memorial to Stuart Atha, Jr. '50 (September 13), we misspelled the name of the school that he attended before coming to Princeton. It was Woodberry Forest. In our October 25 issue, we neglected to give credit for the photograph of Louis Bayard '85. Don Montuori was the photographer. PAW regrets the errors.
|
||||||||||||||
Your
recent cover showing the new campus center prompts me to write.
Consider, please, some of the construction that has happened to
the campus. Leaving aside the question of taste, of style, of class
- what concern was given to the people who have to live with, and
sometimes in, these buildings? Who consulted whom? The architects'
self-expression has certainly been untrammeled. Do these architects
talk to each other, if not to students, faculty (that is, general-purpose
faculty), alumni? Do they try to outdo each other in outré
statements? Do they giggle? 
From
the Archives
