Letters: April 2, 1997
Junk Science
As a journalist and a former lab researcher, I heartily applaud John Stossel '69's condemnation of junk science and the media sensationalism that fans the flames of public hysteria (Opinion, February 19). I, too, have grown annoyed by the media's tendency to overstate minor or even negligible risks.
The graph that accompanies Stossel's essay, however, is misleading. Computing the number of days by which the average American's life is shortened by toxic-waste sites or airplane crashes doesn't mean much if you don't take exposure into account. Toxic waste may only reduce average life span by a few days, but for folks living near Love Canal the danger may be very much greater than that posed by, say, automobile crashes, which kill far more people overall. By the same token, while the chart shows that being overweight poses far more risk on average than do house fires, I assume that Stossel would advise an overweight person whose house was burning to flee rather than to sit down and begin dieting.
Peter Doskosh '87
Berkeley Heights, N.J.
Reading John Stossel's article, I wondered if he owns stock in a pesticide company. His argument that "Natural isn't necessarily better" includes memorable non sequiturs: "We fear DDT, but malarial mosquitoes are worse." How unfair of us to pick on man-made poisons when Mother Nature is naughty, too! "Natural chemicals in food are often more toxic than synthetic pesticides." What food does he have in mind-fugu?
More disturbing, however, was the graph showing pesticide residue at the bottom of the health-risk spectrum, just below air travel. Many scientists link the escalation of cancer and various other diseases to the increasing toxicity of our environment. No, it has not been proved that chemicals we ingest in our food and water contribute to that toxicity. But no one has disproved it, either. Until we know for certain, it is irresponsible to assert that pesticides pose a negligible health risk.
I did agree with Stossel's statement that "Science is highly politicized." His article may not have been science, but it certainly was politics.
Liz Willis-Erickson '82
Mountalke Terrace, Wash.
John Stossel's discussion of junk science is right on the mark. The concept that association does not mean causation is a stumbling block that I face daily in my orthopedic practice. The public does not understand even the basics of scientific thought and will cling tenaciously to the belief that two events are connected if they happen near each other in time. I discussed this with a patient today for a half hour, and when we were finished, she told me that I was wrong about the example I had used: that going out with wet hair does not cause the common cold, even if occasionally these two events happen within a 24-hour period.
Scott B. Jones '78
Portland, Oreg.
Helen Gordon
I am writing with the sad news of the passing, on February 28, of my mother, Helen M. Gordon, the wife of the Reverend Ernest Gordon, who was dean of the Chapel for 26 years. Many alumni will remember my mother for her friendship and support during their student years. She was born in Scotland and married my father soon after World War II, following his release from a Japanese prison camp. They moved to the United States in 1952. Throughout my father's years as dean of the Chapel (1954-1980), my mother hosted a memorable sequence of visiting dignitaries. She was well known for her wit and charm as a hostess, who in her Scottish accent would offer an "Acch, don't be silly" to anyone who came on with airs of superiority.
She was also active in many social causes and charities, including the Chapel Fellowship and McCarter Theatre. My mother was an accomplished watercolorist who had several one-woman exhibitions of her work. She was a loving and devoted wife, and last year my parents were able to celebrate their 50th-wedding anniversary with their family and a hundred of their closest friends.
She is survived by my father, who lives at 206 South Stanworth Drive, Princeton, NJ 08541, and by my sister and myself.
Alastair Gordon
Princeton, N.J.
The Stock Market
I should think that a professor of political economy holding an endowed chair at Princeton would have used a logarithmic (or log-normal) scale for the first two figures in his otherwise quite informative article, "Is the Stock Market Overvalued?" (paw, February 19). Instead, Uwe Reinhardt uses the more common (but deceptive) arithmetic scale, which treats an increase from $2 to $3 (50 percent) as identical to one from $10 to $11 (10 percent). A logarithmic scale will show a trend over time as a straight line, not an upwardly curving one.
Mutual-fund advertisers and financial newspapers continue to employ arithmetic scales, but professor Reinhardt might be expected to be more sophisticated in these matters, especially as this was an exercise handed out to students in Economics 102, where his graphs unwittingly reinforce the impression that the stock market has nowhere to go but up-and at an accelerating rate-which is the opposite of what the text of the article itself is at pains to say.
W. Speed Hill '57
City Island, N.Y.
Personal Ads
Would it be possible to eliminate the personal ads in PAW's classifieds? I find them of questionable taste, and they belittle what is otherwise an excellent journal.
I can sympathize a little with the author of one ad listed in the February 19 issue. He sounds like a successful, middle-aged man who is having trouble finding a suitable mate. But why is he looking for a 26-to-38-year-old who is a "thin, petite, go-getter," and why must she fit such a narrow stereotype? Why can't he hang out at Princeton gatherings and reunions to hunt for this wonder woman, rather than subjecting the entire alumni body to his fantasies?
When the university is trying so hard to overcome stereotypes of all kinds, it seems contradictory to further them in our alumni magazine. Couldn't PAW afford to eliminate this small, questionable source of income?
Sandra Vitzthum '86
Montpelier, Vt.
Woodrow Wilson
To add to the discussion in the wake of Bill Paul '70's November 27 Opinion piece about Woodrow Wilson and affirmative action:
In a letter of September 2, 1904, in answer to an inquiry about the admission of a black student to Princeton, Wilson wrote, "I would say that while there is nothing in the law of the University to prevent a negro's entering, the whole temper and tradition of the place are such that no negro has ever applied for admission and it seems extremely unlikely that the question will ever assume a practical form."
During his first year as President of the United States, in response to the complaint of his friend Thomas Dixon, author of The Clansman (later adapted to the screen as The Birth of a Nation), who had written to say "I am heartsick over the announcement that you have appointed a Negro to boss white girls as Register of the Treasury," Wilson implied that the appointment was more in compliance with the wishes of the party than with his own judgment, and reassured him that "We are trying-and by slow degrees succeeding-a plan of concentration which will put them all together and will not in any one bureau mix the two races."
And when William Monroe Trotter came to the White House on November 12, 1914, to take the President to task for reinstituting segregation in the lunchrooms and toilets of government offices, Wilson defended the practice as in the best interests of blacks, rejoining, "We know that there is a point at which there is apt to be friction, and that is in the intercourse between the races."
Woodrow Wilson was raised in Reconstruction Georgia, remained a southerner in his sympathies all his life, married genteel magnolias, and shared many of the not entirely pleasing quaintnesses of his breed. Much as I would like to agree with my classmate Bill Paul's gallant argument that this noble man would have approved of Princeton's affirmative-action policy, the evidence of his own words and deeds reveals Wilson to have been (however benign were his stated intentions) a paternalist in race issues, an enforcer of the color bar, and a strict segregationist.
Robert R. Cullinane '70
Washington, D.C.
Palmer Stadium
A costly fiasco appears to be brewing with the plans for the new stadium. From the start, this project has been flawed in several respects. First the university stonewalled on the release of the engineers' report recommending the razing of Palmer Stadium. Then it hired an architect who had never designed a football stadium and had never seen a football game (and who still hasn't).
The project should have been placed under the supervision of the director of athletics or the vice-president for facilities. Instead, it is being directed by the vice-president for finance and administration, who also oversaw the design and construction of the Class of 1952 Stadium-a facility that took 13 months to build when it should have taken four months, and that lacks adequate seating and has locker rooms with just one toilet and no showers.
It took a revolt by certain alumni for the university to create the Stadium Advisory Committee, which got the project back on the right track. However, the committee's recommendation for a seating capacity of 30,000-the Division I minimum-was ignored due a "philosophical bias" on the part of the administrator in charge. (Translation: It is politically incorrect to think in terms of a quality Division I athletic program at Princeton.) The trustees appear to be either misinformed or uninformed on these matters.
The design of the stadium, while cosmetically attractive, puts costly form over function in some key areas. Because the field will accommodate soccer, the sightlines are flawed for football-those seated in the lower three or four rows will find their view blocked by players on the sidelines. Also, the "see-through" upper stands will subject pedestrians in the arcade below to rain and to debris dropped by spectators. (I have heard that these problems are being addressed, but they remain concerns until alumni are officially notified that they have been corrected.)
The stadium design also suffers from a lack of lights and bench seating, locker rooms without plumbing, an inadequate press box, and inadequate egress for nonathletic events.
Instead of offering band-aid solutions and assurances that everything is O.K., the university should take the following steps: (1) establish a scaled-down Stadium Advisory Committee to oversee the redesign and construction, with the committee reporting directly to the trustees, and (2) put responsibility for the stadium where it belongs-under the athletics and facilities offices.
Eric Jones '54
Rochester, N.Y.
Athletics
Your November 6 story on athletics reflects on where the balance point should be between academics and athletics. The author, Doug Lederman '84, does not question the value of sports, but rather their priority. I question their uniqueness. Most of the letters you have published in response to the article assume that competitive sports are the only way to achieve a "sound mind in a sound body." Have the writers forgotten about such physical activities as hiking, rafting, and mountain climbing? These hobbies not only develop fitness, but also enhance our appreciation of nature.
These letters' zealous praise of competitive sports seems based in part on the usefulness of sports in preparing young men and women for business. I wish that the lessons of the playing field were as enduring and widespread as proponents claim. Players and fans of professional sports such as basketball and baseball would laugh at the absurd dream of an undefeated season. Yet the current trend among business executives (many of whom are former college athletes) is to insist that every division must show a profit every year. Forgetting that "you win some and you lose some," they enthusiastically follow the short-sighted strategy of downsizing or selling off any division that has a single "losing season."
The article quotes basketball captain Sydney Johnson '97 saying "I never wear team gear in the classroom until I feel the preceptor or professor realizes I am committed to the class." This implies that it is now common for athletes to wear team gear in class. For what purpose? There were varsity athletes in most of my classes at Princeton, and I don't recall seeing jerseys or other special clothing. Is it really necessary to declare one's "special" status as an athlete in the classroom? In a classroom context, I would hope that the common identity of Princeton student would be a sufficient source of pride.
Martin Schell '74
martindo@yogya.wasantara.net.id
Klaten, Central Java
For the Record
Your review of John Davis '49's memoir of Jacqueline Bouvier (Books, February 19) says that Jackie started college at Vassar, hated it, and moved to Washington, D.C. This much is true. But the college from which she graduated was not Georgetown, as the review states, but George Washington University. At GW, we're used to being confused with our neighbor, for both of us are named after men named George who were involved in our Revolutionary War. The difference is that George Washington University is named after the winner, while Georgetown is named after the loser (or at least for one of the loser's immediate ancestors).
Harry Harding '67
Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs,
George Washington University
Washington, D.C.
Thank you for publishing my letter regarding the "cocktail-party problem" in the February 5 issue. When you edited my letter for publication, however, you introduced an error. In my original letter I stated that the attenuation of high-frequency sound over distance "is about 0.2 decibels per meter." This appeared in print as "the attenuation is about 1 decibel per 50 meters." It should have read "1 decibel per 5 meters."
Furthermore, the last sentence of my original letter was cut, with the unfortunate consequence of making the published version end on a pessimistic note. It is true that many hearing aids distort spatial hearing clues, thereby making listening at cocktail parties more difficult. But our laboratory at the House Ear Institute, in Los Angeles, has developed techniques to eliminate this distortion.
Dan Freed '83
Los Angeles, Calif.
Jimmy Stewart '32
As manager of Triangle's 193738 show, I had as one of my duties seeking alumni financial backing. Just prior to 1937 and the great success of Stags at Bay, Triangle had financial challenges, and for succeeding shows the club asked alumni to return a slip pledging support to the tune of $5, $10, $15, $25, or more in the event of a deficit. Twenty-five dollars was a lot of money in those days, but our loyal alumni sent in many slips pledging up to that amount. But the slip from Stewart, then just five years out of Princeton, was for $50! Several years ago, I gave most of my Triangle Club mementos to the University Archives, but I still have that slip signed by Jimmy. I plan to donate it to Triangle's Second Century Fund.
Charles W. Williams '38
Birmingham, Mich.