Letters - June 9, 1999
I was disappointed to read that Princeton will begin a finance program for undergraduates (Notebook, April 7). The university has long resisted offering vocational training, which is what this new program, despite its academic veneer, provides. The investment banks of this world hardly need Princeton to subsidize their employee-training costs. Princeton graduates currently suffer no disadvantage in competing for jobs in finance against students with business majors from other colleges. Princeton already has no trouble attracting outstanding candidates for admission, including more than enough young people who see our alma mater mainly as an express station for the money train.
The university has the intellectual and material resources to resist the demands of students, their parents, and employers for graduates who are trained for the jobs of today at the expense of a deeper and more enduring liberal education. This finance program is a retreat from the vision that makes Princeton such an unusual and valuable institution. It is a pity the faculty voted to make such an unnecessary dilution of its educational mission.
Richard Lachmann '77
Ballston Lake, N.Y.
I enjoyed the April 21 cover story on Princeton myths, especially the one about Alexander Hall as a failed senior thesis. As far as I know, I started this particular myth during my freshman year, inspired by the sight of Alexander each day as I trudged to Commons. By senior year it had become firmly imbedded in Princeton legend. In the 1980s, I tried unsuccessfully to spread another story, that Princeton was "going condo" -- selling dorm rooms to alumni and moving the undergraduates down the road to Rider University.
Peter J. Turchi '67*70
Worthington, Ohio
I was particularly interested in the myth concerning James Buchanan Duke's interest in changing Princeton's name, since I thought I had laid that particular one to rest in the mid-1940s. Any assertion that "Buck" Duke gave his money to Trinity College to change its name to Duke is also a myth. He made his large initial gift to Trnity, then ensured that most of the family endowment would go to the college upon his death, but he insisted that Trinity not change its name. However, he eventually agreed to a request by its board of trustees that the school be named for his father, Washington Duke.
Newton Duke Angier '47
Flat Rock, N.C.
The Alexander Hall and Duke myths were popular even in my day. However, the prevailing myth about squirrels was that the black ones are found only in Princeton and nowhere else in the world. It's not hard to imagine how this version evolved into a myth that the black squirrels were actually created in a lab at Princeton.
Martin A. Schell '74
Klaten, Central Java
The first black squirrels escaped from pens in the Washington, D.C., National Zoo during the 1890s. They thrived on acorns in Silver Spring, Maryland. A few wound up with orange tails when my father and uncle, Brooke Lee '16 and Blair Lee '18, captured some and dyed them that color. From the Washington area they migrated north to Princeton and eventually Boston.
E. Brooke Lee '40
Chevy Chase, Md.
Washington, D.C., also sports the novel black phase of squirrels, but Princeton's were imported from Canada.
There is another myth I've heard regarding former Secretary of State George Shultz '42. Rumor has it that his fervor for our alma mater led to his acquiring a tiger tattoo while he was an undergraduate. Some claim the tattoo to be discreetly hidden beneath the hair on the top of his head. Others claim it to be concealed on the soles of his feet. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. The respected gentleman is due his privacy, however, so we may never truly get to the bottom of this intimately intriguing issue.
Rocky Semmes '79
Alexandria, Va.
Writer Wes Tooke '98's explanation of the origin of Princeton's colors differs from what I was told in the late 1930s, namely that the Class of 1869 intended to adopt the colors of the House of Nassau, orange and blue, and attempted to have armbands (not badges) made in those colors for rooters at the Yale game. Perhaps the "blue" ink was of a blackish hue; in any event, the colors ran in the rain, yielding a muddy gray. This may have confused the newspaper reporters covering the event, who wrote that the colors were orange and black. And so they became.
Simeon Hyde '41
Portland, Oreg.
Like many alumni, I was dismayed by the reports in paw and other publications of the appointment to the faculty of bioethicist Peter Singer. When my wife asked, "How can you continue to work as a regional chair for Annual Giving?" I replied that I would make my own determination after reading Singer's book Practical Ethics. Having now done so, I applaud the university's decision to hire him.
Singer does not advocate euthanasia, but rather challenges readers (and his students) to distinguish between euthanasia of the severely disabled infant with parental consent and the common medical practice of physicians withholding life-sustaining care with parental consent. In other words, he challenges readers to distinguish between euthanasia and being allowed to die.
He also challenges readers to rethink traditional western beliefs on the environment and feeding the world's starving, and he strongly urges that we all rethink the killing of animals for food.
I regret that I won't be able to take Singer's undergraduate course on ethics, but I hope he will be available for alumni seminars and colleges.
Charles Fredericks, Jr. '47
Weston, Conn.
Singer's views are philosophically sound, and there's a place for them in academia. Philosophers of ethics have often elaborated radical positions. He is working from a set of maxims. Perhaps his work shows what is wrong with some of those maxims, but it isn't useless. Without folks like Singer, intellectual thought could not progress. We have to push theories to their extreme and not fear conjecturing about conclusions that at first seem ridiculous or even malicious. At the very least, such theories help us perfect and revise our general principles. A program in ethics, like a department of religion, objectively looks at different theories of how to live. Singer is making many people think about important topics. Why wouldn't Princeton want to be associated with such a person?
Jennifer DePalma '96
Pittsburgh, Penn.
"I have sent a donation to Annual Giving every year for the last 26 years, but I never will send another penny to Princeton because ..."
As an undergraduate, whenever I read a letter like this in PAW I would invariably dismiss the writer as just another reactionary old grad who couldn't stand to see women admitted, the club system go downhill, or the football team give up the single wing or even change its uniform. I honestly never dreamed that I would ever write such a letter.
But this is indeed my own reactionary old-grad letter. And I am sure it will be dismissed as quickly by the current student body and administration, particularly because it is about the appointment of Peter Singer. So be it.
I will add a few more pigeonholes to the one I just provided by stating that I am a Christian obstetrician/gynecologist, a member of the American Association of ProLife Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the president of the board of directors of the Northwest Pregnancy Center in Houston, Texas, a Christian crisis-pregnancy center that offers alternatives to abortion.
Like Robert George (Viewpoint, January 27), I find repugnant Singer's ideas on the legitimacy of infanticide of handicapped babies. Yet, ironically, I find myself admiring him, as Professor George does, for his refusal to "resort to euphemistic language to obscure the literally homicidal nature" of his cause, which is so characteristic of abortion apologists. What he has done by carrying the utilitarian logic of the proabortion stance to its logical extreme is to expose the hypocrisy and hollowness of the proabortionists who can also, in the same breath, condemn the homicide of the handicapped newborn and justify the homicide of the normal (or handicapped) unborn. Singer has done such a tremendous service to the prolife cause by exposing the bankruptcy of the proabortion argument that I wonder if he is not some modern-day Jonathan Swift writing a prolife version of A Modest Proposal.
But back to why, after 26 consecutive years of donations to Annual Giving, I have decided not to contribute another penny to Princeton. Professor Singer has also convinced me of my own hypocrisy in devoting my entire professional career to protecting the lives of unborn children while, simply because I graduated from it, mindlessly supporting an institution that openly supports the "right" to kill these children. Shame on me. I will go and sin no more.
Alan G. Moore '71, M.D.
The Woodlands, Tex.
Professor George implies that Singer's views are somehow in keeping with "liberal moral sensibilities." Yet it could just as easily be argued that his views are extremely right-wing: just ask any neo-Nazi what he thinks of the rights of disabled people. Singer's views are so outrageous as to defy simple political labels such as liberal and conservative. Terms like immoral and heinous are more appropriate.
Celia Hanna Nunez '85
Rocklin, Calif.
At the risk of making the "Singer debate" and its tributaries a hobby, I feel compelled as a former dabbler in economics and politics to respond to the April 7 letter of Margaret Brungraber Ruttenberg '76 with some questions:
What is the basis for her astonishing statement that even as worldwide population increases, "two thirds of the world [is] dying of starvation, or worse"? Also, is there any basis for her proposition that if medical care were denied "hopeless causes," more "starving billions" would be able to eat? What is the relationship between these allocations of resources? Does Dr. Ruttenberg's new public-health job include shutting off respirators and collecting money (from insurance companies? hospitals? patients' families?) that would otherwise be spent on prolonging these "hopeless" cases, then sending the respirators and money to famine-stricken families? Exactly which agency is involved in this creative endeavor, and how many lives has it saved?
While I find it hard to agree with Dr. Ruttenberg, her idealism cannot be denied. And certainly her professional experiences in the face of sad medical reality cannot be discounted. But while Peter Singer's policy prescriptions may be utilitarian, surely they are not based on the juxtaposition of compelling but unrelated -- or even perceived but unreal -- phenomena.
And as a history hobbyist, I have a word regarding Henry L. Heymann '43's letter in the same issue linking Robert George with Torquemada. The comparison is quite offensive -- basically just a step down from calling Professor George a Nazi. Such labeling is especially ironic coming from one who accuses Professor George of unnecessarily "keep[ing] the pot boiling." In fact, Mr. Heymann's reaction proves one of Professor George's points -- that, while Peter Singer's joust at traditional Western morality is regarded as sage progress, even the littlest poke at modern "liberal" sensibilities will provoke the wildest outrage and ad hominem attacks.
Ronald D. Coleman '85
Clifton, N.J.
I am writing in response to the letters in your April 7 issue about Professor Robert George's article on Peter Singer. It is regrettable that Henry Heymann '43 did not take to heart Professor George's exhortation on the need for truthfulness and civility when debating contentious moral questions. It is far too common for the sort of vulgar relativism he espouses to indulge in slogans, shibboleths, and slander rather than to take the trouble of actually arguing about points raised. Thus the reference to Torquemada. I am surprised he failed to mention Savonarola and the clear and present danger from rampaging televangelists.
Regarding Margaret Brungraber Ruttenberg '76's letter, as someone who is originally from one of the countries where her "starving billions" reside, I can assure her that many of the objects of her compassion would, if presented with the same choices she so starkly posits, shrink from her preferred courses of action -- namely, turning off life support for a comatose patient or willingly allowing a child with spina bifida to die. They would recognize that what she presents as a rational choice is in reality an assault on the very principles on which they base their dreams of secure and prosperous lives.
Respect for the inviolability of human life is not an especially abstract or esoteric concept when your children are the ones liable to be killed by rampaging mobs drunk on ethnic and religious hatred. Nor does the idea of equal dignity and the worth of each human person seem particularly foreign when you are the person struggling to free yourself from vicious social, and possibly legal, discrimination for being born into a caste low in the social hierarchy. Ms. Ruttenberg is welcome to her views, but she should not allow this particular red herring to cloud her trail.
Arghya Deb *95
Pawtucket, R.I.
Who are Princeton's greatest alumni? What makes their contributions significant? For its end-of-the-millennium issue next December, paw seeks readers' recommendations for the most influential Princetonians -- from 1746 to the present, in all fields (government, business, academia, the arts, etc.). Write us with names and explanations for your choices at 194 Nassau St., Suite 38, Princeton, NJ 08542 (Attn: Greatest Alumni); e-mail: paw@princeton.edu.
-- The Editors
Alumni are invited to join the 10th-anniversary celebration of the Princeton Project 55 Public Interest Program, on Friday, June 25, in Chicago. Events will include seminars, discussions of strategies for social change, and a dinner. For more information, please contact me at 773-288-5972.
John Fish '55
Chicago, Ill.
I invite all Princetonians to visit the newly created Website of the Alumni Council's Princetoniana Committee (http://alumni.princeton.edu/~ptoniana/index.html). The site currently features a history of senior jackets (formerly known as beer jackets) and will soon be posting the jacket design for every class, with explanatory notes. There are also links to one of the committee's recent projects, Going Back (an alumni oral history), and a tribute to the late Keeper of Princetoniana, Fred Fox '39.
Jamie Spencer '66
Chair, Princetoniana Committee
St. Louis, Mo.
The March 10 PAW included a page sponsored by the Alumni Council titled "A New Relationship with Alumni" that prompts me to make the following points regarding better relationships between the university and alumni. I speak from the perspective of a 24-year association with three regional alumni clubs and a year on the Alumni Council Committee on Careers (1986-87).
The various bureaucracies in the university administration consider their futures more important than the good of the university and its alumni as a whole. Example: when it was suggested that the Careers staff work with Annual Giving to assist in providing information on finding jobs for alumni who were found to be unemployed during Annual Giving telethons, the administration vetoed the idea because it crossed sacred bureaucratic lines.
Even though Annual Giving is the backbone of the university's financial health, three years ago a bureaucrat decided to raise the bar for listing in the annual publication Gifts to Princeton from $1,000 to $2,500. The reason given was that the book had gotten too big, despite the fact that the last $1,000 book had fewer pages and weighed less than the average of the previous eight years. Having been involved in AG telethons for many years, I believe that the university should be applauding anyone who gives $1,000 in an "off year," rather than telling them they don't measure up!
Princeton alumni are loyal. They will spend hours assisting university staff members visiting their regions. Unfortunately, when those same alumni come to Reunions and can assemble other alumni to assist these staff members in future visits, the latter are seldom to be found or are "too busy" to meet with them. The administration should consider Reunions as its version of a corporation's stockholders meeting and have every staff member on call to work with reuniting alumni whose service they have elicited during the year.
Adrian V. Woodhouse '59
Foster City, Calif.
The glowing account of the Shelby Cullom Davis ['30] Center for Historical Studies (President's Page, December 16) neglects to mention that, in later years, benefactor Davis greatly irritated the university by bankrolling the conservative organization Concerned Alumni of Princeton and its magazine, Prospect, both of which were dedicated to fighting changes that Davis disapproved of. May the scholars at the Davis Center follow Paul Harvey and always include "the rest of the story."
Charles W. McCutchen '50
Princeton, N.J.
GO TO the Table of Contents of the current issue
GO TO PAW's
home page