• Clinton's Visit (Redux)

• Puff Piece

• Banzai, Kwanzei!

• Where's the Vision?

• Women Ruggers

• Jesus' Death

• For the Record

CLINTON'S VISIT (REDUX)
Regarding the angry letters in the September 11 PAW condemning the bequeathal of an honorary degree on President Clinton: Unlike one of the writers, my parents did not come here before the British. They arrived just one generation before me. And unlike another writer, they had no land to give to the university. But they had a respect for the United States and for education which is painfully lacking in the letters you published.
Given the university's celebration of its 250th anniversary, it was appropriate to receive the President as an honored guest who had come to honor us. This was true regardless of his political party and the forthcoming election. As in the armed services, it is the office that we saluted, not the individual. In that spirit, I and my faculty colleagues wore our caps and gowns and participated in a historic occasion.
Joseph M. Notterman
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Princeton, N.J.

I was shocked by the volume and tone of the letters concerning President Clinton's visit and honorary degree. I believe it is an honor for the university to have our nation's President speak. I can accept the position of those alumni who felt that Commencement speakers should only be members of the university community, or at least not sitting politicians. What I do not understand, however, is the vitriolic nature of the abuses hurled at the President. Such complaints are clearly partisan and have nothing to do with the issue of Commencement speakers. To insult the President as a private citizen is bad enough, but when alumni libel Clinton in the name of fellow Princetonians, I must cry foul.
Sarah Stein '97
Princeton, N.J.

I was embarrassed to read the letters filled with hate and rudeness. Will no one defend the university's decision to invite the President of the United States to give the Commencement address during its 250th anniversary? It was entirely appropriate for him to be there and to speak on education, and Princeton was honored by his presence.
Leyland M. Cobb '55
Fort Myers, Fla.

One expects better from the opposition-perhaps, for example, a shred of fact (Clinton is a "common criminal"?), or some appreciation of irony (if monogamy were the standard for honoring individuals, the speaker pool might shrink to zero).
But attempting to justify such coarse sentiments by an appeal to one's heritage is inexcusable. One of my grandfathers managed a branch bank, and the other sold arc-welding equipment. Neither was educated past high school. My ancestors taken together could not have amassed enough property to have donated the space to hold the air conditioning system for Firestone Library. Yet I, too, earned a place at our esteemed alma mater. And in our great country, my vote counts as much as anyone's.
Thaddeus J. Huetteman *80
Roswell, Ga.

The letters expressing outrage at President Clinton's speaking at Commencement were reminiscent of the bile that was spilled in 1930s over "that man in the White House" and his wife-and in the early 1950s about "that haberdasher" firing General MacArthur. O tempora! O mores!
Luther Bridgman '41
Charlotte, Vt.

The letters trashing Bill Clinton on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and partisan ideology do not speak well about Princeton's ability to educate its students. If he had done no more than reduce the federal deficit four years in a row, President Clinton would deserve our respect and admiration. Such arrogant self-righteousness deserves another, more appropriate, forum.
James H. Fetzer '62
Duluth, Minn.

At first I was shocked that a letter slandering the President of the United States was included in the September 11 maelstrom elicited by Clinton's Commencement address. Upon reflection, I sighed with resignation and pity: the writer and his ilk will not be happy until Princeton reverts to a preserve for white, Protestant men. So, throw him a bone and leave him to gnaw on his bitterness.
Hugo G. Medina '78
San Rafael, Calif.

I find the Letters department of PAW a rich source of material for a memoir I'm writing with the title "Prolonged Adolescence: Reaching Maturity in America." We all recognize emotional or intellectual immaturity in demagoguery and doctrinaire thinking of the sort demonstrated by politicians and the letter-writers critical of Clinton's visit. Clinton is too glib for my liking and no statesman, but he is relatively harmless. So why get apoplectic? A most charming and sincere President, for whom I once voted, unwittingly gave us a horrendous national debt and a tinseled, elitist perspective on reality. As befits mature reflection, however, I do not lose my cool about him.
Walter Hewitt '42
Lansdale, Penn.

I was proud that the President of the United States spoke at my alma mater. Princeton has a long tradition of providing a truly "liberal" education, in the traditional sense of the word. Ideally, this should lead to tolerance for the views of others and constructive criticism toward those with whom one disagrees. Instead, these letter-writers simply vent their partisan spleen.
Edward R. Doughty '62
Linwood, N.J.

The violent reaction to President Clinton's visit reminds me of a story related by Professor Clifton R. "Beppo" Hall in his course on American democracy, which I took in 1931, about attitudes toward Woodrow Wilson 1879, who of course was president of Princeton before moving on to the White House. Beppo told us that many residents of Princeton, alumni or otherwise, were so angered by Wilson's policies as President of the United States that they vowed never again to set foot on the Princeton campus.
Dick Gordon '33
St. Paul, Minn.

The Catholic fathers who administer Georgetown University are presumably concerned with moral values. Several years ago, like Princeton, they granted an honorary degree to President Clinton, one of their alumni.
Henry F. McCreery '37
The Sea Ranch, Calif.

I have been reading PAW since 1922, and it has always lived up to its motto, as expressed on the masthead, "An independent magazine by alumni for alumni." Further confirmation of this is your decision to publish the letters critical of the university's inviting President Clinton to Commencement.
Robert O. Hereford '27
Milton, Fla.

The prospect of Clinton's reelection holds the potential for an irreversible decline in our fortunes as a nation. I understand the university's right to invite whom it will to ceremonies, but I thoroughly repudiate the judgment of those who felt it expedient to invite Clinton, a man who stands for nothing, to Commencement.
Myles Herbert '45
Port Washington, N.Y.

Inviting William Jefferson Clinton to participate in the university's 250th anniversary was an invitation to the President of the United States, not an endorsement of "Slick Willie," in the same way that inviting George Bush in 1991 was an invitation to the President of our country, not an endorsement of "I was out of the loop" George.
Given the duplicitous way in which most Presidents since Johnson have operated, maybe it's a good idea to invite them to campus on a regular basis. Princeton's integrity might be contagious.
Robert A. Furman '46
Cleveland, Ohio

I was jolted but not surprised when our illustrious President appeared on your July 3 cover. Now the September 11 issue arrives with Satan on the cover! If this is a progression series, I can hardly wait to see the next issue.
Wallace D. DuPre '51
Landrum, S.C.

I doubt if I can add anything to the dismay regarding Mr. Clinton's visit to Princeton. However, I was surprised by the Editor's Note comparing George Bush's visit in 1991 with that of Mr. Clinton. You seemed to ignore the critical points that Bush did not visit while in the middle of a campaign and that his visit was at a much lower level of visibility. But more to the point, since a Commencement speaker's personal character must be flawless, do you really consider Mr. Clinton's to be on a par with that of Mr. Bush?
J. Greg Nash '68
Los Angeles, Calif.

PUFF PIECE
I was dismayed to see among the July 3 Class Notes a profile of Terry Jeffrey '81, Pat Buchanan's campaign manager. Instead of delving into what would prompt someone to become a tactician for a hatemonger, this puff piece chose to focus on Mr. Jeffrey's choice of beverage and other trivialities.
Dressing Mr. Jeffrey as your average good neighbor does not change one simple fact-he is a front man for a virulent extremist. People who proselytize intolerance do not make good neighbors. Whether or not Mr. Jeffrey is acting in the nation's service is an open question, but PAW's article placed undue importance on an alumnus's notoriety over the substance of his message. That is shoddy reporting, and dangerous, too.
Richard D. Gorelick '82
Yardley, Penn.

BANZAI, KWANSEI!
In this 250th year, readers might be interested to know about an unusual contribution Princeton made to Japan.
I learned of it recently from my friend Ryutaro Yagi, who, during a visit to Princeton, hummed a few bars of a tune and asked if I recognized it. " 'Old Nassau,' " I said. "So I have heard," he replied. "But I know it as 'Old Kwansei,' the song of my alma mater, Kwansei Gakuin." He then related an unlikely story: how, a century ago, a Princeton alumnus on the faculty of this leading university in Osaka had arranged to license the words and music from Princeton. It would appear that this fellow felt the local college spirit needed some imported inspiration.
Following are the three verses and chorus of Old Kwansei (which are always sung in English):

Tune every heart and every voice,
Throw every care away;
Let all with one accord rejoice,
In praise of Old Kwansei.

(Chorus) In praise of Kwansei Gakuin,
In praise of Old Kwansei;
Her sons will give, while they shall live,
Banzai banzai, Kwansei!

Let music rule the fleeting hour,
Let gladness fill the day;
And thrill each heart with all her power,
In praise of Old Kwansei.

No flowery chaplet would we twine,
To wither and decay;
The gems that sparkle in her crown
Shall never pass away.

Shall never pass away Kwansei,
Shall never pass away;
Her sons will give, while they shall live,
Banzai, banzai, Kwansei!
David R. Loevner '76
Princeton, N.J.

Editor's note: We also heard from Brian Cooper '68 about "Old Kwansei." When we queried Marius Jansen '44, emeritus professor of East Asian studies, he related the following: Kwansei Gakuin (gakuin means academy or seminary) was founded in 1889 by the U.S. Methodist church in Kobe as a missionary school with special emphasis on training ministers. In 1910 the Canada Methodist mission became a sponsor, and a high school was added. In 1929 it moved to Nishinomiya. In 1932, it was named a university. Its fourth president, C.J.L. Bates, coined the motto "Mastery for Service," and it was some alumnus on the faculty, presumably, who adopted "Old Nassau" for the school's alma mater.

WHERE'S THE VISION?
In its 250th year I challenge Princeton's vision of its future.
Today, only 11 percent of applicants are admitted to Princeton. The universe of bright, ambitious high-school students at home and abroad is growing faster than our university. We have one of the greatest centers for scholarship and teaching and one of the finest libraries in the world. The university has an endowment of $4 billion, it is ahead of schedule in the Anniversary Campaign to raise $750 million, and it owns hundreds of acres of open land between Carnegie Lake and Route 1.
In light of the above, shouldn't we be dreaming big plans for Princeton's future for the next 25, 50, and 100 years? Should we create a law school, a medical school, a business school? Should we double, triple, or quadruple the size of our graduate-school program? Should we build a whole new undergraduate campus-something most other Ivy League schools, in their cramped urban environments, can't even conceive? Should we pioneer a new, computerbased, interactive learning system for undergraduates and alumni?
Will Rivinus '50
New Hope, Penn.

WOMEN RUGGERS
I congratulate the Women's Rugby Football Club on winning its second consecutive collegiate rugby championship. I was lucky enough to happen upon the event during a drive across country last spring and was honored to be among the small contingent of Princeton supporters to root the team on in Colorado Springs. The thin mountain air and the huge expanse of the Air Force Academy fields put a surrealistic spin on the proceedings, but did little to deter the Tigers from playing a strong, gutsy game in their 20-10 defeat of Penn State. With no official coach and a meager club-sport budget, they have reached a level of excellence unmatched by many varsity teams. I was both humbled and impressed by their victory. Driving home, I thought about my days at Princeton for the first time in a long while.
Tommy Orvald '93
Yakima, Wash.

JESUS' DEATH
Although Elaine Pagels's The Origin of Satan isn't really about the Passion of Jesus, your September 11 article on Professor Pagels chose to highlight her remark that the Gospels "shift" the blame for Jesus' death from Pontius Pilate to the Jews. Whoever was to blame, there is no excuse for holding today's descendants responsible. But having said that, it is well to set the record straight. The Gospels are the only source of detailed information about the passion, and here is what they say:
1. The Jewish authorities (not the Jewish people) were out to get Jesus almost from the beginning of his public life. (Mark 3:6)
2. Three times Jesus predicted his passion, always in terms of the Jewish authorities condemning him to death and handing him over to the Gentiles for execution. (Mark 10:33)
3. The conspiracy against Jesus was composed of the chief priests and scribes (Mark 14:1); he was betrayed not to the Roman but to the Jewish authorities (Mark 14:10), and as stated in Mark 14:43, his arrest was made by a crowd "armed with swords and clubs who had come from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders."
4. The only substantive trial was before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council. There he was condemned to death and treated shamefully. (Mark 14:53)
5. Pilate was most reluctant to execute Jesus. The Jewish authorities, by this time joined by a rabble, shout "Crucify him." Pilate says to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" but they shout the more "Crucify him." So Pilate, "Wishing to satisfy the crowd," hands him over to be scourged and executed by the method only the Romans were authorized to use, crucifixion. (Mark 15:13)
With all this weight of evidence, which the evangelists surely would not have made up (after all, the apostles spent years trying to convince their fellow Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, before turning to the Gentiles), one wonders about the authority for Professor Pagels's allegation that the blame was shifted.
William T. Galey '38
Chebeague Island, Maine