Satire is impossible in the modern world: reality has already become too bizarre. That proposition came to mind when I read in the May 20 Notebook about the offers of thousands of dollars to Princeton women to sell their eggs. Just look at some of the remarkable aspects of this article:

Newspeak -- People who sell their eggs are called "donors." I suppose the term "egg sellers" makes people uncomfortable because it fails to disguise the mercenary dimension (or perhaps calls to mind images of chicken farms).

Eugenics -- One would think Princetonians would condemn the pursuit of a "master race" or "breed of human thoroughbreds." But the article makes no mention of protest at the pursuit of elite Princeton genes. Maybe people fail to recognize a superiority complex when they are the ones labeled superior.

Racism -- Some couples request the ova of an "Asian Harvard graduate." Others presumably request gametes from other specific ethnic groups. Is no one troubled by the manipulation of the ethnicity of a child prior to conception?

Psychological unreality -- A woman who sells her ova sells her maternity. The children conceived from these eggs are genetically as much her own children as any others she may have. Might she not later have qualms, realizing she may have children out there whom she knows nothing about?

Incest -- When family lines are erased in the anonymity of the gamete marketplace, the possibility of an unwittingly incestuous union increases. Pre-fertilization gene selection may lead to genetic maladies as half-sibling strangers meet, marry, and conceive.

The concerns outlined above are not gender specific. They apply with equal force to sperm sellers (or donors).

We seem bent on replacing procreation with anonymous baby manufacturing and designer children. I thought treating people as products was supposed to be degrading.
Walter M. Weber '81
Litigation Counsel,
American Center for Law and Justice
Washington, D.C.

Reading your article, I was disturbed by Professor Lee Silver's assertion that "the critical ethical issue in advertising for egg donors is a woman's being induced by money to do something that will harm her physically or psychologically, or that she may regret later on."

I fail to understand this "critical ethical issue." We all face decisions that may harm us or that we may later regret, and often money is involved. I may be induced by money to take a job I later regret, to marry an unsuitable mate, to sell a precious heirloom, or to engage in strenuous sports. But as long as I am aware of the probable risks and benefits and make the decision of my own free will, any ethical concerns relate to the act itself, not its financial implications.

If egg donation is morally wrong in a particular instance, then it's wrong regardless of the financial arrangements, and similarly if it's right. Unless a transaction is based on fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion, the exchange of money does not generally alter the ethical status of a deed. Market activities such as advertising and payment enable seekers and providers of legitimate services to find each other more efficiently than any other known method, but the marketplace does not determine whether a service is legitimate.

More relevant, and much more complex, are the ethical issues inherent in the deed of egg donation. On the one hand, an egg donor offers the greatest possible gift, that of life itself, to a childless couple. Yet what are the implications of a woman's bearing a child containing a stranger's genes? Should the biological mother have any rights to that child? Should the child be informed? Is egg donation qualitatively different from adoption?

Such questions bear on whether egg donation is right or wrong, inherently. Whether or not money changes hands is secondary, if not inconsequential.
Jason H. Elbaum '92
London, England

Unwed mothers

Writing in response to your March 11 articles on kids vs. careers, Walter Guzzardi '42 suggests some "simple editorial rules" for future use in paw, one of which is that the editors never again permit the phrase "single mom" to debase its pages (Letters, May 20). For this construction he would substitute "unwed mother," asserting that to do so will reinforce "respect for the English language."

Things are not as "simple" as all that. We respect our native tongue by using it to express ourselves as clearly as possible. The phrase "single mom" accomplishes this purpose, conveying that the family being described is composed of a mother and children, but no father.

To describe a single mom as an "unwed mother," though, is to add a more pejorative (and in this case irrelevant) nuance, suggesting that she conceived her children without benefit of marriage. In any particular case Mr. Guzzardi's substitution might well be inaccurate, because many single moms are divorced or widowed. So Mr. Guzzardi's rule is not simple, but rather simplistic.

But Mr. Guzzardi's disrespect for English may be even more fundamental. Perhaps I am reading too much into his obscure reference to "fairness and balance," but I think his real objection is not to vocabulary choices, but rather to "unwed motherhood." If he did mean to state a position on the morality of any of the women profiled in paw, respect for language would dictate that he not disguise a moral position as a grammatical objection.
Paul D. Wilson '75
Newton, Mass.

Perhaps one nit-picker deserves another. Walter Guzzardi decries the use of "kids," "mom," and "single mom." He wants "children," "mother," and "unwed mother." As a general principle, Guzzardi bucks the historic linguistic trend that replaces words more difficult to speak witrh ones that are easier. "Unwed" also fails to properly describe widowed, divorced, or separated women usually included in the context of "single mothers."
Brad Bradford '44
Highland Park, Ill.

The implication that "unwed mother" is a synonym for "single mom" is a common misperception with, unfortunately, potentially terrible consequences for public policy. Studies have consistently shown that a more accurate synonym would be "abandoned wives." Economic incentives make it overwhelmingly more attractive for husbands, rather than stay in a marriage with children, to seek a divorce and leave their wives to pretty much take care of the children on their own (see U.S. News & World Report's March 30 cover story, "The Real Cost of Raising Kids: Would You Believe It's $1,455,581 Apiece?"). These same studies generally show that ex-husbands experience a significant increase in their standard of living after a divorce, while ex-wives and children experience a dramatic decrease in theirs. Deadbeat dads are the real problem.
E. Andres Garcia '79
Weehawken, N.J.

John Turkevich *34

Like the obituary in the May 20 Notebook, articles in other publications reporting the services to his nation of Professor John Turkevich *34 omitted a service specific to Princeton: his inauguration, while working on the Manhattan Project, of the university's first course in elementary Russian.

As a freshman in 1942, I went to the administration, together with my classmates Ken Love and Boyd Compton, and said it was a scandal that Princeton did not teach such an important language. Later we were informed that an instructor had been found if we could line up two more students.

It wasn't easy to keep up with Professor Turkevich, who strode around the campus like Peter the Great. He was a fine language teacher as well as an outstanding chemist. Although Ken moved on to Arabic, while Boyd took up first Mandarin and then Indonesian, my whole career has been involved with Russian: I set up the first Russian desk at Time magazine and later served as deputy director of the Voice of America and executive director of Radio Liberty, in Munich.

All Americans owe Professor Turkevich a debt of thanks, and Princetonians owe him a very special one.
Francis (Ronny) Ronalds '46
Washington, D.C.

During my freshman year, I was rarely fully awake during my early morning class in chemistry. On one occasion I fell into a fitful, noisy sleep, to be awakened by the infamous freshman-chemistry alarm clock and the laughter of well over a hundred fellow students. Professor Turkevich kindly invited me to attend his lecture more closely.

In 1960, almost a full decade later, I was at Princeton Junction, about to board a train for Philadelphia, where I had just begun my graduate studies in classical archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania. A vaguely familiar figure got off the train, smiled when he saw me, and asked if I were getting more sleep lately. He went on to ask how and what I was doing and ended by wishing me well in my future endeavors.

The moment remains clear in my memory to this day, and it gave to me a paradigm I have tried to follow in my years as a university professor.
Frederick H. Van Doorninck '56
College Station, Tex.

Professor Turkevich taught me freshman chemistry, a two-semester course. One of his habits was to circulate among the students during chemistry lab. On one of those occasions, noticing that my name was of Greek origin, he proudly informed me that his father was the archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church of North and South America. This I doubted, knowing that in the Greek Orthodox tradition only celibate priests can become bishops. When I expressed my incredulity with a slang expression picked up from my roommates -- "Sir, you are pulling my leg" -- he responded, "You will find out."

That day came sooner than I thought. Shortly after our conversation, while browsing through the New York Daily News, my attention was drawn to several pictures pertaining to the same event. They showed a Cadillac disabled on one of the city parkways and two monks in traditional garb changing a tire. A passenger sitting inside the Cadillac was identified as His Eminence, Archbishop Turkevich, Prelate of the Russian Orthodox Church of North and South America. His son, Professor Turkevich, graciously accepted my apology.
George N. Tsilibes '56
Rochester, N.Y.

Oroville beats Hoover

James Andersen '84 may be correct that arch-gravity dams are more majestic than gravity-type dams (Letters, January 28). But at 726 feet, Hoover Dam is only the second-highest dam in the United States, not the first, as he claims. That title is held by the 754-feet-high Oroville Dam, in California.
Wesley Go '90
Plainsboro, N.J.

So long for now