November 6, 2002: Letters
PAW
Letter Box Online
PAW
has expanded its Web site to include a feature called Letter Box, where
many more letters than can fit in the print magazine are published. Please
go to
Letter Box to read and respond.
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 can’t take it anymore. The Letters column in PAW has made me physically ill for the past several months, thanks to the constant stream of rants from the sons of Princeton whining about the good old days — that is, before women and minorities invaded the campus and things went directly to hell.
The letter from E. H. Buttle ’49 (October 9), commenting on the “worship of diversity for diversity’s sake” as evidenced by a graduation photo showing (fasten your seat belts!) females and nonwhites, is only the latest. Mr. Buttle apparently believes that he can discern from the color of a person’s skin or her gender that he or she was not admitted to Princeton on his or her own merits.
The standards for gaining entrance to Princeton climb every year. According to the admission office, 71 percent of those offered a spot in this year’s freshman class scored 700 or above on the verbal SAT I. And 75 percent scored 700 or higher on the math SAT I. The majority were in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class. Most had a serious commitment to extracurricular activities, volunteering, and sports.
Any alumni who interview prospective students know that their qualifications are often breathtaking. So what is all this nostalgia for? The days when lesser applicants snagged spots at Princeton because a huge chunk of the population wasn’t allowed through the gates? If that wasn’t an early form of affirmative action, I don’t know what was.
Thanks to outreach efforts and changes in financial aid policies that encourage all promising high school students to apply to Princeton, the caliber of students will only continue to improve. This development, while it makes the admission officers’ jobs more difficult, is one that should be welcomed by all alumni. Sadly, some seem content to romanticize days past, in which only the privileged few were granted access to the life-changing experience that is a Princeton education.
Katie Hobson ’94
New York, N.Y.
I write in support of the Princeton of yesterday and today. I started in the first class to which women were admitted, and one of my sons is now a senior.
Princeton was a fabulous, exciting experience for me, and it has been the same for my son. If you will leave your assumptions and your politics at the door, and look
honestly at this remarkable institution,
you will find that this is a new and improved version of the best damn place of all.
Ralph A. “Boot” Simmons ’73 p’03
Great Falls, Va.
President Tilghman got it completely backwards when she failed to support Princeton’s admission office in “l’affaire Yale” this summer, and instead publicly disciplined two highly respected and long serving leaders of this office.
Several factual points are not in dispute: 1. The purpose of the database “break-in” was to check the security of Yale’s software system. 2. The timing of the security check — after all admission decisions at both universities had been made and communicated, and using only names of those who had applied to Princeton, thus making their personal data already known to the admisssion office — made it impossible for “harm” to be done to any individual’s privacy.
3. The security breach was reported to Yale by Princeton admission officers in a private forum intended to facilitate learning/cooperation between Ivy League admission offices. 4. Neither of Princeton’s admission directors saw any ethical lapse at the time of the events.
Points 2 and 3 above should have prevented any characterization of the events as “spying.” Point 4 is evidence not of “ethical insensitivity,” but of the absence of clear standards for proper behavior in our Internet world — and of serious differences of opinion as to what these standards should be.
Practical and legal considerations have made it clear that the primary responsibility for keeping private things private lies with the owner/operator of the database. In the nonacademic world, databases are tested relentlessly by site sponsors themselves, by competitors of site sponsors, by competitor software makers, by independent consultants, by official “watchdogs,” and, yes, by hackers. The operators/sponsors of Internet sites usually welcome security break-ins that are “benign” as to intent, that do no harm, and that are voluntarily reported to them.
The proper outcome for “l’affaire Yale” should have been a letter from the president of Yale apologizing to its accepted applicants for having, inadvertently, exposed private information on Yale’s Internet site through inadequate security . . . and another letter thanking Princeton for bringing this situation to their attention.
Whether someone in the Yale admission office should be punished for failing to do the obvious with respect to Internet site sponsorship is best left to Yale.
New technology, and the possible harm it can cause or facilitate, is an ongoing problem. Princeton’s idea of a solution — blame the messenger — is truly unhelpful.
John F. McNiff ’64
New York, N.Y.
I am writing in response to the letter by Judge Charles Blackmar ’42 criticizing Professor Robert George’s view that cloning – even for the purposes of research — violates the fundamental purpose for creating life (October 9). Mr. Blackmar declares that “opinions such as these should not be forced on others,” perhaps referring to Professor George’s appointment to the president’s bioethics council.
Which opinions are “these,” exactly? Opinions that do not agree with yours?
Princeton alumni boldly call for a university (and a society) where all voices are heard; one need only look toward more recent faculty appointments to see the broad range of beliefs and attitudes represented there.
If, as Mr. Blackmar’s comment suggests, we attempt to silence all those whose perspectives do not fit our own, we do not celebrate a democratic society; we only celebrate our own inconsistency. When did expressing one’s opinion translate into “forcing it on others?” We should be thrilled, as alumni and as citizens, to have professors who challenge and confront our views, both at the university level and in our nation’s capital.
Katherine Hande ’02
Princeton, N.J
I had a delightful experience October 5 when I accompanied my son’s high school cross-country team to the Gator Invitational at the University of Florida. The college competition preceded the high school event, and I was pleased to see seven distinctive orange and black duffel bags adjacent to our team’s encampment.
After the Princeton harriers returned from their warm-up run, I spoke to Jonathan Kieliszak, a junior engineering major, about his team’s prospects. He replied that the team was doing pretty well thus far. Shortly thereafter the race began. I cheered very loudly, hoping to compensate for the fact that I was the only Tiger fan in Gainesville that day. Princeton dominated from the start, with all seven runners in a tight pack near the front of the line of 196 runners and 28 teams.
By the end of the 8-km run it was clear that Princeton had the meet title, placing five runners in the top eight and seven in the top 12, for a score of 28. I congratulated the runners, then they packed up and left, without fanfare, for the long trip back to New Jersey.
Theodore R. Amgott ’75
Melbourne, Fla.
In the summer of 1961 I worked as an apprentice welder in France under the auspices of Professor Louis Sullivan and the French department. The fruits of that opportunity continue to feed me four decades later. What a gift!
Working through the university’s Teacher Preparation Program and Student Volunteers Council, I repay my debt by employing Princeton undergraduates and alumni as summer and year-round interns at Eagle Rock School, where I am head of school. To date more than a dozen talented and hard-working Princetonians have contributed to the growth of culture and community at our nine-year-old school, and all affirm significant personal and professional growth through their internships.
I urge other alumni who are not already doing so to consider how they might provide uncommon experiences for young Princetonians.
Robert Burkhardt ’62
Estes Park, Colo.
Having read both of Mr. Innerfield ’67’s letters regarding the university’s rejection of his daughter (Letters, May 15), and all the others in response (July 3), I would like to point out that, after 25 years of Alumni Schools Committee work in several areas of the U.S., alumni offspring have gotten a far better chance to be admitted than the average applicant.
On a percentage basis, the legacy has a two to three times greater chance of admission than the average Joe (or Joette).
Back in the days when 15 percent of applicants were accepted, legacies had a 40—45 percent acceptance rate. As the overall acceptance percentage decreased over the years to roughly 11 percent, one finds that legacies are still getting in at approximately a 30 percent rate. As Dean Hargadon remarked at a Reunions reception in June, he could have accepted three complete classes out of 5,000 outstanding applicants without lowering standards!
What can one do when the physical plant size limits one’s options? Certainly not what one alumnus I knew suggested: He felt that Princeton should accept any alumni offspring who was not certified brain-dead and fill in the rest with a few “bright kids!”
Adrian Woodhouse ’59
Reno, Nev.
I am helping two F. Scott Fitzgerald ’17 scholars, Dr. Matthew Bruccoli of the University of South Carolina and Dr. Horst Kruse of the University of Münster, track down the inspiration for Fitzgerald’s character Jay Gatsby.
I believe that person was Max Gerlach, who operated a garage in New York City at 24 E. 40th St., around the corner from the old Princeton Club.
We believe Gerlach was a bootlegger, and we are investigating the possibility that Gerlach supplied the Princeton Club’s alcohol and met Fitzgerald there.
I would like to hear from any alumni who have family stories or information on the club, Fitzgerald, or a Max S. Gerlach (aka Max Von Gerlach) during the ’20s.
Reach me in Charleston at 800-270-4170 or New York at 516-352-5400.
Howard Comen
Charleston, S.C.
