|
Letters: November 8, 1995
Give Animals a Break
Give Animals a BreakI was glad to read the September 13 article by Robert McClung '39 on the plight of wild tigers, but I was distressed by certain portions of the sidebar about Princeton's use of tigers as mascots.In the main article, McClung describes the tiger as "a symbol of power and courage, a beautiful predator to be admired and feared," and yet in the sidebar he tells of Princetonians celebrating this species by donning tiger skins, donating tigers to zoos, and including them in P-rades. How can such practices reflect admiration, fear, or even a minimal amount of respect? McClung claims that tigers are endangered largely because poachers and consumers view them as commodities with high price tags, and goes on to note that Princetonians are playing leading roles in countering such attitudes and in fostering an international appreciation for these animals in their natural habitats. How can he write so movingly about the plight of tigers, with so much praise for Princetonians who promote the "de-commodification" of animals, then uncritically discuss Princetonians' renting tigers for entertainment purposes? I came across two pictures taken at the 1994 P-rade. In one, a tiger was being pulled along by a chain around her neck; in the other, an elephant stood closely flanked by two "trainers" carrying rods. Both of these "exotic" animals were surrounded by crowds of marchers and spectators. I was dismayed, because I know these animals endure tremendous suffering while being trained to perform, are forced to live and travel in confinement, and are made to cater to crowds of shouting humans in arenas and public places. I was upset that Princeton and some of its alumni would support this industry by renting and displaying these animals at Reunions, creating the same kind of abuse that other alumni are fighting. What does it take to make a tiger or an elephant walk calmly down a crowded street or perform strange and often dangerous tricks in a circus arena? As a law student dedicated to the protection of animals, I know that the entertainment industry treats animals brutally and strips them of all dignity. I also know there are no adequate legal means to protect these animals from abuse. Whether captured in their natural habitats or bred in captivity, they are usually controlled by fear, beaten extensively in the course of their "training," restrained by the use of chains and other devices, and transported and housed in severe confinement. They tend to live only a fraction of their natural life spans, and are often scarred and otherwise permanently injured from the mechanisms used to control them. Many develop severe nervous disorders from their living conditions and from being forced to perform in situations frightening to them. As a result, they occasionally maim themselves or humans and are then killed by their owners or animal-control authorities. A friend who witnessed the 1994 P-rade expressed his own dismay about the appearance of the tiger and the elephant. A senior at the time, he mentioned that a classmate was so sickened by the spectacle that it made her ashamed of Princeton. I know that I join many other alumni in agreeing that the sight of humiliated animals made docile by threats of abuse invokes no sense of pride in my class or my school. There are so many ways to show class spirit and creativity without supporting animal abuse. I implore future reunions organizers to make a real commitment to de-commodifying endangered animals like tigers and elephants, and to respecting the dignity of all animals, by refraining from employing animal acts or otherwise using animals in Princeton events. Michelle Lerner '93 Cambridge, Mass.
The BombIn the September 13 paw there are three letters condemning the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I submit that one letter representing this misguided view would have been more than enough, while publishing three makes one wonder if the editors are sympathetic to such a contortion of history.We have a new lunatic fringe to cope with in this country. Its members want to revise history to plant their skewed perspective on the dropping of the Bomb. They attack American ideals, and they do it with the usual leftist clichés about racism and state terrorism. Many of us who were in the Pacific remember our single dominant concern-that Japanese fanaticism would lead to the bloodiest possible end to the war. Having seen the Kamikazes and the lastditch battles and suicide charges at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, we knew the invasion of the home islands would be devastating. The Japanese military leaders were maniacs, and in August 1945 they were still in charge. Our casualties would have been in the hundreds of thousands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are militarily and morally justifiable. The worst part of this twisted thinking is that it contributes to undermining American values. We did save the world for democracy in World War II, and we should still be proud of our role. Far better to praise our heroes than disparage them with phony history. Jim Benham '39 Darien, Conn.
My perspective on this controversy is that of a former Marine who, in August 1945, was in the hospital with a bullet-shattered femur. My father, brother, and other relatives and friends were scheduled to participate in the invasion of Japan. Objections to the use of the Bomb appear to be related to the objectors' distance in time from the event. I know of no objection by any of the hundreds of thousands of servicemen who would have been directly involved in the planned invasion. And why was dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, causing 76,000 deaths, worse than fire-bombing Tokyo, causing 100,000 deaths? Any war is terrible, and our leaders must take every action possible to bring it to a prompt and successful conclusion.
Cyril BlackSome 50 family members, friends, and colleagues of the late Cyril E. Black, professor of history, emeritus, gathered May 22 at the Center of International Studies (CIS) in Bendheim Hall for the dedication of the Cyril Black Seminar Room. The group paid tribute to a man whose tenure as a professor spanned 47 years, one of the longest in Princeton's history. Professor Black, who directed the CIS from 1968 to 1985, is remembered by generations of Princetonians for his popular course in Russian history, which he began teaching in the late 1940s. His large body of scholarly work embraced both Russian history and comparative modernization.In his opening remarks, John Waterbury, the CIS's current director, recalled Professor Black's contributions to the center's growth and his pioneering work in modernization theory. Black's widow, Corinne, and his faculty colleague and former student Marius Jansen '44 recalled his exploring mind, his presence and integrity, and his genial diplomacy and wit. Professor Black's ground-breaking work and global approach to history constitute a remarkable contribution to Princeton and the world. As Professor Jansen stated, "Cy's quiet and effective drive to broaden Princeton's curriculum was matched by a drive to broaden our understanding. ... We are at a loss not having him here to better understand present-day Russian events." Allen Scheuch '76 Brooklyn, N.Y.
University's RoleIn his statement in the July 5 paw, President Shapiro laments that Congress may reduce its financial support of Princeton. The university needs many things, but not more money. With its huge endowment, outrageously high tuition, and substantial alumni support, it has the resources to fund research in many worthwhile subjects while providing a reasonable amount of financial aid for scholarships. Why should taxpayers fund studies in feminism?A review of the schedules of most Princeton professors would probably reveal that few spend even five hours a week in class. All receive paid sabbaticals. Their summers are free, and, with rare exceptions, their research scarcely touches the lives of average citizens. The purpose of a university is to provide its students with a first-rate liberal-arts education. The trustees should insist that the university be administered in a businesslike manner to achieve that objective. If that were done, I'd be surprised if tuition could not be reduced substantially, and the president would not need to cry on congressional shoulders. Hugh M. F. Lewis '41 St. Louis, Mo.
Not-for-ProfitsThe October 11 Notebook article "Seniors Sweat Job Hunting" might lead readers to the mistaken conclusion that the work chosen by graduating seniors is largely limited to "financial services, including investment banking and management consulting firms."Such is not the case. A significant number of young Princetonians elect to work in notforprofit organizations addressing many of the nation's critical social problems. This past year, Princeton Project 55 received about 200 applications from undergraduates for both summer and yearlong positions; it placed approximately 35 members of the Class of 1995 and 55 members of other classes in paid jobs at public-interest agencies. Over the past six years, Princeton Project 55 has recruited and placed over 425 students in such positions, making it one of the largest sources of jobs on campus. It is a testimony to these remarkable young men and women that they are willing to take on this work at a typical salary of $18,000 per year, far less than the average of $36,000 reported in your article as the starting salary in the forprofit sector. Princeton in Asia and Teach for America are two other organizations active in placing a substantial number of graduates as teachers in developing countries and in innercity schools within the U.S. It is encouraging to see the growing number of students and alumni choosing careers that fulfill the social responsibilities of "Princeton in the Nation's Service." Chet Safian '55 Chairman, Princeton Project 55 Princeton, N.J.
Chet DalgewiczThe October 11 paw reported that a Mercer County court found the university guilty of employment discrimination in firing Chet Dalgewicz, a veteran assistant-wrestling coach, because of a physical handicap. The article went on to say that the jury "did not rule in Dalgewicz's favor" on the second charge, that he had been fired because of his age.The fact is, the jury did vote, 4-2, that his age was a contributing factor in his dismissal. New Jersey requires a 5-1 majority for a judgment to be rendered in civil cases, but it was clear the majority of jurors felt the university was guilty on both counts. The Friends of Princeton Wrestling takes no pleasure in seeing the university in this embarrassing position, but it is significant that the same people who decided to fire Dalgewicz subsequently made the decision to terminate the wrestling program. In the opinion of many, this second decision was even more misguided than the first. The Friends will continue its efforts to restore the varsity wrestling program when its threeyear transitional period concludes after the upcoming season. We remain hopeful that at some point the administration will listen to our arguments or, better yet, that the trustees will give us an opportunity to speak to them directly. Even at this late stage, no cogent reason why the varsity program should not be reinstated has ever been presented. H. Clay McEldowney '69 Chairman, Friends of Princeton Wrestling Pittstown, N.J.
Reader SurveyI wasn't solicited for the 1994-95 reader survey summarized in the October 11 paw, but I'll toss in my two bits anyhow.Having been out of Princeton for 40-plus years, I like to read about physical changes on campus. I have, for example, followed the Palmer Stadium story closely. I strongly support a fellow alumnus's request to read less about multicultralism and race relations on campus. First, because the subjects bore me to death after all that has already been said in paw and elsewhere about them. And second, because I am opposed to multiculturalism and bilingualism. America grew strong as a direct result of the 19th-century melting pot, and all this nonsense is driving unwanted wedges between us. Continue giving us articles on the accomplishments of alumni. Individual articles may or may not interest me, but I read most of them anyway. With a lifelong interest in astronomy, I enjoyed the October 11 article on Nobel laureate Joseph Taylor. Paw ought to address the issue of education in our public schools. The system is badly broken, and the consequences will become ever more severe. I'd like to read about "Princetonians in the Nation's Service" involved in finding fixes for the school system. It is great to be able to point to fine scientists like Joseph Taylor, but public education is vastly more important to the nation's future. Ed Hastings '51 Villanova, Penn. |