abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (10/29/84)
I thought some of the readers of this newsgroup might be interested in reading something which is both offensive but which also (to me at least) comes close to defining the opposite of my point of view regarding university admission policies. In a piece entitled "Back to better days: `15% Jews, 3% minorities'" appearing in the October 26 issue of The Daily Princetonian, the Princeton University student newspaper, alumnus Charles Huber '51 writes (my sparse annotations appear in brackets [ ... ]; remember, these are pretty much the *opposite* of my opinions): ***** ***** ***** Minority enrollment (including Jewish) now exceeds 50 per cent of each incoming freshmen class at Princeton. In 1947-51 [Huber's undergraduate career], it was less than eight per cent. Similarly, sons and daughters of alumni comprise less than 15 per cent of the incoming class, whereas they used to comprise upwards of 50 per cent. Does it make me a bigot or a racist to question who, why and how this social engineering was accomplished without discourse, debate or participation by the alumni? Are we to be ashamed of Princeton-past and is Princeton-present that much superior? With Yale now admitting 40 per cent of alumni children, is Princeton out of line? Many of us believe it is. The 42 per cent of "our guys" lost from the freshman class demands re-examination. Character and intelligence are more a product of genes than environment. The Princeton family tree was exceptionally strong. The achievements of its sons are testimony. In our day, we pruned the tree by filling one-half of the incoming class with sons of alumni. The rest of the class was purloined from Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth plus a substantial number of outstanding but less privileged students for whom the opportunity of attending Princeton was a dream come true. The whittling down of sons and duaghters of alumni from 50 per cent to 15 percent was not because of the lack of achievement of Princeton families. The number of "C-students" who have risen to the top of industry and the arts belies the SAT argument. The diversity and high academic standards argument of the Goheen/Bowen years [note: the last and present Princeton presidents] are merely the public relations face of the soul which hates, envies and distrusts the Princeton family. This is because our family extended the values of the home onto our campus and these values were conservative, patriotic, religious and embodied the conceits and idiosyncrasies of the communities to which we belonged. Not only was the Ivy Leaguer recognizable in acrowd, a Princeton man was recognizable among a crowd of Ivy Leaguers. Princeton polished the progeny of its sons' character with more than academics to form a bridge between boyhood and manhood which presenves much of the innocence of youth and toned down the harshness of manhood. It was a gentle island. Over four undergraduate years comfort and strength were found in the realization that Dad and Mom were not unique--thousands of others shared their values and stood ready to go forward and protect them in the years to come. This is a nightmarish thought to President Bowen, a boring thought to Dean [of the faculty Aaron] Lemonick and a seditious thought to Provost Rudenstine. The current administration doesn't just hate our guts--it hates our genes. Those who have worked for R. Manning Brown, chairman of the Board of Trustees [of Princeton University], know of his passion for minorities and the rights of unwritten 7 per cent rule limiting admission of Jews, and the blacks on campus could be counted on the fingers of one hand. There were no girls. Roughly half of the undergraduates were sons of alumni and about two-thirds had gone to prep school. A Southern ambiance was notable. Broad geographic base was achieved by the collating of the prep schools. Some trustees saw this as wrong. They wanted a great university mirroring the great corporations which they headed. They looked down upon certain alumni non-achievers. Their university would sire the nations's leading physicists, scientists, mathematicians, and economic theologians. Princeton Charlie, be damned. To accomplish this, alumni power had to be eroded--those preppies had to be sent home and an economic base for change established. A technocratic elite would replace the old social and economic elite. Within a generation over one-third of the undergraduate body was Jewish [this is somewhat an exaggeration] and close to 50 per cent of the faculty. Diversity was a cover-up not just for recognized minorities; the lack of qualification of acknowledged minorities created a welcome diversion for alumni protest over abandonment of the 7 per cent rule. The agitation caused by the minorities and women pleases the administration because it maskes the fundamental turnaway from the middle- and upper-class values to a big-city, big-SAT intellectual standard with very bright Jewish students in the majority. But to cut alumni children enrollment from 50 to 15 per cent, was it necessary also to economically polarize the campus, quintuple one minority (whose presence is almost ten times its population weighting), while pandering to another? Replacing middle-class parietals with a free lifestyle supported by the most left leaning faculty and administration in the Ivy League was a choice we were never asked to vote on. [Why should they have been?] I am not ashamed of having attended a school which admitted 50 per cent sons of appreciate the privilege of being able to attend Princeton. Nor am I ashamed of its honor system or the club system. We may not have been diverse, but we were different. From our single wing to our precept system, we set ourselves apart. Presidents were read, but seldom seen or heard. Deans were feared and avoided. The faculty mixed graciously with a social life on Prospect Avenue [the location the selective and other eating clubs--Princeton's alternative to fraternities] where doormen greeted, maids seated and cooks fatted with royal repasts. Today's students are given a club system bereft of amenities. Mongrelization brought headbands and blue jeans. Administrators and teachers obviously feel intimidated by coat and tie. Four more years of President Reagan and eight of Jack Kemp should recreate our faith in the free enterprise system, the impartiality of the market place, country, family and church. The ethos of Brown/Goheen/Bowen will fade into the 1960s through the 1980s will probably be more conservative than we--certainly conservative enough not to lose control of Princeton as we did. A new undergraduate emphasis will be affirmed which seeks to smooth the transition from boyhood to manhood without dumping everyone on 42nd Street to fended for themselves. The scholarship years will be rightly delineated for graduated studies and the undergraduate years softened and extended for character development and expanding curiosity which was the prime responsibility of Princeton when it was a college in fact and a university in name only. If a balance is struck at 15 per cent Jews and 3 per cent minorities justice will have been served. ***** ***** ***** Well, there you have the opinion of a significant portion of the Princeton alumni body. Comments? Questions?
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (11/01/84)
Lest anyone get overexcited by visions of a Jewish Mecca at Princeton, I hasten to note that "old-guard's" statistics are way off base. The Jewish enrollment at Princeton is actually, I think, quite close to what he "wishes" it were. This scurrillous piece was published on campus, I have heard, to "encourage discussion". Unfortunately it was published on the day before mid-term break, which should actually come as close as possible to stifling discussion. The students return in force this Sunday, and I hope someone at the University will report about followups on campus. The styles and personalities of Princeton students have changed enormously in the last 20 years, and old grads coming back to campus must often feel intimidated by the changes they find. Even though I have lived in Princeton the last 20 years, the change has not been smooth and graceful for one who started as an insider and is now, essentially an outsider observing the University. I think that about 99% of the evolution can be attributed to generation gaps, and the inevitably different point of view from which one examines a university as one gets older. I wish people could find better reasons for their own reactions to change than race, religion, and blue jeans. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/02/84)
One obvious reason that springs to mind regarding the reduction in almuni children being currently admitted to Princeton: If we assume that the average Princeton graduate is an intelligent person, or at least in the higher percentiles of the spread of intelligence, he is likely to behave in a more intelligent fashion than the "average man". It is an intelligent decision to NOT have children. There are fewer social pressures now than there were in the past which impelled intelligent people to have children, despite their better judgement. Therefore, intelligent people today are having fewer (or no) children. Thus, there are fewer alumni children to choose from in selecting those who will be admitted. This is not the place to debate the ramifications or effects of this trend. I am sure most readers of this group are concerned about the anti-Semitic tone of the base posting. However, I think the natural effect of having a smaller pool to choose from explains much of the reduction of the "alumni children" category, and should be kept in mind in future discussion. Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (11/05/84)
I think Will Martin has a good point. The tendency of fewer children of Alumni to go to Princeton is partly controlled by factors the school cannot counter, among them: - College graduates have fewer children (Will's reason) - fewer princeton graduates can afford to send their children to princeton (rampant inflation in college costs) - fewer children desire the semi-dynastic process of going to the same school as their parents - more mothers have gone to college (mostly not at princeton) and some follow dynastci urges at their mother's school. In the past it was well-known that Ivy league scools would admit almostany child of an alumnus, for at least one term, no matter how unqualified the child, if the alumnus insisted. I believe this is still pretty much the policy, but if you compare the methods of teaching and testing used now, to, say, the early 20th century, it should be clear that its harder to push dunces through a good school than it used to be. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
segs@mhuxv.UUCP (slusky) (11/13/84)
> One obvious reason that springs to mind regarding the reduction in almuni > children being currently admitted to Princeton: If we assume that the > average Princeton graduate is an intelligent person, or at least in the > higher percentiles of the spread of intelligence, he is likely to behave > in a more intelligent fashion than the "average man". It is an intelligent > decision to NOT have children. ... > > Will Martin I have been waiting for someone to speak up against this outrageous and un-Jewish statement. Do you agree that it is an intelligent decision NOT to have children? And conversely, a stupid decision to have them? My opinion is that it is intelligent, life-enriching to the parents, and of course, a mitzvah. Susan Slusky mhuxv!segs -- mhuxv!segs
segs@mhuxv.UUCP (slusky) (11/15/84)
I'm posting this as a favor to Ken Wolman (whuxe!ktw).
From: KEN WOLMAN
Bell Communications Research
Livingston, NJ
whuxe!ktw
Subject: The Intelligent Man's Guide to Selfishness,
aka, Real Princeton Men Don't Have Children
*************************************************************
> ... It is an intelligent decision to NOT have children. ...
>
> Will Martin
>
>... Do you agree that it is an intelligent decision NOT
> to have children? And conversely, a stupid decision to have them? ...
>
> Susan Slusky
Will someone answer Mr. Martin? Indeed.
I assume, first of all, Mr. Martin, that since you posted your
original comment to net.religion.jewish, you are either a Jew
or someone looking for a fight without regard for race, religion,
or country of origin. I assume, secondly, and with perhaps even
more justification, that you are a seriously underdeveloped
man emotionally, and have a need to broadcast a private decision
as though it were public business.
Many people, Mr. Martin, choose childlessness. I don't care for
their decision religiously or humanly (or is there any difference?),
but I can respect it. What I cannot respect is a person who
publicizes an essentially private matter in such a way as to make
individuals with children seem foolish by comparison.
Perhaps you have a problem with children, Mr. Martin. Many of us
do, even those of us who--like me, my wife, and the marriage that
is more than the sum of the two of us--have willingly brought them
into a world many of whose residents seem to share your view.
Children are expensive. Children are often ill-mannered, loud,
contentious, violence-prone, and disrespectful. (So, for that
matter, are many adults.) Children are a source of worry:
endless, constant. Before our first child was born, my mother-in-
law (one of the wisest people I know) told us we would probably
never again get a totally restful night's sleep, and that one
ear would be tuned--however subliminally--for crying in the
night. We would worry for and about our kids even when they are
grown and we are old.
It's a bad situation, having kids. They grow up and face all kinds
of terrible things: increasingly the threat of war; of a lowered
standard of living; even more immediately, of a world populated
by men and women with your attitudes toward them. The last is
perhaps the worst threat of all. Why? Because it tells us more
about our "civilization and its discontents" than any threat of
thermonuclear war, of oppression, of starvation. It gives us a
key to the attitudes that make such plagues possible; for it
shows us the shrinking soul of post-modern men and women, the
emptiness that lies inside the heart.
Engendering and raising children is a mitzvah in the Jewish
tradition, as Ms. Slusky points out above. A mitzvah in this
context is something that is commanded BECAUSE it is life-
nourishing and enriching for all parties. Children are God's
lessons to us, His mirror of our own souls. They show us ourselves
when young; they give us the opportunity to glimpse the innocence
we have lost but can nurture in our children if only we can
recognize it. Our children teach us guilelessness and the
beauty that our ancestors must have experienced in Gan Eden.
I'm sorry you can't see that. Your choice is your choice, and
is between you and the woman who is or becomes your wife. But
our choice, to bring children into this world, is not
unintelligent. Indeed, it TRANSCENDS intelligence as defined by
Princeton, psychometry, or cynicism. It is precisely in this
tenuous and endangered world that bearing and raising children
is an act not merely of love between a man and a woman, but
also of death-defiance and affirmation that life can and must
continue.
Ken Wolman
whuxe!ktw
(201) 740-4565
--
mhuxv!segs