Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxr!mhuxv!mhuxt!mhuxm!abeles From: abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Old guard Princeton alumnus speaks his old-guard mind Message-ID: <251@mhuxm.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29-Oct-84 14:29:16 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxm.251 Posted: Mon Oct 29 14:29:16 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Oct-84 01:45:41 EST Distribution: net Organization: Bell Communications Research, Murray Hill, NJ Lines: 126 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?