|
June 6, 2001 Letters Frist, an architectural mismatch 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). Having just finished reading Peter Singer's Rethinking Life and Death, I feel the need to defend Singer's name and badly maligned views. If my fellow alumni could take the time to read some of his work, they would find that the "controversial bioethics professor" is extremely intelligent and caring and puts forth thoughtful arguments for reviewing our traditional ethics. As our medical technology has changed, the reality of life and death has also drastically changed, demanding a careful re-examination of ethical precepts created in a time before life support. "I am glad to see he [Singer] didn't suggest simply putting the underpaid workers out of their misery" writes L. O'Callaghan (Letters, April 4) in response to Singer's essay on improving the pay and benefits of the university's lowest paid workers (Notebook, February 21). Such attempts at humor only perpetuate the misconceptions of Singer's work as set forth by his opponents and demonstrate a terrible lack of respect for this rigorous thinker. Mr. Hutcheson, in his letter of the same issue, tries to use Singer's name to discredit the movement to give the lowest paid workers a living wage. Everyone seems to agree that attending Princeton is an incredible privilege - I'm not sure that receiving a living wage for full-time work can be seen in the same light. Abby Austin Weeman '89 Gloucester, Mass.
Having worked many hours in the dining halls as an undergraduate, I clearly recall so many of the employees who were low-income minorities occupying a marginalized relationship to the university as a whole, and yet whose contribution was essential to our day-to-day life. These employees should receive sufficient cost-of-living increases, a transportation subsidy if they travel from some distance, and comprehensive health care coverage for themselves and their families. The university should not attempt to minimize its financial expenditure by hiring on a part-time or casual basis. I believe the future of our world depends on us becoming morally and ethically responsible for each other. Princeton has an important opportunity here to set a standard by exemplifying real humanism. Jessica Roemischer '82 Lenox, Mass.
I want to express my support for the Workers' Rights Organizing Committee and the cause they advocate for all the reasons so clearly articulated by the committee. John H. Fish '55 Chicago, Ill. According to your article in the April 4 issue (Notebook), Robert Durkee '69, Princeton's vice president for public affairs " . . . has been working most closely with the Ad-Hoc Tax Group, a collection of 40-odd colleges and universities that are concerned about the repeal effort." Princeton and the others are trying to prevent repeal of the estate tax, and thus to keep hurting a lot of heirs, including those of alumni and those who are or will be alumni. Also hurt are the employees and customers of family- owned businesses forced to sell out or liquidate, for some of whom the business is the most important family they have. Thanks, guys. Charles W. McCutchen '50 Bethesda, Md.
Whenever I hear a lament that a reduction in income or capital gain tax rates would adversely affect charitable giving I am reminded of the seven-figure donor to Princeton some years ago who made a gift pledged over several years but specified that his commitment for the future years was conditioned on there being no increase in the income tax rates. He was giving such a large amount because he had more money after taxes, not because he wanted to avoid taxes. Give your donors some credit for their loyalty, and stop crying, "Wolf!" The advantages of a repeal of the estate tax are not just "slight"; they are substantial. Vice President of Development Van Zandt Williams is certainly more levelheaded about this prospect than the Ad-Hoc Tax Group. Joseph Neff Ewing, Jr. '47 West Chester, Pa. I noted with some dismay Princeton' s three baseball losses to Oklahoma State recently. I wonder if anyone on either team was aware that OSU's colors, orange and black, are directly descended from Princeton. Until 1925, OSU (then Oklahoma A&M) was known as the Tigers. This was because of their stated objective to be the "Princeton of the plains." Oklahoma A&M was founded in 1891, and its first class graduated in 1896. There were six graduates and my grandfather James Homer Adams, Sr., and great-uncle, Arthur Adams, were both in that class. The only other athletic encounter between the two schools of which I am aware was in 1983 or 1984, when they played in the NCAA western regional basketball tournament. OSU was ranked 19th in the country, but Princeton beat them, which put us in what is now known as the "sweet sixteen." I was grateful that I could tease my father, A&M '34, about this win. Jim Adams '61 Rockville, Md. Frist, an architectural mismatch This is in response to the March 21 story "Frist: An Architectural Assessment." Perhaps I am a traditionalist but it still seems to me that the human eye responds positively to certain architectural spaces, shapes, dimensions, and material, as well as transition, alignment, and symmetry. I am not sure that anyone knows why this is true, but as far back as the Greeks, we knew, for example, that the proper relationship of height of buildings to width of avenues such as in the town of Aix-en-Provence made a positive and pleasing impact on the viewer. From my perspective, the Frist Center, while it may be functional, is not particularly pleasing to the eye. If Palmer Hall was considered to be a good enough representation of Collegiate Gothic style to preserve, then it might have been better to transition from that building into the addition with a style that would not clash as does the wall of windows. The window treatments, the corner design, and the placement of the wall of windows all seem at odds with the old building and detract rather than enhance. No matter how the new façade is characterized as "self-consciously a free-standing screen" or "caricature of a modernist curtain wall," it is still plain and simply a glass rectangular box reminiscent of the 1960s. Unless we are committed to the concept that the original Princeton Gothic style and buildings from other eras are unworthy of preservation, I hope that the administration will begin to think about fitting new buildings into the old scheme by carefully planned integration and transition rather than making the campus an eclectic display of architectural statements. Again, perhaps I am a traditionalist but can anybody say that looking at the wall of windows makes them feel good? Stephen C. Martin '64 Amherst, Va. The Great American Fallacy: "Bigger is better." Rarely is it so, yet most institutions, whether education or business, fall for it. All of us have seen fine restaurants, stores, and communities ruined by growth. Perhaps I missed them, but I think the trustees should list side-by-side in PAW the reasons for and against the proposed growth. They must have considered the cons as well as the pros. I tip my hat to Williams College, which made the decision to cut back the number of students matriculated. Do I sound like an old fuddy-duddy? Well, I'm old - old enough to have watched institutions I respected lose their character through growth. Jack Huyler '42 Ojai, Calif.
|
||||||
