Tory's vision of Princeton is a misguided one

The Princeton Tory has always managed to send shockwaves across our campus. It's a publication that has never shied away from taking controversial stances on heated campus issues. While I have rarely agreed with any of the Tory's opinions, I have always found the writing to be excellent and the articles well-researched and well-presented. However, an article in The New York Times on Jan. 24 quoted two prominent figures of the conservative magazine and in my mind, greatly ruptured the integrity of the magazine by showing their plights to be both chauvinistic and outdated.

The Times highlighted The Tory's impassioned rants against Shirley Tilghman's "liberal" ideology and her "maternalistic" policies. Evan Baehr, the editor-in-chief, stated that President Tilghman, by hiring so many women to high places in the administration, is leading the University away from its roots and blames a liberal wave "within the context of women in academia that runs contrary to the Princeton of the 1950s and 1960s."

In response to President Tilghman's quote from the early days of her tenure in 2001 that she is seeking students with "green hair," John Andrews, the publisher of the magazine, said that he fears that "what makes Princeton distinctive will be lost."

While The Tory's opinions reflect a growing concern among students, it is important to acknowledge some important changes at Princeton since the 1950s and '60s. Most notably, the transition from an all-white, all-male campus to an incoming class of more than half female and from over 50 countries. Asking for the University's admissions practices to remain embedded in this mid-20th century philosophy is both naive and wrong. The Tory's assertion that the "typical Brooks Brothers / J. Crew student" is what has made Princeton the "distinctive" place it is today is so shallow and misguided as to miss what makes Princeton truly unique.

Our campus is distinctive because of the character and intellectual qualities of the 4,500 people attending and not the brand of clothing we wear.

With that said however, while I definitely do not apply to The Tory's line of thought, they have raised an important question over the future of our school. What did President Tilghman really mean when she said her now infamous "green hair" line?

An article in the Princeton Alumni Weekly in October of 2001 addressed this very question. Wes Tooke '98, described the President's statement as "quaintly charming" but then asked the question: "Does she want the kind of person with green hair who can still stomach a dinner at Ivy, or does she want a Berkeley green?"

Last year when Dean Hargadon called it a day and Stephen E. LeMenager, associate dean of admissions who had been groomed as his replacement, receding into the shadows after Yale scandal fallout, our president jumped on the ball by hiring Janet Rapeleye. President Tilghman's hiring of a former dean of admissions from Wellesley, a small, single-sex, Division III school with a very different dynamic from Princeton, has left many concerned over our school's future.

In addition, with our athletic recruiting practices being the subject of much recent debate, the path that Princeton is taking under President Tilghman is becoming increasingly questioned. I assume these many theories and assumptions about athletics, green hair, and what will become of our student body, will be laid to rest with the arrival of the class of 2008 but in the mean time, I urge our President to step up and clearly define her ideas and plans for the future of our University. Chris Berger is a sophomore from London. His column runs every other Thursday. You can reach him at cberger@princeton.edu.