In the back of my mind, I was hoping that my previous column on ending the legacy preference at Princeton would bring forth a George Soros-like figure who would pledge a billion dollars to the University if it would end its 3-to-1 advantage for legacies in admissions. But according to the real responses I got, even that mammoth contribution would not bring the policy to an end, because it isn't just about money — the legacy preference is about tradition and maintaining the character of Princeton to keep alumni engaged, interested and willing to keep giving back.
What is problematic about this arrangement is that alumni involvement in campus affairs perpetuates a steadfast preservation of the Princeton of old, convincing the new classes of the value of tradition and guaranteeing that we impose the same sort of ideas on future generations of Princetonians. Since that last column, I have been trying to come to grips with this relationship. The responses I received have been somewhat helpful toward that end. I have recently read many letters from alumni that deal with tradition and giving, and I would like to share some of the memorable quotes that have stuck with me:
"In a nutshell, my protest [to the new policy] is based on the feeling that we have better things to do and are already in enough financial difficulties to last a long while."
"[Some say that] Princeton might lose some alumni (reactionary) support if the big change were made but that Princeton would gain more foundation and governmental support. This attitude may be typical of Princeton today but I find it frightening. How willing are we to sell our birthrite [sic] for a mess of pottage?"
"Approval of [this plan] would have a damaging effect on our overall fund-raising efforts. It is true that we might discover some new friends, but run the risk of disenchanting old friends who have helped make Princeton what she is today, if we overextend our demands on them. In these days of keen competition for the philanthropic dollar, I view these uncertainties with concern."
"I am dead against this change and will not give one red cent."
"What a blow to college spirit if this change goes through, and an evaporation of that charisma . . . that sticks with Princetonians through their lives."
"I am certain I am among the most rabid and loyal of Princeton's alumni. This with the hope and expectation that the University I attended and loved was being perpetuated."
"We do not have to break such a tradition and water down the whole history of a university. Let the people who want this build their own DAMN college."
"The blithe recommendation that we completely change the personality and character of a 200 year old institution such as Princeton is frightening."
"Princeton during over 222 years has made a great and respected name . . . It can and should continue to be outstanding in that field. I want to continue to be proud in my relations with it."
Wait a second . . . 222 years? Isn't it more like 259? You may have guessed by this point that these passages are not from letters addressed to me. Rather, most were addressed to or written by Arthur J. Horton '42, the University's then-director of development, in September and October of 1968. The "big change" Horton's congratulators were so strongly opposed to was coeducation at Princeton. The majority of the letters in Horton's file — which I perused at the magnificent Mudd Library — echo the sentiments found in the above quotes.
Horton and the alumni said the sky would fall then, that if Princeton went coed it would cease to be the Princeton that alumni knew and loved. They said the giving well would dry up. It didn't. Either those naysayers kept giving despite such heresy or the "new friends" Princeton found took better care of the University than anyone could have imagined.
Who would argue today that, even if some donors had abandoned Princeton, coeducation was not a worthwhile pursuit? Reform need not be economical or popular among alumni for the current University community to embrace it. If this institution could "survive" coeducation, we could make it with a legacy-blind admissions policy, regardless of what Chicken Little, class of 19XX, has to say about it. Freddie LaFemina is a history major from North Massapequa, N.Y. He can be reached at lafemina@princeton.edu.
Read More
Class of 2029: Reject selective views of free speech
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
Go big or go home: the case for a single Lawnparties
Sarah ParkConsolidating the fall and spring budgets into one would reinforce the position of Lawnparties as a quintessentially Princeton tradition and a mainstay of the social experience.
Consolidating the fall and spring budgets into one would reinforce the position of Lawnparties as a quintessentially Princeton tradition and a mainstay of the social experience.