Letters to the Editor

University should increase financial aid for students in clubs

Regarding 'Socioeconomics, bicker led to Campus decline' (Thursday, Oct. 6):

The University administration purportedly desires to mend the "separation based on economic status" that it sees at the eating clubs. Often overlooked in the cost comparison between a University dining contract and a membership at an eating club, is the fact that the University enjoys tremendous benefits from economies of scale in the preparation and serving of food, and it does not need to factor in some incredibly high fixed costs that the eating clubs face. Foremost among these fixed costs are real estate taxes and insurance premiums. While the University is tax exempt, the eating clubs — and as a result, eating club members — are major taxpayers to Princeton Borough. This year at the Princeton Charter Club, real estate taxes are over $66,000. With approximately 100 members at Charter, each member is paying over $660 to fund the borough's schools, police and other public services. Meanwhile, Charter will pay roughly $45,000 in insurance premiums this year. That is about $110,000 for two line items ($1,100 per member) before a single penny is spent on cooking a great meal or maintaining a historic clubhouse. The University's reluctance to offer financial aid packages that recognize the disparities in the cost structure between the University dining halls and the eating clubs is shutting hundreds of students out of one of the best experiences they could have at Princeton. The apparent decision by the administration to wait until fall 2007 to increase financial aid for eating club membership seems to be at least two years too late. Jim White '98 Treasurer, Princeton Charter Club

Solomon Amendment does not compromise University's integrity

Regarding 'University should lobby against Solomon Amendment' (Monday, Oct. 10):

I respectfully disagree with the editorial's main point that the law impinges on the intellectual integrity of the academy.

I concur with your point that free-speech arguments against the Solomon Amendment are weak and not well founded. The Amendment does not limit a university's stances on issues, nor does it prohibit any university actions. The amendment simply links government funding for university research to government access to recruit university students. The university does not have to accept government money, and in fact a few universities, rather than allow recruiters on campus, have refused government money for research.

I disagree with your point that "the law compromises the integrity of all universities as self-governing communities and sets precedent for further assaults on institutional autonomy." Universities have much freedom to decide how to act and whose money to accept. If someone donating money to the University tries to put too many ties on the money, the University does not have to accept the money. Similarly, if the government puts too many strings on funding for research, the University can reject government funds.

I think the key disagreement that spawned the amendment is still the military's policy on homosexuals. Arguments can be made on both sides of the current policy, and, in fact, the current policy was reached as a political compromise in the early 1990s. If the University wants to impact this or other government policies, it shouldn't close off government access to the University, but rather should join the debate. To me, closing the academy to military recruiters does nothing to defend the idea of intellectual freedom and actually may stifle the free exchange of ideas. Bob Bradford '88

University should recruit more women for the faculty

Regarding 'Women outpace men in tenure rate' (Friday, Oct. 7):

The actual content of the report released by the Office of the Dean of the Faculty is hardly reflected by the cheery headline seen above.

The key statistic in the report, described within as both "discouraging" and "disturbing" by the report's authors, is the minimal growth of tenure-track women in the humanities and social sciences. The University has consistently padded its female (and minority) faculty numbers by hiring a disproportionate number of non-tenure-track women across the disciplines. It is indeed "disturbing" that in 10 years, Princeton has only slightly increased the opportunities for women to gain access to its more prestigious levels of professorship.

I do not bring this up to diminish the positive content of the report, but rather to provide some balance. Your article, combined with a headline on the University website misleadingly entitled "Study of women faculty in the humanities and social sciences cites successes, points to areas for improvement," gives a particularly rose-tinted view of the Dean's report to the Princeton community. It is critical that we confront the issue of gender imbalance in the faculty with an openness to acknowledging our failures so that we may remedy them. Judd Greenstein Graduate Student