Letters to the Editor

Chemistry Deptartment faces significant challenges

Regarding 'Chemistry Dept. looks to rebuild' (Wednesday, Oct. 26):

I wish to have The Daily Princetonian correct a misattribution made in the story on the Chemistry department you published on Friday.

In my years at Princeton, I was quoted numerous times by the 'Prince'; it is just that I was never quoted correctly. So to be safe this time, I never spoke to your reporter. All of my interviews with him were by email, a full copy of which I have made available at www.princeton.edu/~wwarren/Prince_interview.pdf. If you look at that document, you will see that the direct quotes are indeed correct. However, I never said anything that could be construed as "Warren [and Lehmann] blamed their departures mainly on the administration, which they perceived as stingy and heavy-handed." I will not presume to speak for Kevin Lehmann, but I find such accusations in a public forum to be counterproductive.

I also believe the article missed the point. Departmental divisions such as chemistry, physics and biology don't make much sense anyway in the 21st century, except perhaps for teaching the lowest level undergraduate classes. The real question is why five tenured professors at or near their career peaks (age 45-55; older faculty almost never move) in Chemistry, plus four distinguished faculty with strong interest in materials science (from Physics, EE and MAE), all decided at approximately the same time that their interests were better served by moving elsewhere. By any standard, this is an astonishingly large number of senior departures in a short time. I assure you that the science faculty at Princeton is very well aware of the underlying issues; I believe that much of the administration is as well.

'Prince' readers could be forgiven for thinking that the faculty perspective mirrors the experiences of Professor John Fleming, your regular columnist, but the reality is much more complex and challenged, particularly in the sciences. I do stand by my quote that "Princeton has to decide what it wants to be: a primarily undergraduate institution that dabbles in research, or a major research university that includes undergraduate education as a priority. It has the resources to take either path — arguably, more resources than any other university in the world. It is not clear to me, after 23 years at Princeton, which path it will take." If the 'Prince' article helps to bring these challenges into sharper focus in the University community, it will have served a constructive purpose. Warren S. Warren Professor of Chemistry Duke University

Princeton community exists beyond campus

Regarding 'Borough candidates debate' (Friday, Oct. 14):

Your coverage of Whig Clio's forum with Borough Council candidates David Goldfarb and Mildred Trotman made several references to the University's financial contributions to Princeton Borough. I'd like to provide some of the relevant numbers, which are made available each year to the governing officials and the public.

Princeton University is the largest tax payer in Princeton Borough. Last year the University paid $3.05 million in total property taxes (plus $1.03 million in sewer taxes). Thus, even though many of its properties are tax exempt, the University pays taxes on many properties, some of which are commercial, but several of which might qualify for tax-exemption, such as graduate student and faculty housing. It has been the University's policy to keep voluntarily on the tax rolls any property that might potentially contribute school children to the schools. Of the $3.05 million paid in taxes by the University, the Borough gets approximately $763,000 (the rest goes to the schools and the county). The Borough last year collected $8.9 million in taxes for Borough purposes. Therefore, the University paid about 9 percent of the total amount of taxes collected by the Borough.

In 2005, the University made voluntary contributions to the Borough of more than $800,000, including $250,000 for road repair and other capital projects. If you add the University's voluntary contribution to the taxes the University pays just to the Borough, the University is contributing more than 17 percent of the Borough's tax revenue.

In recent years, the University has also has made very substantial capital contributions for Borough projects (including $300,000 for Monument Drive and $150,000 for the new plaza by the public library) and for projects such as renovation of the local public schools ($500,000) construction of a new public library ($500,000), and purchase of a new Rescue Squad vehicle ($155,000), in which the University's contribution reduced the demand on local taxpayers. Pam Hersh University Director of Community and State Affairs