Nothing wrong with large endowment
Regarding 'Princeton, affluence and morality' (Monday, Nov. 14):
Mr. Bohnett's recent column was sadly nothing more than tried and unenlightening liberal posturing. So far as I can tell, the only coherent moral assertion in the piece would be something to the effect of "there is ill in the world, and thus we must remedy it."
While a wonderful platitude, it is of little practical value. At the personal level, the obligation entailed in it requires a larger theoretical framework if it is to make any sense; obligation to strangers in human society is coherent in a framework whereby obligation to friends, family, neighbors and nation also are taken into account. The author's bandying about of words like "duty" does nothing to reconcile this omnipresent tension in the social debts civilized life incurs upon us.
In the final position the author espouses — that the University ought to spend its capital helping the downtrodden — there are even greater problems. Princeton University is not a person, it is an institution. Institutions are "morally bound" not to undertake — and underwrite — the progressive visions of some of their members. They are morally bound to undertake their chartered purposes in line with their established traditions.
Now, as in the days of Daniel Webster, the question is not the "duty" of Princeton to help the miserable of the world but rather, shall progressive activist be allowed "to take that which is not their own, to turn it from its original use, and apply it to such ends and purposes as they in their discretion shall see fit!" That is the fundamental question, and the one Bohnett leaves unanswered for obvious reasons.
Michael A. Fragoso '06
Ralph Lauren event reflects badly on Ivy
Regarding 'Ralph Lauren hosts Ivy members' (Friday, Nov. 11):
Perhaps predictably, we are writing to express our astonishment and disappointment at the decision of some members of Ivy Club to hold a fashion event in conjunction with the Ralph Lauren Company. There is first the question of whether Princeton students really want to confirm such an outdated stereotype — Fitzgerald's side of paradise. Second, are Princeton students really vacuous enough to associate a clothing brand with a "lifestyle"? Third, and most important, does anyone at Ivy Club realize that there is a war on? That many of their contemporaries in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing more difficult decisions than which color polo goes best with khakis? Our world has suffered quite few setbacks over the last couple of years. One can at least hope that the members of Ivy Club will use their 30 percent discount to donate a few dollars to Katrina and Kashmiri victims.
If the story was actually just an advance on the April 1 issue, do please accept our apologies for our lack of sense of humor. It is ironic that you chose Veteran's Day on which to run the article.
Miguel Angel Centeno Professor of Sociology and International Affairs; Director PIIRS
Frederick P. Hitz '61 Lecturer of Public and International Affairs; Member, Ivy Club Graduate Board
Intelligent design not so intelligent

Regarding 'Defending evolution with sound, scientific thought' (Monday, Nov. 14):
Thank you for posting such a strong endorsement of President Tilghman's opposition to intelligent design. I am sick of reading newspapers equivocating and saying "oh maybe a debate will be good." Science is not up for debate (nor is the definition of science itself up for debate, as the Kansas Board of Ed. seems to think).
Your editorial following President Tilghman's speech makes me proud to be a Princetonian.
Jessica Chong '07