Administration and Policy

Now that Dartmouth and Yale have led the way, isn’t it time for Princeton to abandon the “test-optional” policy for undergraduate admission? That policy arguably made sense when adopted in the darkest quarantine days of the coronavirus crisis. But it now just seems to be hanging on as a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to democratize admission policies. 

Yale’s research concluded that “when admissions officers reviewed applications with no scores, they placed greater weight on other parts of the application. But this shift frequently worked to the disadvantage of applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.” (Emphasis in original.)

Consistent with other research, Yale also concluded that “among all application components, test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s future Yale grades. This is true even after controlling for family income and other demographic variables ...”

I was proud when Princeton in 2001 became the first university in the country to eliminate loans from its student aid packages. That enlightened decision facilitated the matriculation of more low- and moderate-income students. But the “test-optional” policy seems to actually work against this laudable goal. I hope Princeton will soon join the salutary countertrend started by Dartmouth and Yale. 

I was ashamed to read in The New York Times (“The Top U.S. Colleges With the Greatest Economic Diversity,” Sept. 8, 2023) that with the highest per-student endowment in the Ivy League, Princeton ranks sixth in the Ivy League in low-income freshmen (those receiving Pell Grants), at 18%. I was even more ashamed after looking up the numbers for my own employer, the George Washington University: a similar freshman Pell rate (17%), but with a per-student endowment of only 1/35th (less than 3%) of Princeton’s. I wonder if 18% is where the University wants to be, and if not, what is standing in the way of raising it.

In the April 26 Washington Post, Princeton’s president did his best to support the U.S. education department’s “college for all” doctrine, citing the increased earning power that goes along with getting a four-year degree. But he left out the most convincing counter-argument — the college dropout rates are just awful.

According to BestColleges.com:

1)  Between 2019 and 2020, about 24% of first-time, full-time undergraduate first-year students dropped out of college.

2)  In 2021, 31.6% of students who enrolled in 2015 were no longer enrolled six years later and had not received their degree.

3)  American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and Pacific Islander first-year students have higher dropout rates than their Hispanic, white, and Asian peers.

With only a two in three chance of getting a degree, should we be surprised that a good many young people are opting for apprenticeships and vocational training instead of college?  Why pile up debt when plenty of good jobs are available to non-college grads with the right vocational training? 

In February, while Israeli rescue crews worked through the Sabbath to save lives in Turkey, the English department at Princeton University paid and sponsored someone who, in his writing, claims Israelis eat the organs of Palestinians and threatened to shoot protestors at an earlier speech at Arizona State University. At Princeton, Mohammed El-Kurd made many such hateful references, such as describing the Anti-Defamation League, which has fought antisemitism and racism for more than a century, as the “Apartheid Defense League.”

This is not a First Amendment issue. Mr. El-Kurd is free to spout his poison on the internet or on a street corner, but why is Princeton sponsoring this?

For a Princeton University department to sponsor (i.e., pay or use University resources to support) a speaker who would like to exterminate me and my two Princeton sons, Benjamin ’13 and Theodore ’20, as well as everyone who lives in Israel, is appalling.

Such targeting of any other racial, ethnic, religious, or national group would be unthinkable at Princeton. And yet it is somehow appropriate for the English department at Princeton to invite and support such a speaker targeting a minority group — Jews.

Apparently, the only University-connected figure with the courage to confront El-Kurd’s hatred was Rabbi Eitan Webb of Chabad at Princeton, who got up and shouted, “I would like to thank you very much for giving a masterclass on how to be an antisemite.”

I am already a 1746 Society donor to the University. But tell me, why should I support this?

We pride ourselves for divesting from fossil fuels, we decry Nazis, we cancel slaveholders, we align ourselves as individuals and as a community with various human rights concerns here and around the globe. However, we have not spoken a word as a University community against the numberless human rights atrocities committed by China under the Chinese Communist Party every day. We continue to engorge on their vast resources and funding to feed our academic hunger, which is really blood money. I will not be silent. It is time Princeton University stand true to her ideals and hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable.

I have often reflected on Princeton’s responsibility as a leading elite and well-endowed institution to embrace the 21st century, in terms of the students it serves, the programs and modalities of education it offers, and the culture it fosters. As a former head of e-learning at a peer institution, I already have commented on Princeton’s slowness to adapt in that arena, but I believe that its tethering to tradition has broader implications with respect to the mission of service and bears further scrutiny given the now precarious state of affirmative action programs.

Although Princeton has made strides in diversifying its student population and incrementally increasing class sizes, it hasn’t progressed in terms of broadening access to nontraditional students, high school and adult learners, significant outreach programs to local and underserved communities, or with respect to valuing alternative educational experiences whether, online, experiential, or through study abroad. This resistance to embracing new audiences and approaches is in part a reflection of the long-held belief that a Princeton education surpasses all others and that one can’t have a commensurate experience elsewhere (at least during the academic calendar year), and an elitist and tradition-bound culture that similarly continues to promote professions, such as management consulting and investment banking (although now has included tech) as preferred professional pathways. Not much has changed in that regard since I was a student 40 years ago.

This culture of elitism persists, and regardless of the numbers of students of color and/or those from socioeconomically diverse backgrounds Princeton admits, which should remain of critical importance, if it doesn’t address this culture, its students will perpetuate the same in the institutions they may someday lead.

I am a proud Princetonian and truly appreciate the incredible education it afforded me. That is why I feel so strongly that Princeton should evolve to meet the moment. To hold true to its service and diversity aspirations, Princeton as an institution must lead by example and nurture a more egalitarian culture. It should consider integrating a service component and/or field work into its distribution requirements, advancing more diverse career opportunities, especially those that are service/community oriented, creating bridge programs for local high school students from underserved communities to support alternative channels to admission, and/or partnering with other institutions around the world to create joint online and/or hybrid programs that enhance its offerings and extend its audience.

It is time for Princeton to look inward and reconsider what it means to be “in the service of humanity” as a well-resourced leading educational institution in the 21st century.

I am so dismayed to see Princeton taking unsustainable actions at students’ expense by mandating booster COVID-19 vaccination in the spring.

Potentially serious vaccine side effects have been documented for months, particularly after Moderna for young men, Johnson and Johnson for young women, and AstraZeneca for younger people overall. Yes, adverse events are relatively rare. But COVID-19 harms are extremely differentiated by age and comorbidities such as obesity. A risk-stratified approach would minimize harms and maximize benefits from vaccination, and it would live up to Princeton’s renown for nurturing its undergraduates.

Vaccination mandates disregarding immunity from infection or differential risks also have ethical and socio-political costs, from understaffed hospitals to global inequities in vaccine access. Do punitive mandates achieve harm reduction and a more tolerant, just society? Or do they pantomime virtue, taking a further toll on public trust?

Princeton’s policy takes the omicron variant as a serious threat. But which high-quality data have shown this? Vaccine companies’ announcements surely cannot be counted as solid evidence. The omicron variant is already widespread globally. Vaccinated individuals can transmit it. We must accept that COVID-19 will become endemic and minimize its harms as equitably as possible. What are the University’s metrics for dropping its intrusive, punitive COVID-19 measures?

I was privileged to enjoy an education at Princeton that emphasized free inquiry, a compassionate global perspective, and rigorous examination of evidence. I expected far better from my alma mater.

The recent Daily Princetonian article about the Honor Code and the stressses faced by those it examined for violations says nothing about prevention.

From my current enrollment, year 7 as an MA in Egyptlogy student at the University of Manchester in the U.K., I have seen the value of a preventive alternative related to plagiarism. It would also apply to the other examples cited in the article.

Proposals:
- Develop an online course on the issues that cause students to be cited for potential Honor Code violations, based on current examples. Require every student prior to matriculation to complete this course with attendant T/F questions.
- Require returning students to complete an abbreviated form of this course each summer.
- Have an email resource that students can access when they have questions about situations that could result in Honor Code violations.
- Provide this course and email resource to the faculty so that they are aware of this process.
- Collect and modify the course based on total number and specific issues that come before the Honor Committee each year with a goal of reductions in its referrals based on the results.

As a loyal alumnus, after 52 years I have finally figured out what makes Princeton such a special place. And it’s not what Princeton is. It’s what Princeton is not.

While Princeton has very prestigious graduate programs, it does not have a law school, a business school, nor a medical school. Most of the other Ivy League schools have all three professional schools and all have at least one.

Princeton’s unique focus on the undergraduate experience is what makes it so special. We should promote that attribute more.

We are just a few of the alumni from seven decades who have come together out of concern for the future of Princeton and our planet. We have pledged to withhold donations until Princeton University commits to divesting from the fossil-fuel industry. We don’t know how much of Princeton’s $26 billion endowment is invested in dirty energy because PRINCO will not share that information. 

We do know that Princeton does not engage in shareholder activism and has refused to join Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative that promotes action on climate change. We also know that Princeton continues to accept funding from ExxonMobil and BP, despite the fact that Exxon is currently being sued for allegedly lying about climate change and BP was the oil company that spent the most on blocking climate-change legislation last year ($53 million, according to InfluenceMap.org).

Nearly 40 campus organizations and hundreds of current students have endorsed the campaign. To join the more than 1,560 Princetonians who have already signed the open letter to President Eisgruber ’83, visit divestprinceton.com. This is an existential crisis threatening humanity — where is Princeton?

I write this letter with a heavy heart.

As my previous letter to PAW noted, I thought that the decision in a short period to expunge Woodrow Wilson from Princeton’s history thoughtless and damaging to Princeton’s reputation as an intellectual and carefully analytical leading research university. I am now subsequently appalled by Chris Eisgruber’s long dissertation claiming that Princeton has been imbedded with systemic racism. Not only is that an extremely questionable thesis but clearly no careful analysis was done to raise the risk that the current government would seize on that to attack an “elite” university. Certainly both decisions are severely damaging to our beloved university and exhibit extremely poor judgment by our leaders.

Princeton’s hard-earned reputation rests on its ability to attract leading professors, admitting and educating future leaders, and doing cutting edge research as well as on its extraordinary history. These two recent decisions betray the above and appear to be merely succumbing to the wind of current social trends.

For background, I am the product of parents who went only through the 10th grade and who lost close relatives in the Holocaust. For over 20 years I ran the New York area Schools Committee and beginning in the early 1970s recruited many outstanding African American students to Princeton. Future Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was also encouraged to attend Princeton by our Committee. Now I am responsible for a wonderful Vietnamese current undergraduate. So I find lectures on racism and diversity by Princeton misinformed and misguided.

We expect the leadership of Princeton to be thoughtful, intellectual, analytical, and particularly protective of our hard-earned reputation — as well as being respectful of predecessors upon whose shoulders they are fortunate to stand. These two recent decisions reflect none of these criteria and certainly raise questions about their judgment.

Respectfully,

To make a more inclusive Princeton, I recommend two changes to the existing “Policy on Discrimination and/or Harassment” (available online at bit.ly/dh-policy).

First, the current definition of harassment is “unwelcome verbal or physical behavior ... based on a protected characteristic” (race, creed, sex, etc.). It should be expanded to include all unwelcome verbal or physical behaviors including those based on a protected characteristic. News reports indicate that much (and perhaps most) harassment on college campuses these days relates to politics or ideology rather than a protected characteristic, and is thus outside the current definition. An inclusive Princeton does not tolerate anyone being harassed for any reason.

Second, clarify that exposure to ideas and opinions one dislikes is not the same thing as harassment. In fact, exposure to such ideas and opinions is one of the goals of a Princeton education.

Princeton expects hard questions and demands honest answers. She nurtures our young minds and souls, allows us to blossom in a rigorous environment, waters us with love and respect, and imbues us with the ideal of service. We stumble. Here, I describe a fall and suggest a means to stand tall again.

Like many, I have tried to help fight COVID-19. I am an urban pediatrician with a science Ph.D. I know well the detection technique for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In mid-March, when U.S. testing was woefully inadequate, I devised a means to remove three major impediments (naso-pharyngeal swabs, viral culture/transport media, and personal protective equipment, all scarce). In 15 days, aided by classmates and study volunteers, I demonstrated feasibility and submitted a manuscript.

Determined to help, I visited affected nursing homes. None were interested. I knocked at the maximum security gate of the Cook County Jail, the worst site in the nation. The guard begged for help. I offered to test all detainees and staff over seven days. The head doctor demurred, citing cost ($125 each, less than one day’s incarceration).

I searched for money. Foundations, companies, and Congress gave none. I realized that my alma mater had both money and a mission: “Princeton in the Nation’s Service.” I called Princeton incessantly. I left multiple messages on phones and via email for President Eisgruber. One person called. Though kind, she offered neither money nor assistance. Not a penny could be pried from the endowment to save lives of pre-trial detainees or jail guards in the largest U.S. outbreak of the worst pandemic of our lifetimes.

“Princeton in the Nation’s Service” is, I am sure, often true. When I called on her, it was not.

Princeton, reinvigorate the motto. Support your alumni, as they support you, and work together in service. Fund alumni-selected ideas that put the motto into action. You have grown us well, now help us give back that which is more valuable than our money: our minds and our hearts. And, from this stumble, let us stand taller together.

If Princeton were truly interested in diversity, it would act to make certain that (1) there were conservative voices on the faculty (which is now overwhelmingly liberal/progressive and Democratic), (2) that speakers could not be shouted down at public forums, (3) and that administrators would not allow themselves to be extorted into craven capitulation to unreasonable demands by any mob, progressive or reactionary.

I was gratified to see President Eisgruber’s June 22 Message to the Princeton Community regarding anti-racism initiatives, including his call to “seize this tragic and searing moment in American history to ask how we can more effectively fight racism.” I support such a task wholeheartedly, but I ask, what took so long?

Princeton students, faculty, staff, and alumni have long confronted the University on critical cases of institutional racism, from the issue of divestment in South Africa years ago to, more recently, the tainted legacy of Woodrow Wilson and Princeton’s complicity in slavery. Princeton officials, President Eisgruber included, have too often been slow to respond to those challenges in a positive manner, but now, in the midst of an inescapable national crisis, Princeton’s president calls upon everyone to be “relentless in our efforts to eliminate the scourge of racism and strive for equality and justice.” In fact, many people at Princeton have been doing that for years.

I point to the Princeton & Slavery Project: From its beginnings as a small student seminar led by Professor Martha Sandweiss, in 2013, the project now provides a model for engaged scholarship and service, with around 1,000 pages of evidence and analysis on its website, slavery.princeton.edu. I would urge everyone in the Princeton community to explore the Princeton & Slavery site and begin to come to terms with the University’s emergence from deep roots of racism. Only by acknowledging where we came from can we determine where we need to go.

President Eisgruber ’83 is to be applauded for Princeton’s principled declining of federal funds during the COVID crisis. With our large endowment it is only right that these limited emergency funds should go elsewhere. Call it noblesse oblige if you want, but his action made me proud to be a Princetonian.

While I’m appreciative of the University’s desire to expand, I was saddened to find in the campus plan supplement that lands that were farms in 1922-1948 are going to be largely covered with buildings and sports fields. Forget farm to table, this will be farm to tile and farm to foul line.

During my years at Princeton, I watched with sadness as ecology and evolutionary biology (staff and buildings) were decimated to expand molecular biology, and as the geology department struggled to find the staff to teach basic distribution requirements, while Bowen Hall was being commissioned for materials science. In a sense, this feels like a continuation of the same idea.

I worry that Princeton has forgotten that classical sciences like biology and geology matter, and that there is a great deal of essential science in a farm, particularly as we try to understand how the living planet will cope with the coming climate change disaster. A university that still subscribes to a Latin oratory at graduation would do well to consider what its students could learn from ars agriculturae.

It has been 50 years since my picture was taken in the infirmary. I have tried to find out the facts surrounding the incident on multiple occasions, only to be stonewalled by past and present University officials. I met with the dean of students soon after the incident and contacted the president’s office when the New York Times article was published. I wonder if there are other concerned students who are interested in these issues and whether we can band together to have the University set up a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the bizarre photography. I would like to know who authorized the pictures, who knew the pictures were being taken, what the pictures were used for, and why the University did not feel that it needed to launch a full investigation. The only information I was able to uncover was that the pictures sent to the Smithsonian were destroyed.

Published online July 6, 2017

The 2007 Princeton publication Princeton: Defining Diversity states that one goal of the University’s commitment to diversity is to ensure that students of different backgrounds learn from each other. From recent PAW articles it would appear that this goal is not being met. In one report, students of Latin American background seem most concerned with learning about their own culture. They also want Princeton to consider a criterion other than research and teaching ability in hiring new faculty. This criterion is ethnic origin, a factor that is decided on the basis of pure chance and has nothing to do with ability or accomplishment. Another article details the University’s commitment of its funds to build a “safe” home for students “of color” from which white students will be excluded. “Balkanization” seems a rather mild term for this policy. It is time to re-examine the way in which the diversity effort is being handled.

Published online November 30, 2016

Go (WeiQi) is a board game thousands of years old. Google’s AlphaGo software made news recently by defeating a world-class human player for the first time.

The Princeton Go Club was founded by math professor Ralph Fox in 1945. He brought Japanese professional players and Bell Labs scientists to visit, promoting the game for three decades until his untimely death in 1973. I joined in 1986. We hosted the fifth national U.S. Go Congress in 1989 and the regional N.J. Open tournament from 1990 to 2016. We were mentioned in the Office of Admission’s 2002 “Beginnings” video and in the 2011 Report on Campus Social & Residential Life.

The word is “inclusive,” a value Princeton claims to support. The club always taught anyone who showed interest, young or old, student or not. Its heterogeneous, eclectic nature was featured in the May 31, 2004, Princeton Weekly Bulletin.

The 9-year-old in that article’s photo is 7-Dan today (equivalent to a 7th-degree black belt in the martial arts). The gentleman he is playing still comes to the club – or did. Nonstudents (including alumni) now are barred by the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students from participation. Students, alumni, and townspeople may no longer gather together around a common interest on today’s campus.

At the end of my freshman year, the FitzRandolph Gate was permanently opened “in a symbol of the University’s openness to the local and worldwide community,” according to the Princetoniana website. Set aside the personal humiliation of being told bluntly one is not welcome after 30 years of volunteer effort.  The truly sad thing is seeing that gate swing shut again.