Ten years ago, PAW asked a sweeping question: Who are the most influential people ever to have graduated from Princeton University? We assembled a panel that considered movers and shakers across the centuries and in all fields and selected 25 names. Luminaries James Madison 1771, Alan Turing *38, and Woodrow Wilson 1879 topped our list as the Most Influential Princetonians of All Time.
But “all time” is a long time. Returning to this topic a decade later, we decided to convene another panel and ask a somewhat different question: Who among Princeton’s living alumni are the most influential right now? Influence of the sort Madison and Turing exercised can take generations to be felt. Who, however, is doing the most to shape the world of 2018?
READERS RESPOND Picking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
On a night in mid-October, we gathered for dinner at Prospect House to debate the question and, with luck, distill a dauntingly long list of strong candidates down to a few dozen true influencers. Our panelists were: Dean of the College Jill Dolan, a professor of English and theater; Peter Dougherty, who recently retired as director of Princeton University Press; Michael Gordin, history professor and director of the Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts; Kevin Kruse, history professor; William Massey, professor of operations research and financial engineering; Jeff Nunokawa, professor of English; David Spergel ’82, astrophysics professor and member of NASA’s advisory council; and Sandra Sobieraj Westfall ’89, national political correspondent for People magazine and the chair of PAW’s advisory board. Ultimately, as you can see on page 38, our panel selected 25 Princetonians, distributing them among 18 positions: The panel could not resist the urge to group some alumni together.
Today’s 25 Most Influential Alumni
No. 1
Jeff Bezos ’86
No. 2
Robert Mueller III ’66
No. 3 (tie)
Samuel Alito ’72
Sonia Sotomayor ’76
Elena Kagan ’81
No. 6
Eric Schmidt ’76
No. 7
Eric Lander ’78
No. 8
Michelle Obama ’85
No. 9
Michael Lewis ’82
No. 10 (tie)
David E. Kelley ’79
Jodi Picoult ’87
Jennifer Weiner ’91
No. 13
Terence Tao *96
No. 14
Anthony Romero ’87
No. 15
Wendy Kopp ’89
No. 16
David Remnick ’81
No. 17
Jim Lee ’86
No. 18
William Fung ’70
No. 19 (tie)
Robert Venturi ’47 *50
Gordon Wu ’58
No. 21 (tie)
George Will *68
Cornel West *80
No. 23 (tie)
Tom Bevan ’91
Josh Marshall ’91
No. 25
Jason Garrett ’89
Only living undergraduate and graduate alumni were eligible for our list. Why limit it to the quick and not the dead? One could easily argue that Madison, for example, remains one of the most influential Princetonians today because we still live under the Constitution he helped write, but we wanted to tease out a different list. We asked our panelists to choose without concern for balance by race, gender, age, or specialty. In other words: Put the list together and then see what it looked like and what it might tell us about Princeton and its place in the world today.
Influence. “It’s a difficult word, isn’t it?” observed Nunokawa — an English professor, obviously. “‘Influential’ has a descriptive and a prescriptive element. We want it to also mean inspirational.”
What do we mean that someone is influential? Do we mean people whose influence is still keenly felt today even though they themselves are no longer very active? Paul Volcker ’49 stepped down as chairman of the Federal Reserve 30 years ago, but we still live in a low-inflation economy that he did much to build. Similarly, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ’54 was an architect of the Iraq War, and much of today’s chaos in the Middle East — from the rise of ISIS to the Syrian refugee crisis — reverberates from the fateful 2003 decision to topple Saddam Hussein. Both Volcker and Rumsfeld are largely retired from public life, but are they still influential?
In one sense, of course they are. So is John Bogle ’51, who popularized the mutual fund, and former secretaries of state George Shultz ’42 and James Baker ’52, who shaped the post-Cold War world. But our panel narrowed its focus to alumni who are still actively shaping events.
There might seem to be certain obvious markers of current influence, such as high offices held or prestigious awards won. Our panel took these things into account, but they did not lead to automatic inclusion on our list. Several alumni have won a Nobel Prize, for example, and that is certainly a significant indicator of the recipient’s influence. But our panelists felt that such prizes were not an ideal measure, at least not a complete one, especially because prize committees have historically been biased against women. In a bit of a surprise, as it turned out, none of Princeton’s Nobel laureates made the final list.
If influence is uncertain looking backward, it is even murkier projecting forward. “As a nonscientist, the question about the test of time is complicated,” Dolan mused. “Because I think there are some people who will be enormously influential but aren’t quite there yet.” As one example, she cited playwright Branden Jacobs-Jenkins ’06, a recipient of the MacArthur Foundation’s “genius” grant. “I think his influence will be felt in American theater and beyond for many years,” Dolan said. But ultimately the panel decided that neither he nor other artists — including composer Julia Wolfe *12, winner of both a Pulitzer Prize and a MacArthur award — would be included on our most-influential list. Check back in 10 years.
In the end, the panelists focused on immediacy. From that standpoint, they quickly decided that Jeff Bezos ’86 is doing more than any other living Princeton alum to shape the world in which we live. Indeed, Bezos has achieved a level of influence over the world economy perhaps not seen since John D. Rockefeller. The scope of his activity is vast: As founder and CEO of Amazon.com, Bezos is revolutionizing the way we buy everything from books to groceries, how stores stock their shelves, and how goods are delivered. He also owns The Washington Post, one of the most influential newspapers in the country, which has seen subscriptions surge since the presidential election. (Bezos is also one of only two Princeton alumni to be recognized as Time magazine’s Person of the Year, in 1999. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles 1908 was the other, in 1954.)
Another tech giant, Eric Schmidt ’76, the executive chairman of Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, came in at the No. 6 position. As Westfall noted with deliberate understatement: “It’s really hard to live without Google.” So why rank Schmidt lower than fellow tech-titan Bezos? For one thing, Bezos founded his company, while Schmidt did not. As Gordin put it, while the two men share certain characteristics, they are quite different: “Bezos is transforming a mode of commerce. And journalism. And publishing. He’s using tech to do it, but it’s different from what Schmidt is doing.”
In our panel’s opinion, Bezos’ only rival for the title of Today’s Most Influential Princetonian was former FBI director and current special counsel Robert Mueller III ’66. Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with the Russian effort could expose the biggest political scandal since Watergate. If anything, Mueller’s influence may be growing; our panel met a few weeks before he filed his first indictments, against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort and his associate, Rick Gates.
Of course it is impossible to tell just where Mueller’s investigation might go or whether he will be permitted to finish it. Still, Gordin ventured a prediction: “The most influential person in the United States in January 2018, when this is published in PAW, will be Robert Mueller, because he will determine whether the presidency exists or doesn’t.”
“Not the presidency, the president,” Westfall corrected.
That assumes, Kruse chimed in, that President Trump does not try to fire Mueller first, in which case the matter would likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court. This thought led our panel to the next three Princetonians on our list.
Coming in as Princeton’s third-most-influential alums were Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito ’72, Sonia Sotomayor ’76, and Elena Kagan ’81. The panel decided to consider them collectively rather than try to tease out their relative influence. Although Sotomayor keeps the largest public profile of the three, speaking often in oral argument and writing a best-selling memoir, among other things, it would be hard to say if one of them has a greater influence on the court’s jurisprudence than the others. After all, each justice, it was pointed out, gets a single vote.
Given that our panel was ranking alumni who are influential in the moment, it is not surprising that its selections turned heavily toward names in the news. Although former first ladies often see their influence dissipate rapidly when they leave the White House, our panel thought that Michelle Obama ’85 (No. 8) remains influential — and would continue to do so as a role model for young women and African Americans, as a figurehead within the Democratic Party, and perhaps even as a candidate for office herself someday. Meanwhile, Anthony Romero ’87, head of the resurgent American Civil Liberties Union, which has seen its membership level rise to record numbers, took the No. 14 position.
Q scores — a measurement of popularity — weren’t everything, however. Two of the 10 most influential Princetonians may not be known to the public at large, but they should be. MIT professor Eric Lander ’78 (No. 7) was a leader of the Human Genome Project, one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century, which is revolutionizing the treatment of disease. Founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (a leading genetic-research center), and another MacArthur winner, Lander also chaired President Obama’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. “The fruits of the Human Genome Project are going to have a tremendous impact on science and society,” observed Spergel in a follow-up interview. “But Lander has also been very influential in shaping national science policy. The current administration does not listen to people like him, and we will all be the poorer for it.”
Terence Tao *96 (No. 13) is just 42 years old (he began learning calculus when he was 7 and received his Princeton Ph.D. at 20), but he has been called the Mozart of Math and perhaps the world’s greatest living mathematician. Tao, a professor at UCLA, has won both the prestigious Fields Medal and the $3 million Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics. “His influence has been incredibly broad-based, from number theory to analytics,” said Spergel. “He is like a doctor who can do open heart surgery and brain surgery and fix your knee as well.” When he won the Fields Medal in 2006, Tao was asked about the value that theoretical mathematics gives to society, and he pointed to the future: “Mathematicians often work on pure problems that do not have any applications for 20 years, and then a physicist or computer scientist or engineer has a real-life problem that requires the solution of a mathematical problem, and finds that someone already solved it 20 years ago.”
Another alum you may not know is William Fung ’70, the chairman of Hong Kong-based Li & Fung Limited, who took the 18th position on our list. His company is the world’s largest sourcing and logistics company for consumer goods, connecting stores, catalogs, and e-commerce sites with manufacturers around the globe, and thus influences not only what gets made but who makes it. (Fung is also the benefactor behind the Princeton-Fung Global Forum and the Fung Global Fellows Program, but the panelists didn’t mention that fact.)
As the discussion continued, Dolan made it clear that she was uncomfortable with the idea of ranking people at all and proposed that the group simply name 25 influential alumni and call it a day. “I do think that there are inherent biases when you start ranking,” she said. “An anointing happens in this process, and that’s what I’m nervous about.”
“People love rankings!” countered Dougherty. He’s known for his acumen publishing scholarly books, but having published a few best-sellers, he’s an expert on mainstream tastes, too.
“I know they do,” Dolan maintained, “but we could suggest otherwise.” (See an essay by Dolan on this topic.)
This discussion came to a head when the panel began to consider Princeton’s many alumni writers. PAW’s 2008 panel had some initial uncertainty as to whether writers really exert broad public influence. Ten years later, however, the panelists needed no convincing that writers play an important role in shaping society. Their question was slightly different: How does one measure a writer’s influence? Is it simply the number of books sold? Prizes won? Or something more ineffable?
Michael Lewis ’82 (No. 9) scores on all measures, which made him an easy choice. He is the author of many best sellers, including Liar’s Poker, Moneyball, The Blind Side, and The Big Short; his books often introduce the public to important current topics, such as the roots of the subprime mortgage crisis or the statistical revolution in baseball, in an engaging but informative way. Hollywood has made several of Lewis’ books into movies.
“Any topic he handles shoots across the landscape,” Westfall observed. Gordin agreed: “Most of us only understand asset-backed securities because we have seen The Big Short.”
Three other writers followed right behind Lewis. Jodi Picoult ’87 has written 23 novels — many covering difficult topics such as the death penalty, neonaticide, and dysfunctional families — the last nine of which have debuted at the top spot on The New York Times best-seller list. Jennifer Weiner ’91 also has written best-selling novels and emerged as a powerful voice of feminism. David E. Kelley ’79 created such hit TV shows as Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, Chicago Hope, and most recently Big Little Lies. (Despite the importance of television and film in American culture, Kelley was the only figure from TV or the movies to make the list.) Picoult, Weiner, and Kelley shared the No. 10 slot.
Still, are those three more influential than writer and professor John McPhee ’53, a 1999 Pulitzer Prize winner for Annals of the Former World and a four-time Pulitzer finalist? A longtime New Yorker contributor, McPhee has also shaped generations of students in the popular course he teaches on creative nonfiction, much of which he has summarized in a new book, Draft No. 4: On the Writing Process. Dolan tried to complicate McPhee’s case.
“Jodi Picoult has sold millions and millions of best-selling novels,” she reminded her fellow panelists. “If we were to rank McPhee ahead of her, we’re treading the line between an elite versus popular [conception of influence]. We can do that. I think we just have to admit to it.”
McPhee received serious consideration, but did not make the list. Our panel continued to walk the tightrope between those who write for popular and more specialized audiences. David Remnick ’81, editor of The New Yorker, was included (No. 16), followed by artist Jim Lee ’86, whose first installment of the X-Men series is the best-selling comic book of all time. Lee is now co-publisher of DC Comics.
Wendy Kopp ’89 (No. 15) was chosen a decade ago as one of the most influential Princetonians of all time for founding Teach for America, an organization that began as a senior-thesis project and has since placed more than 50,000 new college graduates as teachers in low-income neighborhoods. Our recent panel also selected Kopp, and for the same reason.
The 19th spot on our list was also shared, this time by two very different types of “builders.” Gordon Wu ’58, the chair of Hopewell Holdings Ltd. and a major Princeton donor (Wu Hall, among much else), has been a driving force behind some of the largest construction projects in Asia. Robert Venturi ’47 *50, one of the most celebrated architects of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, once captured his design aesthetic with the celebrated expression, “Less is a bore.” As Gordin put it, “The architecture of much of the world we live in, most of everything we see, is Venturi-inflected.” (Venturi designed Wu Hall and Princeton’s Schultz and Thomas laboratories.)
Perhaps our panel’s oddest pairing came next. Author and columnist George F. Will *68 shared the 21st slot with author, professor, and activist Cornel West *80. If you can think of anything else that connects them, please speak up. Though both are eloquent writers, they exist at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Will left the Republican Party in 2016 to protest its turn from Burkean conservatism toward Bannonite ethno-nationalism; West worked for fringe candidate Jill Stein and excoriated Barack Obama as a sellout. Ten years ago, our equally mischievous panel paired Rumsfeld and Ralph Nader ’55.
Two alumni — and classmates — have built websites that are essential reading for political junkies. RealClearPolitics, co-founded by Tom Bevan ’91, is an aggregator of polls and news stories from around the internet; its polling average is also a widely cited measure of where current political races stand. Talking Points Memo, founded by Josh Marshall ’91, offers left-leaning analysis and commentary and receives more than 400,000 page views a day during peak election season. They shared the 23rd spot.
Completing its assignment, the panel settled on what might seem like a surprising choice for the 25th alum on the list: Jason Garrett ’89, head coach of the Dallas Cowboys, took the final position. He was deemed influential both because he coaches “America’s Team” and because of the role the Cowboys played in the national-anthem controversy last fall when the team chose to kneel. By the time you read this, though, that controversy may or may not have been resolved, Garrett may or may not be driving his team through the NFL playoffs (and may or may not even have a job), but such is the diciness of predicting influence.
Stepping back, what can we learn from all this? One thing that jumps out is that the people on our list span a very wide range of ages, from Venturi (92) to Tao (42). Not surprisingly, classes from the 1970s and ’80s predominate, filled as they are with men and women in the prime of the careers. If a class wanted to anoint itself the most influential (and you know one will), bragging rights must go to the Great Class of 1991, which commanded three spots on our list (Weiner, Bevan, and Marshall), while the classes of 1981, 1986, and 1987 had two apiece.
Ten years ago, our list of Princeton’s all-time most influential alumni was dominated by dead white men — not surprising since that sort of influence can take a while to accrue and Princeton was an all-white, all-male institution until fairly recently. Our new list is more diverse, though the pace of change is slow. Nineteen of the current 25 are men; six are women. There are four Asians and Asian Americans, two Latinos, and two African Americans. One can only predict that the list will become even more diverse going forward.
What categories did our panel overlook? Start with politicians. None of Princeton’s many elected officials received much discussion, which surely says something about the dysfunctional state of contemporary politics. The panelists quickly passed over alumni serving as university presidents, whose impact is focused on the campuses they lead. Faculty members also were often overlooked; Spergel spoke up for his colleagues in academia by suggesting that faculty influence perhaps is both harder to measure and takes longer to manifest itself. It may take another generation until we can choose the most influential faculty members of today, he said.
That might also be the fate of Princeton computer science professor Brian Kernighan *69, who contributed to the development of the Unix computer language in the 1970s and popularized the C language. Massey noted that the operating system in the Apple and Android devices everyone uses today relies on languages Kernighan helped to create. Ultimately, Kernighan didn’t quite make the cut, although his influence as a computer scientist, teacher, and writer may be very far-reaching.
Finally, let’s be direct: This list also leans strongly toward the political left. Only Alito and Will would be considered conservatives; National Review columnist Ramesh Ponnuru ’95 and economist Gregory Mankiw ’80 also received consideration but were ultimately left off. Our panel was unconvinced that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz ’92 warranted a spot among the most influential, citing the 2013 government shutdown as his greatest legislative achievement. Although Cruz initially set himself out as the Reaganite alternative in the 2016 presidential primaries, historian Kruse thought he missed a chance to stand on principle. “Had Cruz not capitulated to Trump, he would be the most influential person in the Republican Party right now,” Kruse suggested. “He had the chance to be the conscience of conservatism.”
Bezos, Kopp, and Venturi are the only alums who appear both on this list and the one published in 2008. That tells us something: Influence is ephemeral. Had we chosen as recently as April, Mueller probably would have been left off. Back then, he was “only” a retired FBI director.
Along the same lines, our panel met before Trump nominated Jerome Powell ’75 to be the new chair of the Federal Reserve. If we chose again today, Powell likely would make the list. Had Trump instead selected John Taylor ’68, another reported finalist for the job, his name probably would have been included. As it was, the panelists didn’t discuss either one.
Predicting who might be Princeton’s most influential alumni a decade from now is a fool’s errand. Predicting who’ll be on the list next month is almost as risky.
Mark F. Bernstein ’83 is PAW’s senior writer.
Who’s Who on the Cover
(1) Sonia Sotomayor ’76, (2) Robert Venturi ’47 *50, (3) Wendy Kopp ’89, (4) David Remnick ’81, (5) Robert Mueller ’66, (6) Eric Lander ’78, (7) William Fung ’70, (8) Tom Bevan ’91, (9) Jeff Bezos ’86, (10) Elena Kagan ’81, (11) George Will *68, (12) Cornel West *80, (13) Anthony Romero ’87, (14) Jason Garrett ’89, (15) Josh Marshall ’91, (16) Samuel Alito ’72, (17) Jodi Picoult ’87, (18) Gordon Wu ’58, (19) Michelle Obama ’85, (20) David E. Kelley ’79, (21) Terence Tao *96, (22) Jim Lee ’86, (23) Eric Schmidt ’76, (24) Michael Lewis ’82, (25) Jennifer Weiner ’91
Related News
What Now? Princeton Faculty React to Donald Trump Victory
Many ponder how dangerous a second term will be. “I think he needs to be taken seriously, but not literally,” says Robert P. George.
Will Venable ’05 Hired To Manage Chicago White Sox
Former major league outfielder sees “the opportunity to build a foundation’ with his new team
34 Responses
Michael Potter ’71
6 Years AgoRecognition Without Ranking
Jose Quinonez *98, another colleague who works with nonprofits, represents Princetonians who have major "influence" on the lives of others. Perhaps your editorial board could consider devoting a page to such graduates in each PAW issue without attempting to rank them. I read somewhere that the "first shall be last, and the last shall be first." Just the humble opinion of one graduate who has worked outside the limelight for decades.
Gaetano P. “Guy” Cipriano ’78
5 Years AgoA Partisan Ranking
Last year's PAW ranking of Robert Mueller as the number-two most-influential Princetonian "shaking up the world" now looks like the intoxicated prayer of a partisan zealot. The next time a similar list is made, PAW should instruct the author to be objective.
Sean McCafferty ’01
6 Years AgoMost-Influential Selections
I am sitting at my desk in New Jersey and reading all about the most influential alumni of Princeton (cover story, Jan. 10). I am humbled and amazed that I was able to share the same walkways, dorms, and classrooms as these amazing people. With that being said, I wonder if this list would be better suited as most famous influential alumni.
Of course Jeff Bezos ’86 is incredibly powerful and influential in our world, and Robert Mueller ’66 may go down as the most famous prosecutor of all time. But how many alumni save lives as doctors or teach children how to read and write? In the end, most alumni have great callings and spend their days influencing the people and world around them. I would love to see an issue focusing on the non-famous influential alumni. I think a list like that could be very cool to see.
Broadus Bailey Jr. ’51
6 Years AgoMost-Influential Selections
Not to detract in any way from the outstanding job Gen. Mark Milley ’80 is doing, but my sources say there have been 11 non-West Point chiefs of staff of the Army since the position was established in 1903 (Inbox, March 7). Those of us who served, in my case from 1951 to 1980, are especially proud to see a Princetonian as “chief.”
Editor’s note: Also writing on this point were Albert J. Beveridge III ’57; Stanley Kalemaris ’64; and Lewis Coonley Jr. ’68, whose uncle, George H. Decker, was the first non-West Point chief of staff of the Army.
Joseph Krakora ’76
6 Years AgoReal Contributions, Real Influence
I am a 1976 Princeton grad and read your list of the 25 most influential grads (cover story, Jan. 10). I am not particularly invested in it, and your article recognizes the problems inherent in such a list. Nevertheless, I can’t believe that Jason Garrett ’89 is on the list. He is a mediocre NFL football coach whose personal role in the national-anthem controversy was tangential. I am a huge sports fan, but his selection is embarrassing.
While I don’t pretend to be deserving of such recognition, I will point out that as the public defender for the State of New Jersey, I initiated the process by which New Jersey eliminated monetary bail in its pretrial-release system, thus eliminating discrimination against the poor and minorities based on access to resources. We are the only state given an “A” rating by the Pretrial Justice Institute. My office also litigated reform of eyewitness-identification cases, reducing the risk of wrongful conviction, and led the effort to abolish the death penalty. These are all national movements in criminal-justice reform.
My point is that I am sure there are hundreds of alums who have made real contributions reflecting their influence on their fields. A football coach?
George Heitmann *63
6 Years AgoJohn Bogle ’51’s Influence
Any listing of “best” or “most” is likely to generate comment and disagreement. In your selection of “Today’s 25 Most Influential Alumni,” the emphasis, I suppose, is on “today’s”; but even with that focus, I find it surprising that John Bogle ’51 — who, as you state in another story of that same issue, “created the first index mutual fund in 1976” — didn’t make your list. Although you may consider 1976 a long time ago, indexing, one of the most important investment ideas of the past 50 or more years, continues to significantly influence today’s markets, as reflected in the PAW story, “Are Index Funds Hampering Corporate Competition?”
Kanthan Pillay ’91
6 Years AgoWell Bruce, the author was...
Well, Bruce, the author was unashamed about that. "Finally, let’s be direct: This list also leans strongly toward the political left." I just found it to be quite a bit of fun, even though I too largely disagree with many of the choices.
Clark Jeschke
6 Years AgoNo Bob Ehrlich?
No Bob Ehrlich?
Robert Sturtz ’78
6 Years AgoWhat? No Brooke Shields...
What? No Brooke Shields or Queen Noor (or her sons); Imee Marcos now a leader in her own right; Winnie Holzman!?
Richard Lachmann ’77
6 Years AgoYou write Jeff Bezos would...
You write Jeff Bezos would agree with Churchill that "the price of greatness is responsibility." Bezos has yet to show that responsibility to his Amazon warehouse employees, who are paid as little as the market will allow and who labor in un-airconditioned buildings with ambulances standing by for when they collapse on hot summer days.
George Clark ’69
6 Years AgoInteresting and provocative...
Interesting and provocative project, surely open to the characterization of "superficial." It could hardly be otherwise. We should all be extremely proud that the University claims three justices of the Supreme Court as members of the alumni, especially since we have no law school. In terms of "influence," however, none is yet in a position to direct the Court philosophically. We should hope that Mr. Justice Alito never achieves such a position.
Bruce A. Krause ’58
6 Years AgoThis article just had too...
This article just had too much of a leftist slant for me. I am sick and tired of the media and my University, starting with President Eisgruber, taking untrue shots at President Trump. As an example, why isn't Jeff Bezos on the contents page as the #1 choice? Instead the author has Mueller. The problem is that the author or committee was hoping that Mueller would bring down the president, and this choice was a leftist hope for the future, which looks like it's in the process of self-destruction. Another hope choice for the future was Michele Obama, who is seldom heard from, not to mention her famous thesis which the University blocked from public view. And in 25th spot poor Jason Garrett, who does what Jerry Jones tells him, and the team kneel was before the national anthem and not during. History may well show that the mass disrespect for the national anthem primarily by black NFL players set back race relations more than we know.
Akel Kahera *97
6 Years AgoSo how did Jason Garett make...
So how did Jason Garett make the list. Can you explain his influence?
Prentis Hall ’79
6 Years AgoI agree with Jack Sydney...
I agree with Jack Sydney. I enjoyed the article, but it lacked a degree of critical thinking that leaves many holes, some of which Mr. Sydney pointed out.
Jim LaRegina
6 Years AgoJeff Bezos, corporate...
Jeff Bezos, corporate welfare king and warehouse slave master, is #1 while Ralph Nader, who among other accomplishments saved countless lives with his consumer-protection causes, does not even make the list? But, then, "influential" does not necessarily mean good influence, I guess.
Matthew Weed *95
6 Years AgoI, too, wondered about Mr....
I, too, wondered about Mr. Garrett. One also wonders if the three justices are truly equally influential. The founder of Amazon may well be No. 1 right now, but if Mr. Mueller is able to significantly affect D.C. politics through indictments of major figures, that could also change. Unfortunately, it seems that polls like this are somewhat frozen snapshots purely dependent on our view of things at this moment, and as others have pointed out, those views will be widely different. One wonders if there would be a way to select 100 alums and then have an open vote via the magazine website or Disqus this coming year? It could even be a rolling vote that would drop positions 95-100 in favor of nominees offered by the alums. Harder to arrange technically, but likelier far more relevant-seeming to everyone.
Jack Sydney
6 Years AgoI dare say our illustrious...
I dare say our illustrious panel failed in several instances to measure nominees against the actual definition of influence and has instead lazily retreated to those who are merely "popular."
Influence is defined as: "the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself; the power to shape policy or ensure favorable treatment from someone, especially through status, contacts, or wealth; a person or thing with the capacity or power to have an effect on someone or something."
Under these parameters, I fail to see how a professional football coach would ever be considered for such a list, unless such coach had so revolutionized the sport with new schemes that it spawned disciples everywhere. Jason Garrett is a talented, smart, passionate coach, but he is far from influential under even the broadest sense of the word.
Similarly, an author who publishes millions and millions of best-selling books may be popular, famous even, but such does not translate to influence per se unless, again, the works spawn movements or transform cultures in measurable ways.
Context being of prime importance in any ranked list, it would be improper for me to criticize and then fail to suggest far more deserving alternatives. So here goes.
Where is Meg Whitman, an individual with enormous influence, in and out of technology circles? Where is Queen Noor, whose many philanthropic initiatives are well-known and broad-based? And I see no Steve Forbes, the titular head of one of the most influential business magazines on the planet. Where is Edward Felsenthal, editor-in-chief of Time Magazine with 3 times the number of subscribers as David Remnick's The New Yorker? Where are all the elite Princeton venture capitalists and private equity leaders who, everyday, exercise their enormous influence and determine which new ideas, entrepreneurs, and companies get funded, sold, and acquired? Surely their multibillion-dollar value creation impact/influence is worthy of consideration.
Hopefully next time, such a list will include those who have actual influence and not just popularity.
Mary Bechmann ’79
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
(Via Facebook)
Roderick McNealy ’72
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
This was a great issue and great idea. Always bound to prompt discussion when you create “Top Ten” lists, etc. I like the focus on current folks, and it’s great to include all three Supreme Court justices. Robert Mueller ’66 is certainly in the news, but I believe he will come up with a big “zero” in his real investigation to impeach the president. I love the addition of Jason Garrett ’89: Every time the Dallas Cowboys are on TV, Princeton certainly gets a mention when they talk about Coach Garrett. Good work, PAW.
(Via Facebook)
Alicia Erdman ’94
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
I have to admit I cringed a little at the cover highlighting the identification of Princeton’s 25 most influential alumni. My mind went right to the superlatives of the high school lists so many of us experienced — most popular, most likely to succeed, etc. — and to arguments around the definition of influence.
Nonetheless, like many others I am sure, I was intrigued and read the article almost immediately. I also read “Second Opinion” by Dean Jill Dolan. I greatly appreciated the perspective shared by the dean. She perfectly and eloquently captured the challenges of such lists and the tensions. She also celebrated those that might never make it but are equally deserving of respect and gratitude and, in many cases, awe.
Dean Dolan’s essay allowed me to appreciate the amazing accomplishments of the alumni identified without feeling I was disregarding the “unsung heroes.”
Crystal A. Moore ’96
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
I wish your panel of judges reflected the University’s diversity. By my count, only two of the eight were women, and two represented racial minority groups. All appear to be of the same age group (50-plus), and all seem to be American born and raised.
I wonder if the panel had more women, more minorities, more internationals, and younger folks if you would have come to the same conclusions. As it is, I’m not surprised that a group largely composed of white males picked a group largely composed of white males to represent the most influential alumni today.
I think this was a missed opportunity. I get that the group would be dominated by white men when going back to the 18th century, but I would have thought PAW would have gotten a more diverse panel 10 years after its initial list to ensure amazing alumni were not excluded because they happen to be female, of color, or international.
Scott L. Replogle ’73
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
I’m not a conservative and the article on distinguished alumni acknowledged the bias against conservatives, but there are three living Princeton alums I can think of who are at least as distinguished as George Will *68 (tied for No. 21). One is John Stossel ’69, whose journalistic efforts on TV as well as several great books should qualify him, and he’s a libertarian more than conservative. Another is Steve Forbes ’70, whose business, magazines, editorials, and books also make him quite a distinguished alum. The closest to my year and one I met at Princeton is Judge Andrew Napolitano ’72, whose legal and judicial career changed into an online commentary presence as well as several excellent books. I’d like to suggest these three for “honorable mention” at least.
James Mathewson ’81
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
Thanks, PAW, for your “direct” observation that this listing tilts notably to the left. The complete omission of Meg Whitman ’77, Mitch Daniels ’71, and Ted Cruz ’92 (for starters) downgrades the panel’s credibility — especially in light of choices made instead, such as a second-tier football coach and various fiction authors. Must be that old nemesis, “unconscious bias,” in action.
Perhaps in the future a similar survey, polling a cross-section of alumni, could be initiated. Undoubtedly that would yield a far broader and more compelling list of high achievers and influencers.
John Ellis ’81
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
Wondered why Mark Milley ’80, the current chief of staff of the Army, the highest-ranking officer in the Army, was absent. Fun fact, he is the first non-West Pointer to hold the position.
Nick Loeb ’81
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
A bit of trivia relating to the list of 25 most influential alumni is that No. 7 Eric Lander ’78 was a resident adviser in the third entryway of Foulke Hall during the ’77–’78 school year, and one of the students in his group was Elena Kagan ’81, future associate justice of the Supreme Court and No. 3 on the list. I was in the same RA group, and it was a great and humbling experience. Perhaps there are similar connections among the Princetonians on this list.
Jack Cumming ’58
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
What a sadly superficial inquiry, though many of the people on the list are people whom we have come to admire. What is influential is Princeton’s historical commitment to merit-based admissions and to emphasizing a humanities core as central to the education of great leaders.
What’s striking is how much luck — and being in the right place at the right time — has played a role in the prominence of those chosen. There are many others who have been influential in their own small (or even large) way without gaining prominence. Many others have acted behind the scenes to change the world for the better. They also serve who only act as catalysts for betterment, beginning with the teachers and mentors to whom we are all beholden.
Jeff Bezos ’86 has said that if he hadn’t hit it big, he would probably have been an anonymous computer coder. I’ll bet that he would have been one of the best and that the websites he created would give him influence in that anonymity equal to the influence that he has gained with prominence.
Let’s maintain and multiply that which has made Princeton great and which has made its graduates — for the most part — constructive contributors to a better world. What’s sad is the limiting of the Princeton experience to so few among the thousands who might otherwise benefit from what Princeton now confines to its chosen elect (those admitted), whether they are chosen because they are gifted or athletes or underprivileged or simply people of outstanding promise.
Stephanie Gates ’75
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
My No. 1 nominee: Meg Whitman ’77, eBay, a true game-changer.
Richard Lachmann ’77
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
This article makes a convincing case for the influence of Brian Kernighan *69, who was key in developing the computer languages used in Apple and Android devices that absorb hours of attention on the part of hundreds of millions of people each day. But then the panel picks a football coach and the managers of two blogs that get plenty of eyeballs but have trivial effects on political outcomes. Perhaps these foolish results come from the panel’s procedure of looking at various realms of accomplishment and picking significant alumni. Thus a top sports coach gets a slot along with a best-selling author and a blogger, with not enough thought to the actual impact of each of these fields. This list is nowhere as bad as the lists that rank talk-show hosts and movie stars above major officeholders and corporate chieftains, but is ill-considered in a similar way.
Richard Waugaman ’70
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
Professor Jeff Nunokawa called “influential” a difficult word. Its etymology is the same as “influenza” — that is, the noxious influence thought to come from swamps. Not the type of influence we’re talking about here, I know.
Charlie Bell ’76
6 Years AgoPicking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
In discussing the 25 most influential alums, PAW may be forgiven for failing to include the Class of ’76 as a class boasting two members on the list. No doubt it was inconceivable that one class would place two alums in the top 10 (Sonia Sotomayor at No. 3 and Eric Schmidt at No. 6), or that 10 members of the same class have served on Princeton’s Board of Trustees (two currently), or that one class provided a press secretary for President Bill Clinton (Mike McCurry) as well as a chief of staff for President George W. Bush (Josh Bolten).
Not current enough, you say? Well, McCurry is co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, and Bolten is the president and CEO of the ultimate CEO association, the Business Roundtable.
With business, law, education, and politics covered, we turn to the arts, where Winnie Holzman’s writing has touched audiences of all ages via the timeless teenage TV drama My So-Called Life; two groundbreaking adult series, thirtysomething and Once and Again; and the second-largest-grossing and seventh-longest-running Broadway show of all time, Wicked.
While PAW was correct in suggesting that Tiger pride will impel many alums to anoint their own class as most influential, we believe it was destined to be a hopeless effort for all but the members of one class.
btomlins
6 Years AgoReaders Respond: Picking the Most Influential Alumni — and Defining Influence
The Jan. 10 cover story — in which a panel of faculty members, alumni, and the former Princeton University Press director selected Princeton’s 25 most influential living alumni — drew a spirited response. Here’s what readers had to say in their comments at PAW Online, on social media, and in letters to the editor.
Perhaps I’m alone in this sentiment, but the whole concept of a list such as this (“ranking” alumni, according to some criteria generated by whom?) strikes the wrong note, especially now. Somehow it’s not in keeping with the collegiality and overall camaraderie I’ve always believed our alma mater stood for.
Mary Bechmann ’79
Los Altos, Calif.
(Via Facebook)
This was a great issue and great idea. Always bound to prompt discussion when you create “Top Ten” lists, etc. I like the focus on current folks, and it’s great to include all three Supreme Court justices. Robert Mueller ’66 is certainly in the news, but I believe he will come up with a big “zero” in his real investigation to impeach the president. I love the addition of Jason Garrett ’89: Every time the Dallas Cowboys are on TV, Princeton certainly gets a mention when they talk about Coach Garrett. Good work, PAW.
Roderick McNealy ’72
Hillsborough, N.J.
(Via Facebook)
I have to admit I cringed a little at the cover highlighting the identification of Princeton’s 25 most influential alumni. My mind went right to the superlatives of the high school lists so many of us experienced — most popular, most likely to succeed, etc. — and to arguments around the definition of influence.
Nonetheless, like many others I am sure, I was intrigued and read the article almost immediately. I also read “Second Opinion” by Dean Jill Dolan. I greatly appreciated the perspective shared by the dean. She perfectly and eloquently captured the challenges of such lists and the tensions. She also celebrated those that might never make it but are equally deserving of respect and gratitude and, in many cases, awe.
Dean Dolan’s essay allowed me to appreciate the amazing accomplishments of the alumni identified without feeling I was disregarding the “unsung heroes.”
Alicia Erdman ’94
Portland, Ore.
I wish your panel of judges reflected the University’s diversity. By my count, only two of the eight were women, and two of the eight represented racial minority groups. All appear to be of the same age group (50-plus), and all seem to be American born and raised.
I wonder if the panel had more women, more minorities, more internationals, and younger folks if you would have come to the same conclusions. As it is, I’m not surprised that a group largely comprised of white males picked a group largely comprised of white males to represent the most influential alumni today.
I think this was a missed opportunity. I get that the group would be dominated by white men when going back to the 18th century, but I would have thought PAW would have gotten a more diverse panel 10 years after its initial list to ensure amazing alumni were not excluded because they happen to be female, of color, or international.
Crystal A. Moore ’96
Stanford, Calif.
I’m not a conservative and the article on distinguished alumni acknowledged the bias against conservatives, but there are three living Princeton alums I can think of who are at least as distinguished as George Will *68 (tied for No. 21). One is John Stossel ’69, whose journalistic efforts on TV as well as several great books should qualify him, and he’s a libertarian more than conservative. Another is Steve Forbes ’70, whose business, magazines, editorials, and books also make him quite a distinguished alum. The closest to my year and one I met at Princeton is Judge Andrew Napolitano ’72, whose legal and judicial career changed into an online commentary presence as well as several excellent books. I’d like to suggest these three for “honorable mention” at least.
Scott L. Replogle ’73
Boulder, Colo.
Thanks, PAW, for your “direct” observation that this listing tilts notably to the left. The complete omission of Meg Whitman ’77, Mitch Daniels ’71, and Ted Cruz ’92 (for starters) downgrades the panel’s credibility — especially in light of choices made instead, such as a second-tier football coach and various fiction authors. Must be that old nemesis, “unconscious bias,” in action.
Perhaps in the future a similar survey, polling a cross-section of alumni, could be initiated. Undoubtedly that process would yield a far broader and more compelling list of high achievers and influencers.
James Mathewson ’81
Lake St. Louis, Mo.
A bit of trivia relating to the list of 25 most influential alumni is that No. 7 Eric Lander ’78 was a resident adviser in the third entryway of Foulke Hall during the ’77-’78 school year, and one of the students in his group was Elena Kagan ’81, future associate justice of the Supreme Court and No. 3 on the list. I was in the same RA group, and it was a great and humbling experience. Perhaps there are similar connections among the Princetonians on this list.
Nick Loeb ’81
Ogden, Utah
In discussing the 25 most influential alums, PAW may be forgiven for failing to include the Class of ’76 as a class boasting two members on the list. No doubt it was inconceivable that one class would place two alums in the top 10 (Sonia Sotomayor at No. 3 and Eric Schmidt at No. 6), or that 10 members of the same class have served on Princeton’s Board of Trustees (two currently), or that one class provided a press secretary for President Bill Clinton (Mike McCurry) as well as a chief of staff for President George W. Bush (Josh Bolten).
Not current enough, you say? Well, McCurry is co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, and Bolten is the president and CEO of the ultimate CEO association, the Business Roundtable.
With business, law, education, and politics covered, we turn to the arts, where Winnie Holzman’s writing has touched audiences of all ages via the timeless teenage TV drama, My So-Called Life; two groundbreaking adult series, thirtysomething and Once and Again; and the second-largest grossing and seventh-longest running Broadway show of all time, Wicked.
While PAW was correct in suggesting that Tiger pride will impel many alums to anoint their own class as most influential, we believe it was destined to be a hopeless effort for all but the members of one class.
Charlie Bell ’76
Lakeville, Conn.
What a sadly superficial inquiry, though many of the people on the list are people whom we have come to admire. What is influential is Princeton’s historical commitment to merit-based admissions and to emphasizing a humanities core as central to the education of great leaders.
What’s striking is how much luck — and being in the right place at the right time — has played a role in the prominence of those chosen. There are many others who have been influential in their own small (or even large) way without gaining prominence. Many others have acted behind the scenes to change the world for the better. They also serve who only act as catalysts for betterment, beginning with the teachers and mentors to whom we are all beholden.
Jeff Bezos ’86 has said that if he hadn’t hit it big, he would probably have been an anonymous computer coder. I’ll bet that he would have been one of the best and that the websites he created would give him influence in that anonymity equal to the influence that he has gained with prominence. And I’ll go further and speculate that Jeff himself would agree with that assessment. As Winston Churchill said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.”
Let’s maintain and multiply that which has made Princeton great and which has made its graduates — for the most part — constructive contributors to a better world in their time and beyond. What’s sad is the limiting of the Princeton experience to so few among the thousands who might otherwise benefit from what Princeton now confines to its chosen elect (those admitted), whether they are chosen because they are gifted or athletes or underprivileged or simply people of outstanding promise.
Jack Cumming ’58
Carlsbad, Calif.
This article makes a convincing case for the influence of Brian Kernighan *69, who was key in developing the computer languages used in Apple and Android devices that absorb hours of attention on the part of hundreds of millions of people each day. But then the panel picks a football coach and the managers of two blogs that get plenty of eyeballs but have trivial effects on political outcomes. Perhaps these foolish results come from the panel’s procedure of looking at various realms of accomplishment and picking significant alumni. Thus a top sports coach gets a slot along with a best-selling author and a blogger, with not enough thought to the actual impact of each of these fields. This list is nowhere as bad as the Time Magazine lists that rank talk-show hosts and movie stars above major officeholders and corporate chieftains, but is ill-considered in a similar way.
Richard Lachmann ’77
New York, N.Y.
My No. 1 nominee: Meg Whitman ’77, eBay, a true game-changer.
Stephanie Gates ’75
Middle River, Md.
Nice to see how many Princetonians are influential. It was just as good a list as any before it. But you have self-defined yourselves and, by implication, the University as “lean(ing) strongly toward the political left.” Indeed!
But is this a good thing in an educational institution? Do you have enough distinguished faculty and administrators to field a panel of eight who “strongly lean to the right”? Can you teach the Republican views on foreign affairs, economics, the importance of incentives, and offer praise for people who don’t share your political views?
If you can’t, you are moving toward a propaganda mill and not a university.
John McNiff ’64
North Palm Beach, Fla.
When I saw the article on “the most influential alumni,” I felt a paradox that Dean Jill Dolan captured well. I was relieved that her point of view was included.
I understand how these particular individuals have influenced the world. They should be celebrated. The paradox for me is, as Dean Dolan expressed, that many alumni apply their skills, talents, and experience building a truly meaningful and impactful life but with a very different profile. Most are unsung folks who might look ordinary through the “most influential” lens applied in the article. I submit that such folks, I would count myself among them, work each day to make a difference in people’s lives according to strongly held values — I bet that many wonder if there they are noticed. Dean Dolan noticed, and for this I am very grateful.
Philip P. Breitfeld ’75
Chapel Hill, N.C
Your committee made many fine selections, like Wendy Kopp ’89, but left off a most worthy son of Princeton, Gen. Mark A. Milley ’80, current chief of staff of the Army — a leader of men and women, from the platoon level to multiple command and staff positions with eight divisions and Special Forces units over 35 years. He had operational deployments to Sinai, Egypt, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, Columbia, and three tours in Afghanistan. He earned a master’s in international relations at Columbia and a master’s in national security and strategic studies at the Naval War College, and is a graduate of the MIT National Security Studies Program.
This man has led and prepared soldiers to help preserve our freedoms, dealing with real, live people and solving problems involving life-and-death considerations. He not only exemplifies Princeton’s motto, but helped afford the peace and freedom many of the other selectees could pursue their career choices. He has reached the highest level in his field of endeavor and is leading the Army in its readiness and preparation for the future fight while emphasizing the taking care of troops.
Douglas N. Stinson ’70
Morristown, Tenn.
In my opinion, your attempt to arrange the 25 most influential alumni numerically was ill-advised. It reflects our society’s prevalent and perplexing preoccupation with rankings and with “being No. 1.’ Who is to say that person X is “more influential” than person Y? I see nothing wrong with an article chronicling the achievements of 25 influential people; but please arrange them alphabetically, or by field, and let the reader decide who’s who.
Theodore Bergren ’74
Richmond, Va.
I read with interest the article listing the “most influential” Princeton alumni. After considering who was selected, it seems that the overarching criteria had a theme: one must be a liberal and/or anti-Trump. For example, would Robert Mueller ’66 have made the list if he were not investigating Trump? I doubt it. And then there is George Will *68 — a conservative, yes. But, one that left the Republican Party, in large measure, because of Trump. And, then there is conservative Sen. Ted Cruz ’92, who was considered but didn’t make the list, according to the article, because he did not oppose Trump enough. Finally, there is Jason Garrett ’89, the Dallas Cowboys coach. He would certainly not be considered one of the most influential coaches in the NFL by any measure. But he makes the list. Why? Because he was part of the national-anthem protest against Trump.
Now, I am certainly no Trump apologist, but should these selections have been viewed through this clouded lens? One of the things that I valued most about my Princeton education was the emphasis on critical thinking and sound analysis. Unfortunately, this committee failed on that front. Alas, this was a case of bias ideology masquerading as objective evaluation. Indeed, given Princeton’s rich and diverse pool of talented alumni across the genders, races, backgrounds, and political spectrum, I expected better. Shouldn’t we all?
Roland C. Warren ’83
Middletown, Md.
I have a clarification on Jason Garrett ’89. PAW stated that he was deemed influential “because of the role the Cowboys played in the national-anthem controversy last fall when the team chose to kneel.” My clarification is that the team knelt right before the anthem, and then stood for the anthem locked arm in arm to show unity on all fronts. That is why he is influential — because of how he handled this controversy.
Meagan Dewey Jurevicius ’88
Gates Mills, Ohio
I’m not a conservative and the article on distinguished alumni acknowledged the bias against conservatives, but there are three living Princeton alums I can think of who are at least as distinguished as George Will *68 (tied for No. 21). One is John Stossel ’69, whose journalistic efforts on TV as well as several great books should qualify him, and he’s a libertarian more than conservative. Another is Steve Forbes ’70, whose business, magazines, editorials, and books also make him quite a distinguished alum. The closest to my year and one I met at Princeton is Judge Andrew Napolitano ’72, whose legal and judicial career changed into an online commentary presence as well as several excellent books. I’d like to suggest these three for “honorable mention” at least.
Scott L. Replogle ’73
Boulder, Colo.
I found it amusing to compare the folks in the “Most Influential Alumni” article with the people in the EQuad News supplement that accompanied that issue. The PAW article seemed like a list one would expect to find in an Ivy League version of People magazine, whereas the significance, brilliance, and global impact of the accomplishments of people in the EQuad piece were astonishingly brilliant and genuinely impressive.
Al Lowe ’70
Sarasota, Fla.
With the publishing of the 25 most influential alumni of Princeton University, the panel chosen to select these alumni has little understanding of what is about to happen. I suspect that a good bit of their knowledge of the workings of Washington is the result of MSM. My question is: Was the panel chosen by PAW or the dean of the college? In either event, this article should be an embarrassment to the University.
It seems that the principal determinant in the process was whether the presidency exists or doesn’t. Apparently, they never considered the possibility that it exists. I know this is shocking to some, but get prepared to be shocked. President Donald J. Trump has been anointed by God to “drain the swamp.” More than a few of the top eight nominees will not stand the test of time (maybe a month, but certainly not longer than a year). The University may want to rethink where they stand in the political spectrum (in the swamp or out of it).
Conrad W. Stout ’54
Sunset Beach, N.C.
OK, let me see if I’ve got this right. When considering candidates for this list, the panel members should have recognized their unconscious bias against women, are free to ignore their conscious bias against conservatives, should not consider awards received as women have historically been biased against by prize committees, but should recognize those receiving a prize if the panel deemed it supportive of their decision, and should positively consider if the individual leads or funds a cause the panel sympathetically supported. Makes perfect sense to me.
Arthur Oller ’73
Walnut Creek, Calif.
The omission of Sen. Ted Cruz ’92 was startling. Sen. Cruz is a key leader in the conservative movement that has propelled the Republican Party to its strongest position in 100 years. The GOP now holds the White House, Senate, House, and the majority of state offices.
The inclusion of former First Lady Michelle Obama ’85 at No. 8 was also eye-popping. The panel states that Obama would continue as a role model for African Americans and perhaps even may be a candidate for office herself. Why did it not occur to the panel that Sen. Cruz would continue to be a role model for Hispanic
Americans and might even run for president again?
Charles S. Rockey Jr. ’57
Boca Grande, Fla.
Professor Jeff Nunokawa called “influential” a difficult word. For those who haven't heard, its etymology is the same as “influenza” — that is, the noxious influence thought to come from swamps. Not the type of influence we’re talking about here, I know.
Richard Waugaman ’70
Potomac, Md.
What? No Brooke Shields ’87 or Queen Noor ’73 (or her sons); Imee Marcos ’79, now a leader in her own right; Winnie Holzman ’76!?
R.K. Sturtz ’78
You write that Jeff Bezos ’86 would agree with Churchill that “the price of greatness is responsibility.” Bezos has yet to show that responsibility to his Amazon warehouse employees, who are paid as little as the market will allow and who labor in un-air-conditioned buildings with ambulances standing by for when they collapse on hot summer days.
Richard Lachmann ’77
New York, N.Y.
Wondered why Mark Milley ’80, the current chief of staff of the Army, the highest-ranking officer in the Army, was absent. Fun fact, he is the first non-West Pointer to hold the position since its inception.
John Ellis ’81
Honolulu, Hawaii
An interesting and provocative project, surely open to the characterization of “superficial.” It could hardly be otherwise. We should all be extremely proud that the University claims three justices of the Supreme Court as members of the alumni, especially since we have no law school. In terms of “influence,” however, none is yet in a position to direct the Court philosophically. We should hope that Mr. Justice Alito never achieves such a position.
George Clark ’69
Clarks Summit, Pa.
This article just had too much of a leftist slant for me. I am sick and tired of the media and my University, starting with President Eisgruber ’83, taking untrue shots at President Trump. As an example, why isn't Jeff Bezos ’86 on the contents page as the No. 1 choice? Instead, the author has Robert Mueller ’66. The problem is that the author or committee was hoping that Mueller would bring down the president, and this choice was a leftist hope for the future, which looks like it’s in the process of self-destruction. Another hope choice for the future was Michele Obama ’85, who is seldom heard from, not to mention her famous thesis, which the University blocked from public view. And in the 25th spot, poor Jason Garrett ’89, who does what Jerry Jones tells him, and the team kneel was before the national anthem and not during. History may well show that the mass disrespect for the national anthem, primarily by black NFL players, set back race relations more than we know.
Bruce A. Krause ’58
Waldoboro, Maine
Well, Bruce Krause, the author was unashamed about that. “Finally, let’s be direct: This list also leans strongly toward the political left.” I just found it to be quite a bit of fun, even though I, too, largely disagree with many of the choices.
Kanthan Pillay ’91
Johannesburg, South Africa
This article makes a convincing case for the influence of Brian Kernighan *69, who was key in developing the computer languages used in Apple and Android devices that absorb hours of attention on the part of hundreds of millions of people each day. But then the panel picks a football coach and the managers of two blogs that get plenty of eyeballs but have trivial effects on political outcomes. Perhaps these foolish results come from the panel’s procedure of looking at various realms of accomplishment and picking significant alumni. Thus a top sports coach gets a slot along with a best-selling author and a blogger, with not enough thought to the actual impact of each of these fields. This list is nowhere as bad as the Time Magazine lists that rank talk-show hosts and movie stars above major officeholders and corporate chieftains, but is ill-considered in a similar way.
Richard Lachmann ’77
New York, N.Y.
So how did Jason Garrett ’89 make the list? Can you explain his influence?
Akel Kahera *97
Atlanta, Ga.
Jeff Bezos ’86, corporate welfare king and warehouse slave master, is No. 1 while Ralph Nader ’55, who among other accomplishments saved countless lives with his consumer-protection causes, does not even make the list? But, then, “influential” does not necessarily mean good influence, I guess.
Jim LaRegina
Graduate and Undergraduate Administrator,
Near Eastern Studies
Princeton University
I daresay our illustrious panel failed in several instances to measure nominees against the actual definition of influence and has instead lazily retreated to those who are merely “popular.”
Influence is defined as “the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself; the power to shape policy or ensure favorable treatment from someone, especially through status, contacts, or wealth; a person or thing with the capacity or power to have an effect on someone or something.”
Under these parameters, I fail to see how a professional football coach would ever be considered for such a list, unless such coach had so revolutionized the sport with new schemes that it spawned disciples everywhere. Jason Garrett ’89 is a talented, smart, passionate coach, but he is far from influential under even the broadest sense of the word.
Similarly, an author who publishes millions and millions of best-selling books may be popular, famous even, but such does not translate to influence per se unless, again, the works spawn movements or transform cultures in measurable ways.
Context being of prime importance in any ranked list, it would be improper for me to criticize and then fail to suggest far more deserving alternatives. So here goes.
Where is Meg Whitman ’77, an individual with enormous influence, in and out of technology circles? Where is Queen Noor ’73, whose many philanthropic initiatives are well-known and broad-based? And I see no Steve Forbes ’70, the titular head of one of the most influential business magazines on the planet. Where is Edward Felsenthal ’88, editor-in-chief of Time Magazine with three times the number of subscribers as David Remnick ’81’s The New Yorker?
Where are all the elite Princeton venture capitalists and private-equity leaders who, every day, exercise their enormous influence and determine which new ideas, entrepreneurs, and companies get funded, sold, and acquired? Surely their multibillion-dollar value-creation impact/influence is worthy of consideration.
Hopefully next time, such a list will include those who have actual influence and not just popularity.
Jack Sydney
I enjoyed the article, but it lacked a degree of critical thinking that leaves many holes, some of which Mr. Sydney pointed out.
Prentis Hall ’79
Lansdale, Pa.
Be part of the conversation — share your views in the comments below.
Chris Morris *78
6 Years AgoTed Cruz? Puhleeze... The...
Ted Cruz? Puhleeze ... The list did brilliantly well without him. Otherwise, where's Eliot Spitzer ['81]? And will Mueller move up to #1 once our so-called "president" is duly impeached?
Houghton Hutcheson ’68
6 Years AgoJack Sydney's letter nails...
Jack Sydney's letter nails it. It's all about the definition of the word "influential." The panel squandered an opportunity to advance the scholarly dialogue on the meaning of that word.
Van Wallach ’80
6 Years AgoThe list suffered by...
The list suffered by stuffing people with wildly divergent backgrounds into a single group. In coming years, PAW could break it down by category, like the Academy Awards: corporate, nonprofit, academic, government, literary, entertainment, athletic and any other group where Tigers shine. Like they say in Hollywood, the envelopes, please...