In Favor of Open, Candid Letters

PAW should continue as it has with no control from the University. My opinion is based on 52 years’ experience with Stanford and Stanford’s magazine for its alumni. Stanford prints only what it wants its alumni to hear — never a word to the contrary. It is one of Stanford’s greatest weaknesses, and yes, Stanford has weaknesses. The general public seldom hears about them because its board is very good at its control. Our annual alumni giving percentage is almost twice Stanford’s and my personal observation of their alumni gatherings pales in comparison to ours. One of my greatest prides in PAW is how open and candid the alumni letters are and how PAW examines what the Princeton Board of Trustees is doing. I am deeply disappointed with the University for raising this issue. I do not see any point of leverage that Princeton has to compel this change. The answer to them is “No,” followed immediately by the question: “Who are the individuals who proposed this? We want their names and reasons for doing so.”