Cover illustration by Tim Bower


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 DolanI 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.