“ZEN AND THE ART OF COURSE SELECTION”

Nassau Weekly Article (11/21/85)

By Randy Schoenberg

I’ve done it three times now, but I still get anxious about picking courses. There is an art to course selection one must have to be successful. I’m not just talking about fooling your adviser into letting you take four introductory level courses pass/fail, or calling your upperclass friends and prodding them for inside information on the true guts. I’m talking about the distinctly human ability to plan for the future.

I have to plan out the next four months of my life, and I can’t help but think of the multitude of ramifications my choices can have over the long term. . .

Okay, that was enough thinking. After all, it’s only one eighth of my college career. However, there are some insights that I think I can share on the subject of courses to take at Princeton:

For the Hard Science Majors

By “hard” I mean difficult, as opposed to soft, or easy. The most fun I’ve ever had in a course was the first day of ECS 320. (That’s European Culture Studies for those of you who aren’t in Campus or Terrace Club, and that’s Three Hundred Twenty for those of you who are.) The professor went around the table asking what our majors were. After hearing a handful of Comp Lit, three or four French, about five History, an Architecture and a lone Politics major, the entire class stared in disbelief when I said that I hoped to major in Math! This was after, a course on Politics and Culture in France 1920-1940. What was I, a science and math geek, doing in their seminar? It was clear from their expressions that I represented their greatest fears in the entire world.

I cannot, recommend enough the value of really testing yourself among the humanities majors. I don’t mean taking Lit 141, Politics 240, Religion 211, Music 103, or any other huge, introductory, survey-type course. I mean really taking the hard-core humanities. Try out some of the programs, like Creative Writing or Humanistic Studies.

There really will be life outside the Molecular Biology Building next semester. It would be a shame for you to miss it. Besides, think of your adventure into the inner depths of the humanities as a crusade against the stereotypical perceptions of the math/science dweeb. Show them that you can beat them at their own game. Besides, you know that it takes more mental prowess to differentiate than it does to digress.

For the Humanity Majors

Don’t be put off by what I said above. That was just a pep talk for those left-brain-heavy geeks who are afraid to express in words, what can only be suggested by numbers. But you too have an opportunity this semester to expand your horizons.

I don’t mean taking the infamous guts, Astro-gut, Rocks for Jocks, Physics for Poets, Nuts and Sluts, or Volts for Dolts. (I know you all know their course numbers by heart, so I won’t include them.) And you don’t have to take Orgo or DiffeeQues’s to prove yourself in the sciences. There are programs for you as well: Linguistics (There’s a reason why MIT is the best in this field) and Science in Human Affairs. But I suggest something like Comp Sci 119, Geo 310, or maybe a higher level Econ, Psych, or Philosophy of Science course. Next year, you can try out Biology or Chemistry. Who knows? You may even become a Physics major.

Test your ability to handle equations. If not, it’ll come back to haunt you when you have to do your 1040 form for the IRS. Besides, it sure beats reserve reading.

For the Engineers

            We all know you have to take a million more courses than the rest of us mere mortals. If you don’t, put your money where your mouth is and show us what all those problem sets have done in terms of education?

Follow the advice I gave for the hard scientists, but don’t just stop there. Take a course in the sciences to find out where all those goofy equations come from. I really admire the few engineers who take Math 217-218, instead of 203-204, and Physics 105-106 rather than the standard 103-104. They prove that engineers aren’t all wimps.

It also pays to go for those daring combinations. Last year, Steven Dunne turned his EECS/WWS major and sailboat into a Rhodes Scholarship. You’ll have your whole life to design engines and computer chips. Give some thought to those things which last longer than a light bulb or a transistor. Take some time out from that schedule that you’ve followed since you were eight years old and learn what really goes into writing a work of literature or painting a masterpiece.

“TERMINAL HOOKUPS”

Interview with Dean of Computing Ira Fuchs

Nassau Weekly Article (11/7/85)

By Randy Schoenberg

The University has recently appointed Ira Fuchs the new Vice President for Computing and Information Services. Nassau talked to him about this plans for Princeton:

Nassau: Why do you think the University established your position?

Fuchs: I think there was a need for some focal point that could oversee computing for all aspects of the University. There are areas which require a more or less uniform approach to solving problems. The campus network is a good example. It is unlikely that we would want to have two totally independent networks for administrative use and for academic use.

Today there are small computer clusters in the residential colleges, and I hear that you may be planning to build some others in the upperclass dorms. Where do you see the network going in terms of undergraduate use of computers?

I see one goal as generally increasing the accessibility of computing, not just to the student body, but to the faculty and also to the administration. Specifically with respect to the residential colleges, it seems that the Forbes College pilot has been a success, and that it would make sense to replicate some or all of what Forbes has done at the other residential colleges.

As for the upperclass dorms and other buildings that undergraduates normally have access to, I think the goal in general is to extend the cable that was put in this summer to reach the remaining buildings, and to then wire each of the buildings to permit local area networks to extend to any place that one could rationally want to connect with a computer.

All connected to the Computer Center?

Once you have a local area network, and you can have any machine talk to any machine, the computing center can be viewed as a computational server on the network, the same as a machine in the Physics Department or a machine in any department, or the machine in Forbes College. In other words, they are all resources available on the network accessible to anyone who has access to the network and who has authority to use that particular source.

The same goes for high quality printing services. It’s one of my goals to improve or to increase the access to high quality printing. I haven’t witnessed it yet, but I’ve been told that at the time when junior papers and senior theses are due, there’s a great crunch of people trying to use the laser printer at the Computing Center. The cost effectiveness of distributing that particular resource I think is such that it doesn’t make much sense to force all the printing to be done at the Center. The thing that sort of ties it all together is the network. But along with doing that you have to figure out how to put the services on the network and make them easy to use and available anywhere.

Is the Network you are talking about TIGERNET?

             There seems to be some confusion, at least in some people’s minds, over what it is that people mean when they say TIGERNET. My understanding is that it is a broad-band cable that was initially run between the Computing Center and the E-Quad, and has now been extended to somewhere around half of the campus. The goal would be to extend that further to reach all of the buildings on campus.

At Dartmouth there are terminal hookups in every room, and every freshman is required to buy a computer. If a student can’t afford it he has to take a loan. Using the network a student can access library listings, have conferences, and access the mainframe. Is Princeton going to go toward something like that? 

I think in terms of the accessibility of resources like the IBM 3081 at the Computer Center or databases that might be available on various machines on campus that the answer is yes. We will seek to wire up dormitories and wire up in the rooms, so that a student who has a Macintosh or PC or some other compatible device will be able to plug it into the wall for access to the network.

I don’t foresee in the near future Princeton requiring that every student purchase one of these computers. On the other hand, the price of these computers is coming down almost on a weekly basis, and I think more and more we’re going to see students coming with their own computers. It may be that the University will encourage it by having access to all these resources. It has encouraged it already in terms of entering into pricing discount arrangements to make it less expensive to students. I suppose there is the possibility that the University could go further and provide financing or credit for acquisition of machines. I haven’t heard any discussions about that, but other universities have done that, just short of simply saying bring your own computer.

I guess as long as you have terminal hookups in the rooms…

…And clusters in as many places as is practical. That means that if a student doesn’t have his own computer he isn’t going to have a hard time getting one.

It leaves it up to the student.

Right.

How is the supercomputer at the Forestal Center going to affect the entire University?

The supercomputer will shortly be connected to TIGERNET. There will be a high speed connection from the new John von Neumann Center to the Computer Center and the ultimate goal is to make that supercomputer look like yet another server, another resource on the network throughout the University. That doesn’t mean that any student plugged into a computer terminal would automatically have his or her programs run on the supercomputer. If they had accounts there and if they were doing research which was funded by the National Science Foundation then, potentially at least, they would have access to the center. But the goal would be to make it as easy to send programs and jobs and to receive output from the supercomputer center as it is to the current central facility or any other machine.

Does the University have a goal towards centralization or do you think they are going to rely on you to formulate that? Does the University have an official stance on centralization?

I think that the University stance is that computers are important in education and by all accounts they appear to be becoming more important, that is to say they’re being used in more disciplines, and there’s more software being written that makes the use of computers important and truly useful in teaching and in research. Computers are obviously also used in the administration and management of the University. I don’t think there are too many people who see a reverse trend. On the other hand, there’s no intent to try and turn Princeton purely into an Institute of Technology, and that’s not what we’re trying to do.

I think that in talking about centralization, I don’t see what I’m doing, or what the University seems to be committed to, as implying greater centralization. I think that the University is looking for leadership, and trying to create a coherent environment for the use of technology at the University. In some ways, I suppose some people could view it as a further emphasis on some form of decentralization of computers. In other words, by making it possible for all of the departmental machines and distributed machines to be used in an equally easy way, you are in some ways encouraging distribution of resources.

Right now if a student is in a computer science course or a physics course, and he needs to use a computer for it, he has to use a computer, not at the Computer Center, but at the E-Quad or at the physics department. Do you see those departmental computers being linked up so that someone could work from the computer clusters or from his room?

Absolutely. With the cable reaching all the buildings, and with the local area networks gateway to the cable, and then with the appropriate set of standards or protocols used by all the machines on the network, it will be possible for any work station, any personal computer, to ask to connect to any of the servers on the network.

How much time and money is it going to take?

I really can’t estimate that yet, it’s something that I was working on when you came in. It’s going to be a significant project. I would hope that it could be completed in the next couple of years, and one of our problems will be to decide which pieces get done first. I certainly think it’s achievable and I think that there is a commitment on the part of the administration and of the faculty to see it happen.

How do you think Princeton stands now in comparison to other institutions as far as computer accessibility goes?

Better than some, worse than others. There are plenty of campuses that have not yet, for example put in the kind of broad-band cable systems that TIGERNET represents and that are planning to do so. And that’s a significant and expensive effort and it’s one that Princeton is already well on the way to completing. The development of local area networks on the campus is perhaps slower than some of the Universities that are at the forefront—Stanford, MIT, Carnegie-Mellon, and so on—but we’re not that far behind.

The technology is changing very fast in this particular area. So, it may be the case that it’s fortuitous that we haven’t made too many decisions yet, because we get to take advantage of all the new advances. Some people think that the best strategy in computing is not to do anything because it’s always cheaper and better if you wait a little longer. But then you don‘t have anything either.   I think though that in the case of Princeton, it’s the right time to be doing the things we’re doing. Five years ago, if we had tried to make some of these decisions, it probably would have been quite difficult, if it was even possible. And yet I don’t see any point in waiting another five years to see how it all turns out at other universities. I don’t think we can afford to do that.

“GEOMETRIC ABSTRACT ART AT MOMA”

Nassau Weekly Article (10/10/85)

By Randy Schoenberg

New York’s Museum of Modern Art, in response to a tremendous gift from the Riklis Collection of the McCrory Corporation, has opened an ambitious exhibit entitled, Contrasts of Form: Geometric Abstract Art 1910-1980. The exhibit may be the most comprehensive showing ever of this most important artistic development of the twentieth century and is a must for any person even remotely interested in artistic expression.

The Riklis Collection was assembled by Celia Ascher with the support of Meshulam Riklis, chairman of the Rapid-America Corporation (parent company of the McCrory Corporation). The 249 art works, including paintings, drawings, sculptures, and collages, contain important works by well-known masters, as well as unexpected treasures by many artists who have not yet received public attention. The museum has also included numerous works from its own collection to complement the already exhaustive list of works donated by the McCrory Corporation.

The exhibit is separated into five chronological divisions:

Origins of the Nonobjective—Cubism, Futurism, Cubo-Futurism: 1910-1914.

This section would be more accurately described as Origins of Geometric Art. The Cubist works of Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque, and Fernand Leger, as well as the early cubist and collage attempts of Kasimir Malevich, are objective works, depicting in fragmented angular planes a guitar, clarinet, ballet dancer, and collage materials. The Italian Futurist works of Giacomo Balla, the color abstractions of Robert Delauney, and a few works by Russian artists in the Rayonist style are more clearly abstract and nonobjective. The latter works reveal the diversity of expression that emerged with the emancipation of abstraction and “art for art’s sake,” while the former exemplify objective perception pushed to its furthest limits. Together they lead to the art form that is the focus of this exhibit. I was disappointed not to find a painting by Vasily Kandinsky in this section, as he is considered the founding father of abstraction. However, the studies by Malevich of cubist paintings were fascinating and extremely informative. If you’ve ever looked at a Picasso and wondered where the figure went, these illustrated examples by Malevich will help immeasurably. Also in this section is an early work by Piet Mondrian, a peek at the developments to come.

From Surface to Space—Suprematism, de Stijl, Russian Constructivism: 1915-1921.

            Malevich took off from where the cubists left off, and founded suprematism, which he believed was an expression of “absolute” art. Flat, two dimensional paintings consisting of purely geometric figures in solid colors, these works sought to free art from the constraints of cubism and futurism. The foremost example of the new style is Malevich’s Suprematist Composition: White on White; this masterpiece contains only a skewed off-white square on a pure white background.

Malevich and his Russian contemporaries continued in this vein until the revolution, when the urgency of the political and social upheaval necessitated a more socially conscious idiom. They developed a three-dimensional adaptation of Suprematism and called it “Constructivism.” The founder of this school was Vladimir Tatlin whose charcoal drawing, Counter-Relief, is made up of conic sections, rectangles and intersecting planes.

At the same time in Holland, Mondrian and Theo van Doesburg formed “de Stijl”, also intended to be an expression of “pure” art. Their works consist of rectangles and squares arranged without overlapping, and tend to be more grid-like and patterned than their Russian counterparts, reflecting an emphasis on architectural design. Here, as in the entire exhibit, works by lesser-known artists display the breadth of invention that accompanied the new forms of expression.

International Constructivism: 1922-1929.

            In the post-war years, de Stijl and Constructivism spread through Europe, sparking individual artists to direct their abstract works in a more geometric style. This section of the exhibit contains significant works by van Doesburg, Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Kurt Schwitters, El Lissitzky, Georges Vantangerloo, and Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart.

Kandinsky, Klee and Moholy-Nagy were members of the Bauhaus in Weimar, an artistic school founded by the architect Walter Gropius in 1919. The objective paintings of Oskar Schlemmer, also a member of the Bauhaus, is included in the exhibit in order to show the architectural influence of the new school.

Most interesting in this section is the reemergence of the early revolutionaries in the constructivist style. The futurist Balla and the cubist Leger both contributed to the development of the genre in this decade; Kandinsky and Klee had founded in 1911 the Munich-based Blue Rider group; and Schwitters and Mohaly-Nagy were involved in the Dali movement before attempting Constructivism.

The Paris-New York Connection: 1930-1959.

            The exhibit catalogue describes this period as one of synthesis rather than invention. “It is not a period of innovation or creation, of new philosophies, but rather a period of relaxation that blended earlier disciplines such as classic Cubism, de Stijl, Constructivism, the Bauhaus, the art of Mondrian and that of Kandinsky, as well as the biomorphic forms of Surrealism and the decorative aspects of Synthetic Cubism.”

Established artists such as Moholy-Nagy, Mondrian, Schwitters and Vantongerloo, are presented alongside other notables, Josef Albers, Hans Arp, Sophi Taeuber-Arp, Naum Gabo, Ben Nicholson, and some relative newcomers, including Charmion von Wiegand, Charles Biederman, Ilya Bolotowsky, Burgoyne Diller, and Jean Gorin. The effect is an overwhelming feeling that Constructivism, or Abstract Geometric Art, was the mode of expression of the times. In my opinion, this leads to a much better understanding of the works, and it certainly provides for enjoyable viewing.

As evidenced in the title, this period marks the entrance of American artists into the domain of modern Western art. The exhibit does not include any of the museum’s numerous works by the abstract expressionists who were also making their mark on the art world at this time. Instead, it maintains the focus on geometric abstract art, an area which was heretofore underrepresented in the museum collection.

Recent Nonfigurative Tendencies: 1960-1980.

This final section follows the genre through the last two decades, introducing major figures of the art world today. Josef Alber’s Homage to the Square: Silent Hall is perhaps the most significant piece, reminiscent of Malevich’s ground-breaking White on White. I think Al Held’s C-B-1 completed in 1978, stands out among the new works. Alfred Jensen, subject of the current exhibit at the Guggenheim Museum, is also represented here, as is Princeton’s own Frank Stella. (Incidentally, the current exhibit at the McCormick Art Museum of Stella’s paintings based on El Lissitzky’s Had Gadya would make an excellent introduction to the New York exhibit, for those unsure of what to expect.)

Minimalism is the most recent development in abstract geometric art and the exhibit is not without representatives of this style. These pieces don’t do anything for me. The concepts behind the works of Malevich and Albers are lost in the 36 square foot, all-white canvas of Robert Ryman. Agnes Martin and Ad Reinhart are equally unimpressive. However, Ad Dekkers’ From Square to Circle, with a white circle just barely too large to be inscribed in the white square underneath it, is inspired, as are Robert Mangold’s Distorted Circle within a Polygon I, and Ellsworth Kelly’s Two Panels: Yellow-Orange.

The patterned illusionistic pieces of artists like Richard Paul Lohse and Victor Vasarely show the abundance of new forms which the abstract geometric style allows, and move in a more productive direction than their minimalist counterparts. Sculptors such as Donald Judd, Sol LeWitt and Kenneth Martin each have works in the exhibition. Judging from them, it may be that sculpture provides the most opportunity for varied artistic expression in this style. Other pieces, such as Ludwig Sander’s yellow composition Tioga II, are reminiscent of the earlier works of Mondrian. It is clear from all of these works, that geometric abstract art is far from dead and will continue to be an important form of artistic expression.

This exhibit is extremely significant in terms of the scope and quality of the works presented. From Cubism to Minimalism, Geometric Abstract art is portrayed in amazing detail through the masterpieces of the artists so crucial to its development. As a complement to the Museum of Modern Art’s already incredible collection of modern masterpieces, the Riklis Collection is an extraordinary addition. The exhibit will be showing for three months, from October 7 to January 7. For goodness sake, take advantage of our proximity to New York and see this once-in-a-lifetime exhibit!

Letter to Editor by Amy Weisser in Response to Original Article.

GEOMETRIC ABSTRACT ART IS NOT FOR EVERYONE (From 10/17/85 Issue)

To the Editor:

I applaud the decision by Nassau to review an art exhibition in New York. (Contrasts of Form: Geometric Abstract Art 1910-1980 at the Museum of Modern Art.) However, I question the reviewer’s appraisal of the show as “a must for any person even remotely interested in artistic expression” and a “once-in-a-lifetime exhibit!”

The review correctly states that the Riklis/McCrory donation includes a comprehensive range of artists; it is not true, however, that most of these artists are represented by important works. The majority of the exhibition’s “masterpieces” were from the Museum’s own collection, chosen by the curators to bolster the quality of the exhibition. The Riklis/McCrory collection will undoubtedly be more valuable within the Museum’s study collection that in future exhibitions. In addition, Constructivist art is not easily appreciated, and without prior knowledge, the exhibition could be more confusing than enlightening.

In short, I agree with the review’s suggestion that we should all “take advantage of our proximity to New York” and visit the MOMA, but I suggest that, for most of us, the time would be better spent viewing the Museum’s permanent Painting and Sculpture Collection, which is installed in chronological order and encourages comparisons of artists and trends, or the current exhibition of sketches of Loony Tune cartoons, just for the fun of them.

Bowen’s Policy of ‘No Policies’

Nassau Weekly (10/3/85)

By Randy Schoenberg

In his speech at Opening Exercises, President Bowen discussed a state of mind that has become all too prevalent at this University and in the United States in general.  He believes that institutions should refrain from political actions and moral statements in order to facilitate a more “open” environment for discussion and research.  I question the ability of any institution to completely sever itself from the political and moral world and the desirability of doing so.

Who really benefits from such a system?  How can one change policies whose existence an administration denies?  And do “openness” and “freedom of discussion” merely cloak the hidden conservatism of a policy which maintains the status quo?  Bowen’s speech did not address these questions.

Bowen feels that an institution which maintains no official positions better facilitates open discussion and free argumentation.  “This reluctance [of universities to take institutional stands on issues],” he says, “has been viewed as a positive thing:  a direct demonstration of the institutions’ openness to all points of view.”  On the contrary, such non-involvement has the effect of stifling discussion.

Instead of being open to all ideas, the University as an institution is open to none, save those which already form University policy.  Few people will argue or speak out for their beliefs if they know that their speech has no hope of affecting University policy.  The consequence of Bowen’s program of institutional restraint is a lifeless and impotent ideological vacuum, void of new ideas.

Bowen also believes that “openness to conflicting viewpoints and free debate” necessitates an environment in which all ideas are respected equally.  But will an institution which is afraid to show a preference for one ideology over another, fearing that such an action will be seen as favoritism, ever resolve to change the status quo?

Bowen’s belief, that “given an opportunity, truth and right will eventually triumph over falsehood and wrong,” is naïve and, in conjunction with his opinion on restraint, self-defeating.  How can truth and right triumph if the University refuses to take a stand or reverse its existing policies?

In order to avoid these inevitable questions, Bowen attempts to justify inaction on the part of the University as an institution.  He refers to “the number of errors and even crimes that have been committed in the names of Truth and Conscience,” implying that acting on the belief in one’s understanding of Truth is dangerous.  This assertion does not address the potential harms of inaction, and instead relies upon blind faith in the “eventual triumph of truth.”

One cannot hope to counteract the wrongs and untruths of others without forthright action in accordance with one’s own beliefs.  On a societal or institutional level, this action is important, because conservatism will always maintain the status quo, no matter how unjust any given group of individuals believe it to be.  Any institution or society which chooses not to take a position one way or another commits a sin of omission as great as, if not greater than, the wrongful act itself.  Inaction makes future change more difficult.

Bowen’s policy is the ultimate form of conservatism.  If the University has no official policies, under the auspices of “openness” and “freedom of discussion,” it then removes the impetus for discussion—the opportunity to change or create University policies.

Is it possible for Princeton to have no “official” policies?  Evolution is taught by the Biology Department to the exclusion of Creation Theory; counseling on both birth control devices and abortions is offered at McCosh Health Center, and professors are encouraged to accept money for research related to the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Some would consider these “policies” more political than the University’s investment in companies which do business in South Africa.

The University cannot and should not shy away from such actions, nor should it fear that they may harm the integrity of the University as a free forum for discussion.  Institutional policies, and the uproar or approval they evoke, are an essential tool for social change and progress.

Bowen, in accordance with this role as the President of the corporation which is Princeton, states that “to be free, [an institution] must be solvent.”  Does this mean that the University will forget its commitment to institutional restraint, if and when money is at stake?  If so, this conflicts with Bowen’s claim that “[Princeton] is not for sale.”  At times, Princeton must act politically to protect its own monetary interests.  The University supports a large lobbying organization expressly for such purposes.

Will Princeton begin disinvestment from companies doing a large amount of business in South Africa?  The trustees and Bowen have said no.  But it seems likely that the violence in South Africa will cause stocks of those companies to fall.  If so, is it not fiscally wise to divest?  (Rutgers has cited economic instability as their foremost reason for divestment.)  Were Princeton to divest, it would be a purely monetary decision, having nothing to do with the political discussion going on within the University.

If, however, the University is willing to make essentially political decisions based on monetary considerations, is this truly an institution which can be said, under Bowen’s definition, to be “open to all points of view?”

Taking political stands may do more to encourage discussion than institutional restraint.  If the University were to act politically, there would be a reason to argue and discuss—the hope that such discussion would lead to a more consistent policy.  Bowen is reluctant to take an institutional position at all, or to acknowledge that such positions already exist.  What then, is the point of discussion?

It is not, as Bowen suggests, “the unrelenting, open-minded search for truth” which is “itself the highest value,” but the debate and discussion surrounding institutional action which leads to the ultimate truth and correctness of University policies.

Bowen’s image of Princeton, “at a slight angle to the world,” does not fit his speech.  In fact, he describes an amorphous, boundless enclosure, without an orientation with respect to the rest of the world.  An institution which stands at an angle to the world challenges the correctness of the standard orientation, attracts attention to itself, and perhaps signifies a defiance of accepted norms without completely rejecting them—this is the image which Princeton should project.

If Bowen’s speech suggests anything with its numerous allusions to past times when academic freedom was less prevalent, it is that we should be content with our present situation.  Conservatism is carefully hidden behind the façade of protecting academic freedom.  But if freedom of discussion is to have any value at all, it must be able to manifest itself in progressive actions which challenge existing inequities.  The University as an institution must be committed to education, to progress, and to the dissemination of new research and ideas which attempt to change society for the better.

One should not be so open-minded that one’s brains fall out.  If what we want is integrity, solvency, and academic freedom, we should support an institution which enables us to realize our hopes and dreams of a better society, not one which holds politically and morally progressive action in contempt.

A HEART BEATS FOR UPPERCLASS DORM LIFE

Nassau Weekly Article (5/2/85)

By Randy Schoenberg

Assistant Dean of Students Patsy Cole, in her first year at Princeton, is at the heart of a new effort to improve upperclass residential life. She calls her plan “PULSE” and she expects it to add a new dimension to dormitory living. PULSE is designed to bring students together, to develop a sense of community in the dorms, and to establish a communication link between students and administration that will facilitate the quick resolution of housing problems. To enact her plan, Cole has solicited the opinions and service of various members of the University community, the Maintenance Office, the Housing Office, Building Services, the Residence Committee and interested upperclassmen. Together they have drawn up broad guidelines for PULSE, which will begin next year.

Bob Sweeney, the Dorm Manager of Building Services, explains some of the impetus behind the creation of PULSE. “It seems that with [the students’] evolution from the residential colleges to upperclass housing, they lose something. They can make it more than just the humdrum dorms they have now. They can have a social life and the common spaces that they have in the first two years and not in the last two.” Although the complete structure has not yet been fully worked out, certain features of PULSE are certain: in the fall, each dorm will select representatives and possibly a dorm council. The number of representatives will depend on the size of the building, but most dorms will have two. Those representatives will communicate closely with the PULSE administrators and will be responsible for checking on common areas and turning in maintenance checklists. The representatives will also be able to organize dorm social events, made possible with money from PULSE. The number of PULSE activities will depend solely on the amount of interest in the dorms.

To introduce the program, PULSE is sponsoring a party for the classes of ’86 and ’87, next year’s juniors and seniors. The party, which will feature music and free ice cream, is scheduled for May 9, from 3:00 to 5:00 in the courtyard behind Blair Arch next to the U-Store. In order to attract students to the party, Cole has begun a publicity campaign which includes posters with no message, just the organization’s symbol and the name—PULSE. So far, the acronym has no meaning except to connote something which is, as Cole puts it, “alive and beating.”

Based on a similar plan at Brown called “Grassroots,” PULSE is designed to foster interaction between students and administrators so that student needs can be better satisfied. Cole describes it as “a way to enhance communication, a network. It’s a way to make certain that administrators know what’s going on.”

The checklists serve two functions. First, they will provide a sure method of communication with the Maintenance and Building Services by providing a continuous report on the condition of dorm common areas. Second, they provide the Residence Committee with documentation to back up their recommendations for housing improvement. “The idea,” explains Cole, “is that students feel that they have a direct ear on the administration.”

“Many students are unsure of how to get things done in the common areas, bathrooms, hallways, and kitchens,” explains Judy Hanson, Director of Grounds and Building Maintenance Department. “PULSE” gives students people to contact, and gives us students to contact.” But the checklists are not meant to be the first resort. “PULSE does not preclude existing systems,” says Cole. “The students should at least call Housing or Maintenance. Then if it is put on the checklist, we know that they have already called and the problem still exists.” Hanson echoes this concern. “We still expect students to take responsibility for their own rooms. We have a fairly responsive system right now for routine problems. We’re really trying to improve the give and take. It’s an educational process for both sides.” The most notable improvement will be student responsibility for the common areas, so that if anything happens there, the proper administrators will be notified.

But Cole is mostly excited about the possibilities for enhancing dorm environment in less tangible ways. “My hope is that people will get to know other people, and think of their dorms as homes. It always surprises me that people who even live next door to one another don’t know each other by name.” Katherine Fritts, a junior who became involved with PULSE after many conversations with Cole on maintenance problems, agrees. “It’s not meant to put responsibility or work on anyone. It’s just to make people happier. I think it’s strange that you see people in your dorms and you don’t know their names. Dorm representatives will be able to get money for special dorm events. Cole hopes that this will provide the opportunity for people to meet and get involved with each other. “It has the potential for active involvement. I see it as a means of bringing people together in the cause of making the dorm a positive place to live.” Fritts believes that establishing the structure of dorm activities will be all that is needed to establish a greater sense of community. “The whole idea is that people do what they want to do. They can go to a play or movie, have parties, popcorn—anything except alcohol. We assume that people, if they have money, will figure out ways to use it. We are just building a structure so that people can do what they want.”

One of the things Cole thinks that students might want is computers. “Having computers in the dorms becomes more possible through a program like this. If we make people responsible, they will keep an eye on the computers. There’s a greater chance that they’ll be aware of what’s happening in their dorm. I hope that within the next couple of years, we’ll be able to install computers in the upperclass dorms.”

Another addition to the dorms which Cole thinks will be more feasible with the PULSE network is a common room. “We have entryways and not many common places in which to gather. Some time down the road we’ll have to look into common spaces.” Cole believes the checklists make it more likely that these changes can be made. “The checklists are a vehicle to document the need.”

The success or failure of these programs will depend on the involvement of the students. “We hope to have some money available for dorms,” says Cole, “so they can put on programs for themselves to develop a sense of community. The beauty of this program is that it’s completely dependent on the relative effort that students put in themselves. And it doesn’t take that much effort. The only strings attached are that students keep us informed of things. If the students put in a little effort, we in the administration can go a lot further in helping them.”

Fritts thinks that once people begin to get involved, others will follow. “It’s not meant to be anything that’s imposed on anyone. Hopefully, people will use it for good things, and others will see that things can be done.”

At the ice cream party on May 9, Cole will ask for students who are interested in being dorm representatives to put their names down on a list. These volunteers will be contacted over the summer and the selection of dorm representatives will begin as early as freshman week. If all works out as Cole envisions, a new dimension will be added to upperclass social life. Cole hopes that at the very least, PULSE will provide students with a structure for contacting appropriate administrators about dorm maintenance and improvement. The potential for improvement is immense; the only limitation is the ingenuity and interest of upperclass students.

Nassau Weekly (4/18/85)

BETTER ‘LIT’ THAN NEVER

By E. Randol Schoenberg (Randy) (’88), Staff Writer

The Winter issue of the Nassau Literary Review, after many long delays, is expected to come out some time next week, editors say. With that said, the obvious question arises, “Why has it taken so long?”

“This is the latest we’ve ever been,” admits Charles Robbins, Editor-in-Chief for the Winter Issue. “It’s the fault of the Dean of Students office for cutting our money, but maybe it’s our fault, too,” Until this year, the Lit received $11,000 from the Dean of Students office, but new Assistant Dean Muriel Whitcomb was told to reduce her office’s budget, and the Lit could get only $10,000 this year.

“Their funding was disproportionate to what [other student groups] get,” Whitcomb says. “We’re trying to be even-handed.” Drum, the other literary magazine funded by the Dean of Students office, receives a tenth of what the Lit gets. Whitcomb foresees further cuts for the Lit in the future. “There’s real inequity, and we’re gradually going to rectify that,” she says.

Although she regrets the cuts, Robbins does understand why they were implemented. “Money was short all around, and there was a cutback.” The Lit was a natural choice because of its large budget. Robbins feels, however, that the money was deserved. “We get more money than any organization campus. It’s nice, but I think it is somewhat appropriate.”

The reduction caught the staff unaware, and they were forced to cut back on some of the amenities they had enjoyed in the past. Instead of sending the prose, poetry and graphics to the printer and having it laid out there, they had to produce camera-ready copy themselves. Most of the delay was due to the difficulty of getting people to type. Robbins, who had to do much of the typing himself, recalls, “It was a nightmare; we’re not experts.”

Stephen Culhane, former business editor under Robbins and the new Editor-in-Chief for the upcoming spring issues, describes the difficulties the staff faced. “It was a learning process—doing typesetting and production on our own.” Culhane was responsible for bringing in more money to make up for the $1,000 loss. “We made up the loss with advertising without much trouble,” says Culhane, but he is unsure of the future which Dean Whitcomb has suggested will entail more cuts. “This year we were able to handle the budge cuts by doing more of it ourselves. Next year, I don’t know how we’re going to do it.   By upgrading the business staff we doubled the money we took in, but we’re limited by how much the staff can do because we only come out twice a year.”

“Putting ads in a literary magazine really fouls it up,” Robbins says. “We were forced to be a business. The Lit is not a money making venture. It can’t be here or anywhere.” With the Lit facing further cutbacks, Robbins fears that much of the innovation he has added to the magazine in his two issues will be lost. “We tried to be a little imaginative in our layout, and a lot of it just costs money. It will go back to being what it was, boring and bland.”

The Nassau Literary Review is the oldest continuously published college literary magazine in America. At its high point, it reached 300 pages in length, and can claim Booth Tarkington, Woodrow Wilson, John Peale Bishop, and F. Scott Fitzgerald as past contributers (sic). The present issue is 80 pages long, an increase from last years 64 pages.

The Lit has faced increasing competition from other campus literary magazines sponsored by the residential colleges. According to Robbins, many people have been turned off by the fact that the Lit only accepts eight stories from over fifty submissions. But Culhane doubts that the colleges pose a threat. “I don’t think that [the college magazines have] much of an effect. They are much more localized. We reach a much larger audience, and get different kinds of submissions. We get more from the Creative Writing, Visual Arts, and Architecture Programs than they do.” Still, the existence of college literary magazines has threatened the Lit’s position as Princeton’s main literary publication. As Robbins says, “It’s too bad the residential colleges have taken people away.”

Robbins sees advancements such as a three color cover and this year’s silver border as important in his efforts to rebuild the review. “Without all the trim it could be stapled; it could be a term paper.” Although the Lit is coming out very late, Robbins is proud his work. “If people will only read us, they’ll see that it’s not the rag it used to be,” he says.

Because of the budget difficulties, the Lit’s future is uncertain. “It’s a shame Princeton University can’t support this as it should be,” Robbins laments. “If they can’t afford it at Princeton, then where can we do it?” Culhane reports that he has already finished production of the spring issue, which should be delivered toward the end of the reading period. The spring Lit features interviews with novelist John Irving and poet Galway Kinnell. And next year? Culhane says, “The winter issue will be out in December.”

Nassau Weekly (2/28/85)

A MUCH MALIGNED SPORT

By E. Randol Schoenberg (Randy) (’88), Staff Writer

What sport was the inspiration for the first video game?

Clueless? It’s also the precursor of two well-known drinking games.

Still need a hint? It’s the world’s fastest racquet sport, the second most popular on the globe, and will be included in the 1988 Olympics.

If you haven’t figured out this simple riddle yet, you’re probably one of the few people who hasn’t played ping-pong.

Known to the club varsity players as table tennis, this sport requires more athletic talent than is commonly assumed. According to Steve Kong, captain of the club varsity team, “To be good, you have to be an excellent athlete. You need to be in good condition, have good reflexes, hand-eye coordination, quickness, and intense concentration. Considering that the 38 mm balls often reach speeds of 150 mph over the nine-foot table, Kong’s contentions suddenly become convincing.

But table tennis players rarely get the respect they deserve, and Princeton is no exception. In January, football coaches decided that they wanted to put a weight room in what had long been the table tennis room on E level of Jadwin Gym. Needless to say, the decision was made long before Kong was ever notified. The table tennis team was offered a storage room with a five foot ceiling. Kong explained that the new arrangement would be impossible and persuaded Jadwin administrators to let the club practice in the lobby. So, every Friday afternoon, 10-20 club members carry and roll out the tables into the lobby and play their much-maligned sport.

Although only three of the nine team members are not American citizens, the club has a decidedly international flavor. Table tennis is more accepted in other countries, famed as the favorite of the Chinese. Players from India, Taiwan, Thailand, Iran and England often come to practice just to pick up a game.

Don’t think that table tennis is just recreation, though. Competitiveness explains why on Saturday, February 23, while hundreds of students sat in the sun and played frisbee in courtyards, thirty dedicated ping-pong players vied for the Table Tennis Championship of Princeton University.

Kong doesn’t mind missing the sun for a chance to play table tennis. A graduate student in the Geology Department, Kong is now in his second year as team captain. He singlehandedly coordinated this year’s tournament which he hopes will again become an annual event.   (The tournament was held annually until 1983, when it was discontinued because of poor organization.)

Players who had not earned a varsity letter—yes, you can earn a letter in ping-pong—could complete in both A-level and Open Singles and Open Doubles. Experienced lettermen were excluded from the A-level draw, leaving the A-level wide open for the casual players.

The tournament was not without excitement. Senior John Abedor came out of nowhere to defeat three seeded players on his way to a first place finish in the A-level. Abedor squeezed by first seeded sophomore Parham Ghandchi 21-19, 19-21, 23-21 in the semi-finals, and went on to beat graduate student Wen-Ron Chi 21-15 in the third set to clinch the title. Asked to comment on his surprising success, the exhausted Abedor could only reply, “I’m really hungry. Let’s go!”

Abedor’s hunger was no surprise. After six hours of play, the Open division winners were still undecided. As the Harvard women’s basketball team began their noisy warm-ups, Jadwin technicians tested the sound system with blaring top 40 hits, and the men’s baseball team waited to take over the rest of Jadwin for practice, graduate student Greg McDermott edged out first seed Kong 21-13, 10-21, 21-18 to insure himself a berth in the Open Singles finals.

McDermott was visibly moved by his accomplishment. “I’m elated. I’m playing the best table tennis of my life. It’s just a great feeling, beating someone rated so far above me.” Due to the double elimination format, Kong still has a chance to win if he can beat the winner of the consolation bracket. His most likely opponent will be grad student Peppi Prasit. The remaining matches, including the doubles, have been postponed until Friday.

While some excellent players competed in the tournament, they’re on a different planet than the world’s best, who will meet in the Olympics for the first time in 1988. In preparation for the Seoul Olympics, the US Olympic Committee has provided funds for the US Table Tennis Association to heighten awareness of table tennis.

In essence, that’s also the goal of Kong and his club varsity team. “We want to introduce Princeton to table tennis,” says Kong. If he succeeds, the loopers, choppers, and pushers of the table tennis world may someday receive the recognition they do elsewhere.

Nassau Weekly (2/21/85)

CHOOSING THE “RAs”: WHO SHOULD DECIDE?

By E. Randol Schoenberg (Randy) (’88), Staff Writer  in collaboration with Albert Kim

Almost from the inception of CURL, two years ago, the residential colleges have called for control of the residential adviser selection process, and slowly but surely, the process has moved out of the central domain of West College into the realm of the colleges. With this year’s selection of RAs completed, many participants in the process have expressed their dissatisfaction with it, and questioned the legitimacy of decentralization. Residential college administrators, whose very function is to foster closer relationships between students and faculty must make personal evaluations of these student applications. Is the college selection process fair and objective enough to warrant autonomy from the centralizing influence of West College?

The resident adviser selection process began in December with the submission of a written application and two recommendations to the Dean of Students Office. On the application form, applicants stated their preferences for one college or another. The 165 applicants were divided into five groups of 33. Each college pre-selected 17 candidates for consideration, and the remaining applicants were then divided up among the five colleges by West College on the basis of stated college preferences. A committee of administrators within each college selected 12-13 of the candidates and wait-listed several others.

The Masters then met, each with their list, to compare and finalize decisions. Applicants not chosen by one college may be picked up by another if a Master feels the person merits the selection. Similarly, if an applicant doesn’t quite fit the specific profile of the college considering him, they may recommend that another college pick him up.

The last step, essentially a safeguard against overlooking qualified individuals, means that no college is responsible for the rejection of an applicant. So although the individual colleges distribute acceptance letters, West College is left with the unenviable job of sending out rejection notices. This handling of “dirty work” highlights the diminished, peripheral role that West College has assumed in the RA selection process.

Until 1983, the entire RA program was conducted by West College officials from start to finish. Since the institution of the residential college system, the Council of Masters has pushed for a decentralization of administrative control, and for more college autonomy in the process of selecting RA’s. Assistant Dean of Students Patsy Cole described the transfer of responsibility from the West College to the Masters as a “gradual break” which has left the Masters and their staffs responsible for the majority of the selection process.

Even the required West College interview is conducted for the benefit of the colleges. The notes compiled by the interviewers (in most cases an administrator and a current RA) are sent directly to the colleges. “The purpose of the West College interview is to add further information,” says Cole. “My responsibilities include coordinating the orientation and selection process, therefore I can’t speak on how it is run.”

Emory Elliott, Master of Butler College, supports the preeminence of the colleges in the decision-making process. “When the colleges were created, it made sense to the masters and the deans to place the RAs under each individual college. We feel that it’s an important plus to the system and that the strengths of this design far outweigh its weaknesses.”

Elliott praises the move toward decentralization, noting that the selection process has subsequently become more flexible and individual. “Each college has a somewhat different character, and much of the way this tone is communicated to new freshmen is through the RAs. So it’s important for the colleges to pick up people who seem to agree with the tone and temperament of the college.”

Critics of decentralized selection question the extent to which an applicant’s previous involvement with the college staff influences the ultimate selections made. A Master and members of the college’s staff will most likely be familiar with many of the applicants.   In the worst possible case, outright favoritism and prejudice may be seen as the cause for a selection or a rejection. Critics wonder how else but through prior contact could the Masters preselect 17 applicants.

Nancy Weiss, Master of Mathey College, strongly denies than any irrational biases come into play in the decision making process. “Everyone is considered equally. In terms of subjectivity—certainly it exists, every selection process is subjective. It’s not an objective process. But favoritism—absolutely not. That’s simply not the case. Some of my favorite people don’t get selected.”

A current Mathey RA who was involved in the selection process disagrees with Weiss. “I think that the process shows favoritism—favoritism that leans towards people in the college already. It seems to me that people are being selected to be RAs who seem to have had other ties elsewhere in the college. And I believe mistakes are being made.

“[Familiarity with a specific college] doesn’t mean that they’re going to be better RAs. I understand that the Masters want to assemble a group of people that they can work with, but I think they’re bending over backwards a little too much. A lot of people don’t get the consideration they should, and many good people are passed up.”

Dan Nelson, an assistant master in Mathey College, admits to the difficulties in the RA selection, yet defends it. “One of the things that is hard about the process is when people you know do apply and don’t make it. I think it just shows how strong and how qualified our applicant pool is that we can’t take people we know and like. We try to look at each application individually.”

However, many veterans of the selection process remain convinced that politicking amidst the Masters is rampant, and that the colleges make many questionable selections. One concern is that some applicants with questionable qualifications campaign among a college’s staff and are selected as a result of such “brown-nosing,” while many less well-connected but highly qualified applicants are left out in the cold. Disgruntled applicants point to the high percentage of RAs who are chosen in their “home” college as proof of favoritism; for example, 11 out of the 12 RAs chosen in Mathey College this year were Mathey residents.

Weiss denies any discrimination against out-of–college applicants and attributes the high percentage of Matheyites chosen as Mathey RAs to the disproportionately high percentage of Mathey applicants who wanted to stay in their college. “So many people from Mathey indicated it as their first choice that it was inevitable that a great majority of the final selections would be from Mathey. If all of the qualified people in California applied to Princeton, I’m sure that Princeton would reflect a high California contingent. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the University favors Californians.”

Elliott also stressed the equanimity of the process. “Everyone is treated equally, and we’re going to pick the people we know would make good RAs. It’s in the Master’s best interests to have the best group of people he can find to work with.”

However, horror stories and broken hearts still abound among the rejected applicants. Rumors of prospective RAs leaving in tears after brutal interviews are matched by stories of questionable social relationships between college officials and applicants. Several current RAs and alternate RAs were rejected without explanation. And everywhere, seemingly qualified applicants were left questioning the selection process that decided they weren’t “RA material.”

One way to improve the process, one RA sees, is to increase student input. “I feel very strongly that we need more input. We live with the people involved and know them far better than an interview could determine.” Peter Hammond, currently an RA in Mathey College, agrees: “One thing that they ought to emphasize more is having present RAs come and talk about the people they know. [The RA’s] information is more impressive.”

Hammond who applied to Rockefeller College this year but was reappointed in Mathey, suggests that a centralized selection process would be more fair. “If West College could pick out the top 50 people and then have the colleges pick from there, that would have advantages, such as letting fewer good people slip by. That way everyone would be judged against each other, not just against the people applying to a certain college.” However, Hammond does believe in the sincerity of the colleges. “I do think that the interviewers and all the people involved in the process, do take great pains to really get to know people as well as they can and be fair about their decisions.”

Many structural changes in the process such as increased centralization are unlikely. The Masters do not claim that the process is perfect, but they are pleased with its basic design. As for West College, Cole states, “I don’t foresee any great change. At present the decision aspect rests in the colleges. Any changes must be initiated by the colleges.” But Cole remains open to suggestions. “I would appreciate hearing any concerns a student might have, and I’m sure the Masters would also. We need to know how to make it more fair.”

Whether the current RA selection process is truly unfair or not remains to be seen. Every selective process breeds its share of discontents. Yet, critics feel that the Council of Masters are acting with almost total autonomy and that there are few if any checks on their decision making power. Allegations of favoritism within the colleges can never be tested, but a centralized selection process directed by West College might be more consistent.

The ultimate test of the decentralized selection process will be the performance of next year’s RAs. “Think of it this way,” says Elliott, “The prime motive behind the Master’s thinking is self-interest—you’re going to spend a year with these people. If they’re not first rate, the Master and the college staff will suffer. That’s why I think this business of unfairness is simply not the case.

“It can’t be the case. The Masters would have to be fools.”

“When it’s time to change,

You’ve got to rearrange,

Who you are and

 What you’re gonna be.”

–Silver Platters

If there’s one thing I learned from the Brady Bunch, it’s that boys are boys, and girls are girls;  one can never be the other.  But at Princeton, “where the men are men, and the women are too,” such maxims don’t hold.  Where else could the chorus of the college song read,

In praise of “Old Nassau,” my boys,

Hurrah!  Hurrah!  Hurrah!

Her sons will give, while they shall live

Three cheers for “Old Nassau.”

Since 1969, people who are neither “boys” nor “sons” have been attending this University.  Now they constitute about 35% of the population.  The Chairman of the Daily Princetonian, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the Nassau Weekly, and the President of the Honor Committee would probably be offended if one referred to them in the masculine.  Women are here at Princeton, I believe, and it looks as though they are here to stay.  It’s time for the good ol’ boys of “Old Nassau” to come to terms with the fact that they now have sisters.

In  March, 1859, the Nassau Literary Magazine published “Old Nassau”, the winner of their first song-writing contest.  The words were written by Harlan Page Peck of the class of 1862, who intended it to be sung to “Old Lang Syne.”  The music was soon rewritten by Karl A. Langlotz, a professor of music and German.  Though not meant to be the definitive college song, it became so popular that it was sung at all gatherings of Princeton students and alumni.

Today, 125 years later, the song is out of date, and it is time to find a new one.  Not only will we be acknowledging the rights of women to be included in the college song, but we will be fulfilling the wishes of the first sponsors of the song,  the editors of the Nassau Literary Magazine:

PRIZE SONG.–We are gratified to present our readers this new feature in College literature, not only on account of its own merits, for it is weaned and will take care of itself, but because we hope it will not be left by future editors to wend a lonely way through life, and its gray hairs be brought in sorrow to the grave through want of a companion.  Let others follow it, and then the time will soon come when “Old Nassau’s” sons–would that there were daughters too–roused to healthy rivalry, will emulate and provoke each other to noble strife.– Editor’s Table, Nassau Literary Magazine, March 1859. (Emphasis added.)

We have been negligent in providing “Old Nassau” with a successor.  It is past its prime, and should be put to rest.  I therefore challenge the poets/composers of Princeton to write the song that will reflect the present nature of the University and lead us all in praise of “Old Nassau”.  I envision it going something like this,

It’s the story, of a place named Princeton,

Where the ivy climbs up every stony wall.

And the bell rings nice and loud, on the hour,

On top of Nassau Hall.

It’s the story, of a pack of Tigers,

Who are cleaning up in every sport they know.

They like teamwork, playing well together,

Yet they don’t let it show.

There was one time, when the students were too mellow,

And they needed something much more than a punch.

Write a song to somehow make them angry,

And that’s the way they’ll learn to love the “Princeton Crunch.”

The “Princeton Crunch!”  The “Princeton Crunch!”

That’s the way we will sing the “Princeton Crunch.”

Weekly Nassau (12/13/84)

WEISS: “ZONING IS GOING FORWARD”

By E. Randol Schoenberg (Randy) (’88), Staff Writer

As a member of the Council of Masters, Weiss has influenced the recent decision to create resident advisor zones in the residential colleges. “The Council has been talking about the configuration of RA groups since the beginning,” she says. “In the beginning, we said we wanted to hold out freshman rooms, and the Residence Committee said no.” Nevertheless, the masters continued to receive complaints from freshmen ranging from “I don’t see my RA because he lives five entryways way from me” to “It seems artificial when my RA comes to visit, like he’s just making his rounds.” Similarly, RAs complained it was difficult to do the job with their groups so spread out. The Council adopted zoning as a solution to the problem.

“The RAs proposed zoning as a way of balancing two different kinds of interests: making RA groups work, and taking into account the need for rising sophomores to have a broad choice of rooms,” Weiss explains. “Zoning was a compromise—not holding out freshman rooms, and not the other extreme, having sophomores choose all the rooms to the detriment of the RA groups.”

According to Weiss, last year the Residence Committee temporarily vetoed a proposal that would have created zones before room draw. The Committee suggested that instead of the RAs choosing rooms first and often finding themselves surrounded by sophomores and separated from their advisees, the RAs should choose their rooms after the rising sophomores. Weiss says that this plan did not alleviate the problems, because the colleges still had to spread out the RA groups to include freshmen in areas where sophomores predominated. The RAs had to choose between geographical proximity and equally sized groups. They chose geographical proximately and ended up with groups of 14 to 25 students. “This made it hard to assign academic advisors,” Weiss says, “and we still have problems with freshmen who are too far away.”

When the Council this fall announced its intention to begin zoning next year, Residence Committee members claimed that they had not been involved in the decision-making process. Weiss defends the administration: “The notion that there was no consultation I find at variance with history as I experienced it. I sat with Betti Irminger and talked out concerns in the spring. Dean Lowe talked to them all fall. There were a lot conversations.” While she admits that the Council and the Residence Committee never formally sat down together, she says, “I think they had an appropriate advisory role.”

Betti Irminger, chairman of the Residence Committee, disagrees. “They first presented us a vague plan last year, just two weeks before we had to publish the room draw booklet. There was not enough time to implement it. We requested a meeting with Dean Lowe last spring. He met with us and said that the Council was basically set on zoning. We sent a letter to the council saying that we wanted to work out the issues, hear their views, and express our views.

“Later in the spring, Arthur Greenspan and I requested a meeting with Dean Lowe to discuss the direction of the Residence Committee—we did not intend to discuss zoning. When we arrived at his office, Nancy Weiss was there too. The meeting turned into a zoning discussion. But it was not a formal meeting and we were not prepared for it. At that meeting, they said that the masters would develop zoning plans over the summer and would show them to the committees when we got back to the school in the fall, but they never did present them to us.”

Irminger continues: “In late September, I asked Dean Lowe about the zoning proposal and he said, “Yes. There will be zoning.” It was clear then that they were going to make no effort to consult us. There was nothing we could do. Dean Lowe met with David Albagli and me in mid-October. He told us again that zoning was definitely going through, and he said that he thought that there would be little or no room for student input at that point. Dave and I met with the masters individually in November, and it was evident that they were set on their plans. It seemed clear to us that there was no chance of making any changes.”

Lowe differs with Irminger’s version of what transpired in their meetings this fall. “Three or four weeks into the semester I met with Betti and Dave. I related to them that the role of the Residence Committee and the Residential Colleges was being clarified, but that we still wanted input. I want them to understand that they have an important role.” At the same time, Lowe admits a failure to fully explain that role. “In planning for the inauguration of the Residential Colleges, one detail not attended to was the sit down with the Residence Committee and explain their relationship to the Residential Colleges.”

Abagli agrees: “The link-up between the colleges and the Residence Committee was never clarified.”

Billy Cyr, an RA in Mathey College and co-author of the Mathey zoning plans, also counters Irminger’s accusations and faults the Residence Committee for what he sees as its lack of initiative. At Weiss’s request Cyr drew up the zoning plans last June and sent them to Lowe, Weiss, and the Residence Committee. “Lowe and Weiss wrote back to thank me, but the Residence Committee never responded. They never called, never never asked to discuss the letter, never asked a thing,” Cyr says. “They knew that plans were being drawn up, and that there was new data. They tied their own hands. They expected a golden invitation, and since they didn’t get one, they failed to address the issue.”  Lowe adds, “I think the Residence Committee has had some difficulties.”

Albagli, chairman of the Residence Committee’s Room Draw subcommittee, feels that from the beginning, the Committee could do nothing. “We emphasized in a letter last spring the importance of the masters getting together with the Residence Committee. Lowe told us in September that zoning was going through, but the masters all said it was tentative. They gave the impression that we could have done something when in actuality we could do nothing.”

In contrast, Stan Katz, Master of Rockefeller College, believes that students can still have a say in the zoning decision. In the December 7 issues of Rock Talk, he writes, “So far as I know, plans for next year are not final. For the past two years, the Council of Masters has proposed zoning to the Residence Committee. For the past two years it has been rejected. For the past two years the Dean of Students has accepted the decision of the Residence Committee. This year the Council of Masters has again suggested zoning, and I believe (but do not know) that the Dean of Students is favorable to the idea.”

“There is no question in my mind but that there will be zones,” says Lowe. “I suppose it’s not final until we meet to officially approve I, but we’re at least close to that point.” Lowe expects that the zoning plan will be approved before students leave for break next week.

Abagli is also frustrated with the masters’ reluctance to inform the students of their zoning plans. “Betti and I talked to Nancy Weiss in November. When we asked her when she would publicize the zoning plans, she did not answer. We asked if it would be before February, and her attitude was that the students will find out when they find out.”

While Cyr says that Weiss asked him to explain the plans to the Mathey College Council three weeks ago, he admits that that may have been a little too late “Dean Lowe should have arranged a campus forum. For political reasons they should have asked the students, but that couldn’t have added a lot. Sophomores (within the colleges) have gone through at most one room draw; the RAs are more tuned into the problems (of RA groups).”

Cyr supports the Council of Masters’ zoning decision. “The masters did exactly what they should have done.” Praising Weiss for her involvement in the issue, he says, “Weiss was very supportive. She kept pushing the Council of Masters to discuss the zoning proposal. She was the perfect administrator. Things got done on time, the right way. She made sure I had all the information needed to draw up the plans.”

Concerning Weiss’s role in the Council of Masters, Lowe only says, “She as well as other masters had been considering the zoning idea from the beginning.” He considers it inappropriate to comment on her involvement in more detail. “The mode of decision in the Council is by consensus,” He says. “It’s not a vote. A sense of the meeting emerges.”

Weiss sees the struggle between the Council of Masters and the Residence Committee as a conflict between two groups who think they have the right to make final decision on residential life policies. “The Residence Committee didn’t veto our proposal—that’s the difference,” she believes. She feels that the Residence Committee perceives their role as something more than it actually is. “I believe their role is an advisory one. They believe that they should make final decisions.”

The problem began when the residential colleges were created. “Other people entered the system with an interest in student residential life. The Residence Committee, quite understandably, felt it had a decision-power—it had advisory power all along.” Lowe confirms Weiss’s point. “They have an advisory responsibility. They don’t have the administrative responsibility that I and other administrators have.”

Irminger and other Residence Committee members, though, feel slighted by the Council. As she puts it, “The Residence Committee is an advisory Committee, but once we expressed concern and dissatisfaction, we were left out. The Council bypassed the Committee because we would have been an obstacle to plans they were determined to implement.”

Weiss defines the Council of Masters as “a group of administrators who consider policy issues for he colleges. It doesn’t hand down decision. It’s a group of administrators who think out policy.” Finally in response to the as yet unpublished Class of ’88 poll on the importance of RAs in freshmen life, Weiss says, “I don’t think the poll will have an effect. The zoning plan is going forward.”

Part 2 (seemingly separate article also by ERS on same pages as article supra)

Nancy Weiss is involved in another controversy, this one over the Mathey College Blacks Students Table. Her refusal to sanction black students’ closed meetings to discuss that they term “sensitive issues, unique to the black community” prevents them from using College facilities to publicize their closed meeting. The group is thus unable to draw members into the discuss by advertising in the Mathey Messenger, on College bulletin boards, and on the easel on the way to the dining hall. Critics charge that the administrative rule being applied to the group is unfair and that students have not been adequately involved in the decision–making process.

According to Weiss, the problem arose at a staff meeting in early October when Sharon Grant-Henry, assistant master in Mathey College and sponsor of the Black Students Table, announced the group’s fall schedule including a proposed session on “what it means to be a minority at Princeton University.” “I asked whether it would be an open meeting,” Weiss recalls. “I had in mind the forum last year at the Third World Center on being black at Princeton, which I attended and felt was an informative and moving discussion of problems of racial tension here.

“The staff discuss the ‘sensitivity’ of the meetings and the desirability of no one being turned away, because of the color of their skin,” Weiss continues. “Sharon said that we should sanction occasional closed meetings. I suggested we continue the staff conversation to discuss the complicated and difficult issue which was affected by University policy, and asked Dean Lowe to talk with us. After that (second) meeting there was no consensus within the staff, so I asked to talk with the students,” Weiss explains.

On November 15 Weiss and Eugene Lowe met with members of the Black Students Table and told them that the University could not sanction closed meetings of any kind, and that their only recourse was to take the issue up with the Undergraduate Life Committee, which is made up of students and administrators and makes recommendations to the faculty and administration.

That first meeting caught David Jackson and the other members of the Black Students Table by surprise. Jackson says, “I was under the impression we were going to discuss what solutions could be found to our problems. Instead they said, ‘This is University policy. Your needs can’t be met this way.’” Jackson wonders why the issue was ever brought up; as he says, “there wasn’t a need to raise the issue in the first place—no one else ever came to the meetings and we never advertised them as closed. We felt singled out unfairly for a policy that isn’t even applied in the case of the Women’s Center.”

Weiss explains, “The problem is that an official University activity is supposed to be open to participation by members of the University community.” She points to passages in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities and the student organizations charter which forbid discrimination and discourage “clandestine” groups. “The principle by which this University operates is one of openness,” she argues. “And openness protects the minorities from being excluded from access to resources and opportunities.”

Commencing on the distinction made in granting the Women’s Center the right to have closed meetings, Weiss, says, “The Women’s Center is a problem. It is difficult to justify closed sessions. I would want to hear more bout it. It’s a question of when any exceptions are appropriate; I don’t think exceptions are appropriate. You can’t have an open group transform itself into something private or closed. I find that inherently contradictory.”

While Weiss concedes that black students may need to meet privately, she says, “The challenge is to satisfy that need, and not do violence to the principle that all official University activities are open. We are trying to find ways to facilitate the development of a support structure for black students. This can be done in a different forum.”

Weiss suggests that the inflammatory press coverage may have polarized the issue: “The ‘Prince’ has made it more of a controversy than it is:  The first piece misstated issues; the second stated issues a little more clearly. I’ve learned that when you play a public role, you cannot control your publicity.”

Jackson complains that administrators ignored students while deciding not to sanction the closed meeting, but then left it up to them to find a solution to the problem. “I don’t feel that (Weiss) was out to hurt someone, it just could have been handled better,” he says. “I think a lot of administrators, not just Nancy Weiss, feel that they are surrogate parents to kids who can’t make decisions. That’s not the way to deal with 18-21 year-olds. There is no excuse for not getting students involved. I’m not just going to let administrators take advantage of me.”

Yvonne Gonzalez, Chairman of the Mathey College Council, agrees that in this issue and the zoning issue, students were not included in the discussion until too late. “It should have been through to the (Mathey College) Council earlier,” she says. “They didn’t let us know—just like the zoning proposal.” Gonzalez hopes that student opinion will be considered in the future. “Weiss has publicly apologized for the oversight, and in the future she will meet with the Council Chairman once a week, so things like this do not happen again.”

When dialogue is reestablished, it was purely student-initiated. David Jackson met with Gonzalez to ask the Mathey Council for help in finding a solution to the problems facing black students. Today, Jackson and a committee formed by the Mathey College Council are presenting he Undergraduate Life Committee with a proposal to form a University Committee on Minority Problems. Jackson hopes that the ULC will approve his proposal “so that issues like this do not become so volatile.”

If the zoning decision seems final, the closed meeting policy discussion is far from over. The administration is contemplating the introduction of minority support networks similar to those at Yale and Harvard. “We are now engaged in instructive discussion,” Weiss says. “The problem of the need of support is not confined to Mathey College.”