 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Yale Alumni Magazine is owned and operated by Yale Alumni Publications, Inc., a nonprofit corporation independent of Yale University. The content of the magazine and its website is the responsibility of the editors and does not necessarily reflect the views of Yale or its officers. |
|
I enjoyed the piece on “Underground Yale: The Hidden Collections” (January/February). It reminded me of my first week in the Hall of Graduate Studies. A number of us were exploring the basement looking for something to do and found a door labeled “Recreation Room.” Inside, arrayed in orderly rows, were hundreds of porcelain toilets.
More on the military David Bookstaber '99 (Letters, January/February) stated that “the military does not 'discriminate' against gays.” The day that open heterosexuals, too, are given a general discharge from the service is the day his argument will make any sense. In reading Robert Burt’s article (Forum, January/February) I must conclude that he has never been in the military and knows very little about why and how it exists. The military breaks things and kills people. It is not a place for social engineering on any level. It tells you when to get up in the morning and when to go to bed. It tells you when to eat and provides what you eat. It is a regimented existence. I know because I’ve been there, done that. I was attached to the paymaster department of the Marine Air Corps, auditing enlisted payrolls. I was involved in Section 8 discharges of homosexuals. I can tell you that I had no feelings one way or the other about them, except I knew they would be safer outside the military than in it. That’s harsh, but true. Also, since I’ve been involved in community theater for several years, I have some good friends who are homosexuals. So don’t make me out as some radical homophobe. The military has to have good order and discipline. Nothing can get in the way of that. Homosexuals are not conducive to that aim. The military is not a 9-to-5 job. For instance, fraternization is not permitted. Why? Good order and discipline. There are all kinds of discrimination in the military. The DOD has every right to withhold funds from a university. Alumni also can withhold contributions. After all, federal funds belong to the taxpayers. I’ll bet Mr. Burt wouldn’t want a referendum on university military recruiting by the American people. What other political views are injected by the Law School, not only in job interviews but in indoctrination of the students? And who is paying the cost of the lawsuits and is the time spent on them done outside of classroom hours and not on university time or equipment? How about a little investigation of the money and time issues? Law School spokeswoman Janet Conroy responds that the school “is not a party to the lawsuit, nor is it providing any financial support for it.”—Eds. Peter Schuck argues (Forum, January/February) that the Law School should assist military recruiters, just as it assists other recruiters, even though the military discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Schuck’s argument is that to do otherwise is to make decisions for students, rather than to let them make decisions for themselves. This argument misses two key points: First, the Law School permits interested students and groups to invite the military and to use Law School meeting rooms. Second, there is no such thing as neutrality in such a setting. The Law School makes pedagogical choices all the time, when it decides which faculty to hire, what curriculum to teach, what programs to administer, and what conferences to run. Administering an anti-discrimination policy teaches the students that certain forms of discrimination are, in the views of the Law School, wrong. Teaching institutions should not shirk from advancing moral views, even as they permit students and student groups to use Law School space to invite recruiters who violate those moral norms. Peter Schuck describes the policy of “opposition to gays in the military” as “resoundingly endorsed by a democratic (and Democratic) Congress, affirmed by administrations of diverse ideological stripes, upheld by the courts, and preached by some of the great religions to which many of the students subscribe.” But the military’s position is that it is opposed to people being openly and actively gay—closeted, self-hating gays are perfectly okay, and there are presumably plenty of them being allowed to stay in the military. What’s more, opposition to people engaging in overt homosexual behavior in the military is a policy that has only been challenged very recently. To describe it as the result of a “hard-won political and moral consensus,” as Schuck does, is laughable nonsense. I’d be interested to know what religions (not clerics) preach opposition to gays in the military, or what he considers to be a “resounding endorsement”—I seem to remember that there was in fact considerable controversy on the issue. Slavery was, by the way, affirmed by administrations of diverse ideological stripes and upheld by the courts, and Christian preachers in the pre-Civil War South did in fact support it. The protection of slavery in the South could very accurately be described as the result of a hard-won political and moral compromise, if not consensus. Yale Law School professors of that time might have been out of line in instituting suits that attempted to keep the supporters of slavery from recruiting on campus for jobs in slave-owning companies. I wish they had done it, though.
Our new look: pro and con Congratulations on a truly superb January/February issue! As a third-generation Yalie and a proud member of the Class of '57, I have seen more than my share of issues of the Yale Alumni Magazine, and this one tops them all! If this is what is to come, we all have a lot to look forward to in the issues ahead: excellence in design and layout, wonderfully thoughtful selection of articles, and, most important, truly outstanding writing! The new design is a “10.” I salute you! Congratulations on your stunning makeover. Everything about the new format makes the magazine look fresh. (I particularly loved the headings above the letters and the alumni notes.) I used to think the alumni magazine at Berkeley, where I am a professor emeritus, was the best in the business, but you’re pressing us to improve so we can keep ahead. You’ve done a wonderful job. Hats off! The font is way too small in the January/February issue. Maybe it’s my eyes, but you have lots of loyal readers whose eyes are older than mine. Several readers—of varying ages—wrote to say they think the type is too small. We’re looking into enlarging it.—Eds. I do not like most magazine new formats, but this one is excellent. All that one would expect from Yale and thankfully less of what one would expect from present-day “culture.” The photos of Richard Barnes (“Underground Yale”) deserve special mention. Some show exquisite rendering of light and excellent composition. The light looks like digital photography. What equipment was used? Other photos in the magazine have an improved look, although not quite as brilliant as Mr. Barnes's. Are you using a new printing process? Thank you. Mr. Barnes is indeed distinguished in the field of museum and architectural photography. He took his photos not with a digital camera but with a view camera that produces 4” x 5” color transparencies. Our improved printing is thanks to our usual printer, Perry Judd’s.—Eds.
Learn languages in situ The loosening of distribution requirements (“Building a Better Yalie,” January/February) is a welcome development. They should be abolished entirely. Distribution requirements exist as a compromise among interest groups within the faculty to ensure that each group has enough warm bodies in the classrooms. It is a paradox of the American economy that the customer is always right when buying a meal, clothing, or a car—yet always wrong when spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a university education. The foreign-language requirement in particular is a mistake. The American university is the worst place in the world to learn a modern language. Students want to learn a modern language to converse, yet the American university exposes them to the bad accents of their instructors and their fellow students. They spend hours learning word endings and gender, grammar, and syntax; yet native speakers elide the endings, use ungrammatical slang, and speak in sentence fragments. Slang and idioms in textbooks are out of date before they are printed. Videos and tapes never convey the diversity of native speakers' accents, which vary according to region, class, education, ethnic origin, age, gender, and even sobriety. Americans who have studied a language in college are always noticeable by the way they overstress word endings and articles, speak in a flat monotone rather than the musical language of the native, and construct sentences with verbs where a native would use a sentence fragment. One can learn more by spending four months in the country where the language is spoken than by studying that language for four years at Yale. By insisting on a language requirement, Yale has ensured that the world will be filled with more generations of Americans speaking foreign languages painfully and badly. Last fall, the faculty approved a series of changes to the foreign-language requirement recommended by the Committee on Yale College Education. One of these changes allows students to use an approved study-abroad program to fulfill the final semester of the requirement.—Eds.
Numbers count I chose history as my undergraduate major, and would happily do it again—Donald Kagan was just one of the great teachers who made the past come alive. I certainly share his disdain for the idea that a place such as Yale should be shaping the undergraduate curriculum towards students' likely career paths (“Building a Better Yalie,” January/February). Yet the news that the college will begin requiring courses in quantitative reasoning is most welcome. This is an important step forward for Yale as an educator of thriving citizens and tomorrow’s leaders. Professor Shankur has it exactly right: “An understanding of statistics is very important to functioning in our society.” I would only change that statement to read, “in any society.” That’s been true for quite some time, and it’s only becoming more true every day. I’m glad to see Yale realizing it, to the lasting benefit of its students.
Ground Assault? I object to Jacques Leslie’s review of Karl Zinsmeister’s book Boots on the Ground: A Month with the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq (Arts & Culture, January/February). Mr. Leslie’s review could be generously characterized as a vehicle for recounting the glory of his own days as a young reporter in Vietnam. So far, so good—we are all human. My complaint is with his ad hominem attack on the author. Mr. Leslie implies that Mr. Zinsmeister is at best incompetent and at worst a coward. Having graduated from college in 1968, Mr. Leslie is old enough to know better than to libel someone. And I am old enough to make the cynical assumption that Mr. Leslie knows little and cares less about Mr. Zinsmeister. I suspect what Mr. Leslie is passionate about is his opposition to the United States-Iraq war. He would do well to articulate his “anti-whatever” ideas on the editorial page and spare us his invective in the book review section. I knew a young man named Karl Zinsmeister many years ago, and I remember him as a daring, determined, and courageous fellow. I bet he still is.
Politically correct Latin? A letter in your January/February issue asks, referring to the presence of both male and female graduates of Yale, “Shouldn’t it be the Yale Alumni/ae Magazine?” Your editorial response was, “Yes. But we’ve sacrificed correct Latin for streamlined typography.” Perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to admit error. In Latin grammar, the masculine subsumes the feminine—while the masculine “alumni” may refer to a group of specifically male graduates, it may also refer to a group of graduates of mixed gender. The feminine “alumnae,” however, refers specifically to a group of females. “Yale Alumni Magazine,” therefore, while arguably sexist in today’s world, is nonetheless absolutely correct Latin. Two other correspondents made the same point. We generally support more inclusive language (we prefer “chair” to “chairman,” for example—to the consternation of more than one reader), and we wouldn’t necessarily rule out applying such reforms even to “dead” languages. But having “i/ae” in our name is too unwieldly for us to contemplate.—Eds.
How democratic is Zimbabwe? The November/December issue reminded me why I subscribe to your magazine: I read the entire issue, cover to cover. One sentence, however, gave me serious pause. In Rick Levin’s Freshman Address, he described the expropriation of wealth (i.e., land) in Zimbabwe as a “triumph of democracy over market forces.” Based on what we see reported regularly, a more accurate description might be the triumph of kleptocracy and cronyism over both democracy and market forces. Whatever the ills begotten by colonialism, we cannot and should not overlook the current impoverishment of the Zimbabwean people, the trampling of free speech, and the government-sponsored violence against Zimbabweans of all colors, perpetrated by an autocracy. It serves Africans little to paper over these problems. Zimbabwe may not be Croatia or Rwanda, but neither is it an example of peaceful, democratic change. By the way, Rick was second reader on my doctoral dissertation.
Rdr cmplnt dept. I received the January/February issue and noticed that my last name had been chopped in half. The last three letters of “Cadieux” had vanished, and the address label reads: “The Reverend Catherine A. Cadi.” As I skimmed the contents of the magazine, I noticed, in the Letters section on page 4, an editorial reply to a query about the correct Latin word for female alums, which stated that “We’ve sacrificed correct Latin for streamlined typography.” On page 9, another reply to a similar complaint states that “Dean Speth has championed ‘environment school” as a short name [for the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies] that reflects the school’s current mission.” On page 11, there is a complaint by George González about “over-editing” of his letter about equally important LGBT issues. Is there a pattern here? While I applaud most of Yale’s vision and goals, I am not happy about my name falling victim to this drive for efficient use of language, nor do I appreciate your disregard for gender-inclusive words or image-specific naming in the interests of “efficiency.” While you can correct the address label, I’m afraid I don’t hold out much hope for the other. To clarify Dean Speth’s intent: the name of the school is still “School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,” as it has been since 1972. Speth prefers “environment school” to the more traditional shorthand, which is “forestry school.”—Eds.
What, a waste? Donald F. Scharf '55 defended the admission of less academically qualified athletes who succeed in their fields after graduation vis-à-vis high academic achievers who are underemployed later in life, arguing that the latter have “wasted a space in the admission group” (Letters, January/February). In reply, I must say that no one—not even a magna cum laude Phi Beta Kappa graduate—plans to be underemployed at his 25th reunion. No one wants deliberately to “waste” his or her space. Unfortunately, sometimes things do not work out as well as one would wish. Fields of work shrink and disappear. Downsizings leave many with difficult choices at midlife. You can be making $100,000 one year, and $10,000 the next. Age discrimination is a fact, and a Yale diploma and a couple of graduate degrees, may even make one “overqualified.” Even the most successful careers depend on good luck and good timing. Moreover, even an “underemployed person” can make the world “a better place for all to live in.”
A team’s track record Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values, the book by William G. Bowen and Sarah A. Levin that convicts Ivy League athletes (“The High Cost of Winning,” September/October), conveniently ignores the fact that there are any number of special interests that aid and abet the admissions process and, therefore, Yale’s mission. Just as the diversity of the student body would be robbed by the derailing of athletic recruiting, so too would it be robbed by the elimination of appropriately inclusive admission stands on cultural, artistic, or (dare I agree with the authors) academic parameters. As a four-year member of the Yale basketball team and captain of the 1990-91 team, I would direct the authors to respond with such preachy academic numbers to the following degrees earned by my teammates: four Harvard MBAs, two Georgetown JDs, and MBAs from the University of Chicago, NYU, MIT, Michigan, and Wharton. In listing these degrees, I fail to mention any number of other top 20 MBA and JD programs that would not be superior enough for the academic elitism reflected in the conclusion of such lofty work. Nor do I point to the two Goldman Sachs managing directors, or any number of hugely successful career paths, among the group. Grade point averages and SAT scores, after all, mean everything. Maybe President Levin should remind his daughter Sarah of the student body’s experience at sold out Penn and Princeton basketball games in recent years. The apparent academic deficiencies of those proudly wearing Yale jerseys certainly did not keep the John J. Lee Amphitheater from both exploding in delight and reflecting the magnetic effect recruited athletes can have on a wonderfully talented and diverse student body.
Corrections Gremlins (or grenlins?) showed up in the January/February issue in the form of two misspellings. In her original letter to the editor, Ann Pecora Diamond refered to “Brownian motion”—not “Brownian notion,” as it appeared in the magazine. And the caption for Richard Barnes’s photo of totem poles on page 39 should have referred to the Abelam tribe of northeast New Guinea, not the Abelan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
©1992–2012, Yale Alumni Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Yale Alumni Magazine, P.O. Box 1905, New Haven, CT 06509-1905, USA. yam@yale.edu |
||