Main Menu · Search ·Current Issue ·Contact ·Archives ·Centennial ·Letters to the Editor ·FAQs
Please note that, where applicable, links have been provided to original texts which these letters address. Also, your thoughts may be sent via the online Letters to the Editor section.
A REDEEMING ISSUE
For the past year or two I suspended my modest annual financial contribution. I saw the magazine losing its distinctive focus, sacrificing depth for trendiness, fading into a negligible prelude to the University news and the (always fascinating) obituaries.
But the November-December 1998 centennial issue was a pleasure from cover to cover, reporting history and current affairs with affection, wit, and irony in just the right proportions. To express my appreciation more concretely, and to encourage this editorial direction, I am happy to resume my contribution. It's still modest, but my congratulations are abundant.
Joseph Blatt '70, Ed.M. '77
Belmont, Mass.
RECALLING THE SOCIETY
 "CENTENNIAL" SOLVED John de Duevas's puzzle, "Centennial," in the November-December 1998 issue celebrates the commencement of Harvard Magazine's one hundred and first volume. On November 20 a blindfolded editor drew one from a heap of solutions received by that date. It was the work of Roger Wykes '58 of Ann Arbor, Michigan, and is reproduced above. Wykes, who lists his occupation as "nugatorian" in his most recent class report, is a notable birdwatcher and has composed "a few unfashionable piano rags." His prize is a copy of the lavishly illustrated new book by John T. Bethell, Harvard Observed. The words used to fill the grids, with omitted letters in parentheses, are, in order, as follows. Across: sol(v)e, patr(o)l, pu(l)let, ab(u)se, remit, gu(m)med, rump, seethes, setup, scrum, alae, rite, m(e)galith, r(o)mance, earthe(n), massed, ogees, blend(e)r, (h)assle, area, ardor, c(u)nning, roosted. Down: ster(n)um, humi(d)or, tempe(r), pat(e)lla, mess, sleep, bides, campus, tree(d), regale, guttural, arsen(a)l, anoint, se(n)der, notches, radish, (d)eed, baron, tremol(o), serge, ma(n)age, sacr(e)d. The omitted letters spell the phrase, "Volume One Hundred and One." ILLUSTRATIONS BY LYNNE FOY. Click here for a larger, printable version of the finished puzzle. |
Edward Tenner's "Environment for Genius" (November-December 1998) is an excellent account of the Society of Fellows. Tenner mentions me, but unfortunately gives me credit for "helping found Raytheon." This is a credit that I do not deserve. I came to Raytheon in 1951. Raytheon was founded in 1922 by Laurence Marshall, C.G. Smith, and Vannevar Bush. [Getting was the founding president of the Aerospace Corporation and the force behind the Navstar global positioning system of satellites. ~Ed.]
I consider the five years spent in the society as the acme of my professional life.
Ivan A. Getting, Jf '41
Coronado, Calif.
Tenner's excellent article has become outdated in one respect. He mentions that "...it is striking how few [former fellows] have become...political and business leaders....There have been foundation directors but no secretary of state, governor, member of Congress, Supreme Court Justice, or president of a national research university." While those specific stations in life may yet go unfilled by society alumni, one member has attained the position of U.S. Secretary of the Navy. Richard Danzig, Jf '77, was administered the oath of office for that post by Justice Byron White on November 16, 1998.
Capt. Craig R. Quigley
Special assistant for public affairs
to the Secretary of the Navy
Washington, D.C.
RINDGE REVEALED
The brief biography of Frederick Hastings Rindge ("Vita," November-December 1998) has resounding repercussions in my area, specifically Malibu, that suggest that he may not have been a "model citizen" by some standards.
When he came to Malibu, he bought the 23,000 acres extending from the present Topanga Canyon area to the Ventura County line and set up as the Marblehead Land Company. His rigid refusal to permit any roads or railroads across its property was in direct defiance of all government and private interests. For years his name was a swear word in Malibu.
He demanded certain "conditions, covenants and restrictions" of anyone who purchased any of the Marblehead Land property. Violation of any of the cc&rs would result in forfeit of title: i.e., return to Marblehead. We bought a beachfront home in 1968 and were allegedly required to sign the cc&rs to close the deal. These cc&r's included a prohibition on any non-Caucasian staying on the premises overnight unless he or she was a servant, prohibition against commercial activity, antennas, and the like. I refused to sign and the Realtor said, "Don't worry, the president of the property-owners association on Point Dume is a black lawyer." All those cc&rs expired in 1970.
William F. Pollock, M.D. '43
Pacific Palisades, Calif.
DEGREE DETAILS
In your most interesting article on President Mandela's honorary degree (November-December 1998, page 88), you mentioned the letter to the Boston Globe indicating that 12 people, not three, have received honorary degrees singly outside of Commencement. I think our readers would be interested in who they were.
Alton E. Peters '55, J.D. '58
New York City
Editor's note: see "The College Pump," in this issue.
DON'T PROMOTE BOOZING
I was dismayed to see the photograph on page 111 of the November-December 1998 issue [of a tailgating alumnus dressed in a raccoon coat and holding a drink and a drumstick]. I find it tasteless and singularly inappropriate at a time when so much unfavorable attention is focused on collegiate drinking. Let us not appear to be promoting heavy campus boozing.
Nevin E. Kuhl, M '53
Washington, D.C.
HARVARD'S SPECULATIONS
An article in the New York Times of September 27, 1998, states that Harvard's endowment has lost 10 percent, or $1.3 billion dollars. [See also Harvard Magazine's report on endowment performance, "Unlucky Number?" November-December 1998, page 99.] The article quotes Jack Meyer, president of the Harvard Management Company, in connection with this loss: "About three percentage points resulted from arbitrage trades and the remainder due to the endowment's 13-percent exposure to emerging markets stocks at the start of the quarter." Meyer is also quoted, "Unlike hedge funds, we do not have shareholders who redeem." What we have, although not stated by Meyer, is people contributing money to Harvard College and the graduate schools. And those contributions are trust funds and should be invested as trust funds: U.S. government bonds; U.S. government paper; and stocks and bonds of triple-A-rated corporations located primarily in the United States.
In connection with future fundraising, Harvard will have to issue a disclaimer notice that "funds may be lost in speculative ventures." I realize this is not a pleasant prospect, but it is essential with the manner that trust funds are handled in the present administration.
Harold C. Tint '44
New York City
Editor's note: the article cited by Tint appears to contain an error. As shown in Harvard Management Company's reports, its portfolio guidelines allocate 9 percent of assets to emerging markets, not 13 percent. The five-year annualized rate of return on those investments has been 13 percent, even after a 23 percent decline in fiscal year 1998, perhaps the source of the confusion.
Harvard Magazine asked Jack Meyer, president of the management company, to comment on Tint's letter. He responded, "Investing primarily in government bonds and paper has two major flaws. First, the investment returns would be well below Harvard's return goals, forcing a cut in University spending from endowment of 60 to 70 percent. [Endowment income distributed now accounts for more than one-fifth of University revenue; see page 62 in this issue.] Second, that would provide no protection against inflation and the loss of purchasing power--the greatest risk to the value of the endowment." As to confining investments to stocks and bonds of AAA-rated U.S.-based corporation, Meyer said, "There are so few such corporations that it would be impossible to construct a diversified portfolio."
SHEAVIAN SMUGNESS
Most Harvard grads in the real world know that we must never, ever, even hint at having some piece of knowledge, or insight, that might derive from a fine education, lest we prove what the non-Harvard person always "knew"--that Harvardians are arrogant, patronizing snobs. It matters not that we never have acted that way. The public understands what we are "really like," and is waiting for it.
Unfortunately, "Sheavian Slips," the "College Pump" reminiscence by William Bond about John Shea of Widener Library (September-October 1998, page 84), definitely proves the outsiders' worst suspicions. It is a sad example of our supposed arrogance. To make fun of a man with a Rindge Tech degree from 1905 for his attempt to emulate the vocabulary of those he served for 50 years is most unfortunate. Honor, integrity, and faithfulness are what separate real people from the frauds--and John Shea, as described in the article, had those qualities. Better to leave the malapropisms, collected by immature or cloistered academics, in the stacks where they were found.
Jonathan D. Reiff '60
Edmond, Okla.
"Sheavian Slips" was of more than usual interest to this Boston Irishman. Shea's slips are not slips at all, at all. They're pure James Joyce, each one containing its own sly truth, appreciable only to those who savor the pun amid the fun of the language of the American Gael. Much of it, as in the Old Country, is a form of mocking obsequiousness to the upper classes. The Irish servant class of New England in the early part of this century knew it well.
Joseph M. Foley, M.D. '41
Cleveland
DEFENDING ARCHIE BUNKERISM
"Boy, the way Glenn Miller played
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days..."
Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate, in the excerpt from The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses ("Open Book," November-December 1998) represent a new trend in academia: lashing out against language and policies which specifically include, rather than "offend" or alienate, women, minorities, and other marginalized and disadvantaged groups.
Kors and Silverglate have a simple argument: political correctness (the pejorative term signifying "speech codes" and codes of conduct that are mindful of people on the periphery of the social/political/economic power structure) is nothing short of tyranny. It is ironic that they describe the integration of long-denied viewpoints and an increasing sensitivity to race, gender, and sexual orientation as the death knell to open-minded inquiry, criticism, and debate.
Could Kors and Silverglate be so naive as to believe in the absolute freedom of speech? "Free" speech has always been curtailed, especially for people of color, ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, women, children, and the poor. Perhaps what the authors are reacting to is that marginalized people have begun to influence the standards of acceptability of the speech and conduct of those who, until recently, had unmitigated control over the perimeters of "free" speech and "open-minded" inquiry. Kors and Silverglate represent the resistance to this change in discourse.
Archie Bunker wouldn't have been bothered by a Confederate flag, nor would he have complained about the use of the term "freshman" to describe first-year students. Ah, those were the days...
Mary Godwyn
Wellesley, Mass.
NOT THE STARS AND BARS
May I correct the use of the term "Stars and Bars" for the Confederate flag shown hanging in a Kirkland House window in 1991 ("Open Book," November-December 1998, page 33)? The "Stars and Bars" was just that: originally a circle of seven white stars on a blue field in the upper left, with three bars, red-white-red, to the right and below. After the fall of Fort Sumter, four additional secessions brought the number of stars to 11. Confusion with the "Stars and Stripes" during the Battle of Manassas in 1861 led to a new flag, and it is this, more properly called the Confederate Battle Flag or "Southern Cross," that hung in the window. With the addition of the last two Confederate States, its original 11 stars grew to the definitive 13 shown in the photograph.
David A. West
Blacksburg, Va.
From the exhibition The Art and Science of Finding Time, at the Houghton Library through February 26. HOUGHTON
LIBRARY |
THE EQUATION OF TIME
"Sundial Days" (November-December) left unanswered an interesting question: Does "sundial time" vary from "clock time" by season as well as by longitude?
Kenneth M. Wilson, Ed.D. '59
Lawrenceville, N.J.
William J.H. Andrewes, Wheatland curator of Harvard's Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments, explains: Sundial time varies from mean time, because of the tilt of the earth's axis relative to its path and because of the earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun. Sundial time (apparent solar time) and clock time (mean solar time) agree only four times each year (on or about April 15, June 13, September 2, and December 25) and can vary by as much as 16 minutes. The difference between the two times is known as the equation of time. Apart from Daylight Saving Time, this is the only seasonal difference between the two, but it matters only when you are trying to set your watch to time with a sundial.
HARVARD AND McCARTHYISM
I was disheartened to read the letter of E.L. Pattullo (November-December 1998, page 19) in response to your excerpt from Kai Bird's The Color of Truth: McGeorge Bundy and William Bundy: Brothers in Arms ("Open Book," September-October 1998, page 31) and the evidence of Harvard's cooperation with McCarthyism contained therein. Pattullo, it appears, is an unreconstructed supporter of McCarthyism and Harvard's collaboration with it, though it is hard to see how such collaboration was "essential to the defense of academic freedom in the 1950s," as he says.
What Pattullo's letter artfully avoids is any mention of what was at issue in Bundy's cooperation with McCarthyism. "Complete candor" was the euphemism for naming names, and that was the issue in my case and that of several others I know about. Pattullo speaks of "those accused of security violations," but neither I nor anyone that I know of in my situation was ever accused of "security violations." Wendell Furry and Leon Kamin were the only Harvard faculty members who, to my knowledge, went to trial, and both were accused not of "security violations," but of refusing to name names to the McCarthy Committee or the several other similar committees active at the time. Although Harvard gave them no support in these trials, both, fortunately, were acquitted. None of us was ever accused of any illegal activity of any kind. The issue was entirely one of thought and speech which at that time were considered "un-American."
I don't here want to detail once again my own experience with Bundy. Any interested readers can look up the exchange between Bundy and me in the July 14, 1977, issue of the New York Review of Books. Let me simply say that I had been a member of the Communist Party as a Harvard undergraduate from 1947 to 1949, when I quit the party in anger. My activities were largely as a leader of the John Reed Club, a recognized undergraduate association, which sponsored meetings and discussions. In the summer of 1954 (I was then a graduate student), when Bundy called me into his office and questioned me about my former political involvement, I told him I was willing to speak of my own activities, which involved no illegal actions of any kind, but was not willing to name names in the hysterical atmosphere of persecution of the day. Bundy pressured me to do the one thing I was refusing to do. A few days after I met with Bundy I was interrogated by the FBI and put under great psychological pressure to name names. It seems to me unlikely that Bundy's call and that of the FBI, so close together in time and with the same intent, were unrelated events. Bundy threatened my fellowship and my future possibility of academic employment if I did not show "complete candor."
In the spring of 1955, the Department of Social Relations put up my name as a candidate for an instructorship in the following academic year. There followed a series of further conversations with Bundy. In connection with our exchange in the New York Review of Books, Bundy sent me a copy of a letter from him to "Mr. [Nathan] Pusey," dated April 27, 1955, in which he urged the Corporation to appoint me to the instructorship, predicting that I would survive the likelihood of a "modest ruckus" because I would be a more creditable witness than any of the other individuals in my situation had been so far. The Corporation refused to give me the assurance that I would not be denied reappointment solely for not naming names, and I took a post-doctoral fellowship at McGill University in Canada. In 1957, when McCarthy was dead, I accepted an appointment at Harvard without conditions and remained on the faculty until, having reached the rank of full professor, I left for Berkeley 10 years later. In his letter answering mine in the New York Review of Books, Bundy said my case was the only one in which he disagreed with the Corporation. I was pleased at Bundy's assessment of my character, but it did not change the fact that his primary concern had been to get me to "fully cooperate" with any investigative committee. In a telephone conversation in connection with the 1977 exchange, Bundy, who was trying very hard to get me not to publish my letter, said, "Bob, we're on the same side now." I didn't agree in 1977 and I still don't today. I believed in 1954-55 that Harvard's collaboration with McCarthyism was wrong, and I believe it to this day. In 1977 I asked that the Harvard records of the relevant transactions of 1954-55 be made available to independent scholars to determine the degree to which Harvard collaborated with McCarthyism, but I was told there was a 50-year rule on such disclosure. In 2004-05, if I am still alive, I will be interested to get to the bottom of this matter.
Finally, in refutation of Pattullo's assertion that Harvard's collaboration was "essential to the defense of academic freedom in the 1950s," I would like to point out that a number of other universities acted very differently when faced with similar situations. I know, for example, that Columbia, Princeton, and the University of Chicago all handled similar cases in a way that defended faculty and students rather than helped to coerce them. I believe it was they, and not Harvard, who were defending academic freedom. I owe a great deal to Harvard and have no interest in condemning it, but its behavior in the McCarthy period was one of its darkest hours.
Robert N. Bellah '48, Ph.D. '55
Elliott professor of sociology emeritus
University of California, Berkeley
DIVERSITY NEEDS NO DEFENSE
Regarding "Affirmative Admissions," Daniel Steiner's discussion of Derek Bok's and William Bowen's book, The Shape of the River ("The Browser," November-December 1998, page 27), it amazes me that there is any discussion, much less controversy, about the principle behind affirmative action as practiced by colleges and universities. Since these institutions are in the business of educating the people, it should go without saying that their student populations should reflect the population of the country, as far as is practical. I always knew that I owed my place in Radcliffe's class of '64 to the fact that I went to a public school in West Virginia--a state which traditionally has few applicants to Harvard. I know that my SAT scores were lower than many unsuccessful applicants in the Northeast, and I was the salutatorian, not the valedictorian, of my high- school class. I am grateful that the principle of achieving diversity in the student body was applied in my case, and I heartily support applying it in cases having to do not just with geographical, but with racial, religious, and cultural backgrounds. The discussion of whether student diversity "contribute[s] powerfully to the process of learning" should be tangential, and should not be used "as a rationale for race-conscious admissions," especially since it is difficult to document. A rationale is not necessary; the need for student diversity is self-evident.
Sandra Jarrett '64
Port Republic, Md.
TWA FLIGHT 800 THEORY
Harvard Magazine's editorial stewards have lowered its journalistic standards by legitimizing Professor Elaine Scarry's theory for the demise of TWA Flight 800 ("Falling by Wire, Falling by Light," July-August 1998, page 11). Neither the editor nor reporter Craig Lambert appears to have acquainted himself with the publicly available criticism which Scarry's assertions had provoked, and which began prior to Scarry's publication in the New York Review of Books.
Lambert's opening paragraph reiterates Scarry's rhetorical premise: "Could High Intensity Radiated Fields...--electromagnetic transmissions from radio or radar installations--produced by nearby military ships or planes have caused TWA Flight 800 to crash?" Having thus proposed her demonology, Scarry ignores easily verifiable facts in favor of conjecture, half-truths, and irrelevancies. Had either inquired, an average undergraduate electrical-engineering student could have apprised Scarry or Lambert of the distinctions among the physical characteristics of "HIRF" and the electronic emanations of "PEDS" (Personal Electronic Devices) on the one hand, and the susceptibility of communications and navigation avionics systems and electrically operated fuel-system components to interference, on the other.
Scarry failed to inquire for the presence of scientific nexus for her argument that "...HIRFs from military planes had occasionally brought down other military aircraft" before proffering it to explain TWA 800. Had she examined her hypothesis objectively, or made any attempt to normalize the variables among the supposedly predicate mishaps and the TWA occurrence, she would have discovered that the military aircraft reportedly victimized by "HIRF" were configured with "fly-by-wire" or other computer-regulated primary flight-control systems, whereas TWA 800's Boeing 747-100 was configured with an archaic flight-control system--hydraulically boosted mechanical linkages--which is insensitive to electromagnetic influence. In any case, she might have discovered that none of the military ships or aircraft cited as potential sources of "HIRF" carries electronic radiators of sufficient power to have had any effect--lethal or otherwise--at their respective ranges from the TWA target.
Lambert's failure to recognize Scarry's artificial limitation on potential "HIRF" sources to military ships and aircraft "in the vicinity" ("vicinity" ranging from 1.2 to 180-plus miles) calls into question his basic competence to deal with the subject matter. A reporter with rudimentary grasp of the physical principles involved would have recognized, and questioned, Scarry's choosing to omit potential civilian radiation emitters that would have been equally viable sources consistent with her thesis: e.g., FAA Air Traffic Control radars; radio, television, and telephone microwave transmitters; commercial surface-ship radar; commercial aircraft, NWS, and commercial weather radars; et cetera.
For readers who are interested in original critiques of Scarry's paper, a cogent discussion of the technical, scientific, and logical inaccuracies of her "theory" (with references) has been posted by Professor Peter Ladkin at: "https://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/~ladkin/Reports/EMI-TWA800.html". Others are publicly accessible through the Internet "Risks" forum: "https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/".
>Ira J. Rimson '56
Albuquerque
Elaine Scarry responds: the heart of rimson's intemperate letter is his belief that my article in the New York Review of Book was not vetted, never underwent scholarly review, and has no association with legitimate research.
It is hard for me to picture an article undergoing more reviews than my own article had before it was printed (in more than 10 cases initiated by me; in three by the New York Review.) Electrical engineers, physicists, specialists in avionics and aerodynamics, pilots, and several people in the navy or air force gave the article a rigorous line-by-line reading. Readers included people with specific expertise in electronic warfare or electronic interference. One of them, for example, D.V. Giri, is a physicist, an electrical engineer, the designer of microwave antennas and filters, and the coauthor of a leading book on microwave weapon systems. Another, Martin Shooman, is an electrical engineer, a computer scientist, the author of a book on probability levels in accidents, and the scientist who carried out the 1994 NASA study on high-intensity radiated fields.
The National Transportation Safety Board has asked the Joint Spectrum Center (an agency within the Department of Defense that is specifically concerned with remedying interference problems arising from high-powered radar and radio transmissions) to assess the electromagnetic envelope around TWA 800. The Center's study, along with work carried out by NASA, will help the NTSB determine whether any part could have been played by transmissions from military and civilian transmitters in the area.
I hope Rimson will eventually take time to read not only the correspondence about this matter in the New York Review, but also the original 20,000-word article. He will find his questions are directly addressed. The article is long and detailed precisely because readers deserved to be given--and were given-- careful answers to these and many other questions.
THE WELDS AND HARVARD
William F. Weld Sr., who earned the wherewithal for
Jr.'s gift. HARVARD UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES |
What a kick I got out of reading of the Welds who weld us in the November-December 1998 issue ("The Welds of Harvard Yard," by Craig Lambert, page 69). I served with Philip S. Weld '36 in the O.S.S. Det. 101 Kachin Rangers. It was a small outfit--just over 1,000 of us, but there were only a couple of hundred "in country" at any time between 1942-45. Phil and I established the Harvard Club of Northern Burma. He was the president and I was the secretary--two members.
Stuart E. Power '43
Redlands, Calif.
Lambert mentions the first Weld to attend Harvard and the first to graduate, but neither was the first with significant Harvard ties. Captain Joseph Weld, reputedly the richest person in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was among the first donors to the College.
Lambert might also have told the story of the establishment of the Weld professorship in the Law School, which is recounted in Mark DeWolfe Howe's biography of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, A.B. 1861, LL.B. 1866, LL.D. 1895.
James Bradley Thayer, A.B. 1852, LL.B. 1856, a member of the faculty, had been a partner in the law firm where Holmes began his professional career. He also had hired Holmes to assist in preparing a new edition of James Kent's Commentaries. Thayer strongly supported Holmes's appointment to the faculty, but no position was available. So Thayer set out to raise the money to establish a new chair. He consulted Louis D. Brandeis, LL.B. 1877, who had begun practicing law in Boston and who would be Holmes's closest colleague on the Supreme Court 40 years later. Brandeis suggested that Thayer contact William F. Weld Jr. Weld had attended the Harvard Law School, but, apparently after failing Thayer's course, had been denied a degree.
Weld agreed to fund the chair for Holmes from the $3 million that he had recently inherited from his father, one of the Welds profiled in Lambert's article. Weld Jr. proposed, however, that his contribution remain confidential. He was interested in taking his law school degree the following spring, and he suggested that "neither the college nor he should wish to have it supposed that he bid for a degree." Thayer promised to keep Weld's role confidential until "after the degree matter was over." "As to the degree itself," Thayer said, "you may rely on our dealing with you with absolute impartiality." Weld apparently never received a Harvard Law School degree.
The Weld professor in the law school is now Charles Nesson '60, LL.B. '63.
Albert W. Alschuler '62, LL.B. '65
Wilson-Dickinson Professor,
University of Chicago Law School
Chicago