Princetonian Democracy
Sir:
The March 23 article, "A Matter of Background," is incredible. Princeton and the Ivy League have a reputation for traditionalism. The preservation of decent tradition is a worthy thing, but the blind clutching at outworn and bankrupt tradition is not only unworthy, but in this instance vicious. The Daily Princetonian, in commenting on this effort to include all in the notoriously undemocratic upper-class eating clubs, has concluded that some students "did not have a social background which would fit them into the Princeton system," and inquires "Was it fair for the university to admit them?" . . .
To see an eminent university cling to a tradition of snobbery is alarming . . .
JAMES .V. COMPTON
Princeton, '50
Ithaca, N.Y.
Sir:
. . . Princeton as well as the whole Ivy group has never worried about the blood lines of its students, rather are their family's bank accounts given prime consideration. And everyone knows how easy it is and has been to purchase a respectable social position in this country ... It seems peculiar that only those students of the past four years would provide reasons for questioning President Wilson's "democracy" . . .
JOSEPH PAUL MORRIS JR.
Haverford, Pa.
Sir:
. . . Because of our error in article placement, TIME took a report of some current thought regarding Princeton's club system and its relation to admission policy to be an expression of editorial policy, which it was not . . . The university has always considered an applicant's character and school activities as well as scholastic standing in its admissions policy. The Princetonian favors more thorough interviewing to more effectively gauge these factors, but opposes any consideration of "social background."
H. WILLIAM ROLLINS
Chairman
The Daily Princetonian
Princeton, NJ.
The Alsops & Project Lincoln
Sir:
An answer is rather loudly demanded by TIME'S [March 30] story, "Maginot Line of the Air," about our recent series on Project Lincoln and the air-defense problem. TIME asserted that our "implication that Lincoln was the Government's prime concern collapsed like a pricked balloon," when subjected to careful checking . . . We wrote [that] the Lincoln findings are being "seriously considered" by the President and "actively discussed" by the National Security Council . . . Let us look at the facts:
The Lincoln findings have been on the National Security Council agenda for at least five of the seven weekly meetings of the council. They have been actively discussed each time. The Lincoln findings are also being studied in detail by two important advisory groups, whose verdict the President has indicated he will probably accept. One group--the "Seven Wise Men" as they are called at the White House--was formed by the President himself to consider the level and nature of the American defense effort. The other--a special committee on the air-defense problem headed by Mervin Kelly of the Bell Laboratories--was formed by former Secretary of Defense Robert A. Lovett and requested to continue its work by the President. It was the President who insisted that the Lincoln findings remain on the Security Council agenda, so that the problem should not drop out of sight of his highest advisers. The President also took the step of briefing the Republican and Democratic congressional leaders on the air-defense situation . . .
But self-justification is not the primary aim of this letter. We are chiefly concerned, rather, because TIME has encouraged its readers to dismiss as trivial and inconsequential a problem that is enormous and urgent. The evidence suggests that TIME borrowed its attitude from the Air Force. As we wrote in our series, the Lincoln report bypassed the Air Force, and was presented directly to the National Security Council and the White House. As we also stated, the air generals not only resent this "end run"; they also have a professional deformation on the subject of air defense. They say: "Offense is the best defense." They warn against a "Maginot Line of the air." What they really mean is that an air defense may compete, especially for appropriations, with the Strategic Air Command.
One does not need to be a strategist or a scientist to see the flaw in the air generals' argument. We might rely exclusively on the Strategic Air Command if we had a fair chance of striking the first blow. But it is assumed by the Joint-Chiefs of Staff themselves that the first blow, if struck at all, will be struck by the enemy. If we have no air defense, we thus concede to the enemy the opportunity to devastate our cities and our industry, and perhaps to cripple the Strategic Air Command itself by destroying its bases. If we have no air defense, we are only to retaliate after being devastated. Surely this cannot be accepted . . . The truth is that the reasoning of the air generals only makes sense if this country is planning preventive war within the short time of grace still remaining.
. . . Maybe the scientists are wrong. That does not alter the fact of their findings or the fact of the Administration's response to those findings. It seems to us that these undisputed facts are pretty big news in any league, deserving better than dismissal with an easy sneer, and especially from a publication which has always shown TIME'S intelligent interest in defense problems.
JOSEPH AND STEWART ALSOP
Washington
P: TIME assumes that President Eisenhower feels privately what he said publicly. He told his press conference that a committee appointed by the past Administration had submitted a report (Project Lincoln) which he had not studied in detail. No general conclusions, he said, had been reached on it in the National Security Council, the Cabinet or anywhere else. TIME does not dismiss as "trivial and inconsequential" the problem of defense and counterattack against Russia. But it does not hold that a group of scientists necessarily knows more about air defense than the military, nor does it believe that the U.S. will vanish from the face of the earth in two years unless it adopts Project Lincoln.--ED.
Sir:
I am pleased that TIME so aptly put that Alsopian fable in proper perspective.
FRANK H. BUCK JR.
Danville, Calif.
Pretty Picture
Sir:
After so many grim, world-weary, weather-beaten faces, you at last come up with Rosalind Russell's--a clever chick who evidently does what every American woman should do: happily enjoys life and living to the fullest and shows it! Your March 30 cover and story was a joy . . .
JANE FRANCES MATHIS
Tulsa
Sir:
By far your handsomest cover ... It gives the illusion of something wonderful inside . . .
BILL B. FRYDAY
Norman, Okla.
Monstrous Picture
Sir:
Where did Artist Chaliapin get that monstrous picture I March 23] of Malenkov? It would be more fitting on the front of Weird Tales than on TIME ... I really shudder to think that this man might have some influence on the lives of my two small sons . . .
STANLEY SPRECHER
Cheyenne, Wyo.
Sir:
I think your cover was a masterpiece of symbolism. Malenkov stands before death's doors of the No. 1 man of a flaming past . . . Will he follow to a blazing red hell, or shut the doors to a dark future? . . .
R. E. PRAGER
San Francisco
Mr. Malik Explains
Sir:
In your March 23 issue, I read that those who voted for General Carlos P. Romulo as a candidate for Secretary General of the United Nations were: the U.S., China, Colombia, Greece and Pakistan. There is an error in this listing. Lebanon voted for General Romulo. I checked the secret ballot and dropped it in the ballot box with my own hand. Consequently, at least one of those listed by you did not vote for him.
CHARLES MALIK
Representative of Lebanon on the Security Council
Minister of Lebanon in the U.S.
Washington, D.C.
The Cloth & the Congressman
Sir:
Some will differ with your estimation of ex-FBI Agent Congressman Velde when you say that ... "a Congressman who thinks he is going to investigate churches needs to pound the beat a while before he gets promoted to the plainclothes squad [TIME, March 23]."
A Communist is where you find him, and, like the "Red Dean" of Canterbury, cannot seek sanctuary behind a calling which is diametrically opposed to this ruthless philosophy ...
ROBERT FAIRBANK
Morro Bay, Calif. .
Sir:
What makes TIME feel that the pulpits of America are immune to infiltration of Communistic ideology? The halo surrounding some of our pulpits is a lovely pastel pink. The teachings of a social gospel present a most fertile ground for any liberal preacher to lean toward the "left." Remember, the church teaches that "none is infallible." This also includes the clergy . . .
ARTHUR FLAMING
Pastor
Mennonite Brethren Church
Bakersfield, Calif.
Sir:
That yapping you heard was not from the American church members, but from the same pack of lefties who snap at the heels of any who try to expose their ilk ... Why shouldn't the churches be investigated? . . .
MAMY L. BURROUGHS
McMinnville, Tenn.
Oregon's Owl
Sir:
I just read your unfair remarks about Oregon's Senator Wayne Morse in the March 23 issue. Morse is the best man the Western states have in the Senate. His tactics are a little extreme, but effective; and he is a good check on steamroller legislators. He may "chatter" like "a jay," but what he says sounds more like the Wise Old Owl.
BEULAH HAND
Milwaukie, Ore.
Sir:
Wayne Morse is about the biggest egotistical glob of worthlessness in the Senate's pot today, for my money . . .
C. HESSER
Walla Walla, Wash.
U.S. & British Titles
Sir:
In your March 9 issue, I read a review of my son's book, I Joined the Russians. I am amazed at the impartiality and understanding shown by your judgment of my son's attitude during and after the war; it is more than many of his compatriots were willing to do ... I regret, however, that you did not say that the book's British title is The Shadow of Stalingrad . . .
IRENE EINSIEDEL
Campbellville, Ont.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.