May/June 2010
Letters to the Editor
Professor Karl Kroeber
I and no doubt countless other Columbia College alumni read with sadness the news of Professor Karl Kroeber’s death in the March/April issue [“Around the Quads”]. Over the years, when people have asked me, “Who was your favorite professor at Columbia?” I have immediately replied, “Karl Kroeber, Romantic poetry.” CCT’s description of him as a “demanding but compassionate professor who relentlessly challenged his students” is apt, but I would add that he was a gentle, kindly man, erudite, regal but not overbearing, and oh-so- well-versed in and passionate about his field. He wanted the Romantic poets and his students to be the stars of the class rather than himself, but it was sheer magic when he read aloud the poetry of Browning and Tennyson, holding our small class enthralled. I would think that the greatest reward of teaching is knowing that one had a relatively brief interaction with one’s students, but gave them a gift for a lifetime; some 38 years later, this is how I remember this great professor.
Joshua J. Wiener ’75
Jackson, Miss.
Going Green
In the March/April “Letters to the Editor,” Fred DeVries ’49, ’50E, ’51E complains about the focus on carbon emissions and global climate change. I’m curious about his sources. Certainly his claim about the Arctic sea ice seems dubious, given the maps and graphs available from Cryosphere Today (arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere). I’m baffled by his claim that there’s a limit on the greenhouse effect. While carbon dioxide may become inefficient at retaining heat if the temperature rises too much (and I haven’t done the calculations to show what temperature that might be), other molecules with higher vaporization temperatures will absorb heat we’d rather the Earth could shed.
Mr. DeVries also claims that the greenhouse gas concentration was higher than current levels when the Pennsylvania coal fields formed, but provides no source for this information. The Stanford Solar Center provides a graph showing the run-up in three significant greenhouse gasses (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html), all of which show sharp changes in slope around the industrial revolution. A related source (www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html) points out that we are currently in a deep solar minimum, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but global warming continues.
While the Earth has experienced warm periods, those were before the invention of the modern city. During both the Roman and medieval warm periods, the vast majority of the human population could walk to where their food was grown. Today, we consider 500 miles “local” for food production purposes. I wonder just how healthy the American economy will be if the grain belt (and the Texas desert south of it) moves north. Depending on imports for both energy and food has not historically been a recipe for economic and political stability.
Jennifer Broekman ’93
Fair Lawn, N.J.
Despite my great affection for my classmate Fred DeVries ’49, ’50E, ’51E, I am distressed by his attempt in a recent letter to CCT to debunk the notion of global warming. I hate to say this, but reading it reminded me of one of my favorite cartoons, published in Punch many years ago, that shows a living room with a man kneeling in front of its bookshelves and holding an open book, while a woman (apparently his wife) sitting nearby and knitting under a floor lamp is quoted as saying, “Surely you don’t expect mere facts to sway my opinion!”
With the greatest respect, may I suggest that Mr. DeVries consider the facts and arguments set forth by James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and an adjunct professor of physics at Columbia, in his recent book, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity, reviewed in the American Chemical Society’s newsmagazine Chemical and Engineering News, March 22. Very few educated people, and still fewer scientifically trained folks, believe global warming to be anything other than a truly serious threat that must be dealt with in a serious fashion.
Joseph B. Russell ’49, ’52L
New York City
I just read the latest CCT (March/April). It is very distressing that you published, without any editorial comment, the climate change denier’s letter. The writer made numerous statements of “fact” that are demonstrably false.
For a statement of the urgency of action to slow climate change, read this letter from The National Academies of Sciences, United States of America, and other major countries: www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf.
Sam Silvers ’82, ’85L
New York City
1959
Fred Kaplan makes a compelling case for his main thesis (“1959: The Year Everything Changed,” March/April), but I’d like to comment on his assertion that Allen Ginsberg ’48’s mother, “who had gone insane when he was in high school, lived in an asylum up in the Bronx.”
First of all, Naomi Ginsberg began having psychotic episodes before Allen was born. When she got worse, she was sent to the Bloomingdale Asylum in White Plains, N.Y. (This is the same asylum that had occupied land on Morningside Heights until Columbia bought it in 1892.) When the family could no longer afford that private care, she was moved to the Greystone Psychiatric Hospital in New Jersey. She was in and out of state care for the rest of her life, dying in 1956 in the Pilgrim Psychiatric Center on Long Island. I do not believe that she was ever a patient in an asylum in the Bronx.
Secondly, “going insane” is not a good way to describe what she and her family went through. Although Allen thought of her condition in spiritual rather than medical terms, I think it would be fair to call it a severe and complex mental illness that worsened over time.
My interest in the Ginsbergs goes back to my connection with Allen’s father, Louis, who was my English teacher in 1951–52 at Central H.S. in Paterson, N.J. In early spring 1954, he stopped me in the hall and asked if I had plans for college. He told me a son had gone to Columbia “and enjoyed it very much.” Since this was a life-changing conversation for me, I remember his exact words. He thought I would “enjoy” Columbia, too. Obviously, if I had not listened to his advice, you would not be hearing from me now. Only later, when I became aware of “Howl,” did I connect a kind teacher with his celebrated son.
David Brown ’58
Shelburne, Vt.
In the March/April issue of CCT, there was a wonderful digest of Fred Kaplan’s book about the Beat Generation writers. It featured a photo from a poetry reading (of his “Howl”) by Allen Ginsberg ’48 in 1959. In this photo, an unidentified man was seated behind Ginsberg. Both Marty Janis ’59 and I believe this gentleman to be our erstwhile, wonderful professor of modern poetry, Frederick W. Dupee. Is this correct?
J. Peter Rosenfeld ’59
Evanston, Ill.
[Editor’s note: Indeed, it is former professor Dupee in the photo.]
Thank you for choosing to publish that excerpt of Fred Kaplan’s book on 1959. It enlightened for me the source for the writing of Allen Ginsberg ’48 and Jack Kerouac ’44. But it also reminded me of one of the great characteristics of Columbia: allowing talented young men who were expelled or suspended for rowdy misbehavior, like Ginsberg and Benjamin Jealous ’94, to return to the College and mature into useful citizens and leaders in their fields.
Sol Fisher ’36, ’38L
Pleasant Hill, Calif.
The Rule of Law
The article on Eric H. Holder Jr. ’73, 76L (November/December) shows what a hypocrite he is. Mr. Holder states that the “whole idea of social segregation is disturbing.” Yet the article states that he was “active in a campaign to establish a lounge in Hartley Hall where black students could gather” while he was an undergraduate. If he is against social segregation, then why was he promoting it as an undergraduate? Furthermore , he states he wants to reestablish the “rule of law,” yet he was instrumental in obtaining the pardon of Marc Rich, the fugitive billionaire. It appears that the rule of law does not apply to lawbreakers who make a big contribution to the Democratic Party.
Roman Kernitsky ’62
Colts Neck, N.J.
The decision to try 9-11 terrorists in New York City is stupid — there is no other word. As anyone with a decent education knows, the decision is so obviously stupid on so many levels; there can be no justification for it. Oh yes, one can manufacture sentences that resemble reasons, but they are mere sophistications; they neither explain the decision nor make it right.
Because they are graduates, Columbia publications have, as did CCT in November/December, ostentatiously displayed Attorney General Holder, who claims responsibility for the decision, and President Obama, who from a constitutional standpoint could and should only have made it. However, such boldly public correlations between Columbia and indefensibly stupid decision makers lead me, with more than one degree from Columbia, to duck for cover. Friends who are decently educated otherwise wonder out loud whether Columbia’s reputation has outlived its quality.
While I imagine Columbia will continue to trade on its connection to political power, I wish the College and University would be more discriminating and circumspect with its support.
Daniel F. Johnson ’61, ’62 GSAS,
’66 GSAS
Charlotte, N.C.