September/October 2010
Letters to the Editor
Sweetest ’60 Suite
Hats off to the Class of ’60 on its 50th anniversary reunion, and especially to Professor Nathan Gross ’60 for his heartfelt cabaret performance, full of pith and vinegar, now immortalized online:
Still I’d gladly
Swap a stack of Stetsons
And a rack of Borsalini
To get back one purloined beanie
And start at Columbia again!
Oh, yes!
Jamie Katz ’72
New York City
The author is a former editor of CCT. Relive Nathan Gross ’60’s reunion performance.
Freefall
It is not often that I can pick up a publication and so instantly form a visceral reaction to what appears in the Letters column. Perhaps that may be due to the lead-off entitled Freefall, a letter from Dave Ritchie ’73 in the July/August issue.
I wonder if Mr. Ritchie has ever bothered to read the budget?
He might well have seen it, because he has described the portion of the budget going to “defense-related-expenditures” as “making it the single greatest economic entity in the American economy.”
That utterly conceals and confounds the much larger entity consisting of outlays for multitudes of social engineering projects of dubious effect or value. Collectively, the expenditures of these entities dwarf by comparison the military spending that he decries, and with no productivity!
Perhaps I missed something in those years between my ’54–’55 and Mr. Ritchie’s ’73. But is he really saying that it is because of military spending “United States lost the ability to compete in essential areas of civilian manufacturing to overseas competitors?” Which other sector of the economy developed so much technical expertise that any could be exported at all, and in doing so to bring a modicum of prosperity for the rest of the world to share?
Mr. Ritchie concludes that “we can take solace in making the best (and most expensive) damn rockets, tanks and warplanes in the world — and it sure helps the GDP look good.” At least Mr. Ritchie can enjoy the privilege of such self-contradiction. Perhaps he picked up that mindless skill during Columbia’s declining years of the ’60s and ’70s, perhaps directly from Professor Seymour Melman himself.
Columbia’s deficient sense of good citizenship in banning NROTC from campus may also find roots in the teaching of Professor Melman, with Mr. Ritchie’s continuing support no doubt. It is deplorable that Mr. Ritchie finds no value in military strength to preserve his freedoms. Worse, he writes, “Military production and the maintenance of the war economy contribute significantly to GDP numbers but they provide nothing to either the general well-being of the population or to the real productivity of the economy.”
Ken Williamson ’54, ’55E
Hauppauge, N.Y.
Hooping It Up
Alex Sachare ’71’s “Within the Family” column (May/June) gave a balanced but generally appreciative description of Coach Joe Jones’ performance as men’s basketball coach. This, I believe, presented an inaccurate picture.
Coach Jones had fundamental defects as a coach and it was predictable at an early stage that as long as he remained, the Columbia men’s basketball program was doomed to mediocrity. Coach Jones was an effective recruiter, but his defects as a coach caused the team consistently to underperform in relationship to its potential. His demeanor and lack of ability as a strategist and teacher were defects which were obvious from the inception, and [Athletics Director] M. Dianne Murphy’s file has letters that evidence that many perceived this problem at an early stage. Measured in comparison with the performance of Armond Hill, his immediate predecessor, coach Jones could be considered as a success. However, measured in terms of the excellent level that Columbia should demand of its coaches, coach Jones was a failure.
Mediocrity is often more pernicious than outright incompetence. The truly fundamentally incompetent are identified and disposed of relatively quickly. Mediocrity is often tolerated for far longer periods of time, either because administration does not perceive the defects, the individual involved is a pleasant and popular person or because change is difficult. In this case, the mediocre situation persisted for a six-year period, far longer than it should have.
Columbia cannot tolerate mediocrity in the coaches of its major sports programs. Considering the recruiting standards that Ivy League schools must impose, it is not possible to assure the success of a program merely through recruits. Therefore, the role that coaches play in determining the success of a program may be far greater than programs in which the recruits have such stunning talent that the success depends less upon excellent coaching. Administrative personnel must have the perception and the courage to analyze whether coaching excellence is present. It is not clear that that was the case in dealing with coach Jones.
Richard D. Kuhn ’55, ’58L
Staten Island, N.Y.
I find it passing strange that your first major article in recent memory about team sports at Columbia is your apologia, “Hoop Hopes, Coaching at Columbia” [“Within the Family,” May/June].
I am a fairly diligent reader of your magazine, and the last article I remember about a major sport was your celebration some years ago of Columbia’s Ivy League baseball championship. The fate of the team since that happy occasion is shrouded in mystery. There are minor stories of Ivy League championships in tennis and fencing, but these are sort of mentioned in passing. These items aside, perhaps it is my failing memory, but the only “sports” articles that I can remember in recent years were celebrations of outstanding individual athletes.
I think this is a very real failing in an otherwise excellent magazine. Many alumni are very interested in how all the teams do, even if the reading causes pain. Diligent coverage on your part might also help produce greater alumni support for the teams.
I urge you to report regularly on how all the teams are doing and to devote regular space to sports coverage.
Arthur Feder ’49, ’51L
New York City
Editor’s note: The print schedule of a bimonthly magazine makes it impossible to provide up-to-date athletics coverage. In addition, we have a finite number of pages, and sports is only one of many areas of life at Columbia that need to be included. We provide sports news highlights in “Roar, Lion, Roar” in most issues, and print features and profiles as developments warrant. For the most complete coverage of Columbia athletics, log on to www.gocolumbialions.com, the official Athletics website. Another option during the school year is www.columbiaspectator.com.
The Columbia Club
On page 9 of the May/June issue, there is a full-page advertisement for the newly renovated Columbia University Club at 15 W. 43rd St. The accompanying picture over the fireplace in the dining room appears to be Woodrow Wilson. If, by chance, the viewers can’t see his relevance to Columbia, it’s because the club is the Princeton Club of New York.
There was a Columbia Club in my time. It was located at 4 W. 43rd St., across from the Princeton Club, and had old but quite beautiful facilities including a large dining room, bar, grill, library, gym and squash courts, and about 75 bedrooms. The club invited seniors to tour the facilities and, of course, offered a minimal dues structure for us to join. At the bar for free drinks (the age of consent was 18), we were informed that if we received a traffic or parking ticket, we could amble up to the bar and find District Attorney Frank Hogan ’24 and he would take care of it. Even at the tender age of 21 I didn’t believe that, but considering that I had no prospects of a car it was OK. I used the club with pleasure a number of times and then went on active duty as a commissioned officer in the Army, during which time club dues were waived in the interest of patriotism. By the time I returned to New York City in the 1970s, the club had been sold to the World Unification Church.
So that was the Columbia Club. What is across the street is a very nice place for Princetonians, but it’s not a real Columbia Club. Firstly, the Columbia Club is in residence at the Princeton Club (its official relationship), but that’s not what the advertisements and mailings say. Secondly, except for a few pictures and a handful of mementos, everything hanging everywhere is about Princeton. My wife and I joined a number of years ago, and at the orientation for new members we received Princeton T-shirts — luckily I had a business friend who had gone there and who appreciated the re-gifting. We put up one of our daughters and her husband there overnight and she said this place is all about tigers, not lions.
So, why are there Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other college clubs in New York but no Columbia Club in the city where Columbians intone “Who owns New York?” is a mystery to me. Perhaps one day an old building could be found and a real club started again. Until then, the advertisements and mailings should say the truth: the Columbia Club in residence at the Princeton Club.
Jay R. Deutsch ’66
New York City
Editor’s note: Following is a response from the president of the Columbia University Club:
Mr. Deutch’s letter misses the mark.
Despite losing the clubhouse in the 1970s due to a falloff of members, many alumni believed there were benefits in providing a gathering place for Columbians. Today’s cost of replicating the former club would exceed $50 million. When the opportunity arose to create a special relationship with the Princeton Club, the directors took it. “In residence” affiliation has given Columbia’s alumni the best approximation of what some remembered, working with another Ivy partner.
With more than 2,000 Columbia members and a renovated facility with much Columbiana, the Columbia Club is flourishing and welcomes inquiries from all Columbia alumni, including Mr. Deutsch.
Mark Lemle Amsterdam ’66, ’69L
President
The Columbia University Club of New York