pageok
pageok
pageok
Good Night and Good Luck:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton?" Really, yesterday's exchange between Sen. Schumer and Judge Alito was embarrassing. Senators are never less appealing than when they lay on the sanctimony and feigned shock; "Why oh why," Schumer kept repeating, "did you choose, out of all the groups to which you belonged at the time, to highlight that one in your 1985 letter?" Earth to Schumer: that's what people do when they apply for political jobs in Washington, they try to indicate, in shorthand fashion, where their politics are. The implication Schumer was trying to draw out of this (with his smirks and eye-rolling) was that somehow Alito must have been an active and engaged member of the group, behind the scenes, and that he was covering that up in his testimony and hiding behind his claims not to recall anything about the group, is downright outrageous and not a little revolting.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Still More on CAP:
  2. Good Night and Good Luck:
  3. More on CAP:
Angus (mail) (www):
Actually, I think what Schumer was trying --- in his admittedly unctuous and smirky way --- to draw out was that when Alito highlighted his CAP membership in 1985, he was trying to indicate in shorthand fashion what his politics were.
1.12.2006 10:11am
Dustin R. Ridgeway (mail):
Exactly.
1.12.2006 10:16am
Roger (mail):
But why don't people just defend the idea that schools can and should discriminate against certain people. CAP certainly had no problem doing it in the past. Everyone has stereotypes. Everyone has a vested interest in helping people they like. Instead of evading the question, a judge could simply declare that he thought that Princeton was becoming diluted with minorities, and people with "his kind" of qualifications were being discriminated against, but he will still take Title VII seriously.

Instead, we all have to pretend that we are against discrimination, yet we still discriminate against people without social skills, people that went to the wrong law school, people who appear too ethic, people who are too short, etc. (I personally discriminate against fratboys and people who have last names which the sum of the ASCII values of the characters constitutes a prime number. I find that those people are lazy, difficult to work with, and generally hate America. They are also judicial activists because their race spent many years as civil servants. I hope that Altio does, too.)
1.12.2006 10:19am
JW (mail):
I really don't get David's point. By the standards of most non-morally-bankrupt people, CAP's mission and political views are pretty repulsive. Yet, Alito touted his association with CAP in his '85 job application. Does it really matter to anyone whether he was "active and engaged" in CAP (as David thinks Schumer is insinuating)or simply agreed with all of its views (which David thinks is probably the case)? Either way, it casts a very bad light on Alito.

Now, to be sure, Alito denies having any recollection of associating with that group. Given what we know about CAP, I'd probably do the same if I were in Alito's shoes. But, as many people have acknowledged, his denial simply lacks the ring of truth, which raises valid candor and credibility issue.
1.12.2006 10:28am
wrightflyer:
Neither the Republicans nor Democrats approach these hearings with an open mind. With questions from both sides that either bolster or attack the witness, questioners use these hearings as an opportunity for the questioner to appeal to his or her base. Schumer is no better or worst than any of the Republicans.

Alito's history indicates that (1) he will say (or write) what he thinks it takes for him to get a job for which he applied; (2) as a justice, he will vote in favor of the government if the government is a party; and (3) he will vote to favor the executive over the legislative. If that is the kind of justice we want, confirm him; if not, don't.
1.12.2006 10:37am
A.S.:
"he will say (or write) what he thinks it takes for him to get a job for which he applied"

Wow. I'm shocked. God knows when I apply for a job, I say (or write) the things I don't think it will take for me to get the job. I mean, what kind of idiot says (or writes) the kind of things it takes to actually get the job?
1.12.2006 10:42am
A.S.:
I admit that I haven't followed the hearing all that closely (I'm not a big fan of Kabuki). But can someone explain to me why CAP is all that bad? I mean, what positions did it take that are anathema?

It opposed making Princeton co-educational. And? So does Bryn Mawr and Smith and a whole bunch of colleges.

It opposed affirmative action. Is this the same old trope that opposition to affirmative action = racism? Spare me.

It wanted more children of alumni to be admitted. Let's see - an alumni group wants more children of alumni admitted? Really?

Is there anything else the group stood for that is so bad that I'm missing? (I don't mean something that was printed in its magazine; it's not fair to say that something printed in its magaize represents the position of the group itself.)
1.12.2006 10:52am
Roger (mail):
Is that so bad. Maybe individual rights are bad and have no place in America anymore because we are fighting a new kind of war? May the legislature is ill-equipped to deal with the real national security problems that face our land. Since legislators are elected by anyone that can vote, there is no guarantee that they have the intelligence that executive decision-makers have, and therefore, if at all possible, they should be cut out of the process. Maybe Princeton has gone downhill since women and minorities were admitted in droves. (A lot of people have a very low opinion of Princeton because they think that it is nothing more than fratboys. They blame women for this.) I think that Alito needs to address these issues head-on.

This probably illustrates the problem with a lot of these hearings. We all know people will say or do anything to get certain jobs. But, with life tenure, justices have the freedom to do what they really feel like doing, and they don't need to constantly suck up to everyone in sight in order to keep their jobs.

Anyway, Alito, to my knowledge has never worked in the private sector. He has always been a bureaucrat of some sort. However, for some reason, he is the darling of people that claim to dislike bureaucrats. It would be nice if he had some real-world experience, perhaps representing someone that had been raped by the police, or a corporation facing bankruptcy.

Also, I hope that he never went to a restaurant that employs illegal aliens. That is immoral and doing such a thing has caused a lot of damage to America.
1.12.2006 10:53am
Goober (mail):
Oh, wonderful. More feigned outrage over feigned outrage. Goodie.

I think it's rather obvious that what Schumer was driving at was perceived mendacity, not bigotry. (Calling someone a racist is usually seen as hyperbolic, so if Schumer were smart he'd definitely avoid that tactic. And I note that it was a Republican who I first heard use the word "bigot" yesterday, and it was in defense of the nominee.) Judge Alito's explanation of his CAP membership is that it was so marginal that he really can't remember it---an explanation many understandably find implausible. So why should it be strange that Sen. Schumer picks at the apparent contradictions in this story?

(Not that I'm picking on Alito entirely; it's surely a regrettable feature of the entire system of judicial confirmations that candor is to be avoided at all cost, whether for Republican nominees facing Democratic Senators or vice versa. But just because it was regrettable ten years ago doesn't make it less so today.)
1.12.2006 10:56am
Cold Warrior:
A.S., you're right. It's hardly shocking that someone would put things on his resume that would make it more likely that he'd get the job.

But here is what's shocking. (And I say this as one who vigorously defends the Reagan presidency.)

Many people probably got jobs in the Clinton Administration in part because their resumes included items such as, "President of Harvard Law School National Society of La Raza Chapter," or "President, African-American Law Student Council." Let's face it, sometimes these items are a polite way of saying, "I'm hispanic," or "I'm black." Sometimes, perhaps, they say something deeper about one's political beliefs. For example, La Raza has a very explicit political agenda on a lot of issues.

But CAP seems to have existed only for one reason: to oppose Princeton's plan (which became a program) to go co-ed. So saying you belong to CAP -- particularly in 1985 -- is shorthand for saying, "I believe the old exclusionary Ivy League Club should have been maintained."

Which is an odd way to pitch your qualifications to anyone, especially in 1985.

Let's unpack it a bit more:

Alito started out his confirmation hearing by talking about how he -- an ethnic, Catholic Jersey boy -- didn't really fit in at Princeton. And that's a very nice narrative/backstory in 2006.

But in 1985, the narrative he produced to get a job in the Reagan Administration was, well, different. It was: "I may be an Italian Catholic, certainly not some blueblood prep schooler like most of you, but I nonetheless support all your blueblooded aristocratic notions. You can feel comfortable with me ... I won't disrupt your little club. I'm not that kind of swarthy ethnic that ruined Princeton."
1.12.2006 11:00am
arthur (mail):
CAP was essentially a 1980's highbrow Klan, dedicated to white male supremacy at Princeton. If Alito joined CAP becuase he was a racist/sexist, that's relevant to his qualification for the position of Unite States Supreme Court justice. If he joined, or merely claimed that he joined, because he thought it would help career advancement (i.e. popularity with people he respects) to pretend he was a racist/sexist, that's relevant also. His future rulings may reflect either of those beliefs.
1.12.2006 11:05am
anonymous coward:
Ya well, when I apply, I'll say true things that will help, and omit the true things that will not help. I think Wrightflyer meant that Alito will say ANYTHING - true or not - as long as it gets him the job. I tend to agree.
1.12.2006 11:12am
A.S.:
"I think Wrightflyer meant that Alito will say ANYTHING - true or not"

What is the evidence for this?
1.12.2006 11:17am
Cold Warrior:
So Alito's got three possible honest answers:

1. I didn't really believe in the CAP agenda by the time 1985 rolled around. C'mon, it was a dead issue. Women were at Princeton for over a decade, and we all know that wasn't about to change. In fact, by that time I realized that I didn't want my beloved Princeton to turn back the clock. Look, I just put it on my resume because I thought some senior Reagan Administration officials would like to see it there. I'm not racist or sexist. Just a big-time ass kisser c. 1985.

2. Yes, I was a holdout. I continued to believe that allowing women at Princeton degraded the educational experience. And I continue to believe that today. I understand that most of you will no doubt think that disqualifies me as a Supreme Court nominee. But that's what I believe, and I have good reasons for believing it, namely [explain].

3. Yes, I was a holdout. But twenty years hence, I now understand that Princeton made the right decision. It is a much richer place today than it would be had it not opened its doors to that 50% of applicants who were previously excluded on the basis of sex alone. I've come to understand that the same culture of exclusivity and snobbishness excluded people like me -- Catholic Italians -- from the citadels of higher education for decades. I believe I made, and continue to make, a valuable contribution to Princeton. And I now see that the same applies to female students and graduates. I'm not the same man I was when I went to Princeton in the early '70s, and I'm not the same man I was when I listed my CAP membership on my resume in 1985. I've grown up.

But of course, we won't get an honest answer.

We'll get: "CAP? What's that? Oh, that was 20 years ago. I've forgotten what that was all about."

Interesting. As a former Executive Branch employee, on his security clearance forms (all DOJ employees needed to complete at least a "Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions"), Alito would've been required to list all memberships in organizations, including his church and CAP. Is it really possible he's "forgotten" about it? He's had months to prepare. Hasn't he reviewed his security questionnaire?

Schumer should be more artful, but calling someone out on an obvious example of rank b.s. is fair play.
1.12.2006 11:21am
George Gregg (mail):
Well put, Cold Warrior.

I do think that it is quite possible to have very little in actual recollections of specific involvement in an organization 20-30 years after the fact. But, given the ample opportunity and need to refresh his memory, it seems implausible that he has absolutely "no recollection of those events, Senator".

And an excellent comment at top of the thread by Angus, too.
1.12.2006 11:28am
chris (mail):
Is it really true that CAP was officially opposed to Princeton going co-ed? I heard Laura Ingraham this morning claim she was the editor of their magazine called (from memory) the Prospect. A female editor of a magazine for an organization which exists to make sure there are no females in the position of being the editor of their magazine?

This is the usual

a) if you think private all male institutions are sometimes ok, you are a misogynist.

b) if you have a problem with affirmative action, you are a racist.

Yawn.
1.12.2006 11:37am
Moral Hazard (mail):

CAP was essentially a 1980's highbrow Klan, dedicated to white male supremacy at Princeton.

Yeah, I'm sure that's why Laura Ingraham was a member, because she believed in white male supremacy.

CAP opposed racial preferences. The majority of Americans agree with this position, but the left has convinced itself not only that opposing racial preferences is wrong, but that it is itself racist and even a remote association to an organization with that viewpoint is despicable. Further the left is so insular that they've convinced themselves that most Americans share this belief.
1.12.2006 11:39am
Nathan75 (mail):
Dinesh D'Souza edited Prospect in the 80's as well.

That tells me that they weren't dedicated to "white male supremacy" in the 80's. Maybe they were in the 70's.
1.12.2006 11:52am
Bob Bobstein (mail):
Here's an article by a person who was at Princeton in the 80s explaining what CAP was about.
1.12.2006 11:55am
Eric Muller (www):
Dinesh D'Souza is a man, I believe. Not white, but a man.
1.12.2006 12:00pm
A.S.:
"Dinesh D'Souza is a man, I believe. Not white, but a man."

Is this supposed to refute the point that hiring Dinesh D'Souza they weren't dedicated to "white male supremacy" in the 80's? If so, then I think Eric needs a remedial course in logic.
1.12.2006 12:02pm
Eric Muller (www):
1.12.2006 12:03pm
Dustin R. Ridgeway (mail):
"CAP opposed racial preferences."

False: CAP was in favor of racial preferences, for white men. They supported quotas limiting the amount of minority students admitted to the University and they opposed 'Sex-blind' college admissions. In other words, they openly favored a policy of admission based not on merit or content of character; but the sex and race of the potential student.
1.12.2006 12:07pm
Eric Muller (www):
David Post,
You're much more confident about Sam Alito put this on his resumé than Sam Alito is himself.
In fact, he declined to say that he put this on his resumé for the reason you suggest. (In response to questioning by Biden.)
1.12.2006 12:12pm
OrinKerr:
Arthur writes:

"CAP was essentially a 1980's highbrow Klan, dedicated to white male supremacy at Princeton."

Arthur, can you explain your basis for this conclusion? I believe that Bill Bradley was a member for awhile, and I would be a bit surprised if Bill Bradlery were a white supremacist.
1.12.2006 12:12pm
A.S.:
"Here's an article by a person who was at Princeton in the 80s explaining what CAP was about."

Since the left-wing is in favor of attributing to Alito everything said by a writer of an article in a magazine of a group to which Alito once had a passing connection, I must say that Bob Bobstein has admitted to agreeing that eating meat is exactly the same as the holocaust. After all Bob Bobstein has cited an article which agrees with a writer who once also wrote that eating meat is the same as the holocaust.

Therefore, by the left-wing's OWN ATRTRIBUTION RULES, we must conclude that Bob Bobstein also believes this.
1.12.2006 12:12pm
Roger (mail):
Ironically, nobody seems to object to non-merit based preferences on the basis of "character" or experience or other buzzwords for "connections."
1.12.2006 12:17pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
I'm a bit unnerved by the obtuseness by VC posters where Alito's CAP membership is concerned. Enough so to wonder about their support for him generally.

The guy was bragging in 1985 about having belonged to a group that opposed the integration of women and minorities into Princeton. Cold Warrior's comment above is far more perspicuous, or honest, than anything that's been *posted* at this blog on the subject.

Remember Bustamante in L.A. and MEChA ("por la raza, todo" etc.)? To which, IIRC, he never even belonged? Seemed awfully relevant then to some people who think the CAP stuff is overblown.
1.12.2006 12:20pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):

Dinesh D'Souza is a man, I believe. Not white, but a man.

Boy what's become of American education...

Most of the residents of the Indian Subcontinent are "white". That is, they are the descendents of tribal peoples who moved down from the north in one of a series of conquests. They speak an "Indo-European" language and arose in the same place that most European tribes arose.

They may have deep tans but most are ethnically caucasian.
1.12.2006 12:22pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):

I've come to understand that the same culture of exclusivity and snobbishness excluded people like me -- Catholic Italians -- from the citadels of higher education for decades.

And which still continues. Catholics and evangelical protestants are much more underrepresented at Ivy League schools today than African Americans, Hispanics, or women. Conservatives are also underrepresented as are men. Woman will soon receive 60% of the college degrees in America. We need affirmative action.

Jews, UUs, secularists, atheists, Asians, commies, and women are grossly overrepresented in the Ivy League and in colleges generally. Those posters who advocate rigid mathematical quotas for disfavored groups have their work cut out for them.
1.12.2006 12:33pm
Armen (mail) (www):
Am I the only one who agrees with Post here? I mean shame on Schumer and the others for not singing Alito's praises for 20 or 30 minutes. So what if he knew enough about the organization in 85 to realize that it would earn him brownie points in the Reagan Admin? That says NOTHING about how he would rule on such cases as...
1.12.2006 12:34pm
JE Meyer (mail):
Here's a very good reason why Alito would have thought that membership would help him in the Reagan Justice Dept. (Indeed, he may not have known anything whatsoever about the group, except that someone said, "Hey, this would be a good connection for you to put on your resume.")

The Daily Princetonian:
A possible networking connection involves Terry Eastland, who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and was involved with CAP, according to two people familiar with the group who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

"That would have been a good connection for Sam," one of the individuals said.

Indeed, the mention of CAP seems out of place on a resume that discussed Alito's involvement with more prominent organizations such as the Federalist Society, a group of conservative lawyers, and the National Review and American Spectator, two national conservative publications.

Asked about his former roommate's possible intentions, Dwyer said, "I'm sure Sam had something in mind. He wouldn't have put that in his job application if he didn't have a connection."
1.12.2006 12:36pm
Cold Warrior:
JE Meyer--

The Princetonian article makes perfect sense.

Alito The Shameless Schomoozer Who Will Join (Or Pretend to Join) Any Organization If He Thinks It Will Help Him Get Ahead is, indeed, easier to believe than Alito The Racist/Misogynist.

And this just proves Princeton Bluebloods's point: the lily-white graduates (even Catholic ones like John Roberts) are just so much better at this kind of coded shmoozing than the ethnic types like Alito.

Heaven forbid a black or hispanic Republican gets nominated. They'd probably find a resume entry reading, "Self-hating Mexican-American, 1974-85."

[Just kidding, folks; no, I don't really believe this, you humorless lot, you]
1.12.2006 12:54pm
therut (mail):
If he had been a member of the NRA Schumer's head would have exploded.
1.12.2006 1:46pm
Stephen M (Ethesis) (www):
Catholics and evangelical protestants are much more underrepresented at Ivy League schools today than African Americans, Hispanics, or women. Conservatives are also underrepresented as are men. Woman will soon receive 60% of the college degrees in America. We need affirmative action.

Well, that is easy enough math, since Greeks and Italiens are underrepresented in colleges, it is reasonable to conclude that they are under represented in Ivy Leagues, graduate schools, professional organizations and as professors.

Not that they necessarily need affirmative action as a result, however. Catholics do seem to be well represented on the Supreme Court ;)
1.12.2006 1:57pm
KMAJ (mail):
I find it more than interesting how people shape their arguments to their political beliefs. Citing one or two articles to claim that is the basic premise for all is not founded in any responsible search for the truth. To try to bolster that position by only citing people whose political orientation is from the opposition is also disingenuous.

What has been missing in all these arguments is any statements from actual members or any recognition of why he claims to have joined, support for the ROTC. During his senior year, the ROTC building was torched by protestors and the Princeton administration was not going to rebuild and was going to ban ROTC from campus.

They claim CAP was anti-woman, but Prospect had a female editor, Laura Ingraham ? Judge Andrew Napalitano, a fellow Princeton alum, who attended at the same time as Alito and was a member of CAP, stated that the two major goals of CAP were support for the ROTC and the prevention of lowering standards for admission. Neither of those two positions are nefarious, but are rather reasonable. No one at CAP remembers Alito taking part in anything, nor has anyone testified any differently.

This does not defend any of the comments or themes in the Prospect articles cited, but it goes to the smear tactic of labelling by insinuation or innuendo through extremely loose association.

Why is it that human nature is to assume and try to prop up the most vile interpretation of events through insinuation when not supported by any substantial evidence. Why is it that some feel the need to call him a liar because he does not remember specifics from over 20 years agao ? Did these same people call Hillary or Bill Clinton liars with the many times they invoked the 'I can't recall' line under oath ? Using the Alito standard exemplified by some, wouldn't it have been more honest for Hillary and Bill to take the Fifth ?

There may be some who held the consistency of opinion through both cases, but I think it is probably only a few, with only some additional hindsight converts who realize the incongruity of not holding such an opinion. It exposes political motivation and ideology as the real reason for their needs to attack and demean and cast aspersions on the character of someone they have never met, even when it flies in the face of the almost unanimous support from those in the legal profession who know him, from both the left and the right.
1.12.2006 2:13pm
Cold Warrior:
Look, there's nothing hard here.

The 1983 article that is at the center of the firestorm ("some people just don't know their place anymore") is patently racist and offensive.

I am quite sure (not absolutley certain, but quite sure) that Alito never bothered to read this publication. He probably tossed it out with the other junk mail. I have never read the Sierra Club magazine, yet when I was a member they kept sending the damn thing every month.

So, Sam, why don't you take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the true nature of the CAP, c. 1983, and simply say, "Now that I know what direction the organization had taken in 1983, I have to say that I'm embarrassed that I remained a member."

Really, that's all we need to hear.

But when your whole life has been dedicated to straddling that "I'm a true conservative/No, I'm not, I'm an impartial umpire" line, you wake up one day, you're 55 years old, you're before the Senate, and you've forgotten about common sense.
1.12.2006 2:29pm
Kristen (mail):
I don't see why there's such a fuss over this whole CAP thing. I, along with others here I'm sure, include my membership in the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation on job applications. Do I adhere to all of those groups' ideas? Hardly. In fact, although I support the Heritage Foundation as a wonderful conservative think tank, some of their official position papers represent the opposite of what I believe.

But when someone looks at my job application, he or she says, "Huh, looks like she's a committed conservative with a particular interest in law." If I were looking at Alito's application back then, I would have said, "Huh, looks like he's a Princeton alumnus and a conservative." In both cases, the effect is intentional.
1.12.2006 3:13pm
Anthony Argyriou (mail):
What Alito should have said:

"Senator, back in 1985, one of the major distinctions between liberal Democrats of the sort who filled the Carter administration and the conservative Republicans who had come to Washington with the Reagan administration was that the Democrats were seen as reflexively hostile to the military. By 1985, whatever they'd said or done in the 1970s, CAP was mostly battling Princeton's attempt to throw ROTC off campus. Joining CAP, in the 1980s, was a good way to support the military of the United States and support the increassing professionalism of the military, by supporting ROTC, and a good way to signal to potential employers in the Reagan administration that I was indeed a committed conservative Republican, and had engaged in one of the larger issues of the time, on the right side."
1.12.2006 3:35pm
eddie (mail):
It's only a controversy because of the denial. If this is shorthand then he should expound on those portions of the "controversial" belief that he rejects.
1.12.2006 4:00pm
eddie (mail):
Moreover, the reference to Joe Macarthy is somewhat ironic.

If membership was shorthand, then "guilt by association" is totally appropriate.

Denial makes this an issue. Simply and cogently set forth those beliefs that are not common and be done with it.
1.12.2006 4:36pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):

If he had been a member of the NRA Schumer's head would have exploded.


Is it too late to get him a membership?
1.12.2006 5:10pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Duncan Frissell,

[A.S.] Dinesh D'Souza is a man, I believe. Not white, but a man.

[D.F.] Boy what's become of American education...

Most of the residents of the Indian Subcontinent are "white". That is, they are the descendents of tribal peoples who moved down from the north in one of a series of conquests. They speak an "Indo-European" language and arose in the same place that most European tribes arose.

They may have deep tans but most are ethnically caucasian.

Duncan, "what's become of American education" is in large part that most of us have stopped obsessing about this absurd ethnicity stuff. I don't especially care about anyone's ethnicity, and obviously no one who uses the term "Asian-American" does either, because Asia's a very large place, and Dinesh D'Souza and Eugene Volokh are both Asian-Americans by any definition that isn't wholly contrived to include only the "right" parts of the continent.

There is only one racial test that has any real-time validity, and that's "send this person down a dark street and see what s/he is taken for." I don't think that Dinesh D'Souza's bio is going to be examined sufficiently by a random thug to determine that, well, he's officially white after all.
1.12.2006 5:39pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Cold Warrior:
But CAP seems to have existed only for one reason: to oppose Princeton's plan (which became a program) to go co-ed. So saying you belong to CAP -- particularly in 1985 -- is shorthand for saying, "I believe the old exclusionary Ivy League Club should have been maintained."
Only one problem with that theory: it's completely wrong. It was neither a "plan" nor a "program," but a fact. Princeton was already co-ed before CAP was founded.

What actually happened was that when the administration originally announced it was going to go co-ed, it assured alumni that it wouldn't reduce the size of the male class in order to admit women. It quickly broke that promise; that's one of the things CAP was upset about.


By the way, the various women's colleges in the U.S. have been trending co-ed over the last few decades. Many alumni groups are bitterly upset when their respective alma maters decide to make the change. Are they all bigots? Can single sex education be defended on no grounds other than bigotry?
1.13.2006 12:56am
wb (mail):
<i>"What actually happened was that when the administration originally announced it was going to go co-ed, it assured alumni that it wouldn't reduce the size of the male class in order to admit women. It quickly broke that promise; that's one of the things CAP was upset about."</i>

David Nieporent reminds me of a promise that Yale's president Kingman Brewster made to the faculty and the alumni immediately after Yale began to admit women. The promise was "Yale will continue to admit a thousand male leaders."

I also recall at the time heated discussion in the faculty about the fact that the admissions set-aside for alumni children was only 10% while at Hrvard the set aside was claimed to be 20%. Why did the faculty care? LARGE gifts to the endowment of the university.
1.14.2006 1:18pm