Letters to the Editor: Nov. 10, 2009

Trayless dining is inconvenient; administrators did not sufficiently consult students before implementation

Regarding “Trayless and lovin’ it” (Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009):

The recent article on the trayless policy (“Trayless and lovin’ it” — neutral right off the bat!) made no attempt to comprehend or acknowledge opposition to the policy. As one of those whose objections were indirectly mentioned, I thought I’d help out.

I’m skeptical of the fiscal and environmental benefits, for which I’ve seen no supporting data, and I find a number of drawbacks: Lack of trays makes the tables dirtier and the serving area more crowded, it’s inconvenient, and it creates more cleanup for workers (who may have to stay later and be paid more, reducing the savings).

Far worse is the way the policy has been conceived and carried out. The policy was formed by environmental groups and administrators and presented to students as a fait accompli. The only attempt to solicit feedback was during the pilot program, when Greening Princeton members surveyed students while lecturing them about the environmental benefits. (Next time I want to take a survey about religious attitudes, I’ll hire Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

The administration has made none of the data from the pilot program publicly available and has given no indication that it wants students’ opinions; it then dismisses those students who have made their complaints known by comparing us to the large number of meals that have been served. (Questionable use of units aside, since when is silence taken as wholehearted approval?)

It may be that the environmental benefits of going trayless outweigh the inconveniences, and that the majority of students favor this policy, but until we get a process that is rational, transparent and democratic, we’ll never know.

Lucas Issacharoff ’10

Equalize retirement contributions for all employees

Regarding “Tilghman’s pay neared $800K during 2007-08 year” (Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009):

Your recent article about the salaries of Princeton most highly-paid employees inspires me to write this letter. It concerns a cost saving suggestion that the University has decided is untenable: that contributions to the 403(b)s of our highly-paid employees be leveled to match those to the 403(b)s of our lower-paid employees.

Princeton puts 9.3% of each employee's annual salary into his or her 403(b) retirement fund, up to the Social Security wage base (currently $106,800). Above that base, 15% is contributed.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

A leveling of these contributions to 9.3% for all employees would save Princeton millions of dollars each year given that the average Princeton professor makes $180,300.

The extra 5.7% (the difference between 9.3% and 15%) contributed to the retirement funds of the seven people mentioned in your article would have amounted to $326,694 in 2007-2008.

Leveling all contributions to 9.3% is only one way to save money and still see that our retirement funds are adequate. We could cap contributions at some generous but reasonable amount or build into our program an incentive for employees to contribute their own money, as Yale does. In fact, if it’s generally accepted that it’s important to build retirement savings early in one’s career, wouldn’t it make sense to be more generous to our younger faculty members, not to mention the many employees who will never reach the Social Security wage base?

Everyone in the Princeton community must be grateful that the University has decided not to alter benefits in order to achieve cost savings and that the layoffs are to be fewer than we feared several months ago, but the two-tiered retirement contribution policy is a benefit which affects only a minority of Princeton employees. Can it be considered either logical or fair considering our current financial situation?

Patricia GibneyCataloger, Western Languages Cataloging Team

A chance to submit nominations for Pyne Prize

I write to solicit nominations for the Pyne Prize, the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate, which will be awarded on Alumni Day, Saturday, Feb. 20, 2010.

In thinking about nomination, I would ask that you consider the following description:

M. Taylor Pyne Honor Prize. A prize awarded annually to the senior who has manifested in outstanding fashion the following qualifications: excellence in scholarship, character and effective support of the best interests of Princeton University. Founded in 1921 in remembrance of the life and character of M. Taylor Pyne, Class of 1877, Trustee of Princeton 1885-1921, by his cousin, Mrs. May Taylor Moulton Hanrahan, the prize is the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate. The prize consists of the income from this fund up to the prevailing comprehensive fee for one academic year.

The prize winner will be selected by the president of the University, the deans of the college and of undergraduate students, and the secretary of the University. We are eager to receive nominations from members of the University community. Please direct such names and, preferably, letters of nomination to Kathleen Deignan at 313 West College, by Friday, Jan. 8, 2010.

Kathleen DeignanDean of Undergraduate Students