National, you say?

Certainly not American!

nationalize-princeton.blogspot.com

Billy Martin (a Red)

Jim Brewer (a Cub)

Referring to the university’s past spending practices, Pres. Tilghman made the following statement in her September 29 letter to the commune:

“There were things we were doing not because we should, but because we could.” (emphasis in the original) [n [i]].

This pitch was so unexpected, and so disturbing, that it froze me in the box, limp batted. The statement is too clear to be attributed to artless phraseology. It cannot be seen as anything other than a truly damning confession. How long has this been going on? For how many years have university expenses that did not represent even a “should”, much less a “must”, been consuming family tuition payments that, in many instances, represented “how the hell can we swing this”? If I could move my bat, I’d charge the mound, and I expect that there would be a few families leaving the dugout to follow me.

[i] This is the exception mentioned in endnote 1 in “Tired arm”, post 10-5-09.

Tired arm

No new pitch

Surely sensing the increasingly restive bleachers, Pres. Tilghman has written another letter (Sept. 29, 2009). It shows the effects of a weary arm, possibly sore. With one exception [n[i]], there’s nothing new in the letter, despite its added length—her regular stuff is flat, possibly lost.

“My arm was very sore and I was getting my head beat in. Houk put me into a game against Baltimore and I didn’t have a thing, except pain...The next day I got sent to Syracuse...The idea that you’ve lost your regular stuff is very slow in coming...But I’ve got to remember that if it wasn’t for my knuckleball I’d probably be back in New Jersey raising chickens or something. Remember, stupid, remember.” [n [ii]]

Not only is the president’s letter a tiring re-toss of old pitches, but worse, it appears to be intentionally deceptive. The letter purports to “update” Princetonians about spending cuts and endowment investments, but it fails to address any of the four elementary questions about those subjects.

(1) How much did the university spend last year?

(2) How much does the university plan to spend this year? [n [iii]]

(3) Why are details about the individual securities that comprise the endowment portfolio not disclosed? [n [iv]]

(4) Why is Andrew Golden still on campus?

Nor is this the first time that I’ve asked these questions (see, e.g., post 6-30-09, question #4 in “Rain Out—Q. Who’s on First? A. Yes”), and Pres. Tilghman would have answered them if her latest letter truly were intended to enlighten, rather than deceive.

It’s time for this administration to get “sent to Syracuse”, and, if they don’t develop a new pitch fast [n[v]], to begin raising chickens in New Jersey. Remember, stupid, remember.

-----------------------------------
[i] Coming soon.

[ii] Jim Bouton, Ball Four.

[iii] And don’t think that questions (1) and (2) can be answered by consulting other data disclosed by the university. They can’t be. Although fiscal 2009 closed more than two months ago, the income and expense statements have not been released. As for this year, until Pres. Tilghman reveals the base number (e.g., actual spending for fiscal 2009, or originally budgeted spending for fiscal 2010, or something else) from which the university intends to cut $88 million in spending, we cannot answer question (2).

[iv] Only with those details would it be possible to know whether the latest valuation of the endowment is a rank estimate or a better-than-rank estimate (see, post 7-30-09, “Costello: The pitcher’s name?”).

[v] Or, like Bouton, revive the old one, which, in Princeton’s case, might mean Dean Mathey’s 1927 pitch (PAW, 11-18-08).