Letters to the editor

Line-item pork

In Ronald D. Utt’s Sunday Commentary column, “Lame duck vs. pork,” there’s an attempt to list some apparent “pork” in certain appropriations bills on the docket for the lame-duck session.

Though there is a tendency for the constituents of a specific representative’s district or state not to see the earmarks pertaining to their region as “pork,” there also needs to be a better system for judging the validity of funding. This is akin to the uninitiated in things pertaining to computer programming going through a computer registry on a hunch and deleting computer files merely suspected of being malicious.

An example of this is the very first item mentioned in Mr. Utt’s litany of potential pork: “Among the dubious public ’investments’ mandated by earmark: $1 million for Mormon Cricket and Grasshopper Activities in Utah.” To the uninitiated and unaware, it does sound silly. Who would need a million dollars to look at some insect in Utah? And what possible gain could that be to the United States as a whole?

Well, the Mormon cricket studies thus far have revealed some potent and useful information on the nature of pestilence and means of tracking and effectively halting it. Throughout the history of the West, and even in recent years, swarms of these pitch-black insects have reached enormous populations and destructive capacities. The intensity of these populations reaches the point of producing road slicks that cause automobiles the same kind of loss of control that is experienced over oil slicks and ice. These little demons are capable of shaving off wooden surfaces, to say nothing of the blight they bring down on all things green.

If it takes more than the above to make the understated complexity and value of such research apparent to the reader, the only thing left to do would be to take the unfazed individual to witness personally a true infestation firsthand. In a nation where national security is claimed to be at the top of the agenda for all in power, do people really scoff at the idea of understanding the nature of insects known to induce famine and mass agricultural destruction and that have a history of almost destroying a substantial Western settlement?

We need to move away from the one-line implications of “pork” and get down to the pros and cons of each item before we make rash judgments in the name of fiscal responsibility. A truly conservative economic policy will avoid the proverbial “penny” wisdom and “pound” foolishness.

ETHAN NICOLAI PEARSON

Clearfield, Utah

For the record

The Thursday Commentary column “Building bridges across civilizations” stated: “Historically, under Muslim rule, Jews and Christians have largely been free to practice their faiths, and many rose to high political positions in Islamic empires.”

This was true in the first Muslim empires in Baghdad and Spain. Those were empires in which the overwhelming portion of the population was non-Muslim.

However, things changed gradually. Non-Muslims were taxed; Muslims were not. Non-Muslims were subject to indignities such as riding a donkey, not a horse, and having to walk in the street instead of on the sidewalk. So people converted. The pagans in Persia and Byzantium had no choice; the peoples of the Book were encouraged.

The empires became more Muslim, less liberal. They soon became what they are today. This is what this column means by living and working together. The real requirement is that Muslims accept others as equals, not inferiors, not descended from apes and swine.

MORTON ROSENBERG

Potomac

Sustaining a Princeton legacy

William Robertson, in his Wednesday Commentary column “National Philanthropy Day,”tried to cast his lawsuit against Princeton University in a favorable light. Readers deserve to know that the party in this case seeking to overturn a donor’s decisions is Mr. Robertson, not Princeton University.

Mr. Robertson is incorrect when he describes the organization created by his mother’s gift to Princeton in 1961 as a “private foundation.” Though it is called the Robertson Foundation, it is what the tax code recognizes as a Type 1 “supporting organization” that exists solely to support a particular charitable entity, in this case Princeton. Such an organization must be controlled by the entity it supports — not the donor. Princeton designates four of the seven Robertson Foundation trustees, but Robertson family members or their designees have always held the other three seats.

For 45 years, Princeton has used the funds provided by the Robertson Foundation to support and advance the foundation’s purpose, which is to support the graduate program of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Under Princeton’s management, the foundation’s assets, which began with a gift of $35 million, have reached more than $750 million. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Robertson seeks to seize control of the funds his parents chose not to bequeath to their children but instead to donate to Princeton. He also seeks to overturn the governance mechanism that his parents agreed to create that gives majority control of the board to Princeton. In his pursuit of this case, questions have been raised about the appropriateness of his using earnings and assets from a private Robertson family foundation to finance his lawsuit.

The dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, Anne-Marie Slaughter, herself a graduate of the school, was in Washington recently to chair an Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Two alumni of the school have just been selected to receive the university’s most prestigious alumni awards: Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland and Julius Coles, president of Africare, who previously had a 28-year career with the U.S. Agency for International Development. These are just three of many examples of the kinds of leaders the school prepares for careers in government and other forms of public service.

Princeton takes great pride in the quality of the graduate program the Robertson Foundation supports in the Woodrow Wilson School and in the growing impact of the school and its graduates on government service, public policy and international affairs. Despite Mr. Robertson’s attempts to paint a different picture, his lawsuit comes at a time when the school and Princeton’s commitment to it have never been stronger and when its contributions to the nation and the world have never been greater.

ROBERT K. DURKEE

Vice President and secretary

Princeton University

Princeton, N.J.

’Victim visas’ and 9/11

It’s hard to work up any further sympathy for the illegal alien families of September 11 (“Residency eyed for 9/11 aliens’ kin,” Nation, Sunday). They already have received “an average of $2.1 million” from the Victims Compensation Fund (courtesy of the American taxpayer) which seems unduly generous for lawbreakers, even considering their personal loss. Apparently, however, becoming millionaires is not enough. Now they are clamoring for another handout: a special amnesty to award them citizenship. Does it ever stop?

In terms of public policy, it’s unwise to expand the class of victim visas any more. The government already provides the “U” visa for illegals claiming domestic abuse and the “T-1” for foreign prostitutes who are trafficking victims. Let’s stop there.

BRENDA WALKER

Berkeley, Calif.