In the late 60's the so-called Zodiac killer wrote a series of cryptic, threatening letters to newspapers across the Bay Area. Many people suspect the letters (and murders) were the work of one Arthur Leigh Allen. Personally, I suspect steel baron, philanthropist, and all-around bad-ass Michael Scharf (Princeton '64).

Since, well, forever his ridiculous letters have been appearing in The Daily Princetonian. Consistently scabrous, unabashedly conservative, and strongly committed to Jewish causes, they are more often than not the only thing worth reading on the editorial page.

After a particularly titillating "Sexpert" column, Scharf wrote a letter accusing the two female authors of having,"debase[d] themselves and Princeton with their coarse, vulgar and embarrassingly crude article." He goes on to suggest that, "the editorial staff at the 'Prince' obviously needs therapy and an infusion of morality and sensitivity," and wonders to everyone, "Is Princeton becoming the nation's poster university for the deviant, prurient and obscene?" Uh, if only.

In another letter he laments, "the abyss into which Princeton's basketball fortunes have sunk in only three years under Coach Joe Scott '87." Recently, after a student wrote an op/ed taking issue with certain eating club policies, Scharf wrote a letter counselling him to, "stop being so sanctimonious and accusatory, sit back and have a Grey Goose on the rocks (if he is 21)."

Diversity seems to be a particular bête noire for Scharf ("Oh, how I wish the increasingly vacuous word "diversity" would disappear from the lexicon of the Admissions Office.") In response to an article which suggested LGBT students might receive preferential admission to Princeton, Scharf penned what is probably the greatest letter ever published by the Prince. I have to quote it in full:

"This diversity nonsense is truly getting out of hand. To even consider giving a preference to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender students is an absurdity. If the bizarro Admission Office wants sexual diversity on top of every other type of diversity, then let's hear a cry for bestiality, necrophilia, incest, sadism, etc. so that Princeton will no longer be accused of emulating Harvard's admissions office. We can just follow the course of Sodom and ultimately self-destruct."

Fucking legendary. IvyGate salutes you, Mr. Scharf.

After the jump -- the complete letters of Scharf, including some boarding school reminiscences ("I have always been fond of saying that 'Andover made life easy for me,' and it did.")

April 22, 2005:

No need for anatomical descriptions in 'Prince'

Regarding 'Vulvagraphy' (Thursday, April 21):

    I guess if President Shirley Tilghman can debase Princeton by being a judge in a transgender fashion show then it is understandable that Misses Hines and Rogachevsky can debase themselves and Princeton with their coarse, vulgar and embarrassingly crude article. The editorial staff at the 'Prince' obviously needs therapy and an infusion of morality and sensitivity. Is Princeton becoming the nation's poster university for the deviant, prurient and obscene?

Michael Scharf '64

Feb 8, 2007:

It is time for a change

Regarding 'Princeton stumbles to first ever 0-4 Ivy start' (Monday, Feb. 5, 2007):

    As an avid basketball fan, perhaps I have been spoiled by Van Breda Kolff, Carril, Carmody and Thompson. To witness the abyss into which Princeton's basketball fortunes have sunk in only three years under Coach Joe Scott '87 is truly disheartening. Is it time for a coaching change? The answer is a "slam dunk" yes.

    Michael Scharf '64

May 8, 2007:

Comments on Khalidi

Regarding 'Khalidi: Constraints on Palestine fueled conflict' (Monday, April 23, 2007):

    Rashid Khalidi's comments are highly selective and omissive. He evades the question: Why didn't Jordan establish a separate Palestinian state when Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948-67? The answer to that question is the reason the conflict exists to this day between the Arab nations and Israel: The Arabs want a Palestinian state in place of Israel, not one alongside of it.

Michael Scharf '64

October 4, 2007:

Flawed reasoning

Regarding 'Princeton's 100-year war' (Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007):

    As a philosophy major, Matt Hoberg '09 needs to take a course in logic. If a club president takes all precautions to enforce drinking rules, i.e, wristbands, certified bouncers, monitoring bartenders, etc. and an underage student manages to secure a drink anyway, then, according to Hoberg, the club president should be criminally charged despite the fact that he or she committed no crime and worked hard to stop underage drinking. Preposterous. Maybe the Dean of Admission should also be charged for having admitted students who violate the underage drinking rules. Or maybe Hoberg should stop being so sanctimonious and accusatory, sit back and have a Grey Goose on the rocks (if he is 21).

Michael Scharf '64

 April 6, 2006:

How many students needed for diversity?

    Regarding 'University launches program to up diversity' (Thursday, March 30, 2006):

    I just don't get it. The Admissions Office is trying to broaden further the applicant pool so that even more students apply to Princeton. How many applicants do we need in order to fill a class with 1,200 highly intelligent students who also possess a wide array of athletic, musical and artistic talents? The present 20,000+? 30,000? 50,000? It seems to be neverending. Oh, how I wish the increasingly vacuous word "diversity" would disappear from the lexicon of the Admissions Office.

    Michael Scharf '64

 April 6, 2007:

Chabad accepts all

Regarding 'Letters to the Editor' (Tuesday, April 17, 2007):

Rabbi Marc Disick's concern regarding Chabad's commitment to diversity is decidedly misplaced. By refusing to grant chaplaincy to Rabbi Eitan Webb, it is Princeton Hillel and the University that are unwilling to tolerate and accept diversity. Chabad's devotees on the Princeton campus and elsewhere represent every level of Jewish observance. Even when such observance is minimal, or even nonexistent, Chabad is fully accepting of every Jew, and indeed every human being, and desirous that he or she reach their potential in terms of goodness and helping others. Princeton, being committed to diversity, should accept diversity among Jews. President Tilghman should reconsider her decision, and Hillel in the person of Rabbi Julie Roth should support Chabad. The more Jewish organizations on campus, the more vibrant Jewish life will be, and perhaps Princeton's Jewish enrollment will increase as a result.

Michael Scharf '64

Oct 26, 2006:

Diversity nonsense is getting out of hand

    Regarding 'Admissions edge for LGBT applicants?' (Monday, Oct. 23, 2006):

    This diversity nonsense is truly getting out of hand. To even consider giving a preference to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender students is an absurdity. If the bizarro Admission Office wants sexual diversity on top of every other type of diversity, then let's hear a cry for bestiality, necrophilia, incest, sadism, etc. so that Princeton will no longer be accused of emulating Harvard's admissions office. We can just follow the course of Sodom and ultimately self-destruct.

    Michael Scharf '64

 Sep 20, 2006:

Grade deflation still has no benefits and no followers

   Regarding 'Job search unaffected by deflation, report says' (Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2006):

    The so-called report stating that job search is unaffected by the grade deflation policy is meaningless. It is devoid of any real statistical analysis but rather goes from to surmise to supposition to desired "fact." Did Dean Malkiel and the "investigators" realize that the investment banking firms surveyed are hiring in far greater numbers than they did in 2004?

    I have informally surveyed approximately 25 young bankers involved in recruiting for their respective Wall Street firms and not one of them knew about Princeton's grade deflation policy. And what about Malkiel's confident prediction that other top universities would follow suit? It hasn't happened. What baffles me is why our brilliant tenured faculty would derogate its ability to grade as professors see fit.

    Michael Scharf '64

April 3, 2007:

One-rabbi monopoly?

    Regarding 'U. refuses to grant Chabad chaplaincy' (Monday, March 26, 2007):

    The calumnies and invective directed against Chabad and Rabbi Webb by Joe Skloot '05 are offensive and defamatory in the extreme. He obviously has hatred for the Chabad outreach movement. As one who is close to many Chabad rabbis; as one whose life was transformed into one of Jewish observance by the positive influence of a Chabad rabbi; as one who has witnessed Chabad rabbis, at great personal sacrifice, serving Jews whatever their level of observance in far-flung corners of the world; and as one who met with President Tilghman several times in support of Rabbi Webb being granted the chaplaincy status he deserves, I find Joe Kloot's comments and Tilghman's decision to be insulting, abhorrent, discriminatory and yes, anti-Semitic. Why should the CJL have a one-rabbi monopoly when the Princeton chapel does not? Why should there be only one Jewish chaplain when there are 13 Christian ones? That amounts to even less that the 10 percent quota that Princeton used to have for the admission of Jewish students! Shame, shame, shame!

Michael Scharf '64

Letters to Andover's newspaper, The Phillipian.

Feb 17, 2003:

To the Editor:

As a proud graduate of Andover, class of '60, as a proud parent of two Andover students, and as a generous financial supporter of Andover for many years, I am extremely disturbed and disheartened by the blather that is emanating from the Trustees regarding the large investment losses suffered by the school's endowment over the past two years.

In reviewing comments regarding the $140 million decline in the endowment, we are told by David Underwood, "the plight of PA's endowment reflects the state of virtually every other endowment in the country." We are also told that "anyone who had anything toward the end of the 1990's to do with the equity markets had to begin to think, 'this can't last,'" and that "one has to change one's asset management…but there's a practical limit to that because you can't totally restructure a $500 million endowment."

The above statements may only be charitably described as pure poppycock. I happen to be a Trustee and member of the Investment Committee of an East Coast university that has an endowment of approximately $900 million. Our investment return for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000 was a positive 3.54%. For the 38 largest college and university endowments surveyed by Cambridge Associates, a consulting firm used by Andover, the mean and median investment returns for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 were -3.2% and -3.90% respectively, each significantly better than Andover's return. The lowest return of the 38 institutions was -12.3%, still better than Andover, and the highest return was +10.1%. Yale's return was +0.7% for fiscal 2002 and +9.2% for fiscal 2001. Harvard's endowment declined in fiscal 2002 by less than 1%.

It is obvious that, if Harvard, Yale and 36 other universities were able to restructure their larger endowments so that by 2002 they were not sitting with 77% of their endowments' funds in equities, Andover could have done the same with its $500 million endowment. Contrary to what David Underwood has stated, the Andover Trustees Finance Committee could have indeed decided to restructure endowments. It simply decided not to do so. The Investment Committee on which I sit decided to reduce our equity exposure over the past 2-1/2 years from 65% to 35%, hence the good performance.

Although David Underwood and our Trustees are people of exemplary character, dedication and good intentions, it is apparent to me that, insofar as endowment fund management is concerned, these qualities are not enough to ensure good results. Andover's Trustees Finance Committee should be replaced by an Investment Committee that should be comprised primarily of seasoned and successful investment professionals, men and women who have extensive experience in managing and investing money. They should have detailed knowledge of all types of investment firms, their performance records and areas of expertise.

Andover's Investment Committee should not meet quarterly, but rather at least once a month in order to review performance, possibly to reallocate funds among the endowment's investment categories, to allocate new endowment funds to money managers, to reallocate funds among money managers, and to interview new money managers of all types. Also, because the Andover Board of Trustees is relatively small and is not comprised of very many qualified investment professionals, being a Trustee should not be a prerequisite for being a member of Andover's Investment Committee.

Finally, in view of the disaster that has befallen the endowment, how can either a large benefactor or modest contributor have confidence that future contributions won't meet the same fate of previous ones? The Trustees of the Academy should begin to rebuild contributor confidence by taking responsibility for the errors and misjudgments they have made. The Trustees should also inform the students, faculty and alumni as to what specifically happened to cause the decline in the endowment, what is the present asset allocation of this endowment, who is managing it, and what steps are being taken to ensure that the irresponsible decisions previously made are not continuing and will not be made in the future. If the Trustees are only prepared to offer lame and disingenuous excuses, then the very future of Andover is in peril.

Sincerely,

Michael Scharf '60

Dec 2, 2003

Sir:

I attended Andover over 40 years ago. It was a gruelling experience, characterized by mountains of homework, outstanding and demanding teachers, highly motivated students, and a plethora of extra-curricular and athletic opportunities. So what has changed? Nothing really, except that the school is graced by the presence of women. The pace of life at Andover has always been intense, with most students having been stretched to their limits. Why obsess over this? It is a strength, not a weakness. I have always been fond of saying that "Andover made life easy for me," and it did.

I learned how to deal with pressure, I learned how to be organized and prepared, I learned to think critically, I learned how to interact successfully in a competitive environment, and (this may surprise the deans) I learned how to assess odds and probability by playing penny-ante poker. Andover should stop flagellating itself and continue to do what it has done so successfully for so many years. The more homework the better! That's what I'm paying for!

Sincerely,

Michael Scharf '60,

Parent '04