Anonymous Yalies railed against the “invasions of crowds from such lowbrow places as the Bronx” in a Monday New York Post article. Mrs. Harrison DeSilver (according to New York Magazine’s Daily Intel, this is the name of an architecture firm upstate and not a well-chosen pseudonym) says:

I just want to put my feet up here, but instead, weddings are being shipped down from The Bronx

The article contains more grousing about the Bronx as well as descriptions of the Yale Club’s exclusive accommodations (beds! a gym! a place to eat! a basement dungeon!). Daily Intel’s analysis of the article suggests that disgruntled club members are actually upset about sharing facilities with the UVA Club and the Dartmouth Club and not the occasional plebeian wedding. Daily Intel says:

The tabloid cries snobbery! Except they’ve got it all WRONG. It makes the Yale Club sound racist or something, because presumably they’re not talking about all of the Yale alumni up in Riverdale. But total strangers can only usually use the club when there are weddings or other major events. They’re not the ones in the swimming pool or at the gym. No, club members are annoyed by a different kind of crowd — non-Yalies who get in with reciprocal agreements from Dartmouth and UVA. Elis don’t have a snobby Bronx problem, they have a perfectly understandable safety-school problem.

Are Yalies upset about sharing their facilities with Dartmouth and UVA grads? Maybe. But in the Post article they’re mostly upset about “weddings being shipped down,” “the practice of renting out rooms to the public,” and outsiders staying overnight and using up all the space.

After slumming it up with flipping through a back issue of UVA’s alumni mag recently, we noted that it carried a few letters unlikely to appear in the Yale Alumni Magazine, an assertion we pulled halfway out of our ass. It got us thinking–what kind of letters do run in the nation’s oldest alumni publication? Are they really that different?

I am upset to read about the fate of “Geronimo’s” skull in Notebook (May/June). Whether or not it belongs to Geronimo, its continued presence demonstrates arrogance and insensitivity on the part of Skull and Bones toward other human beings, especially Native Americans.

By keeping this skull and other bones in their possession, Skull and Bones continues to venerate the original act of desecration by Prescott Bush and his friends. In 1983, I was given a short tour of the society. At that time, the skull was locked in a safe along with some other longish bones. There were also two or three smaller skulls on tables in the library, perhaps the plunder of other graves. How would Bonesmen feel today if a fraternity plundered Prescott Bush’s grave and kept his skull as a trophy for the next 90 years?

I suspect Mr. Bush and Mr. Davison never offered the Apache representative, Ned Anderson, what they believed to be Geronimo’s skull. According to the article, he was shown only the skull of a ten-year-old. The skull that was identified to me in 1983 as Geronimo’s belonged to an adult. Mr. Anderson, moreover, was never shown any femur bones. It is possible one of the smaller skulls sitting in the library was substituted.

The return of “Geronimo’s” skull and the other remains in Skull and Bones to the communities from where they came is long overdue. As the society has the chance to reflect on its past and present actions, I hope it will do so.

Stuart D. Sears ‘83
Westport, MA

Fuck yeah secret societies!!! That’s what I’m talking about in an alumni periodical!

Do The Right Thing [Yale Alumni Magazine]

While flipping through a discarded UVA alumni magazine at the gym [Ed.: They're letting Wahoos into Park Slope now?], we came across this charming letter to the editor:

It would seem there is a disturbing trend of pro-gay advocacy in Alumni News. In the class notes section, which I always look forward to reading, I was disturbed to read a proud “new parents” announcement of a girl to a pair of men.

Some on your editorial staff may think that this is progressive, politically correct and reflective of changing attitudes toward the family and marriage. To me, it is an insult to the core of society: the family. In the sad wake of the sexual revolution, there is already tons of data by sociologists that children raised in a home with a mother and father with whom they have a biological connection are the most stable, and less likely to fall into adolescent delinquency, substance abuse, teenage sex, etc. If the aim of the University is to serve society, then we need to foster an environment that helps strong citizens to grow and develop, and not just benchmark the steps taken by different persons as if any choice is equivalent.

I ask you if it is reasonable to endorse with normalcy the actions of a fringe of people that affect the foundations of society.

Barbara Ellen Spencer (Col ‘83)
New Delhi, India

Yes, yes, this could just be the regressive ramblings of one cranky alum. Except the previous letter happens to be from someone disputing the Big Bang theory on the grounds that it sounds too crazy. Looking good, UVA. Lookin’ good.