FOOTHILLS FRACAS
Thank you for a wonderfully readable and fair article on the controversy over the Stanford Foothills ("This Precious Plot," January/February). On a par in importance with the issue of the hills is, in my mind, the issue of how people are treating each other as they try to resolve this matter.
All right, that said, let me reveal my bias: I am in favor of preservation of the hills for combined recreational use and conservation. I simply would like to see us stop calling each other names and resorting to hyperbole in our arguments. If Stanford will stop calling us "creators of bootleg trails" and "despoilers of the environment," we'll stop demonizing Stanford's executive leadership and planning department. At least, I will.
Recreational use and conservation are not mutually incompatible, by the way, regardless of what Stanford's staff biologists have said. Human access and conservation have worked wonderfully well in the vast public lands of Marin County and the Peninsula. Where trails are clearly marked and rules are clearly stated, there simply is no "despoiling." (The minor exceptions involve teenage dirt bikers crossing open fields.)
In view of that experience, I simply can't understand Stanford's overreaction in replacing the trails with tarmac, hiring guards and erecting ugly fences. Talk about highly visual power-politicking!
It certainly does look like Stanford wants to build in the hills. If not, why has it gone to such trouble and expense to enclose its demesne in boorish, "Rancho Stanford" fashion? In this regard, Stanford's planners should be forced to read the excellent book Ohlone Way (Heyday, 1981). At no point has Stanford condescended to discuss the real issues on the side of conservation: mental health, spiritual blessings, a sense of oneness with the earth and all life. Ah, but I descend to primitive tribal mumbo-jumbo such as was heard in the hills for more than 5,000 years before the Spaniards, the rancheros and then Gov. Stanford took over and began to "improve" things.
Really, though, I do not wish to slide back into demonizing again. I do love the University. I just find it odd that Stanford claims to have no plans for the hills when it is taking such vigorous measures to ensure its "right" to build in them.
George Beinhorn, '64, MA '66
Mountain View, California
By calling Supervisor Simitian's October 24 proposal a "bombshell," you perpetuate the false impression that he blindsided University officials with his plan. President Hennessy and other officials had been aware for at least a year that Simitian was considering such a concept and that it was "on the table." At the following county meeting, Simitian gave an impassioned statement in which he clearly indicated that his proposal was nothing new and that University officials were being less than forthright by claiming to have been blindsided.
The article also fails to mention that the Stanford supporters who arrived at the October 30 public hearing by bus were essentially paid by the University to be there: their bus trip was free and they were treated to a free dinner just for showing up. The University used a well-oiled public relations machine to bring supporters to that meeting. Contrast that with Simitian's supporters who organized through a grassroots effort and actually paid for their own gasoline to come to that meeting.
I expected more from your magazine. Apparently it's business as usual down on the Farm--the business of misinformation.
Jon Scott
Menlo Park, California
Editor's note: Stanford inaccurately reported that 300 people had used buses provided by the University to attend the October 30 General Use Permit hearing in San Jose. According to Andy Coe, director of community relations, approximately 300 Stanford supporters were at the meeting, but only 100 of them got there via University shuttles. Those on the shuttles were served sandwiches and soft drinks provided by Stanford. The other 200 or so who were at the meeting on Stanford's behalf made their own travel and eating arrangements. Larry Horton, director of government and community relations, says the magazine accurately characterized Stanford officials' reaction to Supervisor Joe Simitian's 99-year preservation proposal. That proposal was never discussed in any of the regular quarterly meetings Simitian held with Stanford during the gup process, according to Horton. It first emerged in a private meeting between Simitian and President John Hennessy late in September, but was vigorously opposed, and negotiations continued. Horton says Stanford officials did not know or expect that Simitian would propose the 99-year plan at the October 24 meeting, and they heard details for the first time that night.
Thank you for Kevin Cool's balanced article and Leo Holub's fine photographs. I was struck by the fact that no one associated with the University actually wants to build in the Foothills. University leaders, like the rest of us, understand that the Foothills are a natural resource that becomes more precious every year on an increasingly overcrowded Peninsula. In fact, they seem to talk about keeping the Foothills option open only because they do not want to crimp their successors' ability to provide for the University's long-term space needs.
As a solution for the next century, isn't it time for the University to begin thinking about siting a second campus elsewhere in the United States? As the recent competition for the University of California's new Central Valley campus demonstrated, a great university is a very desirable asset for an area, economically and culturally. Citizens and landowners of any number of less crowded, quite scenic areas would be thrilled to have a Stanford presence, and it would not be surprising if the necessary land were donated to the University. A second campus could offer the best guarantee that Stanford will be able to continue to fulfill its educational mission while living in harmony with its neighbors.
Vlae Kershner, '76, MBA '83
Menlo Park, California
Kevin Cool's excellent article spells out the many difficulties facing Stanford's future and should be read by all alumni and everyone interested in the future of the University. I strongly support President Hennessy and Isaac Stein in their stand on the gup plan for the development of the Stanford campus. Stanford needs their levelheaded kind of thinking.
Patricia Wetmore, '45
Pacific Grove, California
I compliment you on your relatively evenhanded reporting of the events and offer the following observations. When one speaks of property, rights and "government land grabs," one must remember where ownership of the land originated after it was taken from the former residents. Stanford University, in particular, benefited greatly from the largesse of the government. One should also keep in mind that it is the role of government to consider the interests of the community as a whole. This often results in the mandated permanent preservation of private land as open space as a condition of development.
To point to a map of surrounding communities and accuse those communities of overdevelopment is more than a little self-serving. Each of these towns has struggled for years with the problems facing Stanford now and has learned the cost of such development. I would submit that a fair amount of this local development has taken place to accommodate needs of faculty and staff that were not addressed on campus by the University. In particular, to single out Portola Valley as an example is unfortunate, for that town has done perhaps more than any other to preserve the character of this area.
The question of the limiting of "flexibility" that arose in the interchange between Simitian and Hennessy is a key issue. The University has chosen at times to limit its flexibility in the interests of furthering its goals, as it has a right to. So limiting flexibility is not the issue; rather, it is a matter of who is shaping this decision and to what ends.
The overarching issue here, as you point out, is growth. I would submit that the University has grown enough and that it is time to move in a different direction. As a Stanford alum, what I miss is the small-community feel that shaped my experience. When I think of Stanford, I think of the ideas I encountered, the opportunities for reflection offered to me and, above all, the friendships I enjoyed and still do. Whether or not Stanford ranks No. 1 in business and education, or even in basketball, pales in comparison. Greatness does not come from polls and statistics but from relationships. I might be hopelessly out of date, but I think it is time for the University to focus on regaining that sense of community.
Jerry Hearn, '66
Portola Valley, California
As a Bay Area landscape architect working in the realm of open-space planning and also in new urban developments, I particularly enjoyed "This Precious Plot." I thought you should be aware that Frederick Law Olmsted was not an architect at all; rather, he was a landscape architect who worked in association with the architect Calvert Vaux. I point this out because there is a fundamental difference between the two professions, and that difference is particularly relevant to the situation of open-space preservation and construction on the Farm.
Malcolm Dole
Berkeley, California
Kevin Cool's report was informative but downplayed a controversy that has been gathering steam for many years.
My migration from Northwestern University to Stanford's graduate engineering program in 1981 was a cherished opportunity to reconnect with my mother's cousin and her family in Menlo Park. My very first adult conversation with my cousins concerned their apprehension over Stanford's plan to build on "the meadow," a piece of undeveloped land along Stanford's border, connected to Menlo Park by a bike bridge across the San Francisquito. Since then I have watched, from a ringside seat, the final 20 years of the University's efforts to construct the development that has come to be known as Stanford West.
I love Stanford, and it pains me to report that, over the years, I have seen my graduate alma mater systematically misrepresent its intentions and contradict itself with wild abandon. In short, I have watched the University plod its way through a town-and-gown fiasco.
And in the end, for what? Stanford West looks like the backs of the decrepit buildings I used to watch glide past on the Chicago El during my undergraduate days at Northwestern. It cost the University's neighbors access to an ecologically robust urban green space that supported a significant population of cranes and other wildlife. I understand the University's desire to develop its own property, but surely, given the loss imposed on others, it could have done better by its neighbors than to erect the cardboard rabbit warren that now sits atop the meadow.
James E. Moore II, MS '82, PhD '86
Los Angeles, California
I just read the sidebar on the graduate student who was living in his car, and it was depressing indeed ("Camping Out with Housing-Market Refugees"). I was hoping that things had improved since I left Stanford, but it does not look like it.
I was a graduate student in electrical engineering between 1992 and 1997. I remember quite well my my first year at Stanford, when, after paying the housing bill and the health insurance, I barely had enough money left to buy food or pay my phone bill--and I was lucky enough to be on a School of Engineering scholarship.
Being a graduate student at Stanford is already very, very hard. I don't think graduate students should be worrying about whether they can afford to eat dinner in addition to worrying about their grades, their course work and their research. This is doubly hard for foreign students like myself, who don't always have a good support network.
Stanford must improve the living conditions of its graduate students. One option is to offer them subsidized food, in addition to housing, while limiting graduate school entrants to a number that can be housed on campus until the housing crunch can be alleviated.
Bora Akyol, MS '93, PhD '97
San Jose, California
REMEMBERING KERENSKY
I was thrilled to read about Alexander Kerensky ("Doomed Democracy," January/ February). Bernard Butcher has gone to great lengths to put in focus a man truly underestimated by history. The article is well researched, well written and highly informative--it's the first time I've heard that Kerensky had a wife and mistress.
It was my great joy to meet with Kerensky for a full two hours in May 1956. Fellow sae member Bob Fisher and I were taking Anatole Mazour's course on Russia at the time, and we learned that Kerensky was working on his memoirs at the Hoover Institution. We had always thought he had been liquidated by the Soviets, like Leon Trotsky.
We decided to visit him one morning in the hope of inviting him up for dinner. We called at his rundown Palo Alto apartment, and he graciously received us. I will never forget this very tall, animated man, with crystal-clear blue eyes and shock-white hair that stood on end. Yes, his eyesight was very poor and his English halting. We had in hand a copy of the latest life magazine, which showed on the cover some of the secret agents of the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police, with a circle around none other than Josef Stalin. In the course of conversation, Kerensky indicated that, totally implausibly, Stalin had indeed worked in this capacity. We spoke of post-Stalinist Russia, the presidency of Malenkov and other Soviet figures, the future of Eastern Europe and much more.
We never did invite Kerensky for dinner, in light of his bad eyesight and bad English. But that morning gave us one of the great experiences of our lives.
Richard Lawson, '56
Seattle, Washington
In 1944, I was a sophomore at Illinois College when Kerensky visited our school. He gave a talk, and we were asked if anyone would like to meet with him privately. My hand shot up, and that one-on-one meeting is a memory I cherish.
So thank you, Bernard Butcher, for filling in some unanswered questions about this great man. Whenever I meet a Russian, I say, "Shake my hand!"--and then I say, "You just shook the hand of a person that knew Kerensky!" Typically, they then look at me with absolute awe, as if I'd known Abraham Lincoln.
I recall watching the movie Nicholas and Alexandra and having a reaction like Kerensky's when he saw Ten Days that Shook the World. When actor-Kerensky appeared on the big screen, I jumped up, exclaiming, "I knew him!"--surprising those near me and embarrassing my then-wife.
Jack Carpenter, MBA '50
San Juan Capistrano, California
Ever polite to guests, Stanford may have been a bit too deferential in its treatment of Kerensky. This man truly had the destiny of Russia within his grasp. But he could not act decisively, or if he did, it was in the wrong direction.
Kerensky once spoke at a meeting of our Slavic Society at Stanford, demonstrating why his fellow Russians had dubbed him "Orator-in-Chief" for talking endlessly when action was called for. At our meeting he rambled on and on. Finally, our chairman had to say, "Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Kerensky, but now we have to move on to the rest of the program." I remember wondering: could that have happened to powerful contemporaries of his such as Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George or Clemenceau?
My feeling is that Kerensky was tied to the past--continuing, for instance, a disastrous war that helped the Allies but ruined Russia--while his country desperately needed peace and a future. This personal weakness let opportunity slip away and inflicted Lenin and Stalin upon us for the worst part of a century.
Nelson Norman, '39
El Cajon, California
As a Stanford undergraduate and doctoral student, I too lived in the same boarding house with Mr. Kerensky ("Anything But a Bolshevik"). The owner's name was Mrs. Marrack, not Maryk as Richard Elman recalled it. Having lived with her for seven years, I am also certain that she was not a niece of Herbert Hoover. However, Hoover's White House secretary did live next door, and the two women had considerable contact.
I am delighted, nonetheless, that you carried this article. Too little is known about Kerensky. Having done much of my undergraduate work on Russia and the Cold War, I enjoyed occasional lunches and dinners with him, which were of enormous value to my studies.
Stanley Sheinbaum, '49
Los Angeles, California
I remember being amazed to see Kerensky's name in the course catalogue at Stanford. Registering too late to gain admittance to his seminar on the Russian Revolution, I took his seminar on African socialism. His insights into the liberation politics of Africa sparked in me a lifelong interest in that continent, which led to stints there in the Peace Corps and as a consultant for International Forestry.
What I remember most of Mr. Kerensky, however, was his gentleness and his kindness in inviting me and a fellow seminar student to dinner. Sitting at his table, talking with him of Russia and the village where both he and Lenin were born, filled me with historic awe. Pretty heady stuff at the time for a 21-year-old. When I think about it, it's still heady stuff today.
Jerry Gabay, '66
Mosier, Oregon
I was an impressionable sophomore in the fall of 1966, just beginning a political science major. In a course dealing with the origins of the Russian/Soviet political system, first-year professor Robert Packenham mentioned that one of the leading figures in the Russian Revolution was currently at Stanford. I was stunned. Alexander Kerensky, teaching on this very campus? I had not even imagined he was still alive.
I simply had to see him for myself. Presuming that he would be teaching doctoral students, perhaps giving an occasional speech to an auditorium packed with scholars and dignitaries, I looked for his course in the class schedule. There it was, a lowly undergraduate seminar with an enrollment of about 12, taught by "Kerensky." There wasn't even a footnote explaining that this was the Kerensky.
That afternoon I found myself searching for his classroom in the basement of the History Corner. The class must have let out earlier, because the hallway was mostly deserted. Then, walking slowly toward me from the opposite end of the hallway, came a small, elderly man with a white crewcut, suit and walking stick. I recognized him as the democratic revolutionary and former president of Russia.
I don't know what I expected--perhaps that he would be larger, that his face would look tougher after all he had been through and that he would have some sort of entourage. But he was alone, just another member of the campus community, looking rather like an older Professor Packenham. Feeling compelled to say something, I offered a respectful "Hello." He paused briefly, nodded his head and smiled politely as we moved on in opposite directions.
I don't think I made much of an impression on him, especially now that I know he couldn't see.
Arthur Porter, '67, MBA '70
Cedar City, Utah
TEACHING OR PREACHING?
I suppose historian Joel Beinin's assertion that he "doesn't claim to be neutral, objective or unbiased" is perfectly acceptable in Stanford history circles today (Farm Report, January/February). So be it, although some of us crustaceans may view such a mindset as teaching ideology rather than history. Professor Beinin is certainly straightforward in admitting to pro-Arab bias--a candor which is of some value, I suppose. But perhaps the larger question looming from the controversial history department teach-in on Middle East violence is: why was there no person found to espouse the pro-Israel position that day? If there was none available, why is that so? Finally, why sponsor what is, in reality, a platform to espouse an ideological agenda, no matter how well buttressed with scholarship, in the guise of a teach-in?
Dick Wharton, '53
Tucson, Arizona
I was extremely troubled when I read about Joel Beinin's "failure to find a faculty member who would support the Israeli viewpoint" at the teach-in on Middle East violence. I'm sure there must be wonderful "debates" among the history faculty where everyone sits around and agrees.
Noah Suojanen, '99
Redwood City, California
THE PRICE OF EGGS
I commend Lauren Russell for the stand she took against participating in the egg-donor program ("What Are the Costs?" November/December). The costs are definitely high. Witness the case of Calla Papademas: no amount of money could alleviate the pain and life-changing trauma she encountered. And then there are the ethical considerations. This tampering in future human life eerily reminded me of Hitler's experiments.
Let's keep humans out of the role of playing God. Infertile couples should adopt; there certainly are plenty of children in this world who need a loving home.
Peter T. Love, '67
Gold Hill, Oregon
The world is exploding from overpopulation. Many are homeless and starving. Yet people are interested in "making babies"? If, as you hypothesize, "human eggs have become just another commodity in a market-driven economy," how will society view the end product--the child?
People who have a great love and desire for children might instead consider giving to children in a way that is beneficial to all, including our environment.
Jackie Leonard-Dimmick
Atherton, California
Joan Hamilton's attack piece on egg donation drowned out an essential voice in the debate over this process--that of infertile couples trying to have children. Of course, given the sensationalist nature of the article, Ms. Hamilton probably would have had a difficult time finding couples willing to be interviewed anyway.
Yes, it is tragic that the student egg donor highlighted had such a rare reaction to the fertility drug Lupron. It is equally tragic that she was uninsured. However, the author's primary objection to the egg-donation process seemed to be the high compensation offered to donors. I doubt that even her objections about the pickiness of the infertile couples would have caused nearly as much concern if the money amounts involved were much lower.
I have some limited experience in these matters, being half of a couple trying to conceive our first child. We simply wanted an egg donor who looked something like us, with a similar personality and intellectual capability. Yes, the child may end up completely different from either biological parent, but we felt that increasing the odds of similarity was worth the added cost.
And it really does cost $20,000 or more to find donors. We first advertised an offer of $20,000 in five university newspapers and got only two potential donors from which to choose. It should be apparent that most bright, reasonably attractive young women perceive too much trouble and/or risk involved in the process to consider it worth their while. I imagine that adopting your article's suggested $5,000 cap on donor compensation would simply destroy the chance of many infertile couples to ever find a willing donor. But perhaps that is the intent.
Steve Mims, '92, MS '93
Stanford, California
'VENGEFUL SALACIOUSNESS'
How good it was to read Kenneth Fields's essay on Yvor Winters's legacy of poetry and literary criticism ("True to His Word," November/December). Professor Fields offered a view that was personal and still objective, a reflection both of his direct knowledge as Winters's last graduate student and of his intervening 32 years as one of Stanford's very best teachers.
How awful were the comments of the late Richard Elman ("In Training . . . with Live Ammo") that the editor chose to append to the main piece. As curmudgeonly as Winters could be, when he wrote of the work of others he held to an overriding principle: to describe them as they were at their best. One finds none of the vengeful salaciousness anywhere in his work that Mr. Elman slapped on Winters's long-dead corpse with a 10-inch brush.
Even more disturbing, for the present, was the appearance of gossip in a magazine published by the Stanford Alumni Association, my association, or for that matter anything associated with Stanford, my university. Has the alumni magazine been subsidized by the National Enquirer?
Thomas Beresford, '69
Denver, Colorado
HOMEMADE
Thank you for writing about how homeschoolers are welcome at Stanford and how they are doing there ("In a Class by Themselves," November/December). I lead "introduction to homeschooling" workshops and am often asked about college for these students. I will refer people to this article.
Suzie Steiner
Opportunity, Washington
GREED AND NEED
Former FCC chairman Bill Kennard's interest in providing the Indian reservations with the basics in communications technology was quite commendable ("Loud and Clear," November/December). In a fast-paced, yuppie-oriented society, materialism all too often becomes the ultimate stimulant; those who are left behind are treated as ignorant, lazy or both. Greed and "worship at the throne of the perpendicular pronoun" create a large group in our country who are disenfranchised from even the basic amenities. It's good to read about people in positions of influence and power who want to make a difference.
Peter T. Love, '67
Gold Hill, Oregon
THE OLD BUG
The book excerpt from Travels with Rico was most interesting to me (Shelf Life, November/December). Those of us who are closer to 100 than 80 were born too soon to be involved in Stanford's study-abroad programs, but they have always had a fascinating lure. Weaving the old Volkswagen into the students' stories almost brought the Bug to life as a fellow traveler.
Peter Whittlesey, '41
Warrenton, Oregon
BORROWING TROUBLE
Kudos to Mary Morrison for launching her financial literacy course (Farm Report, November/December). Far too many financial institutions prey on students, marketing "pre-approved" debt to those with shining earning potential but lacking knowledge of credit's dark side. Sure, there are plenty of valid uses for borrowed money, but the ability to ponder the costs and benefits of debt usually comes only through experience, which can be painful. Gaining that ability early can make a world of difference later.
Howard Roll, '85, MS '86
Portland, Oregon
WHAT'S IN A MASCOT?
I attended Stanford on an athletic scholarship at a time of much controversy regarding the lack of a mascot (Farm Report, November/December). The student body voted to retain no mascot and to use the color red as our trademark. In reality, it matters not what a school's mascot is. The pride and affiliation come from the friends, faculty and staff we associate with and the bonds we form. I don't know a single person who thinks their Stanford experience would have been enhanced with any other mascot than the Tree. I would hope in the new millennium to put this issue to rest, respecting Native American wishes, and just move on.
Deanna Boyette, '83
Greenville, North Carolina
You joke in "Hey, At Least It's Not a Chicken" that no one really knows what the Tree mascot symbolizes. Just look at the school seal, and you'll see where it came from.
Robin Uyeshiro, '78
Kailua, Hawaii
University archivist Maggie Kimball, '80, elaborates: The tree depicted on the seal is El Palo Alto ("the high stick"), a sequoia redwood that still stands near the railroad tracks dividing Palo Alto from Menlo Park. That tree was a major landmark signifying the northwestern corner of the property that Leland Stanford named the Palo Alto Stock Farm. The Farm, of course, became the University.
CORRECTION
An obituary in the January/February issue misstated the age and fraternity affiliation of Alec MacKenzie, '37, MD '42. A member of Alpha Delta Phi, he was 85 when he died last August.
Address letters to:
Letters to the Editor
Stanford magazine
Arrillaga Alumni Center
326 Galvez Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6105
Or fax to (650) 725-8676; or send us an email. You may also submit your letter online. Letters may be edited for length, clarity and civility. Please note that your letter may appear in print, online or both.
