The Bad and the Good
Upon finishing your article on Phil Knight ("The Force Behind the Nike Empire," January/February), I resolved to find a piece I had read in a recent edition of Ms. magazine concerning worker protests of Nike's labor practices in Asia. I was agitated that your magazine would choose to feature an alum who had made millions at the expense of others. Surely, I thought, there must be other alums who have done more worthy things?
And so, I am writing to thank you for including John Daniel's memoir of his time as a caregiver for his mother, who was afflicted with Alzheimer's ("A Son's Memoir," January/ February). My mother is currently enduring a similar agony as she cares for my grandmother --a woman of great strength who worked full time until reaching her early 80s and who can no longer remember my name.
It is men and women such as Daniel and my mother who are truly heroes--angels sprouting wings, as Zilla Daniel said of her son. It is they who deserve to be recognized in your magazine.
Peter Ross, '90
Freedom, Maine
Just Don't Do It
I was dismayed when I read Jackie Krentzman's article on Phil Knight and Nike. Though the article acknowledges the unsafe conditions and exploitative worker policies in Indonesian Nike factories, Krentzman seems to dismiss this controversy as simply part of a clever and charismatic marketing campaign.
Stanford can do better than fill its pages glorifying the man responsible for Nike's unethical treatment of workers.
Regan Pritzker, '94
Oakland, California
What a sickening story: Phil Knight, MBA '62. Now worth $5.3 billion and never done anything of value in the world! Is this what Stanford's business school turns out?
Oh, you say, look at the spread we did on Warren Christopher, JD '49. I did look. Knight got seven pages, Christopher six.
Robert E. Holmes, MA '76
Sacramento, California
A Caregiver's Struggle
John Daniel's essay expresses the brutal contradictions of emotion we feel when we are destined to care for a slow-dying, aged parent. The author's tender and loving concern as he washes his mother's hair and bathes her when his exasperation and grief overwhelm him. My own mother, after five years paralyzed and on a feeding tube in a nursing home, begged me only yesterday to let her die and "live quietly in my grave." Daniel's beautifully written piece strikes terror in the heart and shows the courage necessary to lead our elderly parents to the end of their lives.
Merrill Joan Gerber, Gr '63
Sierra Madre, California
The masterful essay on a caregiver's struggle touched me much deeper than I had expected. Daniel, a baby boomer like many of us, wrote with aching honesty about his annoyance with his mother's senility. The way he described feeling trapped by his duty forces each of us to be aware of our responses to the challenge of caring for dependent loved ones.
Joan Carne McElwain Carter, '71
Black Mountain, North Carolina
The Bicycle Revolution
When I arrived at Stanford as a freshman, I was accompanied by my bicycle, which I rode to my classes. After I graduated, I commuted by bicycle for most of my working career. Now in retirement, I ride my bicycle for recreation as well as competition. I believe in the bicycle for many reasons: economical transportation, pollution reduction, recreation, competition and, most important, health benefits--both physical and mental.
Thus it was with great enthusiasm that I read "Beijing by the Bay" in the January/ February issue of Stanford Today. I congratulate you on a well-written, informative feature about cycling at Stanford. I would, however, like to see more about the outstanding Stanford cycling team--maybe in a future issue?
Ken Green, '56
Calistoga, California
I have just read David Jacobson's "Beijing by the Bay" about the problems of bicycle congestion. As a student in 1923-27, I had no difficulty walking to and from classes. (The campus in those days was basically just the Quad.)
I note in the article that the new Science and Engineering Quad will have 1,000 bike parking spaces and a 40-square-foot garage for 160 bikes. I can't visualize 160 bikes in 40 square feet--only one-quarter square foot per bike. The author must mean 40 feet square, which is 1,600 square feet, or 10 square feet per bike. Quite a difference!
Although I am nearly 92, my mind is still sharp and I picked up the discrepancy in a flash. I couldn't resist writing.
Stanley L. Burchell, '27
Reno, Nevada
From One Generation to Another
I can't blame Jesse Oxfeld ("The Power Within," January/February) for being frustrated with TV news coverage of his generation. I have the same frustration with coverage of my generation. It's not our fault; it's television.
My generation (I am 44) is represented by a much broader distribution than one can see in old video clips of the demonstrations. Even many of us who call ourselves moderates became concerned about the war in Vietnam. These days there is agreement that our country wandered into somebody else's civil war without a clear idea of what we wanted to accomplish, much less how to accomplish it. Many of us realized this at the time.
We also thought we were smarter than our parents. We also were not. We just thought differently because, as a generation, we had a different common history.
Jesse should try a little harder to get a feeling for the sweep of history that has brought him to this interesting and exciting time. And he should give some thought also to where it is sweeping us. His generation and mine need to join together to ensure the future, so I'm glad that he cares.
Mark Linne, MS '79, PhD '85
Golden, Colorado
Thanks for the Ride
Your history column ("A Century at Stanford," January/February) noted that, 50 years ago, Stanford Village provided quarters for "single men, married couples and couples with children." I am moved to point out that two of Dibble Hospital's barracks in Menlo Park became dormitories for women veterans in 1946. Most of the residents there were graduate students, but five of us were frosh.
Somehow, a system arose for transportation to and from campus. Village residents with vehicles stopped at convenient points to pick up those of us who were on foot. This system worked well during my years in Stanford Village, and I offer a thank you now to those generous drivers.
Millicent Beck, '50, Gr '53
Salem, Oregon
Overseas Postscript
I read with great interest the article about the Overseas Studies Program ("World Class," November/December 1996). I would like to add my own story.
I attended the program in Vienna in the spring of '71 and the spring of '72. On Tuesday, July 13, 1971, I went into an English bookstore in Vienna. I left that bookstore with my life changed forever.
I had asked an Austrian salesgirl if she would go out with me, and we had our first date that very evening. The rest is, as they say (especially in Vienna), history. We married there in 1975 in the 500-year-old Minoriten Church. In 1979, we moved to the United States. We now have two children, who are dual citizens, and we visit my wife's family in Vienna every year or two.
I am grateful that Stanford offered me this opportunity and that my dad urged me to take advantage of it. I encourage every current student to go to one of the overseas centers. But, be careful. Your life could change in ways you could never imagine. And I hope it will!
John "Jack" McManemin III, '72
Salt Lake City, Utah
Professors and Parking
Professor Haim Mendelson's letter about campus parking (Letters, January/February) supposes a faculty member's hourly value at $400! Assuming eight-hour days for 180 days per year, the annual salary for a Stanford professor would be a lordly $576,000. No wonder I do not feel capable of supporting the University's finances.
I suggest that the professor consider his 10-minute loss cruising around for a parking space part of his mid-morning coffee break. Also, after teaching junior high and high school for 35 years, I know from personal experience that such commuting time is valuable for girding one's mental loins for the stresses of the classroom.
Frederick R. Moore, '51
Paradise, California
Gene Fixing
"Genetic Roulette" (Stanford Today, November/December 1996) contains a column, "Discoveries in Genetics," that highlights accomplishments by Stanford faculty. Here, I wish to correct only the inaccuracies regarding my own work.
In 1992, in a collaboration with Eric Shooter's laboratory, we actually identified the gene that is defective in Trembler mice, and then mapped it to a human chromosomal region that is duplicated in a form of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, but we could only speculate that this gene may be causally involved in the disease.
The statement that, in 1995, my laboratory "found genes for two rare inherited diseases, Williams and Marfan syndromes" is also incorrect. First, others had shown that Williams syndrome is due to deletion of a piece of chromosome 7 containing a large--as yet undetermined-- number of genes, and my laboratory identified just one of those. Second, the gene for Marfan syndrome was discovered in 1991 by two collaborating groups of researchers, none of whom worked at Stanford. Since 1993, our research group here has focused on the study of mutations in this gene and their consequences.
In contrast, not mentioned is the fact that, in 1994, my laboratory did indeed discover a hitherto unknown disease gene that is responsible for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, an X-linked immune deficiency with bleeding and eczema.
To get credit that you don't deserve, while your real contributions are being ignored, does not make a scientist happy.
Dr. Uta Francke
Professor of Genetics
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Editors Note: We regret the errors.
David Botstein's statement that it will be impossible to significantly "engineer" humans is, at best, optimistic and, at worst, dangerously naive. Twenty years ago, similar statements could have been made about the mapping of the genome. Is Botstein willing to accept responsibility for the advances of the next 20 years?
Only one thing is sure: Western Culture has lagged behind technological advances since the Middle Ages. We need to consider the impact of genetic engineering on our species well in advance of its reality. If (or, as I believe, when) such engineering becomes fact, it will be far too late to consider how to manage its impact and distribute its benefits.
Robert Avakian, MS '70
Midland, Texas
Slow Burn
After reading your column "No Butts About It" (First Impressions, November/ December 1996), I was surprised to find the ad on page 12 for the Stanford Humidor as well as the one on page 114 for the monthly Cigar Club.
Considering the position the editor took on tobacco, making money from these ads seems inappropriate. Then again, here in the '90s, I guess it is all right as long as "you didn't inhale" the profits.
Joseph E. Stevenot, MS '56
Seabrook Island, South Carolina
I hereby express my disgust and anger with Stanford for carrying an ad for Cigar Club.
Especially ironic is that this issue carried an article on medical professor Stanton Glantz's anti-smoking crusade.
It is immoral (evil) to make smoking of any kind chic or attractive.
Elaine Marcus-Millar, '53
Santa Barbara, California
Editors Note: Stanford has a long-standing policy against accepting advertisements from cigarette manufacturers. Effective this issue, we extend that policy to all tobacco products.
Diversity Debate
Can you please declare a moratorium on all the whining letters from alumni whose children didn't get into Stanford, the implication usually being that less qualified "minority" kids got in? I am a middle-class white alumna and I am still hoping that my teenage daughter will apply to and be accepted by Stanford. But she is getting a bad impression from these letters. She is beginning to think that Stanford graduates don't have such great brainpower after all; she thinks that she has enough of an advantage in the college entrance game by having educated parents, a house in a neighborhood that is known for its quality public schools, plenty of books and computers, and the ability to travel.
So, please, keep your magazine an amusing and sometimes enlightening view of Stanford, and keep my daughter interested in following me there.
Joan Horwich, '73
Fresno, California
As a Mexican-American undergraduate applicant in 1988, I was a beneficiary of Stanford's affirmative action admissions programs. Without the letters of encouragement to consider Stanford, a school that I had not heard of until my senior year in high school, and without the phone calls from fellow Latino students, I would have limited my choices of colleges to state schools near my home in Los Angeles. My knowledge was limited because my family had no history of higher education.
With my admission to Stanford, I became the first member of my family to attend college and the first to face people's opposition to affirmative action. My high school economics teacher announced to the class that I only got in because there weren't enough Mexicans at Stanford and they needed me to add to the numbers. On the first day of orientation, someone let me know that I did not have a true place at Stanford by writing "spic" on the name plate on my dorm door. The list goes on, and so did I.
While affirmative action helped me get into Stanford, it did not help me study, work 15 hours per week, do volunteer work or graduate early to reduce tuition costs and loans. I did these things because I was given an opportunity and wanted to succeed so that others might follow.
Al Gonzales Jr., '92
San Francisco, California
"Who Gets In?" (September/October 1996) quoted me on affirmative action: "You get diversity at the price of quality." That statement is hardly a full reflection of my views on this complicated subject. I have consistently welcomed diversity, but I also made the horsesensical observation that it is important how you go about getting it. At Stanford and other liberal institutions, they have gone about it with a meat-axe, and the concrete "dumbing down" is obvious to anyone of good faith.
Of course, the rotten secondary schools were part of this disaster. But Rafael Figueroa is being disingenuous when he ignores the patent impact of woodenly race-based (quota) affirmative action (Letters, January/February). My principles are not far from his. And it is not his fault that he was given an all-too- handy opportunity to fling the glib charge of "racism" at me.
Heigh ho, all this is par for the course if you don't think in lockstep.
Robert Greer Cohn
Professor emeritus of French
I found it ironic that Donald S. Jefferson criticizes what he sees as Stanford's policies of "social engineering, political correctness and historical revisionism" (Letters, January/February). In the same letter, he makes it clear that he expected special privileges for his daughter as "a 'legacy' to boot."
The very idea that Jefferson is so bitter about "'minority' students [making] up nearly half the entering freshman class," while knowing nothing about the students' accomplishments, illustrates the dehumanizing mentality that pervades even well-educated minds and which programs like affirmative action seek to overturn.
Allison A. Johnson, '87
La Jolla, California
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.
