Letters to the Editor

The Road to Happiness

"Mind Over Misery" by Robert L. Strauss (September/October) was fascinating. But the author's own experience and comments revealed another aspect of depression and anxiety that wasn't mentioned and doesn't appear to be an element of Dr. Burns's work: values.

The author is certainly to be commended for being so candid about his own depressive and anxious tendencies. "Coming back to the Stanford campus . . . and the Bay Area . . . invariably brings up deep-rooted feelings of insecurity. Am I good enough? Have I come close to fulfilling my potential? Do my achievements match up with the outsized accomplishments of my Business School cohort . . . regulars in the Forbes 400 . . . others who have created or headed large enterprises, or made millions upon millions?"

It seems inevitable that as long as a person clings to such an untenable notion of human worth, life will be an endless and fruitless struggle for recognition, or to prove oneself in financial or material terms. This is probably one reason why no major religion or philosophy in human history has promoted the notion that material competition (or, indeed any type of competition) leads to balance, harmony or happiness.

One hopes that both the author and Dr. Burns, who are clearly sensitive, well-meaning, intelligent and accomplished individuals, will find the time to examine not only feelings of inadequacy (whether their own or those of patients), but the ultimately flawed mindset that works ceaselessly to generate those feelings.
David Rearwin, PhD '73
La Jolla, California

I usually read books, rarely magazines, but the article on David Burns caught my attention. I read his book 20-plus years ago. It was recommended to me by my behavior therapist. I had recently moved to Stanford as a senior resident in psychiatry and behavioral sciences and wanted to work on my speech phobia. I found the Feeling Good handbook very helpful, and since then I have recommended it to many of my patients. I agree with Dr. Burns's view that a therapist or psychiatrist should not follow any one particular treatment modality but be open-minded.

I have my private practice in the Bay Area and, besides using psychotherapy, have been looking at serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, MAO (monoamine oxidase) enzyme, acetylcholine and other catecholamines in blood platelets, to see if they correlate with the chemical imbalance in the brain. My plan is now to conduct a double-blind study as soon as funding is in place.

It would be interesting to see if cognitive and behavioral therapy can regulate or correct some patients' neurotransmitter levels. If so, it could very well be used as an aid to Dr. Burns's depression rating scale and provide objectivity to mental health patients across the globe.

My hat's off to Dr. Burns, and to Robert L. Strauss for writing such a great article on one of the legends in the field of psychiatry.
Sanjay Jasuja
Menlo Park, California

The telling line in Robert L. Strauss's article is when he admits, "My life . . . has been incredibly fortunate, privileged and rich." A friend once observed that it seems only the affluent have the leisure time for indulging their psychological "problems." The working class has to suck it up and get on with their duties.
John R. Hamilton, '69
Pasadena, California

Campus Trees

Reading "High and Mighty" (September/October), I expected to see a mention of Professor Ronald Bracewell (1921-2007), the brilliant radiophysicist and engineer who contributed to mathematics, medical imaging, radar, solar astronomy and other areas. He was a wonderful teacher and gave me my first job as a Stanford undergrad working on his spectroheliograph site up near Zott's. Bracewell loved trees, especially the eucalyptus of his native Australia, and his book Trees of Stanford and Environs (2005) cataloged more than 350 species on the Stanford campus. In recognition of his work, a Bracewell sundial [was] dedicated on September 23 at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory at Socorro, N.M.
Stew Gillmor, '60
Higganum, Connecticut

The eucalyptus provided solace and serenity as I biked to campus from across El Camino and down Embarcadero. I've returned several times and their presence still speaks to my spirit. Foreign or not, shedding or not (their bark is gorgeous to this artist), they grace Stanford's front "lawn" with poise, beauty and welcome shade.
Nancy Neaher Maas, MA '72, PhD '76
Fort Worth, Texas

Growing Pains

The interview with President Hennessy in "Thinking Bigger, Little by Little" (September/October) was a fascinating glimpse into how strategic decisions are being made at Stanford that will affect the nature of the University for years to come. As a professional analyst of strategic plans for private and public organizations, I recognize the difficulty of juggling many objectives and stakeholders at once and trying to come up with a plan that accomplishes all of its objectives while avoiding adverse effects.

I like much of what President Hennessy says about how to approach growth in the student body. For example, he recognizes the importance of residential capacity and says, "If we got a little ahead on housing it wouldn't derail us." That lesson had not yet been learned when I was at Stanford in the 1970s, following decades of growth in the student body dating back to the 1940s. (From 1940 to 1980, the undergraduate population grew from 3,460 to 6,630, and the graduate population from 1,782 to 6,236.) Dorm building lagged behind growth of the student body for many years, leading to a situation in which many dorm rooms were overcrowded, and students who had bad luck in the infamous housing lottery (as I did, twice) could find themselves involuntarily displaced off campus for up to two years.

Although that lesson of the past seems to have been learned, I fear another sort of problem that has already affected Stanford and may, under the Hennessy plan, get even worse. President Hennessy states that "a key part of the entrepreneurial way we operate" is to encourage the unfettered growth of research. At the same time, he regrets the decline in undergraduate humanities majors, a trend he suggests is difficult to fight. Is it possible these two things are connected? Imagine a campus dominated more and more by highly visible, externally funded research, especially in engineering and the sciences. To a high school senior looking at different colleges, or an undergraduate at Stanford still contemplating his or her direction, which majors at Stanford will seem most attractive? Many will go where there appears to be the most activity and graduate-level fervor—often related to the amount of funding.

If the decline of undergraduate humanities at Stanford is, in fact, tied to the entrepreneurial approach at the graduate level, what can be done about that? Is there a way to uncouple the two goals so that they no longer conflict? For example, is it possible for Stanford to adjust its internal funding formulas to favor the humanities? Or, if some of this is already being done, can the formulas be pushed even further in that direction? Maybe this would ultimately turn around the problem of a shrinking number of humanities majors and allow for more balanced growth of the University.
Jack Homer, '77, MS '77
Voorhees, New Jersey

I read with interest President Hennessy's interview and was taken with the concern he expresses about the undergraduate/graduate balance in the student population. Upon receiving my BA at the University of Oregon in 1959, I was urged by my journalism professor there to apply for admission to Stanford during a time when the Farm was looking to beef up its graduate program. I turned down a scholarship to WGBH in Boston to pursue an MA in Stanford's liberal arts program (speech & drama). I was particularly drawn to the intern program Stanford had forged with the news division of NBC at the network's West Coast offices in Hollywood, where I found myself actively involved in assisting in the reporting of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon election.

My mentor during my graduate years was the indefatigable Stanley Donner. Later, when I was serendipitously in Austin, Texas, at the time he was chairman of the UT journalism program, he arranged an interview for me as manager of a nearby suburban radio station. I later left broadcasting to pursue interests in theater as a playwright and performer. I am grateful Stanford took me under its wing during a time when an imbalance in the student population was being adjusted. I support President Hennessy as he works with the trustees to address the question of expansion of the freshman class.
John Hutchinson, MA '61
Oakland, California

Useless Metric?

I am compelled to comment on the article "There's More Than One Way to Measure Economic Jitters" (Farm Report, September/October). Generally I find development of economic metrics, and especially demonstration of their value in predicting or explaining economic and/or social phenomena, very interesting and a valuable enterprise. Work by Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago comes immediately to mind. The [Stanford] article reported a correlation between a new metric (frequency of appearance of the word uncertainty and its cousins in certain contexts in mass media publications) and some of the great socioeconomic upheavals in recent U.S. history. However, it fell short of demonstrating any value of this correlation. It did not even declare the metric as a leading or lagging indicator. So either the editor failed to render a fair report of the work or the researchers discovered a fairly useless new metric.

Please tell me that the authors of the work have found something useful to do with this "discovery." Are there significant absences of this metric during certain types of events? Does the media use of the word "uncertainty" contribute to the likelihood of an event in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy? Or, is this just an idle correlation, like the historical myth that the market and women's hemlines are correlated?
John La Sala, MS '74, PhD '87
Wilmington, North Carolina

A Class Act

Thank you to President Hennessy for his column "Doing Well by Doing Good" (September/October). We wanted to make the Stanford community aware of another exciting social entrepreneurship initiative, Project Redwood, started by the Graduate School of Business Class of 1980. To date, Project Redwood has raised over $1 million to support both start-up and established nonprofits focused on alleviating global poverty. Each year, members of the class get together to evaluate, debate and vote on which projects to fund. So far, 22 projects have been funded in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the United States, improving the lives of tens of thousands. Project Redwood has also worked closely with the GSB Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability program, helping to vet proposed projects and providing seed capital for prototyping new products that can help reduce poverty.

Project Redwood was an outgrowth of a Giving Back panel featured at our 25th reunion in 2005. One of our classmates asked, "What can we do as a class to give back?" The belief among our classmates was that we collectively had a wealth of skills, experience and financial resources to help solve some of the world's most desperate problems. After many in-person, phone and email discussions, the organization was born and named in honor of the magnificent trees on the Stanford campus—and also to symbolize our hope that some of our small grant "seeds" might grow to have a large impact. Grant making began in 2007 and has continued every year since. More than 40 percent of our classmates have participated as donors and volunteers.

Not only has Project Redwood moved the dial on poverty in the communities it has reached, but it has also dramatically increased class solidarity. Annual meetings take place on the East and West coasts in alternate years. Attendance has been high and enthusiastic. Classmates have reconnected and formed close bonds. Equally important, Project Redwood has kept the class in close communication and collaboration with the GSB. We would hope that Project Redwood could become an effort emulated by other classes and schools within the Stanford family. More information can be found at www.projectredwood.org.
Phil Jonckheer, MA '80, MBA '80
Novato, California
Rich Jerdonek, MBA '80
Brecksville, Ohio
Project Redwood Co-Chairs

Living Longer

For at least 10 years I have really enjoyed the obits of the truly aged of our group. Of course no one really likes anyone to die, but at some point most of these graduates have earned their "rest." I am constantly amazed that those of us who last to 80, 85 or 90-plus continue to accomplish a lot as they age. Related questions arise: Do they live longer because they do a lot, or do they do a lot because they live longer?

Time magazine (September 23) ran a super article on "How to Live Long," which makes a strong case for causally linking creative activity with longevity. So it is the chicken, not the egg! For a splendid example of this theory at work, see the first entry in Class Notes (1930-1939, September/October) and rejoice in the review of the many ongoing activities of 102-year-old Ephraim Engleman, the remaining member of the Class of 1933. Case closed.
John Stahler, '60
Mountain View, California

Church, Religion and State

I would like to make two comments on the letter from Jim Haley ("Law and Religion," September/October).

First, he states that the Constitution's framers did not intend a godless nation, but a religionless nation. In fact, a religionless nation could be a godless nation. There is no need to invent a god in order to properly conduct political affairs.

Second, he mentions the phrase "god given" in the Declaration of Independence. That is the kind of language people used 237 years ago. That was 83 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. There has been a vast amount of enlightenment since then, and most people realize that we don't need a god to run things.
Terry Zaccone, PhD '82
Saratoga, California

More Food for Thought

I don't usually read alumni magazines, but my daughter left hers at home while she is away, and I took a peek—a long peek. It is the July/August Food Issue, and it's one of the happiest magazines I've read recently.

I found the writing excellent, the articles interesting—engaging even, the concerns with sustainability and local availability right up with the times.

My daughter, Elizabeth, recently graduated from one of your master's education programs, and I am glad it was from Stanford. I visited her on campus for graduation, but I'm sorry to say I didn't get to eat in any of your facilities. Maybe on our next visit.

Thanks for such a good magazine; I think I'll go put on my Stanford T-shirt.
Zack T. Hinckley
Birmingham, Alabama

The recent Food Issue and a very recent Wall Street Journal article on inflation in college costs has caused me to wonder if my donations are well spent. My tuition was $333.33 a quarter; my room in Toyon Hall was designed for two but housed four; and food service did not feature custom preparation or much of any choice. There was no rebellion or even discussion of any lack of amenities. The University experience did quite well at producing educated individuals who found opportunities in the real world.
Daniel Devor, '51, MA '56
Riverside, California

Readers might be interested to have the address and phone number of the Pizzeria Il Lordo, which is cited by Stanford in Florence alumni in two recent issues ("Four Seasons," Farm Report, July/August; "La Pizzeria," Letters, September/October):

Ristorante Pizzeria Il Lordo (055 59095)
Piazza Mino da Fiesole 13
Fiesole

Great pizza is still being served!
Michael M. Gorman, '66
Milan, Italy

As a third-generation rancher and second-generation Stanford graduate, I enjoyed the Food Issue, especially the article on Cory Carman's return to the family ranch ("At Home on the Range"). I too came back to our family ranch after working on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., for several years and found that I preferred working with cattle over Congress.

I am especially pleased to read about women getting involved in production agriculture. With the average age of the American farmer being 58, we need a more diverse and dynamic workforce in the 2 percent of the population that feeds the other 98 percent. Of my three children, my youngest daughter is the most likely to run our family ranch someday. In fact, you may have seen her photo in a beef promotion ad in Saveur, Men's Journal or ESPN The Magazine this summer. It reads "I don't get to retire until I raise my replacement."

I hope she will follow in Cory's footsteps, first to the Farm and then back to the ranch.
Ford Drummond, '85
Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Foodie that I am, I took great interest in the Food Issue but noticed the absence of Jewish gastronomy. Anyone who remembers their bubbye's delectable meals knows there's no cooking like Jewish cooking, but if you're of a certain age, you'll also remember that bubbye had no cookbooks. "What recipe? A bissel of this, a pinch of that . . . that's all you need to know." There's only one problem . . . how do you hand that down to future generations? The closest thing that existed in my family was Mother's 497-page kosher cookbook. Simply titled Jewish Cookery, it was published in 1949 and given to her as a newlywed by someone in Dad's family.  

The very first chapter of the book describes, of all things, the Hebrew calendar.You'd better know your Jewish holidays because each has its own traditional foods: kreplach and holishkes for Sukkoth and Bokser (St. John's Bread), almonds and raisins for Chamiso Oser b'Sh'vat. Folklore plays a role, too. Haman's ears were shaped liked donkey's ears: three-cornered and slightly elongated, hence the triangular hamentashen. There are also holiday sayings that pertain to food: "A gantz yor shikker und Purim nichter!" or, "All year drunk and sober on Purim."

Another chapter tells us that along with all this good eating comes responsibility.  After all, the future of nations depends on the health of the present generation. I'm glad that Stanford is doing its part.
Billie Elias, MS '76
New York, New York

Farm No More

In the July/August issue, Steve Phillips, '63, MA '64, took issue with a quote from the president, "discovery does not happen in outmoded facilities"; with Stanford's current "mega-campus feel and modernistic ambience"; and with students calling for donations ("Big Changes," Letters).

He touched on issues that both sadden and infuriate me. There is no collegiate feel remaining in the University whose memory I hold dear. The first quarter that I arrived at Stanford, I acquired an old Model T Ford that, among other anomalies, had no body or ignition lock. As a consequence it was repeatedly "appropriated" and left in various remote locations on campus. I called the Stanford police so often that it was sufficient for me to say, "This is Alan Lambert." The response was usually, "Oh it is gone again?" This easy familiarity with students, this collegiate feel, this "we are family" sentiment, are impossible to find in today's Stanford. I could mention in passing that the final frustration resulted from the stashing of the car under a haystack behind Toyon Hall. Too bad it's not there still.

I could cite many examples of my thrilling, freethinking, relaxed trek to an engineering degree, all of which would be impossible today.

Somehow Growth, Money, Bigness, Fame and Stature took over the essence of the Stanford experience. The Medical School, obviously finding our campus too small, has taken over a large part of Redwood City's industrial neighborhood. There is no more "Farm" here. It is now appropriate to badger alumni for more and more and more money. Building bigger, more impressive, and better-funded buildings has become the norm. It is a damn shame. I loved my stay at Stanford, and am very sad for the students there now.
Alan Lambert, '55
Los Altos, California

Busy Being Happy

What “misery” (“Mind Over Misery,’ September/October)?

I will be 85 years old in December, and I can now say that my 80s are among the best decades of a life that has been full of all manner of experiences: many good, many painful, but a full life . . . so far! I have four grandchildren, but my personal satisfactions come from my own career.

After earning two law degrees in my 70s, I passed the bar in 2007 and became a land-use litigator. I am doing what I love doing, after careers as business journalist, management consultant, CEO of two dot-coms, author, etc. Litigation seems to put all the prior experience together, with my new knowledge of the law.

I think it’s partly genes, but you’ve got to help the genes along. My father was a world-class athlete and taught me never to look right or left, but to do what I want to do. And that is principally how I have lived: If it’s human to do something, I can do it. Maybe not as well as some, maybe better than others, but who cares? I didn’t get serious about skiing until I was 70, because I had two husbands who did not like it. My most recent romance, who will celebrate his 69th birthday this month, has become a “jock” and says he was inspired by me.

So what’s the message? Damned if I know! I’m just having a hell of a good and busy time of it.
Evelyn Konrad, ’49, MA ’49
New York, New York

Love the Tree

You give the poor eucalyptus very little respect when you [say] the tree “is not universally beloved,” “has a bad reputation,” and that “not everyone cried” when trees are lost (“High and Mighty,” September/October). I believe Stanford people [have] real emotional ties to the eucalyptus, because its distinctive fragrance is forever embedded in one’s memory the first time one steps on campus. How many people think instinctively of Stanford when encountering the smell of eucalyptus even off campus? As a matter of fact, a family friend who graduated from Stanford in the late 1930s loved the tree so much that he named his daughter Eucaly. 
Emory Lee, ’59, MA ’64
Palo Alto, California

Story Ideas

I happen to support gay marriage politically (I’m a Libertarian), but as a Christian alumnus, [I suggest] you could practice a little “morals equality” in your editorial content and feature, let’s say, an antiabortion activist (like myself) or a missionary (“More Than a Commitment,” September/October). I can understand why you chose the article—it was a first and it occurred at Stanford—but the extremely lopsided liberal bent gets really old and is a consistent feature of your publication. What about alumni who don’t really want to read about controversial socio-sexual-moral issues constantly or would appreciate a more balanced approach? How about us? We don’t count? Our viewpoint is not valid somehow?

Here’s an idea: Feature a really healthy, loving, traditional family. That would be inspiring and something I’m sure everyone would like to read about. Seriously. A gay couple in San Francisco is not really “news,” although, again, I can see why you ran it, but somebody with traditional values these days—from Stanford—now that’s news!
Stuart Shepherd, MD ’91
Washington, D.C.

For the Record

I hope you will allow me to defend myself against the false statements in Jim Haley’s letter (“Law and Religion,” September/October) regarding the law applicable to the separation of religion and the state in the United States, and my views and statements about the law, which he claimed to be addressing. In my letter (“Law Clinic Concerns,” July/August), I raised concerns about the new Stanford Law Clinic regarding statements of administrators indicating that it would be focused on defending the religious freedom of people who believed in God, or those who voted for Mitt Romney, not the freedom of those who have religious beliefs that are nontheistic. I pointed out that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution to all citizens—not just those who have particular religious beliefs.

Haley claims my letter was “filled with error and misinterpretation of the source documents.” As an example, he claims that I stated or inferred or suggested that the framers of the Constitution intended a “godless nation.” Nowhere in my letter did I make any such statement or suggestion.

Haley also claims that the framers intended a “religionless nation.” The writers of the Constitution were religious men, so just what does Haley mean by “religionless?”  The answer is apparently provided by his references to Sharia and his statement that the establishment clause was intended to keep the nation “free of the tenets of a specific religion.” Unfortunately, Haley has repeated a common fallacy: that the establishment clause was intended to prohibit government establishment of a specific religion, but not intended to keep government and religion separate. Haley is simply incorrect. I suggest he, and all who are similarly confused about the meaning of the establishment clause, read the First Amendment again, very carefully, and read up on the history of the early United States and the Bill of Rights.

The establishment clause says that the government can’t make laws respecting the “establishment of religion.” It doesn’t refer to any particular religion, or a group of religions—it says simply “religion.” The framers recognized, with the urging of James Madison and others, that freedom of religion requires government to avoid any entanglement with religion—any and all religion. The debates before and during the constitutional convention, and the private letters of the framers and others involved in the formulation and writing of the Bill of Rights, demonstrate that Madison, who wrote the text, chose his words carefully for that purpose. The establishment clause was based in part on the ideas in Jefferson’s Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom, of which Madison was an enthusiastic supporter. Jefferson clearly articulated that he wrote the Virginia Statute in part to convey the imperative to keep government and religion entirely separate. The historical record shows clearly that Jefferson and Madison believed that religious freedom requires a complete “wall of separation” (Jefferson’s words) between government and religion—any and all religion. Patrick Henry’s attempt to get a bill into the Constitution favoring government support of Christianity in general was rejected. The word God does not appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights for these reasons.

This brings us to another false statement in Haley’s letter: that the rights we enjoy in the United States are granted to us by a supreme being and not by the Constitution and other laws. Haley quotes the Declaration of Independence to support his assertions. This does not make much sense, as the Declaration of Independence is not law. Haley states that it is obvious that the founders believed our rights are “god given.” Unfortunately, Mr. Haley misunderstands the issue I wrote about in my letter. The issue I wrote about is the right granted by law to freedom of religion and who should be entitled to a defense of that right. The issue is not what the framers believed personally about God and the law. The framers who prevailed on this particular issue and the First Amendment were wise, decent and fair enough to separate their personal beliefs from their responsibility to write just laws applicable to all of us.

Finally, Mr. Haley falsely accuses me of asserting that religious people “have no right to representation when political forces deny them their right of free expression.” Again, Mr. Haley appears to be intentionally misrepresenting what I’ve written. Nowhere have I ever claimed, suggested or inferred that religious people have no right to representation under any circumstances. On the contrary, what I said is exactly the opposite. I defended the right of all people to have representation to defend their religious rights, and I said I believe that any law clinic purporting to defend these rights should be willing to defend the rights of atheists, Buddhists and others, as well as theists.
Jeff Bloom, ’84
Alexandria, Virginia

Doggone!

Marie Baca’s End Note (“Giving Us Paws,” May/June 2013) about how hard it was for her and her husband—both Stanford grads, well educated, and well off—to adopt a dog brought back memories. About a dozen years ago, my 12-year-old third child decided that, in spite of his allergies, he really wanted a dog. Both my wife and I had grown up with dogs, so we were not opposed to the idea (though not exactly in love with it either, knowing that one day soon we would be empty nesters in charge of that dog). One weekday I was driving by a local pet store that advertised “Pet Adoptions Here Every Sunday.” So the following Sunday I dutifully packed up my son and drove to said pet store, where we found about three dozen dogs (who lived during the week in foster homes, not a kennel or shelter—that should have been clue No. 1) arranged throughout the store in cages. My son saw one that he liked, and we informed the person in charge, who gave us a questionnaire to fill out and send back.

When we got home, I gave the questionnaire to my son and told him that since the dog was going to be his primary responsibility, he should fill it out, which he did, only stopping to ask me a few questions that I needed to answer. The first was, “Where will you keep the dog when you bring him home?” I answered, “In the kitchen until we know that he is fully housebroken.” The second was, “What will you do if it turns out that your dog is overly vicious?” Keeping in mind that an overly vicious dog had just about caused my brother’s homeowner’s insurance company to cancel his insurance, I responded, “We’ll bring the dog back.”

We sent in the form and waited. To my astonishment, after a month we still had not received a reply, so we finally drove back to the pet store. I should have known (clue No. 2) that something was up when, upon looking around, I realized that at least 90 percent of the dogs that had been there a month before, including the one my son wanted, were still there. I told the person in charge that I was surprised that we had returned the questionnaire at least a month before but had not heard anything back. Surely they would want to place a dog with a good, well off and well educated family such as ours. To my utter shock the woman responded, “Oh, we remember your application!”

“Really?” I replied. “Yes,” she said. “You said you were going to keep the dog locked up in the kitchen.”

“Well, of course,” I said, “until I can make sure that the dog is housebroken.” “And,” she went, “you said that you would return the dog to us if it turned out to be overly vicious.”

“Yes,” I replied, thinking that was a pretty reasonable answer.

To which she replied (and I swear these were her exact words): “Wouldn’t you take the dog to therapy first?”

She then added, “I think you and your son need to go home and complete the questionnaire again and this time think more carefully about your answers.”

Needless to say, we did not return, and I always wonder how many of those dogs ever made it out of the foster home system (or euthanasia) into loving adoptions. It also made me wonder if these shelters and foundations were really working in the best interests of the animals.
Robert M. Smith, ’77
Los Angeles, California

Address letters to:

Letters to the Editor, Stanford magazine
Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center
326 Galvez Street,
Stanford, CA 94305-6105;
or fax to (650) 725-8676; or send us an email.
Email is the preferred method for letters.

Letters may be edited for length, clarity and civility.