Opinions and Consequences
Reading Stewart Brand's admission to having opinions that are "strongly stated and loosely held" as he explained his change from opposition to support of GMOs and nuclear power, I wondered about the wisdom of strong opinions, especially when we make them a basis for action in matters with enduring impacts ("The God Project," May/June). Imagining that Brand started as a nuclear power supporter and now is an opponent, how will he reverse the effects of his earlier advocacy? He may yet face this question if his current view is indeed "loosely held."
The Stanford family statue by the mausoleum bears the inscription, "Dedicated to science and the good of humanity." Where evidence and reason are insufficient to accurately predict outcomes, scientists question rather than opine. The history of technology is a story of escalating unanticipated and damaging consequences, which we've addressed with ever larger, more complex and less forgiving inventions, urging each other along with opinions insufficiently grounded in science. We can ill afford to continue thus.
Robin Bayer, '89
Palo Alto, California
Judging by the Cover
I've enjoyed many a fine article in Stanford over the years, but it is the cover artwork, and an inside panel by the same gifted artist, John Cuneo (May/June), that finally propels me to send a short note (my first ever) of high praise. It takes an extraordinary gift to capture the emotional side of the research process with such a vividly unique style and in-your-face humor. And as someone who has spent much time in various editor's chairs over many years, it was equally a stroke of genius to decide to ask this artist to illustrate the "What, Me Worry?" article in the first place.
Edwin M. Young, MS '75, PhD '86
Tehachapi, California
When the Bough Breaks . . .
Kevin Cool's excellent "Experiencing Turbulence" (First Impressions, May/June) reminded me of the time I went rafting with some fraternity brothers down the San Francisquito Creek during the spring floods. The water was a raging torrent and not as much fun as I had thought. A group of people on a bluff gesticulated and shouted something we couldn't hear, so we smiled and waved back. As we rounded a bend, we saw to our horror a huge tree across the creek. My companions wisely bailed out, but I thought I could climb out on the tree and avoid the freezing water. On hitting the tree, the raft buckled, and I was swept under. I felt the limbs slapping my body and was afraid I would become entangled. Fortunately, I cleared the branches and was thrown onto a rock. This may not have been the dumbest thing I have ever done, but it is certainly in the top five. Good, tolerable or toxic stress? Take your pick. That is the kind of "engagement with life" I can do without.
Ed Morsman, '60
Wayzata, Minnesota
Funny, Pointed
Thanks so much for publishing Mark Applebaum's delightful "Time Management: A Modest Proposal" (May/June). I haven't laughed so hard in a long time, both from sheer delight at his time block descriptions and from a learned man's savvy recognition of the scheduling inanities and minutiae that overwhelm our data-driven times. His positioning of students and faculty on the same proposed schedule makes the point that whatever the class schedule may be while students are at Stanford, absurd workplace requests for time accountability rather than measurable achievement are not likely to stop after students graduate. More, please, of Professor Applebaum's writing and such funny yet pointed articles.
Natori Moore, '83
Carlsbad, California
The Bigger Picture
The recent article on the 1965 incident involving the pledging of Ken Washington as a member of Sigma Chi provides a telling reminder of the restrictive membership clauses in most national fraternity charters in that era ("What They Stood For," March/April). It was both a powerful human-interest story, exposing the impacts of discrimination on Ken Washington, and a footnote to the many examples of resistance to discrimination at all levels of society in the Sixties.
We applaud the members of Sigma Chi who took the stand described in the article.
The author missed an opportunity, however, to consider this incident in the broader context of the fight against those restrictive policies. That struggle started in the 1950s, when universities as well as state governments objected to the restrictive membership clauses of many national fraternities that unapologetically asserted their right to restrict membership on any basis.
The article also missed an opportunity to highlight the earlier battles of several fraternities on the Stanford campus who either ignored demands of national fraternities to abide with restrictive membership clauses or openly rejected those demands. For example, the article references a New York Times article alleging that the Alpha Tau Omega (ATO) chapter severed ties with the national fraternal organization voluntarily in 1961. In fact, as is well documented in the Stanford archives, Stanford ATOs fought strenuously against the national fraternity's effort to revoke the charter of the Stanford chapter because it had pledged four members who were Jewish. This effort was fully supported almost unanimously by the 54 ATO members at the time, ATO alumni, Stanford alumni and the Stanford Administration, as well as the attorney general of California.
The grand chief of the national ATO organization at the time stated infamously, "We don't discriminate against Jews—as long as they embrace the Christian faith."
The story of how the ATO national leaders learned about the pledging of non-Christians by the Stanford chapter deserves an article itself. Suffice it to say that the ATO chapter had for years ignored the white, male, Christian restrictive membership clause that was inserted into the national charter only in the mid-1950s. The undersigned were proud to have been some of the presidents of the fraternity during these events, upholding the principles of true brotherhood and honoring the intent of the original creed of ATO, as listed on their website.
It should also be noted that in contrast to the Sigma Chi story, the ATO national did not reinstate the Stanford chapter, despite revising its membership clauses because of pressure from universities and state attorneys general in the mid-1960s.
Dixon Arnett, '60, San Diego, California
Mike Kavanaugh, '62, Oakland, California
Doug Garner, '63, MS '67, Poulsbo, Washington
Jim Towne, '65, MBA '67, Redmond, Washington
Dick Myers, '68, Minneapolis, Minnesota
After reading about Ken Washington's courageous path at Stanford, I was both heartened by the outcome and saddened that the events had transpired. As is the case with almost all events that change the course of history, it could not have happened without some help from others who carved some small steps out of the stony, invincible hierarchy at Stanford. Three events that I recall with the hazy memory that plagues folks of my age may have helped make Sigma Chi and Washington successful.
First, Armin Rosencranz was elected student body president in 1963. Unlike previous presidents, Armin was a graduate student in political science and had a law degree. His prestige required that the university acknowledge that students were important, that they had to be heard and, perhaps, even respected.
Second, the university was building fraternity clusters and moving fraternities from their own houses into university housing. The reasons for doing this may have varied from dislike of fraternities (because they had fun?) to a desire to control students. Since the national organizations either owned or controlled the houses, the ability to move a fraternity into another facility made it more possible that any house could defy the inexcusable policies of the "brotherhood." That the national could not create a homeless fraternity was helpful to all the houses that chose to move forward in this area.
Third, the administration at the time, led by Dean Winbigler, was extremely comfortable with the university serving as parents to students. When they discovered that a female student was living off campus with her boyfriend (women were not allowed to live off campus), they summarily suspended the girlfriend and told the boyfriend he was naughty. Ordinarily, this was the purview of the Judicial Council; we were outraged by the decision and the fact that it was their decision and not ours. There were demonstrations and confrontations. Because Armin Rosencranz was student body president, we were heard.
Although not much changed at the time, I cannot help but feel that the air was a bit cleaner and the administration was more amenable to change. Perhaps these events helped set the stage for Sigma Chi and Ken Washington to successfully challenge fraternity racism and for women to be treated equally at Stanford. In any case, because of the courage of Sigma Chi members and Ken Washington, Stanford became a better place sooner rather than later.
A memorable footnote for me occurred when I was quoted in the Stanford Daily in regard to the suspension of the female student: "the excellence of Stanford is not proportional to the number of virgins on campus." A few days later, the dean of men awakened me with a phone invitation to meet him at his office as soon as possible. It seemed that all the local papers picked up the quote and decided that Stanford must be a haven for promiscuity. Introduction to newspaper sensationalism and inept reporting at 7 a.m. Lesson learned.
Lawrence Sherwin, '64
Corona del Mar, California
I read both "What They Stood For" in Stanford and an article titled "The Fraternity Problem" in the March issue of Atlantic. I have two incidents to relate relative to fraternities (in which I include sororities).
In 1943, because most of the young men who would have been Stanford freshmen were off to war, the university expanded the enrollment of women from the normal 500 to 1,500. In October, rushing for sororities took place. The process was scary and arbitrary in terms of who was invited to the sorority parties and who was not. I had formed a friendship with a Jewish girl, and she did not receive an invitation.
Mary Yost, then the dean of women, decided that the process was discriminatory and that there were too few sororities (nine) to accommodate all who wished to join. She abolished them. The sorority houses were still residential units on campus, and those girls who wished to live in one could ask to do so.
The second circumstance was unrelated to Stanford. In 2000, I was on a compassionate flight from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to San Francisco, having learned hours earlier of the death of my oldest grandson in a fraternity hazing incident at Chico State in Northern California. He was l8 and had been at college less than two months.
A strange coincidence occurred on my flight. I picked up a magazine from my seat pocket, probably a late September issue, and found an article about a family that had won a $6 million suit against MIT for the death of their son in a hazing incident.
The Stanford article by Mike Antonucci certainly portrays the good, positive side of fraternities. The young men who resisted the pressure of the national fraternity and pledged someone of their choice rather than discriminating against a person of a minority race certainly deserve our praise for their strength of character and their courage. [The 2000 article] agrees that fraternal organizations can be beneficial and can lead to lifelong friendships.
The Atlantic article is much darker and shows a grim side to these organizations. Accidents leading to death or injury are not uncommon. Colleges and universities seem to have little control over the fraternities on their campuses, as the power of the national organizations is enormous. This leaves little recourse to parents who have lost children.
I have two grandsons who are Stanford graduates, classes of 2009 and 2012. Neither joined a fraternity. I also have two grandsons not yet of college age, and I will encourage them to find other outlets during their college careers.
Anne Jacques, '47
Redding, Connecticut
Çatalhöyük Deserves Support
I was interested to read that Stanford archaeologist Ian Hodder is reviving interest in a Neolithic site that was just a barren plain back in 1972 ("What Happened Here?" March/April). When I was living in Istanbul and teaching math at Robert College, we ventured far off the beaten track into Anatolia to visit Çatalhöyük, which was overseen then by a lone bekçi (watchman). The early excavations seemed abandoned to the elements, but I remember the layers of earth that crumbled to the touch, with fragments of bone mixed in like sand. Our family traveled from sites like Çatalhöyük directly to Escondido—another kind of domestic honeycomb—in 1973, when I attended Stanford Business School. Given the strong research ties that have developed since then between Stanford and Turkey and the importance of Turkey's current geopolitical position, I think it is regretful that Hodder has to spend so much of his professional time "worrying about money." His work at Çatalhöyük has literally changed the history books for this generation and deserves the support of all who are interested in the Middle East.
Jim Maggart, MBA '76
Hamden, Connecticut
Athletes and Academics
I read with great interest John Hennessy's piece about Stanford's athletic successes ("In Praise of True Student-Athletes," President's Column, March/April). I am a loyal alumnus and consistent donor, and I enjoy Stanford sports. I live in Indianapolis and am enthusiastic about the strong Stanford presence on the Indianapolis Colts. I do object to President Hennessy's use of the term "student-athlete," which is an NCAA buzzword designed to signify that students who play an intercollegiate sport are somehow different from those who don't, particularly those who might also spend many hours per week pursuing other passions. I have never heard the term student-artist, -musician, -volunteer, etc., to describe those others.
Hennessy notes the increasing concern about the professionalization of college athletics and its effect on undergraduate education. This is becoming an important national discussion. Consider the recent regional NLRB decision determining that football players at Northwestern have the right to form a union and collectively bargain with the university. As reported in the New York Times, the director rendered an opinion that the evidence supported the finding that the students were employees, not students, and that a scholarship was a "contract for compensation."
As one of the leading private academic institutions in the nation and athletically so prominent, Stanford should be doing rigorous internal analysis to determine its position on this matter. Huge amounts of money, academic integrity and intellectual honesty are all involved. This would be an excellent topic to explore in a future issue.
Christopher Stack, '63
Indianapolis, Indiana
President Hennessy stated that Stanford is "committed to the academic success of our student-athletes." I would like to voice my concern about the increase in class time missed by athletes. First of all, non-championship games are now scheduled in the end of quarter/Dead Week. Stanford's own policy states: "During the End-Quarter Period, no musical, dramatic, or athletic events involving compulsory student participation may be scheduled, unless approved as exceptions by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy. . . ." Using the most recent winter quarter Dead Week as an example, nine non-championship events were scheduled. The students on these teams are unable to attend any review sessions (many are in the afternoon) or attend professors' and teaching assistants' office hours during these games. Athletes may need to start their pregame routines two hours before game time. Thus, for a 3 p.m. event start, they may miss all afternoon labs, review sessions and professors' office hours.
Secondly, with the new PAC-12 network scheduling, some teams that previously had almost all away games/matches on Friday through Sunday now have midweek events. A team might leave Stanford on Monday at noon to fly to a visiting school to play a series on Tuesday and Wednesday; they would return Wednesday night and attend class for at most 50 percent of the week for a non-championship event. I hope that Stanford values class time with its award-winning professors more than money from a TV contract.
I would recommend that President Hennessy and his staff do the following:
1. Individually and privately (i.e., no athletic department members present) ask a large cross-section of present and past student-athletes their opinions about the loss of instruction time and office hour availability;
2. Enforce the end-of-quarter period rules for non-championship events; and
3. Choose the quality of the student-athletes' education over TV contract money.
John Donovan, '82
Salem, Oregon
Unforgettable
I have a different kind of admissions story about Dean Fred ("The Man Who Got Them In," Farm Report, March/April). In 1980, one of my students was scheduled for open-heart surgery at Stanford Hospital. Bob was in his late 50s and had retired and returned to college as a re-entry student. He liked to joke with his friends that he had been "admitted" to Stanford. So I wrote Fred Hargadon to explain the situation and asked if he could send Bob a note granting him admission, which we would present to Bob at a dinner party shortly before his surgery.
Here are excerpts from his letter, which turned out to be much more than a note:
"I have been Dean of Admissions at Stanford for over ten years now. As you can well imagine, I have witnessed, during that time, just about every ploy and ruse man can devise in an attempt to gain admission to this University. . . .
Or so I thought until I learned that by virtue of posing as a heart bypass patient, you yourself managed to sneak by me on your way to Stanford. Well, I want you to know you have been found out. I have talked to the doctors at the Medical Center, and they have agreed with me that while you may bypass your heart, there will be absolutely no bypassing of the freshman requirements. . . .
You will be expected to study Latin, German, and Greek five days a week, Calculus, Organic Chemistry and Physics three days a week (plus a lab each), Ancient History, Modern History, and U.S. History two days a week, and Philosophy, Politics, and Economics in the evenings. Operations of any sort will not be an excuse for missing class. Of course, college is not all work. So you will also have an opportunity of living in a coed dorm. Please bring some notepaper and three sharp, No. 2 pencils. Good luck."
Bob was thrilled, and the framed letter remained on his wall for years. I was touched by Dean Fred's warm, thoughtful and caring gesture, just another example of what set him apart from many other directors of admissions.
Clark S. Sturges, '60
Walnut Creek, California
The March/April issue featured three generations of Stanford's finest representatives. I had the good fortune to work in the Office of Admission with Fred Hargadon during his 15 years as dean. He was a wonderful mentor, a trusted colleague and a close friend. Fred definitely lived up to his sign-off on letters to admitted students: "Great!" Through his leadership, the composition and character of the Stanford student body changed significantly in the challenging times of his tenure when undergraduate admissions went from a "corner store" to "supermarket" operation.
One of the real joys of admission work was getting to know the fruits of our labor, the enrolling students, and subsequently learning about their many accomplishments as graduates. Paul Baribault ("Disney, Naturally") is one such success story. He and his sister, Maryann, two of Fred's and my favorite undergraduates, were frequent visitors to our office. From his interactions with the two of them and countless others, it became very clear to me that no one related better to or was more revered by students on campus than Dean Fred.
Chiney Ogwumike ("Always On Her Game") is a current version of a Stanford superstar. The All-American, Wooden Award-winning academic standout is featured in a video about Stanford that was shown frequently on TV during breaks in the basketball games. She and other university representatives proclaim at the end of the promo, "I am Stanford." Indeed you are, Chiney, and so is Paul, and so was Fred—and the Farm is all the better for it!
John Bunnell, '61, MBA '63
Palo Alto, California
No to Coal
We applaud the Stanford Board of Trustees in their decision to divest its endowment of stock in coal-mining companies. Without the efforts of students, faculty, alumni and supporters, this would not have happened. It is timely that the Stanford announcement came out the same day that the National Climate Assessment report was released, which documents climate change caused by humans and the devastating effects it is having on our environment.
What is most encouraging is that Stanford studied the issue for five months, decided to sell their coal stocks and will continue to review and make decisions about their investments into the future.
There are active divestment campaigns at about 300 universities across the country, and we are proud that Stanford is the first major university to make this important decision. We hope many more will follow its lead.
Barbara Nute Kyser, '62
Ed Kyser, '60
Los Altos, California
I just wanted to comment on [the divestment of coal stock]. Nice job, Stanford. Way to be a leader.
Vishal Verma, PhD '08
San Carlos, California
