Lest We Forget
Thank you for this well-researched and well-written story, important to remember (“Thanksgiving Day Disaster,” November/December). Too often public relations considerations lead to silence. Adding the map makes it all the more tragic and real. (NB: At almost every Big Game the announcer says that Herbert Hoover forgot to bring the ball to the first game. George Nash in volume one of his biography researched the origins of this story, and it seems to be apocryphal.)
Elena S. Danielson, MA ’70, PhD ’75
San Jose, California
Many thanks to Sam Scott for his harrowing account of the tragic history from 1900 that had largely been left behind. Death is painful, the death of a young child more so, and the death of many young children and teens is unbearable, to the point that we either consciously or unconsciously put it aside. Scott’s account brings forward the gripping contrast in what we too often choose to emphasize and what we deny or assert by default as someone else’s concern.
Bob Ruprecht
Roswell, Georgia
I enjoyed the historical photos and artifacts. However, the “historical” news clipping at the beginning of the article reported, “By halftime, the Cardinal led by 16. . . .” Which team, pray tell, was the “Cardinal”? As an alumnus from 1981 (when the name was changed), I believe the correct moniker for most of the 20th century was Stanford Indians. I hope this political correctness was unintentional, but I’m afraid it’s more revisionist history.
Mark Barak, MD ’81
Los Angeles, California
Editor’s note: “Indians” wasn’t adopted as the school symbol until 1930, a change born in part out of frustration with the PR limits of calling the team a color. “You can’t cartoon that,” one alum groused in the Daily in 1926, referring to the Cardinal. “The result is a certain loss of effective publicity.” In 1972, Indians was dropped, and by 1981 Stanford was once again the Cardinal.
Soldiering On
This is a wonderful article; thanks (“Seeds of Promise,” November/December).
It’s especially encouraging that Harriman is working in conflict-affected areas. It’s difficult to know what to do in those environments, so Harriman’s dedication is a precious asset.
The article makes a number of wise observations, such as, “Subsistence agriculture is never going to end extreme poverty.” The mention of market linkages hopefully indicates that Nuru investigates market opportunities before setting production plans.
Nuru’s emphasis on developing local leaders is also very wise. Note that every member of its Kenyan team has a postgraduate degree. This gives an accurate indication of how to lay the basis for indigenous leadership.
There is a slightly sour note in the article’s persistent ragging on other development assistance efforts. Nuru is praiseworthy enough that you don’t need to do that, and it leads to errors like the article’s mistaking three- to-five-year phases for the entire duration of development programs that can actually go on, where needed, for decades.
Leaving this aside, the story of Harriman’s experiences and initiatives is very evocative. The struggle over full-cost pricing vs. “handouts” appears to be eternal: I thought it was resolved 30 years ago, but here Harriman is dealing with it again. His branching out from agriculture to schooling will speak to many readers, and his difficulty in getting a job in development before getting his MBA is something many face.
I have read that over a million Americans had tours with the U.S. military in Iraq. While we can’t know all the impacts that will have, note that the Swahili nuru for “light” comes from Arabic.
Joseph S. Ryan Jr., ’71
Bloomington, Indiana
These longer, in-depth articles are truly remarkable. We really get a sense of this person and his mission. Please continue to provide these kinds of portraits of people who are truly changing the world for the better.
Glenn Benest
Glendale, California
Much as I enjoyed the article and appreciate the efforts of Jake Harriman’s Kenyan NGO to improve farm practice and productivity in the region around Lake Victoria, he demonstrates a lack of understanding of natural biodiversity. There are no “vast tracts of African agricultural land waiting for cultivation”—these are occupied! Looking out over regions close to Serengeti’s western corridor, surely he could see the wonderful diversity of plants, insects, birds and mammals that thrive in these savannah ecosystems?
Savannahs almost all occur in low rainfall areas with relatively poor soils (which is why they are not woodlands or forests), so where will the water come from to irrigate the crops? Savannahs are also nonequilibrium ecosystems, the species composition of which shifts and varies over time in ways that are not easily compatible with farming. If the Nuru project on the shores of Lake Victoria experiences crop failure due to drought, what makes anyone think that planting wheat or soil-destroying maize across savannahs occupied by tens of thousands of wildebeests in conservation areas, or cattle, sheep and goats in pastoral areas, would be sustainable? The economics of ecosystem integrity must be considered, and we need to find different, nondestructive sustainable strategies to manage feeding the world in the future.
Quite frankly, addressing women’s reproductive health in this region might be a better investment in preventing terrorism and reducing poverty than ploughing the savannahs for short-term, unstable and unpredictable crop yields. We seem to have learned nothing from the droughts in the Corn Belt, the current one in the Central Valley of California or those in Ethiopia; do we want to continue to replicate ecosystem meltdown, or do we want to ensure integrity of the biosphere? I laud Harriman’s aims and dedication, and urge him and the author, Robert Strauss, to consider the value of the amazing natural world that surrounds him in this region of Kenya.
Phyllis C. Lee, ’74
Alva, Scotland
Short People
I’m always intrigued when two or more seemingly unrelated articles in the same issue of a publication touch on the same subject, sometimes contradictorily. Such is the case in the November/December issue. In his article on the ethics of genetic engineering (“Danger Ahead”), Mike Antonucci asks, “Were genetic modification to become routine, would a preference for tall children mean that short people were construed as inferior?” The answer is found in “A Guy Thing” (Farm Report), where Sapna Cheryan, PhD ’07, reports that men whose manliness is challenged tend to exaggerate their height. Clearly, taller is already widely thought to be better.
As a shortish (5' 5") male, I’m interested in these largely unrecognized biases and have conducted an analysis of compensation vs. height for both males and females. It has not been formally published or peer-reviewed, but you can see it at shortsupport.org/Research/Papers/Income_and_Height.pdf. The compensation finding has been reported by other investigators, as have other advantages of being tall, but this body of research seems to be significantly less known than, say, biases related to gender or race. Are short people really inferior or is there unjustified social bias?
That brings us to the letter from Michael Booth (“Bias and Evolution”) responding to the September/October article about Jennifer Eberhardt’s research on implicit racial bias. Booth speculates that ancient tribal competition may have led to prejudices against “people who appear different from us.” It seems plausible that ancient preferences for large, usually male hunters and warriors may persist today in the form of associating height with leadership, leading to compensation premiums and other biases for tall males. Maybe Eberhardt could investigate heightism in the same fashion as she has investigated racism.
Steve Brown, ’58, MS ’61
Alameda, California
The Right Track
The humanities at Stanford helped prepare me for a satisfying career. My undergraduate liberal arts education in psychology provided a strong basis for my graduate education in poli-sci at MIT, where I earned a PhD in political economy. I went on to do political research at the national level during the administration of President Reagan and, after founding my own company, I have continued to do research, including on issues involving public policy at the national level.
Stanford needs to remain strong in the humanities, and I am encouraged by this new approach to poli-sci, which seems to be right on target (“Poli-Sci Thinks Big,” Farm Report, November/December). The five tracks seem well conceived. Each track is a very important area that deserves attention by Stanford’s strong faculty and smart and motivated students. Perhaps Stanford’s poli-sci revamp will help fix our broken national politics.
Finally, with regard to the value of a Stanford education, I read about the “7.9% Annual return on investment on (sic) a Stanford undergraduate degree” (At Last Count, Farm Report, November/December). Have I been mistaken all these years by investing “in” things rather than “on” them? Or does the English curriculum need to be revised as well?
Robert J. Berrier, ’69
Wynnewood, Pennsylvania
Prison’s Purpose
The November/December issue reports on research by a Law School professor whose work, according to your article, “assumes the purpose of prison is to deter crime” (“Good Behavior Cuts Cost,” Farm Report). In fact, prison has four purposes: punishment, deterrence, sequestration (keeping bad apples off the street) and rehabilitation.
I have interviewed several ex-felons who became productive taxpayers after at least a decade behind bars. Because every prisoner who does not die incarcerated eventually winds up in somebody’s neighborhood, prisons are ripping off taxpayers unless the prisons are proactively involved in training people to make decisions, cooperate and behave in accordance with social norms.
David Altschul, MA ’76
Nashville, Tennessee
Ephraim Engleman
I was saddened to hear about Dr. Ephraim Engleman’s passing (Farewells; “Oh, the People I’ve Known,” First Impressions; November/December). To date, the feature article on him (“The Last of a Class,” January/February 2013) remains one of my all-time favorite Stanford pieces. The article revealed a man who lived life so deeply and whose life work was to help and heal others. His remarkable dedication to the work he loved so much was such an inspiration to me. Dr. Engleman embodied the same Stanford spirit that captivated me over 13 years ago when I made the decision to head to the Farm. That spirit of dedication and commitment to the arduous work of making this world a more humane, just and all-around better place, coupled with a drive to live life profoundly, is what I think unites us Stanford alums. I am grateful to have learned about Dr. Engleman, and I am blessed to have been personally enriched by him sharing his story with us all.
Jamelia Morgan, ’06, MA ’06
Washington, D.C.
Campus Transformed
The November/December 2015 issue contains on page 9 a remarkably dramatic example of advertising art. Few advertising managers would have thought to reverse the aerial photo of the campus in such a manner to fit the “Transform it” theme of the message to emphasize the “ideas and insights” of your text.
In the (my) old days of photos on film or plates, it was easy to print reversed photos by simply printing through the negative turned over side-to-side on the paper. You probably managed the same trick digitally. The result is really disturbing to my psyche the more I try to adjust your image to my brain’s “truth.”
Ouch!
Neely Bostick, ’53, MS ’54, PhD ’70
Morrison, Colorado
Editor’s note: So far, we’ve received letters from 18 other alert alums who know their campus like the backs—and fronts—of their hands, and weren’t fooled by (inadvertent) photographic sleight-of-hand. Our advertiser regrets the error.
Play On!
I’m a regular attendee (and an ex-season-ticket holder) at Stanford football games in spite of my distance from campus. I’m also an alum of the Band, having learned to play the saxophone between my sophomore and junior years to join them that fall, [so] I think of a football game as both an athletic contest and a musical feast (“The Band Is on the Field,” Farm Report, November/December).
The new stadium is a vast improvement for the fans, both in facilities and proximity to the action on the field. My concern is that two great opportunities to increase the energy, maintain traditions or start new ones are not being taken advantage of by the athletics department.
First is the lack of miking of the Band for amplification using the stadium PA system. Using modern sound amplification technology and proper mike placement (say, hanging them from the upper deck in conjunction with in-front mikes) would allow a clean and well- mixed sound to be broadcast over the PA.
The canned “psych up” music at the start of the game is a cliché used by multiple schools and as such carries no emotional connection to the team or the school. It needs to be omitted. Having the Band play an energetic tune such as the William Tell overture or “Living in the USA” that the whole stadium could hear with clarity would be far better use of the PA than something by a metal hair band meaning little to the fans.
In years past, the Band also had the chance to play during time-outs. The clever contests, announcements, etc., by our friend in the stands is cute but overdone. Instead, during such intervals, “Band cams, fans cams” could improve the fans’ energy and connection to the game. (The Dollies rarely seem to make a video board appearance, unfortunately.) Coordinating the Band, contests, video replays of past glory, etc., could be easily managed.
The second opportunity is the reinstitution of the Band playing a postgame concert while standing on the field (and track, in the old stadium), facing the students in the stands. I suspect there are concerns about damage to the field, [but] I would hope that the ground crew would be able to handle it. It’s just grass, in the end zone. Any idiosyncrasies in that corner would just become part of the home field advantage, like the green wall in Fenway Park.
Back in the day, many, many fans would walk a good distance from their seats after the game to “Come Join the Band.” The ranks of students and alumni could fill a couple of sections. The current postgame affair is a weak facsimile and prevents the engagement of the students (future alumni and season-ticket holders), particularly after a tough loss. Music does soothe the aches of disappointment as well as fan the ardor of the casual attendee. My love of the Band started just this way, face to face, in the shadows of a chilly fall afternoon.
Bruce M. Turner, ’78
Austin, Texas
A Reminder
I promise not to bug you too much, perhaps one letter every 33 years like this. I felt compelled to write and perhaps provide a beacon in the poo storm that erupted after your coverage of the bridge protesters (“Something Is Stirring,” May/June) et al.
“Brilliant” is my general summation of your coverage and the perspectives you’ve presented in that issue through to the September/October issue. I knew many would protest your coverage in terms even more vehement than those of the students. But my initial reaction was “Wait for it; waaait for it.” You addressed violence visited upon a young black populace, you gave the protesters voice, and then you present Professor Jennifer Eberhardt’s brilliant work on the presumptions made with respect to race (“A Hard Look at How We See Race,” September/October). Boom! Presumptions which go a long way toward explaining the violence, as well as the arrest rate, the severity of sentencing, treatment in the press and the need to remind folks, “Black lives matter.”
I speak as a black man raised in a law enforcement household with a father who enjoyed moderate fame for the phenomenal work he did in bringing criminals to justice nationally and internationally, and later in directing others to do the same. Most of our friends were from law enforcement families. Many of those friends were people of color, but most were white. In my youth, diversity in law enforcement wasn’t much different than it is now. Nonetheless, I grew up in the warm and comforting bosom of a diverse law enforcement community. All that is to say that I do not hate law enforcement, despite the reasons they occasionally continue to provide me to do so. I just won’t. Ever.
So when I say I support the protesters and the prominent voice you provided them, it’s not because I hate the police. It’s because I want us all to thrive, and such communication and the understanding it fosters is vital to the survival of the oppressed and the oppressors—neither of whom has to be permanently so. The education provided by Professor Eberhardt can thin those ranks. I wish you could give her a column so that we may continue to feed.
And if I may add, when we say “Black lives matter,” they do not do so at the exclusion or diminution of all others. It is simply a reminder in the wake of so many unarmed shot dead, so many arrested, so many beaten and so many imprisoned, all disproportionately so—for so very, very long. All my life. Through many lifetimes that preceded mine. Hopefully, not through my kids’ entire lives. Unfortunately, I have not been able to shield them from the ugliness of oppression, as I cannot always be there. But what you have been publishing speaks for me in my absence. Doesn’t mean I’ll always support your actions, but now and in this, I do. Keep up the good work.
Ken Stewart, ’82
Carmel, California
Cheating Then and Now
Susan Fleischmann (“Why We Cheat,” September/October) comments that aggressive intervention by parents defending their children in cheating cases appears to be on the rise, stating that “even five years ago we didn’t have attorneys involved.”
If you have a child at Stanford, you should be aggressive if there is even so much as an inquiry of academic dishonesty regarding your child, or for any matter that could result in discipline. At the Student Justice Project (www.studentjusticeproject.com), we have documented a historical and wholesale violation of student rights in the judicial processes at Stanford over multiple years. . . .
In one hearing alone, students were told that they could not present their witnesses waiting outside the hearing room, could not make objections even to evidence already ruled inadmissible, and were told that cross-examination was not allowed.
Many students have been led to believe that if they retain competent counsel, it will hinder their chances of being acquitted. Students are unable to effectively present experts; professors are often allowed to present up to three. Supposed neutral university advisers become advocates for conviction. Potentially dispositive witnesses have been routinely concealed. Written procedural rules are sometimes ignored or simply altered at hearings.
Students are told the result of this process, which often includes suspension, will not go on their transcript. However, it does go in their permanent record and could kill a student’s life dream before they even pursue it.
Our group’s efforts to work cooperatively with Stanford to fully comply with its own Judicial Charter and bring transparency to the process have been unsuccessful to date. A university lawyer told us the judicial system is, in fact, a “discipline system.” That statement alone presumes guilt. Incredibly, the university’s Judicial Affairs Committee has refused to allow students or alumni to attend its meetings. The Stanford Daily, which exposed improprieties, was told by a university official to pull part of the story or risk a lawsuit. The Daily’s editor perceived it as university intimidation.
The university should fund counsel for accused students. Alternatively, it should work with alumni to recruit and train volunteer attorneys so that every student forced into this process can be provided every assistance to prove their innocence if they had been wrongfully accused or charged. That offer, which we made, was ignored.
Ned Chambers, ’73
John Martin, ’80
San Francisco, California
Greg Boardman, Vice Provost for Student Affairs, replies:
The Student Justice Project proposes that the university provide free legal counsel for all accused students.
The Fundamental Standard and the Honor Code have been in existence at Stanford since 1896 and 1921, respectively. The Honor Code was written by Stanford students with the aspirational goal of maintaining the highest academic standards. Stanford does allow students to engage attorneys at their own expense to assist them with their cases; however, legal assistance is not necessary to participate in the process.
The Fundamental Standard and the Honor Code ask that all of its community members strive to live up to the values of responsibility, accountability, honesty and integrity. In advancing student development and learning, Stanford helps prepare students to be moral and ethical citizens.
For more information about the Honor Code and Fundamental Standard, visit community standards.stanford.edu/student-conduct-pro cess/honor-code-and-fundamental-standard.
Your big coverage about cheating brought back memories of when, as a grad student teaching assistant in English A, B & C in 1964-65, I caught a couple of students brazenly plagiarizing in writing assignments. On my own, I gave each student an F for the paper and a D for the quarter. Concerning one of these, I sent a note to Thomas Moser, then chair of the department, and he responded, “I think you are being generous, not that it’s necessarily a bad thing.” It was perhaps the next year when a young American lit assistant professor, Alfred Appel Jr., published A Season of Dreams: The Fiction of Eudora Welty. Not long after this, a Southern woman sent a copy of her earlier dissertation on Welty, with numerous passages marked that Appel had brazenly copied without acknowledgment, along with her query: “What do you make of this?” The department was abuzz with this story. But instead of being sent packing at the end of that current quarter, Appel stayed on at least two years, until he could find another job—at Northwestern. But perhaps I’m being obtuse and captious. After all, the honor code might apply to only students, as the professors perhaps never had to sign agreeing to it, as all students had to do on our blue books.
Richard Lynde, MA ’66
Watsonville, California
In the Groove
Rick Bale’s article brought back some truly nostalgic memories (“When Stanford Got Its Groove,” September/October). Having graduated in ’64, I did have the opportunity to partake in some of the Shakespeare activities (which I believe were the first in the Tresidder series) before going off to report into Navy OCS in Newport. By the time the Jazz Year series began, I was fighting in Vietnam and missed the whole wonderful thing; such is life.
Like Bale, I grew up loving all types of American music—jazz, pop, rock-and-roll, swing, blues, the works—but with a twist: I was growing up as a Hungarian teenager in my then Communist-run country. Sadly, in those deep, dark days, listening to such music brought about prison sentences if you were caught. All we could do was to listen to the Communist-jammed stations of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe—at not inconsiderable risk—to catch a strain or two of our beloved music. Then came the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. I was a freedom fighter, was wounded and finally escaped to the United States. I ended up at Stanford, where I got my degree in English lit. However, one of the best things of the “move” was getting close to my beloved American music.
I still cherish an autograph of Gerry Mulligan, obtained at the refugee camp in Kilmer, N.J., in December 1956. I still have 200 to 300 records of my jazz performer classics. Oh, how I would have loved to attend all the events of Jazz Year! Many of my favorite performers were there.
Adam von Dioszeghy, ’64, JD ’70
Budapest, Hungary
Cardinal Service
President Hennessy’s Cardinal Service initiative (“Heeding the Call to Service,” September/October) is the most fundamental and consequential reorientation and rebranding of the university since Provost Frederick Terman led Stanford to create what became Silicon Valley.
Stanford has already come a long way since the 1980s, when we saw the near collapse of the student-led Stanford in Government (SIG), then Stanford’s only public policy program. Fortunately, Stanford was led then by Don Kennedy, who had a commitment to public policy and service through his experience as commissioner of the FDA. Working with his legendary assistant, Catherine Milton, they saved SIG—which [since 1960] has supported 6,000 to 8,000 public policy interns and now offers more than 70 funded fellowships, many focusing on science and technology policy. Don and Catherine established the Haas Center for Public Service as a home for SIG; it now houses 125 student organizations and fields 275 funded fellowships. They opened the Stanford in Washington campus, which has given more than 2,000 students a quarter-long experience in the federal public policy trenches. In the past 30 years, Stanford has assembled $58 million in endowments for these institutions and programs.
Now with President Hennessy’s Cardinal Service initiative, Stanford is putting these institutions and programs on steroids! In the next five years, Stanford is committed to funding 500 Cardinal Quarter fellowships for full-time, quarter-long internships. Already 40 professors are signed up as public policy mentors and teach 65 public policy courses.
My summers on Capitol Hill as a SIG intern led to 40-plus years in public policy and service, including eight years as the principal lobbyist for the world’s biotechnology industry. I know how SIG and similar programs can enable students to become effective policy makers and advocates. Having mentored SIG and its leaders for the last 40 years, it is my observation that this generation of students is the most committed to civic engagement of any generation since the ’60s. They see sustainability as the key measure of our economic and environmental performance and couldn’t be more ready for what Cardinal Service has to offer.
However, Cardinal Service won’t just change the lives of students; it’ll fundamentally change who applies to matriculate at Stanford and the research and curriculum of Stanford’s departments and programs. To become a global citizen—that has become one of Stanford’s overriding missions. With Cardinal Service, Stanford will have something amazing to celebrate on its 125th anniversary: a confidence and commitment that it can make the world a better place.
Chuck Ludlam, ’67
Washington, D.C.
Maui Sharks
Regarding your shark story, I guess it depends on where you live (“Losing Its Bite,” Farm Report, September/October). I live on Maui, where there have been three fatal shark attacks in the last three years. While that may be a statistical aberration, there have been a consistent number of shark incidents on Maui—44 in the past 20 years. The reported incidence of drowning of Maui residents is about two per year. (Tourists have a higher rate of drowning.)
I know a person who was attacked and, as a surgeon, have been involved in the care of others who were attacked. Most people who spend a lot of time on the water have seen sharks. The statistics you gave are not applicable to Maui. While shark attacks are still rare here, they are not an abstract improbability but something rational people think about when getting in the water.
James Ferrier, ’84, MS ’84
Makawao, Hawaii
