On Freedom
I appreciate Ginny McCormick’s helpful discussion of academic freedom with respect to grants and guest speakers (“Ties That Bind,” March/April). But I wish she had spent more time emphasizing the need for better academic standards in higher education.
Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon these days for a professor (say, an extreme ideologue) to make an outrageous claim.
The idea lacks logic and evidence to support it; it is criticized by those who don’t share the professor’s agenda.
But the story doesn’t end there. Allies rally around the professor. They essentially assert that the claim needn’t be defended on its merits, because “academic freedom” is defense enough. In their minds, the professor’s “perspective” should be afforded at least equal footing with the counterarguments that discredit it. Incredibly, they even sometimes attack the critics personally. They might accuse them of censorship and denounce them as McCarthyites.
Voila! In Orwellian fashion, those who’ve added substance to the debate are accused of stifling it. And the professor’s claim gets repeated with a veneer of academic approval, even though it’s false.
Universities have an obligation to end this perversion of academic freedom. If there’s one thing universities should uphold, it’s the highest academic standards.
Rick Blumsack, ’85
Cambridge, Massachusetts
When do words mean something other than their dictionary definition? Our impression at the time of the controversy over Donald Rumsfeld’s appointment as distinguished visiting fellow was that the faculty members who protested the appointment did not object to Rumsfeld’s speaking at Stanford, but to the title of his appointment at Hoover. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “distinguished” as “marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence.” The Hoover Institution is undeniably associated with Stanford in the minds of the public. It was only reasonable, therefore, that members of the Stanford community should object to having the University officially recognize as “marked by eminence, distinction or excellence” a man who helped lead this country into an unprovoked and illegal war in Iraq, and authorized the use of torture and other forms of abuse to extract information from prisoners. In addition, as even supporters of the Bush administration agree, Rumsfeld’s miscalculations and mismanagement following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein led to many of the serious problems that plague that country today. A university campus should be a place where all ideas are exchanged, and where controversy is welcomed. Donald Rumsfeld should by all means be invited to speak on campus. Honoring him with the word “distinguished,” however, has nothing to do with academic freedom but associates Stanford with values rejected by civilized people everywhere.
Rachelle and Hubert Marshall
Stanford, California
Hubert Marshall is professor of political science, emeritus.
I don’t know if the opposition to Condoleezza Rice’s return to Stanford and to the Hoover Institution will amount to much, but I cannot see a picture of my former colleague or think of her without imagining her hands stained red by the blood of 4,000 dead American soldiers, thousands more wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi casualties. David Kay, who headed the futile search for weapons of mass destruction that were the primary justification of the war, has been quoted as saying Condoleezza Rice was the worst national security advisor in history, perhaps for her role in enabling President Bush’s war policy and selling the war with her infamous “mushroom cloud” statement. I am not surprised the Stanford administration and Hoover would welcome her back, but the voices of those who oppose her return should not be stifled in a university dedicated to letting the winds of freedom blow.
John F. Manley
Professor of Political Science, Emeritus
Westport, Connecticut
I see no benefit to Stanford or its students in the Hoover Institution appointing a man who may well be a war criminal as a distinguished visiting fellow. Having Rumsfeld as a speaker represents academic freedom in action, but implicitly supporting Rumsfeld’s conduct in office by appointing him a fellow is shameful.
John M. Gates ’59, MA ’60
Wooster, Ohio
The principal role of a real university is not to provide job training but to help the student think. The present ongoing discussion about the ethical question of accepting money from the tobacco industry should certainly contribute to the education of students and perhaps the faculty. From the faraway country where I live, it is easy to imagine that students must be flocking to enroll in the philosophy department’s courses on ethics and logic. One can imagine that copies of George Bernard Shaw’s Major Barbara have long since been read by every student and faculty member.
There are lots of questions that everyone needs to address in making a judgment about this case. Would the university have accepted a gift from a drug cartel? If not, why not? How might the tobacco industry profit or benefit from its gift? Would not the acceptance of the gift be tantamount to a de facto partnership? Is it slander or distortion to categorize the tobacco industry as merchants of death when consumption of its product results annually in 400,000 preventable deaths?
The University president’s column entitled “At Stanford, Speak Freely” (November/December) offers us an eloquent expression of the essence of Stanford, a place where “Die Luft der Freiheit Weht.” Discussion about Stanford’s relationship to the tobacco industry is going to continue. I hope that the discussion can be harmonious and that everyone will benefit from it. I also hope that the University and Stanford will, in the spirit of “Die Luft der Freiheit,” make available the texts of all correspondence between the University and the tobacco industry [to] aid those who wish to become adequately informed about this case.
James H. De Cou, ’50
Le Vesinet, France
Your article was well written and timely, but I think the facts lend themselves to a simpler analysis. The polemic against the tobacco funding, the military research and the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld was politically motivated and, certainly in the case of research, violative of the principles [that proscribe] denying research based on “speculations concerning the political or moral impropriety of the uses which might be made of its results.” Note the use of “might.”
The opposition to the Donald Rumsfeld appointment was simply an expression of popular antagonism to the war and the Republican administration. Such intolerance is at odds with Stanford’s need to educate students to fairly analyze antithetic points of view in search of the truth. It would be a great loss if Stanford University quit teaching students how to think in favor of teaching students what to think.
Richard Harray, JD ’67
Angels Camp, California
In the article there is an unmentioned elephant in the room. Where is the discussion of personal integrity? I don’t mind if people want to have what I feel are stupid or senseless debates on campus. I engaged in a few while I was a student. I have no problem with a faculty member who advocates a radical or unpopular position. Those are the positions that need to be discussed.
However, I do have a serious problem with turning a blind eye to moral turpitude. Donald Rumsfeld may have had experiences that could be reviewed by a task force (per John Raisian), but is making him a distinguished fellow the only way to get him to talk about it? The Hoover Institution has a long and unhappy history of honoring people with serious integrity problems—Edwin Meese comes to mind. Why should the Stanford community tolerate this kind of damage to its reputation? At the very least, the Hoover might consider a new category of hires: distinguished material witness, or possibly distinguished unindicted war criminal.
And there is the issue of Condoleezza Rice. Is it too much to hope that the committee on tenure would take a look at Rice’s career in public office and determine whether she is still morally fit to occupy the most honorable position Stanford can offer—that of teacher?
Charles Bragg Jr., ’67
Pacific Palisades, California
The article noted that terms such as “angry,” “perverted,” “contemptible,” “fascists” and “heated” were associated with the Faculty Senate disputes. Does this kind of atmosphere and use of inflammatory terms contribute anything constructive to resolution of the problems being addressed, or are they counterproductive? Subjective and emotional components have their place in some dialogue; however, do they reach a point where their use profoundly affects the speaker’s integrity and credibility, thereby defeating the speaker’s efforts?
The article left me with the perception that more focus is needed regarding impartiality, neutrality and objectivity in Faculty Senate debates. Selective use of a mediator would be a constructive step in that direction.
Draper B. Gregory, ’75
Chico, California
I thought the article on academic freedom was exceptionally informative and useful; I am a strong believer in academic freedom. But I do have one comment about a point left out of the discussion. What would Stanford think about a “distinguished visiting fellow” having the right of speaking if that fellow were known to lie about the subject of his talk, or was censured by one of his own professional organizations, or had lied/misled the American public about an important issue of public interest/governance? I would argue that inviting such an individual to speak at Stanford (or any university) would be a questionable decision at best.
This came to mind because of an experience I had in the early fall of 2007. I received a letter from one Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. This letter was very similar to one I had received around 1990 from him that included a supposedly scientific paper against global climate change. He had signed as a former NAS president and the paper was in the NAS format, implying that it had been reviewed by the NAS. I was very bothered by that letter. A few months later, the NAS sent a letter censuring Dr. Seitz for this action.
I was even more disturbed by the most recent letter, especially since Dr. Seitz listed a number of organizations to which he was affiliated, including Stanford’s Hoover Institution. I checked the Hoover list of visiting fellows, and found not only his name, but Donald Rumsfeld’s and at least one other individual whom I considered questionable for taking money from industry to lobby against the concept of global climate change and the danger of tobacco. (Seitz was on the payroll of both oil and tobacco industries at different times.) I wrote Stanford’s president to express my concern about Hoover’s process of fellow appointments. I made the mistake of mentioning Rumsfeld’s name and [received a reply] in response to the hubbub around that individual. A few months later when I checked the Hoover fellow list, I found Seitz missing. Maybe his health had deteriorated (he died in early 2008), or the Hoover Institution recognized its error.
What would the Stanford president, provost or Faculty Senate say about whether [there should be any constraints on] inviting such an individual? Could the judgment to invite be biased by the possibility of receiving money or a grant from the individual or a supporting organization? Things get complicated!
Filson H. Glanz, ’56, MS ’57, PhD ’65
Durham, New Hampshire
Risks and Rewards
I wanted to say how much I enjoyed Lolly Ward’s original and touching story, “How to Change Someone’s Life, Not Your Own” (March/April). The announcement of the winner of your 11th annual short story contest brought back some fond memories for me. I was the winner of your very first contest back in 1997 with my story “Questions.” At the time I hadn’t written much fiction and had published none, but your call to Stanford alums to get creative inspired me to rise to the challenge. Eleven years later, I’ve published more than 60 stories and essays and earned a special mention in Pushcart Prize Stories 2004. My first novel, Amorous Woman (London: Orion/Neon, 2007), which draws from my research in Japanese literature at Stanford, will be released in the United States in May. I’ve faced the inevitable setbacks and rejections, but my appearance in your pages gave me the confidence to write on. Reading Ward’s risk-taking story reminded me of the reward I got from taking a risk 11 years ago and of the surprising ways a Stanford education has enriched my life long after graduation.
Donna George Storey, MA ’87, PhD ’93
Berkeley, California
Endowment Logic
[Guest writer Provost John Etchemendy] complains about the UC system receiving $4 billion in state general funds, which are nontaxable, and then asks why Stanford’s endowment should be taxed (“Behind the Bottom Line,” President’s Column, March/April). He even whines that that’s the equivalent of having an $80 billion endowment. It isn’t until much farther down the article that he mentions “our total endowment payout of $609 million,” and he never mentions that a majority of Stanford’s endowments are in an $18.8 billion fund.
Now here’s an exercise for the student: what are the numbers of students served annually by Stanford and by the UC system, and what is the dollar amount of each endowment per student?
The UC and Cal State systems exist to ensure access to higher education by a large sector of the state, ensuring an educated pool of citizens. They serve a major educational goal. As excellent as Stanford is, its service to the state’s educational needs is made even smaller if you compare in-state and out-of-state percentages at Stanford versus the public schools.
Stanford is, to its liking, a small, exclusive private school. To complain that Stanford shouldn’t be treated as a private institution because a public institution is treated differently shows a complete lack of logic.
David Teich, MS ’88
Rehovot, Israel
In Praise of Books
I wanted to share a couple of thoughts regarding digital libraries, e-books and the like (“The Way We Read Now,” Farm Report, March/April). First, it would be great if all these e-books were being scanned perfectly by robots, but they are being scanned by people, and the process is somewhat imperfect. I decided to sample the Google Book project myself, and found that an old edition of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice had been so poorly scanned that some pages were completely illegible. If we destroyed the original after scanning it, those pages would be lost forever. Fortunately, I am sure the originals are not being destroyed, so there is hope yet. But if you eliminate the physical library, you put yourself at the mercy of a process which is imperfect at best and catastrophic at worst.
Second, books as physical objects have certain key benefits. When I am reading a book, I sometimes like to flip back to a point made earlier. I may not remember the exact words that were used, so digitally searching for specific words may not be effective. But with a physical book I am able quickly to flip back and forth until I find the text—it becomes a very physical act, correlated in part to the thickness of the book at a specific point, and to the location of the text on a certain section of the page.
Finally, and perhaps most important, many of the most crucial discoveries I have made in libraries have had to do with finding things I was not looking for—finding books, for example, that may be a shelf or two away from the shelf I am looking for, or finding them when I get lost in the stacks looking for a specific title, or coming across a book that I did not know existed that has been placed on a cart for reshelving, or looking at a title of a book someone in the reading room is engrossed in, or looking at a card catalog that is organized alphabetically but not by subject. These accidental experiences are so important that they alone justify the existence of physical libraries. Unfortunately, no search engine can come up with books in quite so random or wonderfully accidental a fashion.
David Schwartz, ’76
New York, New York
Absent Hero
I saw in Red All Over that Tiger Woods is credited with being in the Class of ’98 (“Ace of Clubs,” March/April). That’s funny—I distinctly recall how he withdrew as a student long before his graduation. Conversely, I recently read a book called Moneyball, wherein Billy Beane recounted how Stanford actually withdrew his admission after he decided not to play baseball for the school. That’s what I love most about Stanford: a completely uninhibited combination of hero worship and hypocrisy. It makes all of us marginally ethical people feel so superior. So, when is ex-Governor Spitzer getting his invitation to give a guest lecture at the Law School?
Clay Creasey, ’71, MBA ’75
Morristown, New Jersey
Editor's Note: Students enrolled for at least three quarters are considered alumni.
Out of Context
In skimming the article “Words from the Wise” (Red All Over, March/April), I found the oft-repeated quote by Stewart Brand, “Information wants to be free.” As is usual, this quote is presented out of context, masking the true insight that Brand offered that fateful day in 1984: “On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.”
As we continue to wade through the information age, this dualism is only being reinforced by the proliferation of data available to us and the utter frustration that comes with finding valuable knowledge from the data.
William Cockayne, PhD ’04
San Francisco, California
Kudos
Move over, Proust! Let’s hear more from Dixie Brown (“Eden, 94305,” End Note, March/April).
Larry Meyer
Monsey, New York
A Letter Disappoints
I am sorry to see that you have been snookered in choosing to publish Barry Cooper’s letter (“Middle Eastern Life and Death,” March/April) ostensibly rebutting Pamela Olson’s “Postcard from Palestine” (Class Notes, January/February). There is nothing more dangerous or threatening to certain Israelis than to see Palestinians portrayed as loving, good, kind people learning to juggle, raise kids, speak English in taxicabs and live lives as, dare I say it, normal folks just like us.
Cooper pulls out the usual diatribe that Palestinians are all terrorists, that they celebrate the death of women and children, and that somehow they do not deserve the rights and responsibilities that everyone else, especially the Israelis, deserves. If you humanize the Palestinians, then how do you justify destroying their houses, depriving them of water and electricity, depriving them of the ability to travel or work, and the killing of many Palestinian women and children?
I am afraid Cooper learned very little from his Stanford education. However, I am saddened that the editors didn’t see through the inaccuracies, misrepresentation and frankly outright racism that his letter represents.
James P. Hodges Jr., ’80
Atlanta, Georgia
A Lasting Impact
I was saddened to read of the death of Professor Gene Golub (Obituaries, March/April). I was fortunate to take several of Professor Golub’s classes in 1963-64. His keen mind and pleasant style made him an excellent teacher and outstanding researcher. He was my first encounter with a professor who brought his research into the classroom and whose teaching and research were obviously mutually reinforcing. He had a long-lasting impact on me, both as a professor and as an administrator. Because of what he did and how he did it, Professor Golub will live on in his students and far beyond.
Alan G. Merten, MS ’64
President, George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia
A Higher Education
I enjoyed Scot Hillman’s account of the multigenerational Stanford assault of Mount Stanford (“Up Toward Mountains Higher,” January/February). It made me want to see the view for myself. It also brought to mind an all-Stanford Sierra encounter I had near Crabtree Meadow in August 1985. I was in the middle of an 11-day loop from Mineral King to Mount Whitney and back with School of Education classmate Steve Stormo. One morning we bumped into a trio of hikers coming from the other direction on the trail. Per backcountry custom, we asked where they were coming from, expecting to hear the name of a lake or a creek or a mountain. Instead, they answered “Stanford.” They were another group of graduate students, but from the School of Engineering. As we chatted further, we learned that their campsite had suffered a bear attack the previous night. The engineers had decided to ignore another backcountry custom—hanging one’s food out of reach of bears. The bear cleaned them out and, for good measure, scratched and chewed big holes in their backpacks and boots. Being engineers, the hikers had duct tape to repair their gear, and we gave them some of our food. When the engineers were out of earshot, Steve and I reckoned that we would probably earn less money than our new friends but we could look forward to a better dinner that night.
Lee W. Anderson, MA’87, PhD ’97
Atherton, California
I climbed this peak in 1980 with a non-Stanford friend; we left three others behind at Gregory’s Monument because they didn’t want to try the “airy traverse” described in the climber’s guide. The two of us had no trouble getting to the top, but the exposure on the way is significant. My comment relates to the lack of a register at the top. We found one, an aluminum box put there by the Sierra Club, full of scraps of paper with signatures. Nice, I suppose, but the problem was that the box and parts of the rocks about it were covered with blue and gold paint. It was disgusting! I immediately vowed to climb University Peak, a few miles away, with a quart of red paint, but of course never did it; that would have been an ecological sin. Thanks for publishing an interesting story that brought back good memories.
Bill Schaefer, ’52
San Ramon, California
Reconsidering Tesla
The Tesla Motors website cites a fuel efficiency of 135 mpg for its car (“The Electric Company,” Planet Cardinal, January/February). This figure is astonishing at first, but upon careful examination one finds that its calculation assumed the total energy density of gasoline for the conversion between fossil fuel and electricity. Since one cannot have a 100 percent efficient conversion, a more realistic estimate is to use the full-cycle energy-equivalency between gasoline and electricity as produced, on average, in the United States. This yields a much more reasonable figure of about 50 mpg, close to the fuel efficiency of modern turbo diesel cars and with comparable equivalent CO2 emissions as well.
The similarities between the claimed figures for the Tesla Roadster and the proven performance of production turbo diesel cars end there. In order to obtain such a high fuel efficiency and acceleration, the Tesla Roadster had to be made very lightweight, which meant skimping on active and passive safety features such as extra airbags and more chassis armor. It also meant skimping on utility and comfort found in almost any other car sold today. Alternatively, consider, for instance, the BMW 118d, which returns more than 50 mpg, has decent acceleration (turbo engines are very torquey), and is far more practical and safe than the Tesla Roadster for a third the cost. And then there is the lingering question of how fast the charging efficiency and storage capacity of the Roadster’s batteries will decay with time and use.
Rodrigo Teixeira, MS ’02, PhD ’05
Madison, Alabama
Ann Marsh’s article left the reader with the idea that Tesla Motors was founded by J.B. Straubel and Elon Musk. I feel that this is poor reporting. While it is true that these two gentlemen have played a large part in developing the Tesla Roadster, neither one is a founder. The two founders are Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarppening.
Carolyn Eberhard
Sierra Madre, California
The following letters did not appear in the print edition of Stanford.
Taking It Seriously
The dust-up over Rumsfeld (“Ties That Bind,” March/April) puts me in mind of the time when Tennessee Williams unapologetically announced that he was going to go to Thailand to have sex with children and Gore Vidal remarked, quite rightly, “We can no longer take Williams seriously.” Rumsfeld, to be sure, has destroyed the lives of far more children than ever Williams did. If one does not know this, a viewing of Taxi to the Dark Side might help one think the matter through.
Unlike Vidal, however, Stanford is unable as an institution to conclude that Rumsfeld can no longer be taken seriously. Indeed it has sought him out as a visiting scholar. This does not change Rumsfeld’s standing in the reflections of any thoughtful person, but it does a great deal to change Stanford’s standing.
Ginny McCormick’s article presents the matter as a dilemma. This, however, was not something thrust upon Stanford. Stanford chose this. And there is no dilemma. No dilemma because ethics is nowhere present as a part of the equation. The dithering to-and-fro-ing of the article itself only makes Stanford’s bankruptcy clearer.
One hears echoes in the article of “Rumsfeld’s long career.” (Think of all those good plays Williams wrote!) The article lets one know that some people think one way about the Rumsfeld affair, and others think another way. (I have no trouble surmising there were pederasts who welcomed Williams’s “forthright and bold championing” of sexually abusing children.)
Lawrence Summers got booted out of the presidency of Harvard for a lack of etiquette in the way he spoke of gender differences—and in addition, perhaps, for his inability to understand that Cornel West is much more intelligent than Lawrence Summers. His faults were more in the order of blunders and blind spots than considered positions. His sins were minor compared to the lapses of John Hennessy—who “does not want to raise questions of exactly what standards should govern” when it comes to whom Stanford will present as a visiting scholar. That neither Hennessy nor anyone else in a governing position at Stanford—unlike Gore Vidal—is any longer capable of moral judgment means, as I am confident Vidal would agree, that one can no longer take Stanford seriously.
Tom O’Neill, MA ’86
Livermore, California
Up To Date
Paula England’s study, Hooking Up and Forming Romantic Relationships on Today’s College Campuses, will be another landmark publication on sexuality (“Campus Confidential,” Farm Report, March/April). It is interesting to have the evidence that the codes of sexual conduct have changed again; we learn that dating is no longer the context in which sexual behavior occurs. Congratulations to Professor England in taking a cue from a student and researching this topic.
William R. Reevy, ’46
Bluffton, South Carolina
Cutting the Greenery
It was with great interest that I read “Step Off the Gas” (“How Green Is My Quadrangle,” January/February). While a thorough treatment of the alternative transportation incentive programs that Stanford continues to offer, this article failed to mention that the University has recently cut back on these programs. In particular, Stanford has stopped subsidizing the GO Pass—which allows unlimited rides on Caltrain—for graduate students.
More than 500 current graduate students use Caltrain to commute from affordable neighborhoods from San Francisco to San Jose, and even as close by as Mountain View. Since 2005, Stanford has purchased GO Passes for all off-campus graduate students. However, in January—despite evidence that the percentage of students commuting on Caltrain has been steadily increasing since 2005—Stanford discontinued the program. Without this subsidy, the cost to commute on Caltrain for a year can easily run to almost $2,000. This expense is particularly difficult to bear for graduate students, many of whom already must live off campus because of financial or family concerns. It is probably only a matter of time—if it has not happened already—before these students start getting back in their cars.
I would like to read an article exploring why, with concerns about the environment and carbon emissions increasing in urgency, Stanford is actually lessening rather than affirming its commitment to public transportation.
Jessica S. Cameron, MA ’06
San Francisco, California
Grammar Glitches
I was very pleased to read about Mignon Fogarty’s efforts to help her listeners improve upon their grammar with her friendly and nonjudgmental methods (“Say It So,” Showcase, November/December). While I realize that written and spoken languages are fluid, with ever-changing “rules,” I remain constantly disappointed with how often people flub the simplest of grammar dictates. So I welcome the ally in Fogarty’s Grammar Girl.
I’ll share with you the two most common, ones I’m sure most readers will, if honest, admit to breaching themselves. First is the misuse of the abbreviation “there’s.” “There’s” is short for “there is”, not “there are” and therefore should only be used when the subject of the sentence is singular. It would be correct to say, “There’s a great book” but incorrect to say, “There’s dozens of great books on the subject.”
The second most common grammar mistake, and this one I’m going to guess is practiced by practically everyone reading this letter, is use of the plural pronoun “they” (or “their”) when referring to a singular antecedent, as in “Someone in the front of the class started flipping through their book.” The problem here is that English doesn’t offer a convenient pronoun to use when referring to a single individual who has not yet been identified as male or female. Some people try “he or she” or even “s/he”. My English professor at Stanford used to suggest that we simply reword the whole sentence to avoid the issue (e.g., “Someone in the front of the class started flipping through that massive textbook”).
I am hoping that Grammar Girl can take a swing at combating these two major misuses. However, by the time I reached the end of your article, I lost some faith that she will. Fogarty herself wrote, “Someone asked me, when you’re talking about someone who has died, do you refer to them in the past or present tense?” Didn’t she mean “do you refer to him or her” or better yet, “do you refer to that person”? Even Grammar Girl seems to have fallen prey.
Rick Weisberg, ’89
Foster City, California
Hip Hop Hat
In the article entitled, “Hip Hop with Heart” (Red All Over, November/December), I see a young man who thinks the president of the United States is responsible for the Katrina disaster, when the citizens and officials of New Orleans did little to help themselves, waiting instead for the federal government to rescue them. Then, I see this same young man does not even know that the baseball cap visor was designed to protect the eyes of the wearer, not the back of the neck. How can one respect the opinion of a young man who has not yet learned how to properly wear a cap? Oh, how I hope most of your Stanford students and graduates are wiser than this fellow!
Col. Don Miller
Bend, Oregon
Big Enough
Last fall, President John Hennessy wrote his column “Should Stanford Expand the Freshman Class?” (September/October). The article mentioned that he was convening a university task force to explore the implications of “slightly” increasing the overall undergraduate student body. (I have subsequently learned the number is in the hundreds.) It goes on to say that “expanding the student population would potentially expand the perspectives and experiences of every student.” The expansion notion troubled me then, and recent University events have not allayed my concern.
At the Stanford alumni road show, Leading Matters, held in San Diego in March, I had the opportunity to question President Hennessy on the concept. I asked why the University should even consider the idea and reminded him that as an undergraduate history major, I had learned things like Lord Falkland’s dictum, “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.” His answer, as best I understood it, seemed to center around the notion that since so many high quality applicants to schools like Stanford and the UC system were routinely rejected for lack of space, Stanford had an obligation to consider taking in more of those worthy applicants by growing class size. This, he implied, was a kind of moral imperative.
Today in the mail I received the Annual Report on Undergraduate Education. It, too, repeats the President’s message about potential class size expansion, and reiterates the same homilies about possible benefits to everyone from increased student population.
Obviously, something is going on here. Events like Leading Matters are inspiring conclaves meant to reinvigorate loyalty among alumni and, incidentally, promote alumni financial contributions. The message is clear: Stanford is expensive, and if we want a diversified, “need-blind” student body when it comes to admissions, we alums need to help out. I have always been fine with that concept and like thousands of fellow alums contribute something every year. But when you begin to rather quietly plan for an expanded student body, it’s time not to convene a task force, but to poll the alumni. I am quite sure more than a few of my fellow alums would agree that expanding class size is an unnecessary idea.
I respectfully suggest that President Hennessy walk down the hill, past the Quad, and talk to folks at the Business School. I’m sure the message of “Don’t dilute the brand,” would be evident. A Stanford degree is one of the most coveted academic honors in the world. Why is it imperative to churn out even more Stanford grads?
The size of the undergraduate class at Stanford is one of the joys of attending. Not too small, not too large, with a real opportunity to actually meet and interact with fellow students and faculty. Expand much more and that is simply gone, along with the ambience that makes the Stanford undergraduate experience so great. It is not necessary to change.
Wayne Raffesberger, ‘73
San Diego, 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 e-mail. 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.
Photo credits were omitted in “On Track for Grad School,” Farm Report, March/April. The photographers were Kyle Terada/Stanford Athletics (top), Hector Garcia-Molina (bottom left) and Rod Searcey (group photo).
