No Apology Needed
My first impression upon seeing the January/February issue was interest in reading the cover story about Tara VanDerveer ("Game On"). Then I happened upon and was dismayed by editor Kevin Cool's apologetic justification for featuring the article, lest you might alienate readers who are uninterested in sports ("Hoops, and Dreams," First Impressions). I am not always interested in the majority of items in the magazine: I often find the articles, and particularly the letters, pompous and pedantic. The January/February letters ("McCarthyism Revisited") starkly reminded me of that.
I was a student-athlete; my primary connection to Stanford since graduation has been through its sports teams. My reading of Stanford includes the articles about Stanford's student-athletes, such as Toby Gerhart, who so honorably and graciously represented Stanford to sports fans throughout the country this year. I suspect that more than a small minority of other graduates connect with Stanford sports as well—hence the scheduling of reunions for at-home football games.
So please don't apologize for a feature story that "up front risks alienating as many readers as [you] might capture." Given the choice between Valerie Jarrett vs. Tara VanDerveer and Toby Gerhart, I'll take the latter. Slam dunk!
Dann Boyd, '68
Valencia, California
Another Side of Jordan
Great article on David Starr Jordan ("Meet President Jordan," January/February), but you missed a beat by failing to note his authorship of The Book of Knight and Barbara: Being a Series of Stories Told to Children (1899), an absolutely bizarre collection of stories, including the unforgettable "The Little Legs That Ran Away."
John Ashworth, '76
Portland, Oregon
Editor's note: The book can be seen online.
Climate Chagrin
Imagine my chagrin upon reading the opening line of President Hennessy's latest column ("When Less Is More," January/February): "Climate change is one of the greatest threats to our planet today." Are we alumni to presume that Stanford has now sold its soul to the climate-change hoax? If the University is trying to save money by finding more efficient ways to consume energy, then more power to you. (Or should I say, less power to you?) But to dress up this commendable frugality as a determination to "save the planet" is simply embarrassing. Why would Stanford want to cozy up to the manipulation of data, the selective omission of data, hockey stick graphs and the pathological fear of bovine flatulence—not to mention the Stalinist ad hominem attacks delivered against the legion of scientists who have debunked this fraud?
I suggest that, for once, Stanford's faculty and administration swim against the tide of political correctness and do what you ostensibly trained us to do while we were on campus: Use your minds.
John Ingram, '72
Cincinnati, Ohio
Bowled Over
Looking back over our 2009 football season, my greatest highs were the 51-42 win over Oregon, the 55-21 drubbing of USC, the 45-38 victory over Notre Dame and Toby Gerhart finishing a very close second to Alabama's Mark Ingram in the Heisman Trophy balloting ("Our Own Football Hero," Farm Report, January/February). My greatest downers were the 34-28 loss to Cal in the Big Game and the 51-42 win over Oregon.
The Oregon game was . . . our sixth win of the season, and that made us eligible to play in a bowl game. I deeply disapproved.
Stanford football and I have a richly varied history. It is therefore not easy for me to disapprove of our becoming "bowl-eligible." But do we really want a 6-6 Stanford football team to go to a bowl? I say no.
Not many years after I came to Stanford, the number of bowl games had multiplied so much that I largely became uninterested in them. What had happened to the value? I remember a cartoon of almost half a century ago. It joked that a new bowl had been created for left-handed redheads from the Dakotas. Whenever Stanford went to a minor bowl, I rooted for the team, but I didn't exactly enjoy our participation in the diluted nonsense.
In my freshman year on the Farm, 1953-54, we upset No. 1 UCLA at Homecoming. We came to our last game, the Big Game. If we won, we'd go to the Rose Bowl. If we tied—games could end in ties back then—we wouldn't go to the Rose Bowl. We raced to a 21-7 lead. Final score, Stanford 21, Cal 21. I'll never forget the headline in the Stanford Daily the following Monday: "Nobody Won But We Lost." It still hurts.
Part of that hurt is considerably personal. If we had beat Cal, I would have marched in the Tournament of Roses Parade. I played sousaphone in the Stanford Marching Band, reveling in the rehearsals and performances of halftime shows for the football team. A music major, I was the lead composer for Big Game Gaieties of 1955, a breakthrough high-quality show. I also composed for Big Game Gaieties of 1956. In the summer of 1955 I was house manager at Toyon Hall, for the football team's preseason practice.
I swell with pride over academically prestigious Stanford repeatedly winning the Sears Cup (now the Learfield Sports Directors' Cup) for No. 1 overall excellence in NCAA Division 1 collegiate athletics. That is the Stanford I prize, a Stanford of outstanding value from head to toe.
I think we should reject six-wins bowl eligibility for Stanford football. If I could wave a magic wand, I would eliminate all of the minor bowls and return to [the time when] a team had to be one of the nation's very best to go to a bowl game. In the legendary cry of Brooklyn Dodgers fans, I urge us to "Wait till next year"— let's say a 12-0 year in 2010 and No. 1 in the nation.
James T. Anderson, '57
Palo Alto, California
Jewish Roots Slighted
While I agree with Robert Griffin's premise that responsiveness to the needs of others is indeed a moral imperative in Western culture, I take great exception to his characterization of the Hebrew nation (the People of Israel) as having "little or no knowledge of Jehovah" (an English corruption of the Ineffable Name) ("What About the Golden Rule," Letters, January/February). To describe the people who introduced God and ethical monotheism to the world in this way is outrageous in its arrogance and ignorance.
Griffin should know that the two quotes that he gave have their origins in the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament). Jesus was a practicing Jew, who disseminated much of what he learned to the world. As a good Christian, Griffin should learn more about the Jewish roots of his faith and not bad-mouth the people who gave him his God.
Gerald R. Kotler, PhD '68
Dayton, Ohio
What They Didn't Say
With thousands of other Stanford alumni, my husband and I attended the roundtable presentation, The Road Back: From Economic Meltdown to Renewal, on October 24, 2009 ("Déjà Vu All Over Again—Almost," Farm Report, January/February). The panelists were well-spoken and intelligent; Charlie Rose did an admirable job of moderating. Many of those I spoke to afterwards had nothing but praise for the session. But my husband and I were deeply troubled by some of what we heard, and more particularly by what we didn't hear.
First, the wars being waged by our country were not mentioned. Not once did anyone on this prestigious panel mention a budget item costing the taxpayers of this nation upwards of $700 million a day, not to speak of the horrific loss of life, limb and culture. I am not an economist, but certainly such enormous expenditures cannot be ignored in analyzing the fiscal health and the ever-looming deficit of this country.
Second, there was no reference to the appalling increase in poverty in one of the richest nations in the world, even during the recent growth of our economy. And most frightening is the percent of children in this country who live in poverty. As a graduate of the Stanford doctoral program in education and an elementary schoolteacher for many years, I know that the improvement of K-12 education (which was, thankfully, mentioned) is inextricably related to the eradication of poverty. In fact there was—in all the morning's talk—little hint of compassion for the very poor and moderate-income families who are losing so much and continuing to lose as the stock market bounces back and the well-paid executives, the media and the economists talk of recovery.
There was also no mention of the huge gap that has grown between the rich and the not-rich in America and how this affects the robustness of the entire economy. This was, in part, because there was no one on the panel to bring this perspective. Charlie Rose asked the panelists if there is a new paradigm to guide us out of the recession. I don't remember a direct answer to that question. How interesting it might have been to hear someone like David Korten put forth his truly innovative (and, yes, revolutionary) ideas about restructuring the economy to be based on what he calls "real wealth." The implications of his proposals are huge and perhaps unrealistic. But just the process of envisioning an economy based on the things that really matter to people—personal relationships, family, community, health and happiness—brings a level of compassion and human understanding to the discussion that could take us a long way as we work towards building a better world for our children and grandchildren.
Anne Thomas,'64, PhD '73
Fort Bragg, California
Remembering Tolerance
I just recently subscribed to your journal and must admit I was taken aback by the levels of vitriol in the letters to the editor, on the one hand attacking Valerie Jarrett ("Cover Story Dismay," November/December) and on the other attacking her attackers ("McCarthyism Revisited," January/February). The levels of left- and right-wing animosities seem incompatible with the Stanford I came to know and deeply admire as a graduate student in the 1960s.
I enrolled in the PhD program in statistics in 1966. This was the height of the Vietnam War protest movement. I was at that time an active duty U.S. Navy Commander and a Naval aviator. Despite deep feelings about the war in the Stanford community, I was never in any way discriminated against or treated with less than courtesy by my fellow graduate students or faculty members. While my profession was not admired and probably suspect, I was warmly accepted and in many ways welcomed.
My input was sometimes valued under odd circumstances. For example, in preparing for a protest march in San Francisco against our use of antipersonnel airborne weapons, it became apparent that none of the protesters was clear on the nature and purpose of such weapons. I was therefore recruited as their technical expert to clarify the issue and explain their use in reducing antiaircraft activity during a strike.
My fellow students were in their late teens or early 20s. I was in my 30s. When they ran parties, which were not infrequent, my wife and I were always invited. Such evenings were of course typified by strobe lights and loud music. It was made clear by the hosts, however, that no controlled substances would be consumed while we were present. It was also understood that we would make a brief appearance and leave early.
My favorite memory of political attitudes and tolerance concerns a much respected faculty member, something of a grand guru of the statistics profession. When queried by a student as to where he placed himself in the political spectrum, he replied that he found himself somewhere to the left of the Soviet Communist party and somewhere to the right of the Chinese. [Before] my departure from Stanford, I ran a cocktail party to return something of the hospitality and friendship I had received. I of course invited him.
He arrived about midway through the party. Standing on my doorstep with his wife three paces behind him, as was their wont, he explained that [my invitation] had created a great problem of conscience for him. He deeply disapproved of my profession but also had to accept that I was a graduate student and therefore entitled to his presence. He then joined us and, I think, had a good time.
I share these reminiscences to illustrate the warm atmosphere of intellectual tolerance and civility of the Stanford I knew. I hope that the letters that motivated my response are anomalous and that the Stanford of my memory still prevails.
Warren F. Rogers, PhD '71
Cdr. U.S.N. Ret.
Newport, Rhode Island
The following letters did not appear in the print edition of Stanford.
The Chautauqua Connection
As we read the fine article on Tara VanDerveer, we were surprised by the Chautauqua connection. My wife Cynthia (a Stanford Medical Center laboratory technologist in the late ’70s) grew up in the Chautauqua area. Her sister Lynn is currently the chief librarian at Smith Library on the grounds of Chautauqua. When we asked if she knew the VanDerveer House and Tara, her reply was “Yes, she’s quite a celebrity around here!”
We also go back there every summer for a visit with family—it’s a very rejuvenating experience. What a small world!
Cynthia and Rick Sapp, ’69
San Rafael, California
Talking of Weather
President Hennessy began his column in the January/February issue (“When Less Is More”) with a patently absurd statement: “Climate change is one of the greatest threats to our planet today. . . .” Climate change to most people means weather. But I am sure that in the rarefied air he breathes, it means man-made global warming. We just know that industrialized man is bad, and Earth is being destroyed by him.
This theory has been debunked, discredited and relegated to the trash heap of false “science.” As to threats to the planet, most of us would rank earthquakes above weather at the moment. I would also include tyranny, which always begins with agenda-driven propaganda.
In the midst of man-made mismanagement of the economy of this country and of Stanford’s budget, I believe Hennessy was trying to say that he and the staff are being careful to save money on the energy needs of the school. Why not just come out and say it? No need to wrap it in the religion of “saving the earth.”
Bob Reid, MS ’71
Dunwoody, Georgia
Back to Basics
In the January/February issue, letter writer Robert Griffin (“What About the Golden Rule?”) is right to point out that the Bible teaches “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” and “You shall love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.” But he is well beyond his depth when he tries to explain exactly where in the Bible these commands originate.
In Griffin’s telling, the Torah (aka Five Books of Moses) was given to “undisciplined former slaves” with “little or no knowledge” of God, and it was left to Jesus some 15 centuries later to condense the Torah’s commandments into the two that the Book of Matthew cites. Unfortunately, Griffin’s supersessionist excursus mainly reveals that he has not opened up his Bible to the part that Christians call the Old Testament [where] he could have [seen] Leviticus 19:18 (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”) or Deuteronomy 6:5 (“You shall love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.”)
If Jesus repeated these statements, he was not condensing the Hebrew Bible, but rather quoting from it.
Ron Fein, JD ’03
Arlington, Massachusetts
Lack of Respect
It distresses me to read Letters to the Editor, written by highly educated people, that lack civility and respect for other people’s points of view. It is possible to strongly disagree with other people civilly, respectfully, without stereotyping them and without rancor.
Phil Rogers, MS ’58
University Place, Washington
Undergraduate Research Cuts
How hugely disappointing to see that Stanford cut funding for summer undergraduate research disproportionately (“Careful Cuts,” November/December). In the sciences as well as other fields, a crucial component of education is participating in the research process. Reports from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Foundation and other agencies consistently recommend a transformation of undergraduate education to include more research opportunities. Undoubtedly the economic times demand frugality, but the student experience should be prioritized and should not be curtailed more severely than other areas of the institution. Apparently Stanford’s strength in graduate-level research deceives people into thinking that undergraduate research is dispensable and suitable for “powerful cuts” as described by Vice Provost John Bravman. That attitude [betrays] the irony that the nation’s most highly regarded universities may not sufficiently prioritize the quality of undergraduate education.
Karen G. Hales, PhD ’97
Davidson, North Carolina
Galápagos and Logic
Upon reading “Galápagos and All That” (Farm Report, November/December), I realized such a well-written and interesting article glazed over logical alternatives critical to the main line of thought. People might not agree on certain premises, but logic, not language, is what we can agree upon. It is our cultural inheritance, because logic is not by choice or accident.
As a geologist, it became obvious to me that those unique species Darwin encountered on each island could simply be remnants of the same species (since extinct) on the continent. This logical alternative is not mentioned, but it is noted Darwin saw similarities with the nearest continental species
The nearest island is approximately 600 miles from the Ecuador coast. Could two iguanas hitch a ride? Instead, we know from Hawaii’s history that catamaran canoes took new species to vastly isolated volcanic islands long before Darwin’s time. Again, a logical possibility—human intervention!
Geologically, the Galápagos islands Darwin visited became inhabitable recently (being volcanic). It is unnecessary for anyone to postulate a creator “wanting” unique species there—as if creators were emotional like us. Why make the logic “either/or” (creator/nature), when there are various logical naturalistic options to consider?
John DeVilbiss, MS ’77, PhD ’80
Honolulu, Hawaii
The interview with Bill Durham on Darwinism was very interesting, with provocative questions and thoughtful answers. The last question, though, reflects (maybe deliberately) a popular misunderstanding that cultural Darwinism implies that people are engaged in cutthroat competition. Durham’s answer explains that it’s the ideas themselves, not necessarily their holders, who are in competition. But he muddles the point by talking about lofty ideas that humans consciously decide whether to discard or propagate, which is not the clearest example. Some purer examples of memes would be jokes, urban legends, and folk songs.
A joke’s survival traits include being memorable and funny; a joke that carries those traits will reproduce and ruthlessly outcompete a long complicated joke without a punch line. No conscious entity has to be involved in working out the best strategy for the joke’s spread. Good survival traits in an urban legend include admonitions that doing something commonplace will harm the listener, or better yet, his or her child, while accuracy has very little survival value.
Just as they undergo selection, such memes also undergo variation, just like genes. Jokes and songs undergo mutations in what’s called “the folk process,” particularly before the invention of writing and then the Internet. When a random mutation occurs because someone forgets the most boring part when retelling a joke, or misremembers a story and reports that the victim was a child or the outcome more tragic, that version gains survival value and spreads faster, outcompeting older versions.
I’ve long speculated that thousands of years ago, parents told children a story about a bear getting into a human family’s campsite and eating their food; it may even have been a true story. Then details got added about the bear being picky about which food it sampled, which survived because they were entertaining and added memorable structure. Then the bear became a bear cub, because that’s cuter and easier for the young audience to identify with. Finally, some parent a thousand years ago got tired of being asked for the same story night after night, and mischievously reversed the roles of bear and human. That version became so popular that it spread and is the one we know today, and it wiped out all traces of the original as surely as early creatures with our DNA encoding scheme ate up all traces of any of evolution’s false starts.
Bob Kanefsky, ’82
Mountain View, California
An Invitation to ’61 Women
It has taken a while for me to respond to the welcome article on classmate Brooks Born (“Prophet and Loss,” March/April 2009), who received a Stanford alum of the year award deservedly. I am glad I waited to read the incisive letter by Judith Vollmar Torney-Purta, ’59 (“Profile in Courage,” May/June 2009). Together, there are at least three of us who can testify to overcoming what was an entrenched set of disincentives in our generation to the professionalization of Stanford female students.
Brooks Born was a legacy student; I was what was then called a “disadvantaged” student; and I do not know the circumstances of Judith Vollmar Torney-Purta. What is important is that almost 50 years after our graduations, we have discovered that each of us separately endured traumatic encounters with powerful personnel who discouraged us from applying the very talents that got us into Stanford.
Born’s story of overcoming surprised me, because she was singled out even as a freshman by faculty and fellow students as an uncommonly brilliant student. That she was also female seemed immaterial. I was, in fact, both envious and annoyed at the awe she engendered among us, because I came from a public school in a town that since has become notorious for its homicide rate and gangsta’ rap. How could a woman of her obvious ability be treated unequally right up to the 1990s, when she was discouraged from leadership status, because she foresaw an economic cataclysm that her male peers did not want to acknowledge?
Our class of ’61 entered as the “Sputnik” group, and we were subjected to even more difficult curricula because there was a panic over the United States falling behind the USSR in the race to control space. Nevertheless, like Judith Vollmar Torney-Purta a few years earlier, I was also told by a dean that I could not apply to medical school because I would only become pregnant and drop out, thus depriving a man of a career. He did console me somewhat by saying that my “son” could become a physician.
Last June, I attended the graduation of my daughter from ophthalmology residency at Doheny Eye Institute, where she is currently a fellow in a surgical subspecialty. And she is pregnant with her first child.
The three of us should try to find out how many other women in our class experienced the same discriminatory treatment. One way in which a major class of people is controlled by those in power is by treating each case separately, so that the group remains ignorant of the treatment of the whole. It remains important to document what happened, despite the obvious gains by women in society since then, because Brooks is not in public office, despite her superior qualifications to those who are. We need such women in charge, and we are still unable to establish a merit-based system that is gender blind.
Our “silent generation” produced a noisy feminist revolution that is not yet completed. I invite our sisters in our classes to get in touch and trade experiences. Perhaps we can produce a collective memoir for our daughters and grandkids to consult whenever it seems to them that equality is something they can take for granted and the cream always rises to the top. I know a smart female desktop publisher from the Class of ’61 who can put it together.
Jean E. Rosenfeld, ’61
Pacific Palisades, California
Address letters to:
Letters to the Editor
Stanford magazine
Arrillaga Alumni Center
326 Galvez Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6105
Or fax to (650) 725-8676; or send us an email. You may also submit your letter online. Letters may be edited for length, clarity and civility. Please note that your letter may appear in print, online or both.
