Remarkable People
I enjoyed the Q&A with Sandra Day O’Connor (“Front and Center,” January/February). O’Connor is a world-class jurist with a moderate political philosophy. It is interesting that Stanford no longer offers incoming freshmen the one undergraduate course she remembered by name, Western Civilization. G. A. Poole Jr., JD ’59 Carmel, California
I greatly enjoyed this issue but most especially the interview with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. I have had only occasional encounters with Justice O’Connor, but each has reinforced an impression of modesty, down-to-earth realism, fundamental friendliness and a genuine interest in people, to say nothing of a most capable intellect. While one has to accept that genetics and environment have a lot to do with shaping personality, I’d like to think that a sojourn on the Stanford campus contributed in significant ways to the remarkable person we celebrate today.
By the way, huge congratulations to the Stanford community for the stunning success of the Campaign for Undergraduate Education. In his President’s Column (“Thanks a Billion,” January/February), John Hennessy illustrates one of the most endearing and perhaps essential elements of great leadership: giving credit where it is due. His observation that the CUE process had its roots in the earlier Casper administration is another good example of his remarkable ability to lead without ego and motivate by example. We are blessed by his presidency.
Vinton G. Cerf, ’65
McLean, Virginia
Moms and Feminism
Marjorie Perloff’s assertion in Just One Question (“What longtime belief have you changed your mind about?” (January/February) that “Moms in my day . . . would have been ashamed to be soccer moms and spend our afternoons chauffeuring kids around” misrepresents modernity entirely. Being a “soccer mom” in this day and age does not automatically disqualify a woman from contributing to her community.
In addition to “chauffeuring” my sisters and me around, my mother found time to create educational arts programming for our schools, be a vital member of the local theater scene, write grants for area organizations, and eventually go back to school to earn her teaching certification—all activities Perloff implies “soccer moms” are uninterested in. The feminist revolution hasn’t been reversed. What’s more empowering for a woman than to be able to contribute to her community while simultaneously raising her children to become active members of their communities?
Nicole Schuetz, ’06
Stanford, California
I was extremely disappointed to read Marjorie Perloff’s response. As a mother of two young children who also happens to have two Stanford degrees and years of corporate experience, I am bewildered by Professor Perloff’s linking of “soccer moms” to the reversal of the feminist movement. The feminist movement was founded on the basis of choice; that is, allowing women to make career and family decisions for themselves rather than having them dictated by society or cultural norms.
If there has been any reversal of the feminist movement, it is only because women like Professor Perloff have failed to respect each individual’s life choices and can only pontificate with “why aren’t people like me” responses.
Regarding the “valorization of the SUV office,” Professor Perloff fails to acknowledge that times have changed since the late 1950s. Back then, most people lived in smaller, tight-knit communities where friends, family and caretakers were within walking distance. Today, families and friends are increasingly spread out across the country. Dangerous intersections, increased distances and different concerns for physical safety make for different transportation needs. We want our children to be exposed to new experiences and a variety of activities so that they can successfully function in today’s global and diverse world.
Professor Perloff notes that she would have been ashamed to be a “soccer mom” in today’s world. I am ashamed that she represents my alma mater.
Elisabeth Loeb Jacobson, ’93, MBA ’98
Denver, Colorado
Eating Responsibly
In her article “You Gotta Have Guts” (Being There, January/February), Summer Batte claims Mark Pastore “embraces respect” for animals by selling their entrails in his restaurant. This is a strikingly twisted definition of respect. Respect for other beings is not manifested by serving up their body parts with garlic and lemon. Likewise you do not “value the whole animal” by serving “disdained cuts of meat,” unless by value you mean “exploit” or “make a profit from.”
Much of the article is devoted to describing the “environmental responsibility” of Pastore’s restaurant. I would think that people as well-educated as your readers, and your writers, would be familiar by now with the environmental degradation (pollution, water wastage, habitat destruction) caused by animal agriculture. In light of this, encouraging people to eat meat is hardly environmentally responsible.
Furthermore, with the epidemic of obesity and heart disease in our society, encouraging meat consumption is also medically irresponsible. Given the threat of afflictions such as E. coli infection and Creutzfeldt-Jakob (mad cow) disease, it is particularly irresponsible to encourage people to eat intestines and brains. Your definition of responsible is as misguided as your definition of respect.
Considering the risks involved, I suppose I could agree that Batte and her husband were “brave” to eat at Pastore’s restaurant. However, if they want to do something truly brave, and responsible, I propose they read Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz, view the film Peaceable Kingdom, and visit stockyards and slaughterhouses to gain a fuller appreciation for the suffering caused by their consumption of meat. Then I challenge Batte to write an article describing how, given her newfound knowledge, eating meat is in any way consistent with respect and responsibility.
If Pastore’s goal is “to balance the realities of commerce of a restaurant with the ideals of beauty and making the world a better place and doing the right thing,” the “natural fit” would be for him to open a vegetarian restaurant. And we as consumers can help create a better world by making truly responsible, environmental and humane choices. Indeed, one way to make the world a better place is simply to follow the Golden Rule: if you do not want to be slaughtered, however “humanely,” you should not slaughter others.
The chef at Pastore’s restaurant says, “The animal is not there for you to kill to just eat the tenderloin.” Actually, the animal is not there for you to eat at all. As Alice Walker says in her forward to The Dreaded Comparison, by Marjorie Spiegel: “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.”
In the Bay Area in the year 2006, there is no excuse for needlessly slaughtering animals; to do so is to indulge in selfishness and cruelty.
Alan Scheller-Wolf, ’89
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
I was struck by the inference that [offal] was heretofore an unknown culinary delight that the San Francisco sophisticate must sample. Continued reference to “offal” was also somewhat off-putting, implying that this was a unique use of something that would otherwise be considered waste, or rubbish. Animal viscera have been prepared and eaten in rural America for centuries.
When I was a boy growing up in the South, virtually all parts of a butchered hog or steer would be used as food. Beef tongue, heart and stomach were routinely reserved. Pork brains, heart and intestines were likewise reserved. The remaining parts of the pig’s head would be ground up and formed into a loaf, called souse, or head cheese. The feet and tail would be pickled. Pork brains were particularly tasty when prepared with scrambled eggs and served with biscuits and gravy. The article illustrates how little of the real world some of your writers (and editors) have knowledge of.
Dan R. McDaniel, PhD ’76
Los Altos, California
Climate Conundrum
Your two recent articles on global warming (“Danger Ahead,” September/ October; “Too Hot to Handle,” November/December) are interesting but fail to deal adequately with the question of man’s ability to significantly alter the warming trend.
Joan Hamilton appears to be convinced that man does have this ability and presents much material in support, but little questioning. However, many members of the scientific community, and other intelligent individuals, are not convinced. Well-qualified scientists express serious doubt.
Have you given thought to presenting both sides of this issue? How about an article, not dominated by input from pro-control academics, that gives equal, unbiased attention to the pros and the cons? Such an article seems desirable in giving your readers an opportunity to reach their own conclusions as to man’s ability to control the climate.
John W. McDonald, ’47
Kula, Hawaii
Your interesting articles on global warming suggest a couple of conclusions.
First, today we do not have a solution to global warming that is technologically, economically, politically or socially feasible. Second, even in the most optimistic mitigation scenarios, to a very large degree we are going to have to learn to live with the consequences, which can hardly be predicted with any great accuracy. I hope you take the series far enough to cover that topic, ideally without wasting much space on extremist speculations from either end of the political spectrum that often find their way into the popular press.
Don Bellman, MBA ’68
Sugar Land, Texas
After reading the articles concerning global warming I wish to make a cautionary response.
For the past 3.5 million years there have been a series of ice advances in the Northern Hemisphere—about 35 advances and 35 interglacial episodes. The interglacial episodes last about 20,000 years and we are now 10,000 years into the current one. During the last interglacial (about 100,000 years ago) hippos, crocodiles and palm trees existed in London. About 500 years ago we experienced a “mini ice age” from which we are currently recovering. How do we know that the vast majority of the current global warming is not just part of the natural climatic oscillations that have occurred for millions of years?
Remember, our nation and our culture are dependent on fossil fuels as the source of industrial energy. Granted, the bulk of our electric needs could be supplied by nuclear power, but that still leaves our transportation, food production and distribution and all the rest that need to be powered by something. For the past 200 years we as a society have gone down the path of industrialization and have reaped its benefits. We must address our energy issues in a manner that does not risk a global economic depression, for such a case could bring catastrophic consequences for everything we hold dear.
Kingsley Roberts, ’75
Menlo Park, California
Thanks again for your coverage of global warming. I can’t remember having chuckled as I read about the subject before, but the letters (January/February) were so well written, diverse and clever that I was delighted. I appreciate your devoting that amount of space to letters, since they are so informative. Must be something about your subscribers.
David Holton, MS ’55
Twain Harte, California
Some points of information regarding questions raised in the January/February issue by alumni skeptical of climate change.
[One said] “I would welcome any evidence that human-generated emissions are causing anything climatic. . . .” A good source is the set of reports in Science magazine (November 25, 2005) analyzing the contents of gas bubbles frozen in Antarctic ice. These bubbles show clearly the concentrations of greenhouse gases and also temperature (which can be estimated from the relative concentrations of deuterium and hydrogen) over the past 700,000 years. The ice ages are clearly visible in the data as simultaneous fluctuations of temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations. Over this period, the concentration of CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm and about 280 ppb, where it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. During the last 150 years, it has risen far above the record from the previous half-million years, to 370 ppb.
“Where is the survey that substantiates [that] most University scientists working on the issue agree that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are causing climatic shifts?” One such survey is the report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, a group of hundreds of climate experts chosen “to reflect a broad range of views, expertise and geographic expertise” sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization.
In 1965, Professor Donald Kennedy showed students in Biology 10 some beautiful data from the Mauna Loa atmospheric observatory: annual fluctuations of CO2 superimposed on a steadily rising background. It didn’t take too much imagination to infer where that rising background might come from, or what the implications were for the future.
The trends between 1965 and 2005 have followed pretty closely the lines that were evident back then. The clarity of the data, and the difficulty we have in accepting its implications, say more about sociology and politics than about science.
Peter Waser, ’68
Lafayette, Indiana
I have read with interest the two global warming articles and letters of response.
In making decisions it seems wise to consider the outcomes and the seriousness of the risks for the various alternatives.
On the one hand, let us accept, as fact, that humans are a prime cause of global warming and its effects. These effects include the melting of glaciers and ice caps with a rise in sea level inundating vast areas of densely populated land, and the effects of climate change on food production, spread of insect pests, invasive weeds and disease. These effects could threaten the very survival of the human race. Let us agree that this could be disastrous.
On the other hand, let us accept, as fact, that humans have little or nothing to do with global warming and we do nothing to try to stop it. Only the future will prove which is real fact.
The consequences can be so disastrous if humans are primarily responsible for global warming that I would err on the conservative side. I would embark on an immediate concerted program to try to eliminate the human contribution to global warming, which will likely be a very expensive long-term effort.
If it turns out, in the far future, that humans had little to do with global warming, we will have spent vast monetary resources and effort unnecessarily, but we will have cleaner air, better health and possibly a better quality of life.
Phil Rogers, MS ’58
Ocean Shores, Washington
I was appalled when reading recent letters in Stanford (November/December) concerning global warming. Several writers misstate facts, exhibit no understanding of the scientific method, and have managed to survive college with apparently no critical-thinking skills. Stanford should be ashamed to have had so little impact.
Kermit Smyth, ’72
Brunswick, Maine
Great letters on global warming in the November/December magazine. You could practically see the spittle flying. Climate change has been happening ever since Earth had an atmosphere; the problem is the current rate of change. Barring an asteroid or massive volcanic eruption, climate change in the past has been gradual, allowing ecosystems to adjust. Most of the inhabitants of this planet are not generalists like humans who can live almost anywhere and eat almost everything.
What is a polar bear to feed her cubs next spring if she can’t get to seals because the ice pack is melted? Shall we let them eat cake? Humans, like it or not, also depend on natural ecosystems; rapid climate change and failure of nature’s services will eventually leave us with neither seals nor cake.
Diane Shepherd, ’72
Kihei, Hawaii
Your letters [on global warming] for November/December had a mix of intelligent and lunatic. Bob Wieting’s showed the most clarity, pointing out the same issue I noticed when reading: that global warming is a fact and the main issue now is to understand the relative importance of each component. Jean Louis Forcina cited no facts and while decrying people who “look at the crowd and see your friends” automatically labeled any scientist who agreed with facts to be Luddites (the paranoid opposite of the quote).
Then there are folks such as Walt Kimball, who used the old half-truth lie to try to justify society not doing anything. His statement about it being warmer 900 years ago is a case in point. Nobody who supports the science of human interaction in global warming denies that there are non-human reasons for climate change, but people such as him claim that other causes somehow obviate the possibility of human-caused climate changes. That’s not science, that’s faith.
Claiming that no major problems happened at the Medieval Optimum is just as sketchy. There’s not a lot of detailed history about the impact of those changes, so that basic claim is specious. More importantly, we aren’t living 1,000 years ago. We have a much higher population and major population centers in many low-lying areas. That minimizes the ability of people to relocate, and changes in climate would have a much greater impact on current agricultural locations and methods.
Meanwhile, a strange thing called industry happened. To deny that the human species has changed its ability to significantly impact the environment is to imitate another species—the ostrich.
Yes, there is natural climate change. However, that in no way means we should ignore the human contribution to adverse climate change, especially considering its impact upon our species.
David Teich, MS ’84
Petach Tikva, Israel
Balancing Act
Regarding the November/December article “Bring Your ‘A’ Game,” by Kelli Anderson, Stanford student-athletes are certainly rare people who deserve the full compassion and support of the University and its alumni. However, if Stanford ever did decide to go to NCAA Division II athletics it would be a serious mistake.
What is the point of having an athletics department at Stanford if we can never play Cal? We do not need to win every game or contest to be proud of our fellow students who played sports at Stanford. I ran the 110-meter high hurdles for Stanford in two NCAA Division I Championships. I was always proud to be in red and white.
John Foster Jr., ’76
Pasadena, California
For anyone concerned about the problems in college sports, I recommend James Michener’s book Sports in America. He describes how sports twice saved his life—first, for giving him a positive outlet as a youth, and second, for giving him the physical resiliency to survive a heart attack he suffered later in life. With this recognition of the fundamental importance of sports, Michener details the unhealthy trends and attitudes that have tended to transform collegiate sports—and sports in general—into wasted opportunity, and in some cases tragedy. His profiles of athletes and others involved in the sports industry give pause for thought.
I am glad to see that Ted Leland acknowledged the challenges facing college athletes during his tenure at Stanford and am sorry to see him leave the University.
Paige Stinnett Rodriguez, ’91
Louisville, Colorado
Several years ago, while reviewing the athletic department before the Faculty Senate, athletics director Ted Leland made some significant comments. “If I were a faculty member,” he said with forceful enthusiasm, “I would want to hear from me how we can be sure that Stanford athletics are not subjected to the kinds of issues of loss of integrity and public embarrassment that happen so many times at other schools. I think they should feel comfortable with the significant controls here [at Stanford] over the activities of the athletic program.”
Leland and the Stanford administration put firm mechanisms of oversight in place, including direct reporting to the provost, and CAPER (the University Committee on Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation). The faculty athletic representative (FAR) has a major role in determining all eligibility for student-athletes and makes sure compliance with NCAA issues is handled by a faculty member appointed by the president and provost. It is the FAR who has the University’s vote in the NCAA.
Many other mechanisms prevent either an easy road or deification of student-athletes. Athletes at Stanford do not have a preference in housing, nor are they given special days for class registration. Stanford is the only school in the Pac-10 never to have been issued an NCAA violation, and that list of potential violations is a 375-page manual.
Many alumni would be surprised to know that Stanford admits fewer than 10 percent of freshmen as student-athletes whereas, said Leland, “at Yale and Princeton the numbers are 18 and 23 percent, respectively.” How can this be? The reason is that while the scholarship-funded athletes at Stanford stay on the teams, the rate of attrition in the Ivies is very high. “Starting with 16 hockey players at an Ivy League school as freshmen,” Leland pointed out, “the coach would be lucky to end up with four in the senior year.” He noted with quiet pride that there have been numerous student-athletes who “don’t get into Stanford and have to go to Harvard!”
Another important difference between Stanford and many other schools, some within the Pac-10, is that, said Leland, “Stanford has not succumbed to paying coaches inordinately high salaries, setting them up as real outliers where they make more money than the president of the university.” News that the football coach at the University of Colorado, fired under pressure, nevertheless left with a $3 million golden parachute, grates within us all.
This issue of the loss of perspective of college sports is not new. In the Journal of the American Medical Association, an editorial written 100 years ago noted: “From the standpoint of the educator, one of the greatest dangers of football is the degree to which it absorbs the student’s interest. For the first two months of every school year the entire mass of students is concerned chiefly with the football prospects of the college team. As for the athlete himself—even if he is a bona fide student and not simply hired for his football ability—he is being crammed full of signals, new plays and ‘dope’ of all varieties until there is little time or cephalic capacity left for anything else.”
We at Stanford must be very grateful for the successful efforts of Ted Leland to keep the level of sports at a very high competitive level while keeping academic standards and the perspective on athletics at a similar level. Ted, we will miss you.
Edward D. Harris Jr., MD
Academic Secretary to Stanford University
Stanford, California
Correction
The photograph of Stanford Stadium in 1000 Words (“Hallowed Ground,” January/February) should have been credited to Glenn Matsumura.
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.
