Political Division
Professor Morris Fiorina’s article (“Beyond Red & Blue,” September/October) divides the U.S. political universe into two profoundly different realms: a political class (officeholder, interest groups, political infotainers and issue activists, all of whom are deeply interested in and well informed about political issues) and an American public (not terribly interested in most political issues and not well informed about them).
It appears that the professor has ground-ruled out a substantial part of the public that does not fit his defined political class, but certainly is interested in and pretty well informed about political issues.
Case in point: the Stanford faculty. Would Professor Fiorina not regard them as interested in political issues and well informed about them? Would he consider them members of the political class?
One could go on and on, citing examples of members of the public who fit neither of the professor’s categories. Let it suffice to note that he has apparently overlooked the Stanford faculty, himself and me.
William L. Shields, PhD ’67
Tucson, Arizona
Stadium Sentiments
The recent FIFA World Cup in Germany brought to mind the festive days when Stanford hosted Olympic soccer in 1984 and World Cup matches in 1994.
World Cup and the Olympics will come again to the United States, but the Stanford community will never again be able to experience the pleasures of international soccer. The tragedy is that, despite vigorous argument to the contrary, those who planned and paid for rebuilding Stanford Stadium (“Ready for Kickoff,” September/October) refused to design a field that could be made wide enough to comply with the requirements of competitive soccer.
James R. Madison, ’53, JD ’59
Menlo Park, California
Having been loyal Stanford football fans since forever (my father “ran” the scoreboards and put up the numbers, manually of course, in the late ’30s); having had good tickets on the shady side for almost 40 years; having made monetary donations each year; my father having donated many historical family items to Stanford and having volunteered all his time at Stanford; and having three family members go through Stanford, I am very upset. I am sure there are many others like me, who, in spite of being loyal Stanford fans, were given bad seats.
I requested in writing that I keep the same four seats in the new stadium. Instead I was moved almost two sections closer to the end zone. I was told records prior to 1986 had been destroyed so there was no way of knowing how long people had held tickets. I am curious as to how many other loyal Stanford football fans were given seats worse than the ones they held for years.
I think it’s sad that Stanford no longer cares about the loyal fans who have done a lot for Stanford but don’t make $100,000 yearly donations. It all comes down to money and who makes the biggest donations.
Due to my personal experiences, I always felt that Stanford University had a heart. Sadly, things have changed and Stanford has sold out; loyalty be damned.
Ann Tietjen Gaskell, MA ’76
Los Altos, California
When I contrast what the University of Louisville has done with its football program and stadium with what Stanford has done, I think Stanford is kidding itself.
When you use Stanford’s bowl attendance in the last several years in comparison with earlier eras to judge the success of your program, have you considered the proliferation of bowls in the last 15 years or so? More teams go now because there are more bowls available.
Stanford’s focus moved from major sports that more than paid their own way to Title IX and minor sports that did not.
Remember also that there was no competition from professional football when the old stadium was built and not for a good many years after. Now Stanford is surrounded by professional teams competing for the sports entertainment dollar.
One of the first things Stanford statistics taught many years ago was the need to avoid apples and oranges in data analysis. Looks to me as if those who made this decision may not have had the chance to take that particular class just yet.
William Gregg, ’47
Louisville, Kentucky
It doesn’t sound like women had much input in planning the stadium. If the crowd is one-third to one-half women and two-thirds of them use the john at intermission, then they will be lined up at each of the 240 stalls 45 to 70 deep.
Ladies, avoid the liquid concession stands once again!
Ron Jensen
Portland, Oregon
By Any Other Name
Concerning your brief article “Jolie Signs On for Pearl Film” (Red All Over, September/October), I thought I would translate the phrase “Pearl, ’85, who was abducted and executed by Pakistani militants” for people who are too young or poorly educated to distinguish Political-Correct-Speak from facts. What this phrase actually means is, “Pearl, who was kidnapped and viciously murdered by being beheaded alive by Islamic terrorists.”
“Pakistani militants” indeed. You should be ashamed of yourselves for printing such wishy-washy P.C. garbage.
Bill Lorton, ’64
San Jose, California
To Each His Own
Something clicked, about perceived cultural disconnects in my relationships, as I read of Professor Jeanne Tsai’s research in the article “Joy to the World” (Farm Report, September/October). To wit:
- “Happiness Is Homegrown”
I splash and laugh
In the water. You pine for a time
When surfaces were calm.
The harder I try to make you happy,
The more roiled your world becomes.
Steve Robinson, ’72
Glendale, California
Gilbert Sorrentino
I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of one of my beloved professors, Gilbert Sorrentino (Obituaries, September/October). The world lost Professor Sorrentino much too early, at 77, as evidenced by his working on his last novel up until one week before his death.
Professor Sorrentino, or Gil, as many of his students affectionately called him, was, of course, an academic and scholarly inspiration. He was straight shooting, clever and one of the most brilliant minds I’ve ever known. But perhaps the adjective that best sums up this iconic character is just plain “cool.” Gil could often be seen smoking his cigarettes while walking across the Quad, tall and striking with his gray hair and inimitable mustache.
His tales of sharing cocktails with some of the best writers of his generation in small smoke-filled New York City apartments permeated his very presence and, as his students, we saw him as the true definition of a “living writer.” He
lived his writing and shared his passion and talent with his lucky brood.
The literary world will feel this loss for some time to come, as will I. In his poem, “As with a Simple Gesture of the Fingers,” Gil himself sums it up best:
As with a simple gesturing of fingers, all my words are turned to singer’s words, held and polished for your unique delight.
Katie Mauro Zeigler, ’95, MA ’96
Walnut Creek, California
kids today
I have not renewed my Stanford Alumni Association membership this year, probably out of lack of motivation, and the July/August issue of the magazine is so shockingly white it gives me no desire to belong to an organization that does not even see its whiteness or is not aware of the white privilege it represents. Don’t you believe in the power of images to change the world? Don’t you know that
in the issue about “Kids Today,” by not having one picture of a child of Asian or African-American or Latino background you deny these children’s existence? At least this is the perception any minority person would have while reading your magazine: they do not exist. Granted, there is a nice story about a “Lost Boy” of Sudan, but he does not represent the American diversity, he is African and he is planning to go back to Africa. I would urge your staff to take a diversity course at Stanford, provided these courses do exist.
Françoise Arnaud Hibbs, PhD ’84
Salt Lake City, Utah
School Reform
After reading Terry Moe’s article “Thriving on Failure” (July/August) on the problem of school reform, I think it is fair to say the way he sees the problem is the problem. He doesn’t see it holistically; he doesn’t see the big picture. [He] isolates one part from the whole, one cause from multiple causes. Causes in such a big issue as education are multiple, complex and connected. To ignore this complex connectedness, in my opinion, is not helpful.
For example, Moe sees the cause of low student test scores as “mediocre teachers.” He says teachers don’t have incentives (more money) to do better. And teachers’ unions “do not want anyone to lose a job merely because they are no good at teaching.” Besides being insulting, those beliefs are seeing only one part of the whole.
Research has frequently reported that high student test scores are overwhelmingly correlated with affluent, well-educated parents who speak English. Low test scores are associated with students living in poverty, and for whom English is a second language. Recently the median API test score for all California students was 709. For socioeconomically disadvantaged students it was 641; for English learners 631; for students with disabilities 508.
Gerald Bracey, in his article, points out that most schools have 37 of these subgroups—ethnic groups, special education students, English learners, etc. The student population of classrooms in today’s schools is made up of a multifaceted, multiethnic, multidimensional complex whole. One cause does not fit all.
My point is not that all teachers are superior or that teachers’ unions are always helpful in reform efforts. My point is there are many additional (and maybe more potent) causes of low student test scores. Each child’s capability to learn is dependent on many factors, not only the quality of teaching. Unfortunately, the NCLB legislation, like Terry Moe, sees only one cause.
It is important to add that the exclusive focus on test scores to evaluate schools is another example of not seeing the whole picture. Americans are being told that high test scores equal good education. Surely the learning that takes place in public schools should be more than that. Yet, if we are not careful, we will treasure what we measure.
H. B. Gelatt, MA ’51, EdD ’64
Mountain View, California
The article “Put to the Test” is odd: it is found in the middle of the “Kids Today” section and it’s not about kids at all. In it two experts each have something to say about education.
Professor Moe writes about “motivating employees” of school systems, and “accountability, choice and traditional schooling,” and he trashes teachers’ unions. Dr. Bracey points out that “multiple choice tests taken by 13-year-olds don’t count for very much in the long run,” and trashes the No Child Left Behind Act —“NCLB is to education as Katrina was to New Orleans.” Neither says much about kids today, or even kids in schools.
It seems to me that one could avoid much of this debate about the state of
U.S. public schools if teachers and their schools followed Coach John McPhee’s “principles” of coaching outlined in “Good Sports,” in teaching. These principles should be fundamental for the classroom behavior of teachers.
The purpose of education, as conducted in public schools, should be to learn to love learning, to teach kids to enjoy the search for knowledge and to want more
of it when they think they’ve found it. Most of Coach McPhee’s admonitions are about how coaches/teachers can keep kids “in the game;” by putting them in the game, by listening to them, by showing them respect.
Ideas like these worked well for me in my 30 years of teaching undergraduate
and graduate students at the University of Alberta. Of course, there’s always that final exam or term paper. The good teacher gets his students “into the game,” and, respectfully, tries to evade the “Will this be on the final exam?” sorts of questions. Many of your students learn to love the stuff they’re doing, and it becomes a joy to come to class for both of you. You are a motivated employee and your students don’t have to worry about multiple-choice tests determining their future.
A. D. Fisher, ’58, MA ’59, PhD ’66
Cobble Hill, British Columbia
Terry Moe makes an assumption that schools are the problem in education. Teacher training and school improvements have increased geometrically. Look to the areas outside the actual building—look to where the kids are emerging from, the culture as a whole. This is not a popular place to look, because it is so much more difficult to change. But it is the answer to the “problem.”
Thomas Shade
Dubois, Pennsylvania
It’s always reassuring to have Gerald Bracey as a voice of reason in a cacophony of data heads who bend data like Beckham to fit their narrow agendas. However, I wish you would counterpoint with someone who is a little more up to the task than Terry Moe. The old union-bashing argument is laughable, particularly in the South. Instead of bashing teachers and principals, maybe we should take a closer look at those responsible for providing the resources and spending all that extra money Moe writes about.
This blame game we keep hearing from conservatives like Moe provides credibility to Bracey’s argument that the progenitors of NCLB want to see failure. A Nation at Risk did not begin the reform era. It simply forced the education establishment to circle the wagons and ignore the students we are supposed to be serving.
Paul Bonner
Charlotte, North Carolina
The following letters did not appear in the print edition of Stanford.
Illegitimate Auto
How sad that Ron Patrick was so bored that he had to spend “nearly half a million dollars” building a tin monster (“It’s a Bird! It’s a Plane! It’s a . . . Bug!” Red All Over, September/October). Imagine! He could have fed the hungry in Darfur, vaccinated thousands of children, preserved an old growth redwood forest (the list goes on).
I am disappointed that Stanford would legitimize creating an automobile that cannot legally be driven, at the speeds it was created for, on any of our streets, by publishing this article.
Please let him know this is one Stanford person that “doesn’t get it.”
Dennis Mills, MS ’53
Yorkville, California
Kids Today
“Curiously, in a place like Finland where I’m from, people don’t go to school until they’re 7, and yet the population is incredibly highly educated. The literacy rate is 99.5, something like that, and it’s a very bookish society. My husband, when we go there in the summer, says, “My God, this is a nation of graduate students!”
I found the above quote interesting (“Growing Concerns,” July/August). Professor Liisa Malkki is indicating that the age at which a person begins school might have something to do with their level of education later—which might be true, but she leaves out the fact that Finland’s population is mostly Finnish-born. In 1999, foreign-born people made up about 3 percent of their entire population. I think this fact has more to do with the success of education in Finland than the age a child begins school.
I am all in favor of starting school at a later age in America rather than earlier as some suggest, but it would not change our education successes as we are a nation of immigrants. It is easier to have success in education when everyone comes from the same culture, speaks the same language and has had the same education standard their entire life.
Allison Wall
San Diego, California
Bravo for featuring children’s issues and for highlighting Stanford faculty insights. At Girl Scouts, San Diego-Imperial Council, where we help nearly 30,000 girls “grow strong” through Girl Scouting, we agree with your findings: schools can no longer provide all the resources children need to thrive.
Girl Scouts of the USA supplements reduced public support with after-school activities for thousands of at-risk girls. Programs like our council’s Girls are GREAT (Gifted, Remarkable, Extraordinary, Ambitious and Talented) help girls in underserved communities discover their talents and put those passions into action. When the school day—or the school year—ends, learning continues for millions of Girl Scouts nationwide during troop meetings and a wide variety of age-appropriate activities, in high-adventure sports and at traditional summer camps.
San Diego Girl Scouts partners with over 200 community agencies to deliver summertime science enrichment curriculum. Technology Goddesses day camp teaches girls to multiply their abilities, add to their communities, and subtract potential barriers to success by providing them with relevant—and fun! —science, math and technology programs. Our popular Family Science Night fosters the type of parent-child interaction that Stanford faculty experts advocate.
We also know that even privileged children are at risk and may not, as Professor Damon suggests, be “getting the kind of guidance they need.” That’s why caring adults and troop leaders make such a difference in the lives of Girl Scouts. Our volunteers, young and old, deliver values-based programming that inspires girls to be leaders and contribute positively to their communities.
Twenty-first-century Girl Scouting is more than cookies, crafts and camping. Today’s Girl Scouts are involved in community service, computers, career exploration and cultural competency. There’s something for every girl, everywhere: from sports to science, from American heritage to the arts. Our mission is to help build young women of courage, confidence and character, who make the world a better place.
Jo Dee C. Jacob, ’73
Chief Executive Officer
Girl Scouts, San Diego-Imperial Council
San Diego, California
It is no secret why we are not doing better with secondary education. The system has too many jobs to do, approximately 160 assigned tasks at last count. We do not monitor the reading skills of those who are falling behind in elementary school and make the investment in correcting them, and most importantly many of these children have parents/caregivers that do not care.
Neil Archer
Paducah, Kentucky
Back in the “dark ages” when I was at Stanford, I had two separate anthropology profs. One of them was world famous while the other was a newcomer. The world-famous one (apparently from published books, theories, etc.) was one of the most boring lecturers I ever heard; the other one made the primitive culture “come alive” in the classroom. Needless to say, in about two years, the newcomer—who, by the way, had very full classes—was elected the most popular professor at Stanford. What did the University do to reward him? They took him out of teaching and offered him a big job in administration. Talk about an absolute waste of teaching talent!
I asked my wife which teachers she had—in grade school, high school, and college—who stood out and why. She could think of a couple in each category. Actually, there were more from grade school; isn’t that interesting? I asked if they were alike in personality and teaching styles. Absolutely not. What was it then that made them so memorable? And why is it that we remember only a handful of special teachers?
Terry Moe’s article made some good points. He said that teachers unions “do not want teacher pay to depend on how much students learn.” I believe that there definitely should be some monetary incentives for good teachers, but I agree that it is a difficult thing to thoroughly assess how much a student learns from a particular teacher (learning takes place on many levels besides just the factual retention in a course). It is definitely true that some people should not be in teaching, because they either do not like children (I actually taught students in a middle school with a department head like this!) or they do not connect with kids.
Good teachers should not primarily be measured by state tests, degrees, etc., but I believe rather by the following: 1) great communication and compassion for kids; 2) creating enthusiasm in students for the subject matter; 3) creativity in presentation of subject matter (e.g. personal stories, humor, paradigm shifts in traditional approaches); 4) literally bringing out “the joy of learning” in students. I think the teachers we fondly remember years after being in the classroom are the ones who had qualities like those mentioned above. Max Lucado has said “the people who make a difference are not the ones with the credentials, but the ones with the concern.” I heartily agree.
Peter T. Love, ’67
Grants Pass, Oregon
Cultural Norms
I received several magazines late because I moved, and found two articles of interest about Alaska. The first was a lawyer doing her clerking in Alaska (“The Big Thaw,” End Note, January/February) and the second about Joseph Thomas Flies-Away (‘All About Indian Law,” Farm Report, May/June). It’s interesting that both have the same approach: colonial view of a place different than what is considered normal. The first is typical of a non-Native, usually a white person, experiencing a cultural reality within the same larger culture as being unique; and the second, of an Indian (Hualapai) talking about another Native group as being in a “different world.”
While I can dismiss easily the experiences of the first example, the second is more troubling. That there is simply a political relationship between the United States government and Native governments in this country doesn’t mean that some of us are stuck in the politically defined system codified in that relationship. To say that it is tradition for our elders to be the judges in our judicial process is normal for us. We continue to make accommodations to Western mores for providing justice within our communities. The accommodations are sometimes difficult to incorporate as they require a leap of faith into a foreign system with its own processes. The fact that Mr. Flies-Away points out that some of our judges don’t have either GEDs or a college education belies the fact that making appropriate judicial decisions requires such formality. Our Yup’ik culture defines its members, chooses its leaders, chooses its judicial system and makes its decisions within our cultural norms and adapts the Western practices when they are appropriate. All this is within the legal framework of the Constitution of the United States, the State of Alaska and the Bill of Rights. He forgot to tell you that this is also done in our language: Yup’ik, not English. And aside from just the judicial aspect, there is much more going on in Alaska than what has been shown in these two articles.
Tony Vaska, MA ’74
Bethel, Alaska
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.
