We were hardly surprised to learn from recent reader surveys that the Letters to the Editor column is among the most popular sections of the magazine. Well over half of those who responded to our formal poll are loyal readers of Letters -- and, of them, four out of five find the column "very interesting" or "interesting." Some readers view Letters as a bulletin board, a place to post their views and see what others think. Some, we know, are pressed for time and just looking for quick and engaging banter. We find Letters a useful if unscientific gauge of the reaction to our work and a window into the wide-ranging ideas and opinions of our readers.
Sometimes, too, a letter from a reader can spark a story idea. Take the two-page, single-spaced note we received last fall from a San Diego woman. She assailed the University for policies that, she maintained, made admission to Stanford easier for minorities, immigrants and the disabled than for children of alumni, including her own college-bound kids. We published her letter in the December 1995 issue, accompanied by a response from President Casper, who observed that the admission rate for legacies is roughly double the rate for the general applicant pool.
That exchange triggered its own torrent of mail. One alum attacked the woman for being "selfish, stingy, greedy [and] self-centered." Another came to her defense, criticizing Stanford's "embrace of multiculturalism" and its "biased admissions policies." Still others noted that the University's commitment to diversity is one reason that women like the San Diego writer were admitted to the law school in the early '70s.
We were fascinated by the dialogue. And it made us wonder whether these aren't the sorts of issues we ought to pursue in the feature pages of the magazine. At first we questioned whether we could add anything to the debate on affirmative action that wasn't already more than adequately covered in the national press. But a little digging showed that Stanford's three-decade experiment with affirmative action, both in student admissions and in faculty hiring, is a riveting narrative that in significant ways mirrors the experiences of corporations, local governments and other universities around the nation.
One of the most surprising things we learned is how quickly the backlash against race- and gender-based preferences has crested. John Bunzel, a Hoover Institution expert on race relations, wrote in Public Interest in 1988: "The issue is no longer whether there will be affirmative action, but how much is desirable and for what purposes." Just eight years later, the legal and political landscape has changed so much that the question today really is whether there will continue to be affirmative action.
The more we studied the issue, the more we wanted to know. How did these programs develop? How do they actually work at Stanford today? What's behind the current wave of hostility? Above all, what is fair? We felt we had a responsibility to try to answer some of these questions -- or at least give you enough information to reach your own conclusions. We see this as an opportunity to examine an issue of pressing national concern through a Stanford lens at a time when judges and politicians are rethinking the policy.
The story, followed by provocative side-by-side essays for and against affirmative action, begins on page 60. No matter where you stand on this topic, we hope you find our special report interesting and relevant. As always, we'll be watching for your letters.
You can send e-mail to Bob at bobcohn@stanford.edu.
