|
Send us a letter. Return to the main letters page. |
WINNING AT WHAT COST? Your latest issue presents a dichotomy if ever there was one. The expressions on the athletes' faces ("How to Build a Dynasty," July/August) were not of joy, but of the business of winning -- not a tooth in sight. But the problem I have is not with Art Streiber's photographic style but with the contrast between the athletes' faces on the cover and those of the coaches inside the magazine. The color and gender mix of the athletes differs dramatically from the almost completely white male coaching staff -- as does the article on Tom Williams's efforts to increase the number of black football coaches (Farm Report, July/August). I think Mr. Williams look no further than Palo Alto to find evidence of his quote: "It doesn't matter what color your skin is. If you win, they're going to keep you." Maybe the left hand simply does not know what the right hand is doing. Recently Stanford held a two-day conference called "Models for Diversity: The University's Role in Shaping an Inclusive Society," in which speakers emphasized the striking benefits and acknowledged the problems of increased campus diversity. I ask myself: how the heck did I get in? As a high school math and computer science teacher, what is the answer when my students ask, "how do I get in?" As a parent, do I hope my children want to get in? From Stanford's desire to compete against Harvard, Yale, and Princeton for students of Calvin Miaw's ilk (Farm Report, July/August) to its cutbacks in humanities graduate students ("Pecking at Crumbs," July/August), my alma mater wants the best and the brightest -- but they should know how to win the game of life. Send us your athletes and smartest. Send us your ethnically and culturally diverse students. But you need to find your own place in the competitive, capitalistic environment called the Farm. Our coaches do not look like you, but they win. Finally, if you are interested in the humanities, work hard, have a difficult life, be patient, apply to be a Stegner fellow in the creative writing program, and we will feature you when you publish your first bestseller ("Success Stories," July/August). Paul Juarez, '75
PARENTAL PRAISE I couldn't agree more with Betsy Swann Crowder, MS '72, about the superb quality of STANFORD. Since becoming a subscriber by virtue of being the chair of Stanford Parents in Thailand, I have greatly enjoyed the magazine. It has helped me keep up with Stanford events and development, which of course helps me perform my duties as a parent and staunch supporter of Stanford. When my periodicals arrive, I go first for STANFORD. And when time comes to clean out the shelves, Time, Newsweek, Fortune, The Economist go but STANFORD stays. The look, the design, the articles, the news, even the ads are things to go back to. Please keep them coming. Nirund Jivasantikarn
MANDATORY RETIREMENT One reason for the faculty housing crunch (Follow-Up, May/June), I'm told, is that retirees don't want to leave Stanford. How about a retirement community tailored to the special interests of Stanford retirees? I do not have in mind cosmetic tinkering with the kind of retirement community currently in vogue, but instead a quantum leap in retirement community design. Carl Oliver, '62
SCHWAB'S STRUGGLE I enjoyed the article about discount broker Charles Schwab and his disability ("Charles Schwab's Secret Struggle," March/April). I have a hearing impairment from birth and some learning disabilities. Jeff McGuire
THE HP WAY I just finished reading your wonderful article about Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard ("Founding Fathers," July/August 1998). Thanks for the great work! Pete Ulrich
SELECTIVE STOPS Since this is a reunion year for me, it is a time to reflect upon my experiences at Stanford. For the most part, it was a great place where I made some lifelong friends while receiving an outstanding education. I have recommended the University to several people who were considering further schooling, and have made occasional contributions over the years. I had set of experiences during my undergraduate career, however, that have troubled me to this day. I was stopped on a number of evenings by the campus police, while I was walking home alone from the library or friend's dorms, and questioned about what I was doing. They would frisk me, check my bookbag and ask for ID. Each stop would end as soon as I produced my student ID, but there are certain places on campus, such as by the health center and near Tresidder, that I cannot walk through without remembering the tension of those days. At the time, I did not understand why I was being stopped. Only the recent coverage on racial profiling in New Jersey, Maryland and elsewhere made me realize that my offense was that I looked Hispanic. To this day, I feel as if I was a second-class citizen at the University. I look at my Stanford diploma on my wall to see if there is an asterisk or mark on it that questions whether I truly belonged there. I have a question for current black and Hispanic students: Do these stops still take place? And a question to the University as a whole: If they do, what can be done to stop racial profiling at Stanford? They can forever tarnish what should be a wonderful place. Russ Lopez, '79
TITLE IX WOES I had just finished reading an entreaty for contributions to the Buck/Cardinal Club scholarship fund and come to the conclusion that I would participate. I felt special satisfaction and the warmth of accomplishment; I was now in a position to start the process of repaying this fine organization for helping make my own attendance at Stanford possible. The funds would be in addition to my commitment to steadily increase contributions to Mark Marquess' Baseball Diamond Club. I then opened another piece of Stanford-related correspondence and learned that a major goal of the Buck Club was to support achievement of Title IX goals. This forced my checkbook back in the drawer. Warmth and satisfaction disappeared in an instant, replaced by frustration and rage at the continued encroachment of political correctness over good sense and reality -- something I first experienced as a student when we gave up our Indian mascot for a color. Perhaps, I thought, the next objective would be to ensure that a proportional number of individuals under 6 feet in height got the opportunity to play basketball. Why not? Seems fair. Or how about a "Title X" for crappy athletes? All new teams, leagues, you name it. I'll give directly to the baseball club. If, when the time comes, Mark asks my daughter, Riley, to play for him because she can compete with the boys, I'll be happy. If not, perhaps the gender goals of Title IX will be broadened to include perfect proportions of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, income and disability. Riley might qualify in one of those categories, but she would have to live with the knowledge that she hadn't earned her way in. On the other hand, she may end up too stupid to care. That's it! Title XI for fair representation of stupidity! No, we're already there. Title IX is a tax and disguised socialism. I will support neither. Albert Austin Arthur, '75 Address correspondence to: Letters to the Editor Or fax to (650) 725-8676; or e-mail to stanford.magazine@stanford.edu. Letters may be edited for length, clarity and civility. |
