GRAFFITI DRAWS OUTRAGE

I was shocked to read about the ugly graffiti appearing at History Corner during Dead Week (Farm Report, July/August). I was outraged to learn that this was the 29th “threatening incident” this academic year. Finally, I was appalled to learn of the administration’s response: a “protocol to deal with intolerance on campus” that has been four years in the making, a decision to play down the incidents for fear of copycats, and an e-mail to department heads.

This situation does not call for protocols, cover-ups and e-mails. It calls for action. Turn the incidents over to the police for the vandalisms that they are—and turn the deeper problem over to the admission office, where it belongs.

It’s ironic that your article on hate speech appears in the same issue as a column by President Hennessy on the difficulty of making admission decisions. The admission problem would be made a lot easier if applicants were also judged on an essay describing how they feel about spending the next four years of their young lives at an institution whose founding creed is “The Wind of Freedom Blows.” Find out before they arrive—not after—if applicants really can function on a multiracial and multiethnic campus.

Stanford may very well boast of admitting students with perfect GPAs, record SATs, outstanding extracurricular activities and Cardinal blood in their veins. But when graffiti calling for rape and murder against minorities and foreigners and declaring classrooms “whites only” shows up on campus every two weeks, it’s clear these criteria do not address all that counts.

David Hopelain, ’58
North Fork, California

You mention that students protested the administration’s slowness in coming to grips with the hate speech problem. Yeah—wait a week, demonstrate, and then dump the responsibility on someone else. How Stanford.

To really stop hate speech, walk away whenever someone begins to spout. Protected or otherwise, nothing is as comical as a demagogue frantically searching for an audience, even a hostile audience. As for graffiti, let 10 students respond—one with a camera and nine with nylon brushes, buckets and soap.

After a while, even the slowest of Neanderthals will get the message.

Bob Avakian, MS ’71
Midland, Texas

Scrawling “Rape all Asian bitches and dump them” on classroom walls is not a hate crime, and graffiti should be protected by the First Amendment, according to assistant professor of communication Laura Leets. This is outrageous.

I hope Ms. Leets is simply arguing from a narrow legalistic interpretation and is merely insensitive to the tremendous hurt such graffiti can inflict, not to mention the additional damage caused when a professor on campus defends it.

Words can be just as destructive as physical violence. Drawing a technical distinction between the two is at best insensitive, at worst evil.

Adrian Ho, MS ’88, PhD ’91
San Francisco, California

'EXCITE, CHALLENGE AND CHARM'
I was in the room 17 years ago when Tufts President Jean Mayer announced the appointment of Scotty McLennan (“Cut from a Different Cloth,” July/August) as university chaplain, terming it a “major appointment.” He was right. Scotty McLennan had an enormous impact on the Tufts community and became one of its best-known and most esteemed members. As your article anticipates, his ecumenical breadth will excite, challenge and charm.

John O. Field, MA ’64, PhD ’73
Emeritus Professor of Family Medicine
Tufts University
Medford, Massachusetts

I am very happy to read that our new dean for religious life has spent some time in India with a Brahman trying to learn that there are many religious paths to spirituality. At the end of that time, this Brahman said he still did not get it—and I am afraid, based on some disturbing statements made in your article, that he still does not get it.

I agree with McLennan’s belief that “empathetic listening is precisely the tool necessary for people with disparate ideas to understand and appreciate one another.” He suggests beginning by “find[ing] common areas of interest. Maybe working together in East Palo Alto with communities in need.” Or, I might add, working to develop the latest breakthrough in microchip technology—which, after all, is a major reason why Silicon Valley has developed such diverse populations in the first place.

Then he spoils things by making a nonsensical extrapolation, citing a study suggesting that incoming freshmen are “more interested than ever in community service yet contending they don’t like politics.” He concludes: “That means they don’t understand the social and institutional conditions that lie behind poverty, hunger, homelessness, malnutrition, faltering public education and other problems.” The liberal-to-radical belief he seems to be expressing may actually be very un-Christian. All of Christ’s teachings were meant to make a difference in oneself and those within one’s reach. He never advocated creating government bureaucracies to relieve individuals of their duty to help their fellow men and raise community spirit. Those incoming freshmen may be more in tune with Christ than Dean McLennan is.

Dean McLennan seems like a very fine man, and he is not the only genuinely nice and intelligent person to hold an unsubstantiated faith in government institutions. I hope he uses his position not only to develop the person-to-person projects in which he is interested, but also to evaluate—honestly and objectively—the government interventions that liberal-to-radical politics usually favor. Maybe this will give him yet another epiphany.

James T. Hamilton, ’69
Newport Beach, California

TOUGH TO EXPLAIN
John Hennessy’s essay on dealing with disappointment in the college-admission game hit home (President’s Column, July/ August).

As my daughter strives to maintain a 4.0 GPA in middle school, I have to honestly ask myself if she will even have a shot at Stanford, given the 12.7 percent admission rate. I believe my own admission was a result of good luck, hard work and perfect timing.

However, I concur with our president’s conclusion that, in the end, other factors are more important in life than the name of the institution on one’s college diploma.

Tough thing to explain to an 18-year-old, though.

Roger Rios, ’78
Boulder, Colorado

A LONG, LONG SILENCE
Of course, the justice system can be prone to error, but if Noelle Hanrahan (On the Job, July/August) were truly interested in “social justice,” she would give equal air time to the families of the slaughtered, maimed, raped and tortured victims of her imprisoned radio subjects.

Looking for a great “sound” for her radio spot? How about dirt being shoveled onto the casket of a loved one, or the scrape of a morgue door, or the silence of the endless, empty years robbed from families who have lost husbands, sons, mothers, children?

That would be true parity, but it will never happen, because Hanrahan would lose the adulation of the liberal media and the Hollywood “feel-good” crowd.

Phil Gioia, MBA ’79
Corte Madera, California

FOR OFFICIAL USE
Among the remarks by language professor Mary Louise Pratt (Farm Report, July/ August) was a dismissive comment about the organization known as U.S. English, implying that it opposes learning other languages. This is not the case. U.S. English advocates making English the nation’s official language for government use. Repeated surveys indicate that a majority of the population supports this position. The organization encourages learning of additional languages for private, social and nongovernmental uses. The executive director of U.S. English is himself an immigrant from Chile and speaks Spanish in his home.

The cost and potential divisiveness of having government conduct business in multiple languages makes the goal of U.S. English a worthy one. Canada has problems due to two official languages, which we would do well to avoid.

Malcolm Murray, MS ’61
Baytown, Texas

A CIVIL SKIRMISH
As an editor emeritus of the Stanford Review, I was interested to see your mention of the Stanford Daily’s coverage of David Horowitz’s advertisement opposing reparations for slavery (Farm Report, July/August). The Daily deserves recognition for its treatment of the issue; Horowitz personally commended the editorial staff for how it handled his ad. However, the Daily was not the only Stanford paper to publish the ad. A few weeks before the Daily printed it as a guest column, it appeared on the front page of the Stanford Review.

The Daily objected to the Review’s handling of the ad and to its commentary on the Daily’s treatment of the ad. However, the opposition that ensued—both papers devoted prominent editorials to the matter—created a unique situation at Stanford. There was controversy, but no irrational behavior, such as the theft of newspapers that occurred at Brown University. Thus, the Daily and the Review were able to discuss the issue, the ad and the implications raised by it. Stanford saw a meaningful dialogue between two student groups rather than an adverse reaction among a poorly informed student body.

Matthew Barrett, ’03
Stanford, California

Congrats to the Daily for printing the now-famous Horowitz piece on the slavery reparations issue—and printing it as an editorial! I’m sure Horowitz would have preferred it there but realized that his only chance in most student newspapers would be to place a paid advertisement.

Dick Wharton, ’53
Tucson, Arizona

PURPLE IN PERU
The photo of newly elected Peruvian president Alejandro Toledo with his hands outstretched in the victory sign (Farm Report, July/August) shows his middle finger stained with purple ink. In case readers are wondering, in Peru this indelible purple ink marks someone who has voted.

Marsha Hallet, ’72
San Anselmo, California

CRANGLE'S STORY
I see that the gender discrimination case brought by former medical research scientist Colleen Crangle has been settled without any admission of guilt by the University (Farm Report, July/August). I hope those interested in the details of the case will contact the California office of the American Association of University Women to borrow a video of her presentation at last year’s AAUW state convention in Monterey. (AAUW’s legal advocacy fund helped with her expenses.) Make up your own mind about who was at fault.

Even as far back as 1949, I felt that my university supported the hopes and dreams of women as equal partners in society. It is embarrassing to find that when push comes to shove, competent women may be seen as threats to what can only be called the “good old boy” network.

I hope Stanford has learned from the Crangle case what it did not from the Fran Conley case at the Medical School several years ago. Those who meet the extremely high standards required to be hired by Stanford in the first place should be able to proceed with their careers free from discrimination of any kind.

I wish Dr. Crangle well. I’m glad she will continue to tell her story and work for change.

Meredith Whitaker, ’49
Oceanside, California

SERMON FODDER?
Your May/June issue was outstanding. The article on forgiveness (“Peace Work”) made me cry. I am passing it along to my Unitarian minister as inspiration for sermons. Also, since I was born in northwestern New Mexico, where Navajos were our closest neighbors, I especially appreciated reading “Notah Begay’s Drive” and the Snapshot featuring this year’s Miss Navajo Nation, Karletta Chief.

Barbara Vogt Bell Mallery, ’42
Santa Fe, New Mexico

MORE ON PRINCE LIGHTFOOT
This is in response to the letter from a nephew of Prince Lightfoot (Letters, May/ June). I am a Yurok tribal member, raised on the Hoopa/Yurok reservation, and I attended most Stanford football games between 1960 and 1966, during the time of Prince Lightfoot (Mr. Timm Williams) and the Stanford Indians.

Mr. Williams and his family were active in Indian issues. Their efforts produced a favorable decision for Yuroks in the Jessie Short Case, which involved timber and land on the reservation.

The traditional Yurok dances (Jump Dance, Brush Dance, Flower Dance and White Deerskin Dance) are group dances performed at traditional places. Our ceremonial leaders allow only the Brush Dance to be demonstrated in other places, and I do not recall seeing the Brush Dance at Stanford. I think the Prince Lightfoot routines were similar to dances of Plains Indians as portrayed in films. In any case, I am sure Mr. Williams considered his role as Prince Lightfoot to be positive for Indians.

Frank A. Grant III, ’64, ms ’66
Seattle, Washington

OUT OF SEQUENCE
We wish to further clarify an explanation published in your July/August Letters regarding a Campus Notebook item in the May/June Farm Report. The news item’s headline, “After a Retraction, Surgeons Face Investigation,” created an erroneous impression about the timing of the two events mentioned. Two comprehensive inquiries into academic and clinical integrity issues raised by critics of the Nezhat brothers began well before the journal editors retracted the research articles. In addition to those reviews, the first of which began nearly a year ago, a blue ribbon panel—the Clinical Panel on Academic and Clinical Integrity—will provide a review of the entire oversight process. The panel consists of highly respected legal and medical experts who have no affiliation with Stanford. The blue ribbon panel expects to complete its review sometime in the fall.

Peter Gregory
Senior Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs
Chief Medical Officer
Stanford University Medical Center

CORRECTION
Nyree Belleville’s band at Stanford was called Fated Flower, not Faded Flower (“She Rocks the House,” Class Notes, July/ August).