Send us a letter

funny farm

Thanks for the article “The Far Side of the Farm” (March/April 2004). I’ve enjoyed watching the juggling skills of Miguel Chavez and others in Down With Gravity on Friday afternoons, and it’s great to learn about other off-the-beaten-track groups and activities.

Another one you might have included is the Esperanto class. The one-unit course on the international language hardly ever has any Stanford students; it’s been meeting on Tuesday nights at Bechtel International Center for the past 14 or 15 years; and it’s probably the only course that guarantees a refund if you can’t apply the material at the end of three quarters of conscientious study and doing the homework. As an alumna, I can say it’s fun!

Julie Beard Spickler, ’62, MA ’65
Menlo Park, California

Worldview

In my opinion, “Western Civ” (“What Freshmen Need to Know,” March/April ) should be restructured to “World Civ.” Today we need to be knowledgeable about all peoples on our planet: their histories, their cultures, their religions, their politics. If we had and used this knowledge, perhaps the United States would not be so hopelessly mired in entanglements around the world and would not be so arrogant.

Phil Rogers, MS ’58
Ocean Shores, Washington

frustrating fiction

I enthusiastically support the fiction contest held by Stanford every year and look forward to reading the winning story. However, the main flow of “Fifteen Scenes,” the winner of your competition this year (March/April), seemed familiarly exhausting. It embodied the “Zen-ish” style of fiction that was somehow made popular by (among others) the New Yorker magazine in the ’80s and ’90s—a sentimental piece of work that does not reach out to the reader, but selfishly requests the reader to decipher the true story for the writer. Am I the only reader who is frustrated with this “nouveau-style” literature?

Judy Brady Deffebach, ’82
Portland, Oregon

reflections on Race

I’m partial to Camille Ricketts’s use of the term “self-imposed segregation” in reference to the Asian community’s intentional association on campus (Student Voice, May/June). Many white students find it difficult to understand why groups choose to associate with each other on a campus with so many other alternatives. As a possible explanation, I offer the historical fact that whites have, and will probably retain, the highest representation among students and faculty at Stanford. That’s why our admissions office aggressively pursues a diverse student body: to remove the stigma of inequalities for minorities in higher education and to support the learning process that ensues from our shared differences.

Ethnic groups had to create a space on a traditionally white campus that would be reflective of their differing traditions, supportive of their particular needs and, ultimately, a foundation for retaining more recruits in the future. Stanford cannot provide a compelling reason for these students to matriculate but for the freedom to associate with each other if they so choose, by visiting the Black Community Services Center, El Centro Chicano or the Asian American Activities Center, among others. Indeed, the existence of these centers is progress itself. I argue that Ricketts’s challenge is to broaden her conception of race to reflect a term that unites those who commune in their celebration of customs and heritage, as opposed to treating it as a cultural throwaway that divides an otherwise idyllic society.

Iquo B. Essien, ’03
Albany, New York

Camille Ricketts’s article on her experience with interracial dating is thought- provoking, but her experience is by no means representative of those who have dated outside their race. As someone who can say—with neither pride nor unease—that I have dated people of myriad races and cultures, including my own, I wished the author had more accurately conveyed the benefits of interracial relationships, beyond their faculty for improving one’s skills with chopsticks. And as someone who has found real and lasting love with a person who shares everything in common with me but race, I encourage Ricketts to open her own mind to the possibility of finding and accepting love in whatever package it may arrive. It may not be easy to handle society’s stares, or parents’ chagrin, but believe me—it’s worth it.

Urmila Rajagopal, ’98
San Francisco, California

I feel compelled to respond to Camille Ricketts’s comments. Being white and Jewish, and now having been married for 21 years to my wonderful Chinese-Indonesian wife whom I met at Stanford, I am in a good position to comment on what has made it work for us.

Race was relatively unimportant to us when we fell in love, and it’s not important for us now in terms of cultivating and enjoying our relationship. We fell in love because we met each other’s needs. Our intellectual lives were reciprocally stimulating. We cared deeply for each other, and eventually came to imagine spending our lives together. For me, there was an element of “foreign intrigue,” but it’s something that had never even occurred to me before we met.

We shared only a few common childhood experiences. I had enjoyed Indonesian food prior to meeting my future wife, but had never traveled to Asia and had never dated an Asian woman. We shared some common distant Dutch background. But far more important than that, we were intellectually and sexually attracted to each other for who we were, not what we were.

We now have three wonderful Amerasian children, who are aware of their heritage from both sides, and feel they fit right in to our local society, despite the fact that we are in conservative Virginia. We chose to raise them in the Jewish faith, and they are quite happy and comfortable in that. And while strangers may look surprised at first glance when we walk down the street, our friends and acquaintances appreciate Julie for her personality traits: her wit, her organization, her caring attitude, the cultural and ethnic diversity she brings to our gatherings and our friends, and her intelligence, not the fact that she’s Chinese.

So in our case, race didn’t have much to do with it. As my 80-something and rather senile grandmother said when our engagement was announced, in response to learning that my future wife was Chinese, “Well, they’re people too!”

Steve Leibovic, MD ’83
Richmond, Virginia

alums at war

I was absolutely overjoyed to read the e-mail written by Capt. Roman Skaskiw (E-mail from Iraq, March/April). Not only was it good to see what he was up to, because he and I were in ROTC together, it was also good to see that Stanford is interested in its alums deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve been here in Bagram for nearly a month of my yearlong deployment, and my Stanford magazine was one of the first pieces of mail I got. It’s such a contradiction to be reminded of the carefree, fun days at the Farm while in the midst of a war zone. Although I’m not an infantry officer—Bush still won’t let us females in there—I’m a communications officer responsible for providing phones, Internet and satellite images to soldiers on the battlefield. And thanks to my BA in communications, I’m also editor and publisher of our battalion newsletter.

Please continue to show love to the Stanford soldiers out here fighting. I agree with Skaskiw: let’s not split hairs about why we’re here and what our purpose is. Let’s focus on the best and fastest way to get us all home in one piece. Stanford is a powerhouse of knowledge and influence; I encourage everyone there to use that to come up with a resolution instead of stirring up more ways to aggravate the issue. I can see the dorm discussions now about how Bush sucks—I too remember watching the results of the 2000 campaign when I was a peer health educator in Trancos. Even though I was in ROTC, I promised I was moving to Jamaica so I wouldn’t have to deal with the upcoming presidency.

But I stayed and I was commissioned, and now I have 35 soldiers who depend on me to be their positive influence, to make decisions that could save or endanger their lives. I don’t have time to worry about Bush or the 9-11 Commission. I have 35 people whom I have to return safely to their families at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Thanks for your coverage of Stanford alums at war.

1st Lt. Cursha Pierce-Lunderman, ’02
Bagram, Afghanistan

It was with an ever-deepening sense of pride—both as a fellow alum and, more importantly, as a fellow American—that I read Capt. Roman Skaskiw’s intelligent and moving piece.

His dry, often self-mocking wit and understated descriptions of his role in what is likely the most dangerous place in the world provided an all-too-rare firsthand insight into the American-led struggle to transform a troubled nation into a functioning democracy. The image of Skaskiw bedecked in full battle gear, yet willing and eager to meet, greet and interact with Iraqi children (and their parents) with his soccer ball and big smile, is indeed a powerful one.

Moreover, the open, respectful and intellectually curious attitude that Skaskiw so clearly demonstrates toward Iraq and its citizens—an attitude that not only is consistent with but also serves him so well in his primary mission in Iraq—is an approach to life and all its challenges that world-class universities such as Stanford have long tried to foster.

With his words and with his deeds, Skaskiw brings honor to his university and his country. In the process, he is helping build a brighter future for the strangers he seeks to befriend in the streets of Iraq.

Christopher J. Doherty, ’88
Baltimore, Maryland

Stanford and the environment

President Hennessy and Stanford are to be congratulated on the launch of the new Institute for the Environment (President’s Column, March/April). The integration of work on environmental matters has long been needed, with the recent controversy over the chemical MTBE being only one example. However, I note that one of Stanford’s historical strengths is not reflected in the primary focus of the new institute. The president refers to the development of economic frameworks and dimensions, but makes no mention of the need to develop an economic basis to prioritize regulatory, planning, scientific and application activities. A new rational basis for decisions is needed to overcome environmental inaction and waste resulting from political influence or the veto power of special interest groups.

The fundamental principles that can support the efficient application of human and natural resources to protect and enhance the environment while meeting human health and economic needs were developed at Stanford by Professor Eugene Grant and others. The institute could make a great contribution by building on this foundation of engineering economy, with the goal of reducing the continuing battles over sustainability, restoration and protection of water and air and environments.

Jerome Gilbert, MS ’54
Orinda, California

Watershed wedding

I read with interest your news article on Kathy Levinson’s marriage to her partner, Naomi Fine (“A Splendored Thing Unfolds at City Hall,” Red All Over, May/June). My partner, Wade French, ’79, and I also were married at San Francisco City Hall. I’m sure there were other all-Stanford gay newlyweds.

Wade and I have been together ever since we met during our third year in 1978. It was a banner year for gay issues, with the Briggs initiative, and we played our part in the struggle for our civil rights. As active members of the Gay People’s Union at Stanford, we hosted Harvey Milk in May 1978 when he gave his famous speech on coming out. It was a moving and memorable occasion. I vividly remember sitting and talking with Harvey at dinner before his speech, and I could tell this guy was a charismatic leader.

A generation later, we are still struggling for our civil rights. Last year’s Supreme Court overruling of Hardwick was a watershed event. With the initiation of gay marriage in San Francisco, we wanted to play our part in this history-making event. It was a spur-of–the-moment but important decision for us, just as it was for Kathy and Naomi.

We both appreciated Stanford’s support for us as openly gay students in 1978, and we continue to be proud alumni today.

Brent Lok, MS ’76, PhD ’82
San Francisco, California

radio days

I was interested to read about Mike Villard Jr.’s help to Voice of America (“He Made Radar Peek Past the Horizon,” Obituaries, May/June). However, it was the Voice of America that encouraged those behind the Iron Curtain to revolt, and in the ’56 Hungarian uprising, we left them high and dry.

Miriam “Mimi” Johnston Hallman, ’45
Aiken, South Carolina

The latest enormity

Regarding the use of the word enormity (“The President’s Words,” Letters, May/June): according to the 10th edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Ted Bache is right. On the other hand, the 11th edition [says] you are right. It behooves one always to consult the most up-to-date information, especially before drawing conclusions in an educational institution.

Donald Griffin Sr., ’34, Engr. ’44
Santa Monica, California

mistaken identity

Thank you for publishing the desired entry on Ingeborg Solbrig (Grad Notes, May/June). However, I never had a sex change. In the last line, “his behalf” should be “her behalf.”

Ingeborg Solbrig, MA ’66, PhD ’69
Iowa City, Iowa

remembering the spike

May I add a bit to Sally Randall Swanson’s letter in the March/April issue? In 1947 and 1948, I was the student typist at the museum. The museum was closed to the public as it was in need of just about everything to bring it up to acceptable standards. I used the museum’s fake gold spike as my paperweight. Then, too, the real McCoy was kept elsewhere for safety’s sake. Since then I’ve never had a paperweight as serviceable as that one!

Charles Olsen, ’48
Washington, D.C.

hard to read

I’m afraid that, fine a designer as she is, Bambi Nicklen has neglected the physical realities faced by older alumni readers. My eyesight is such that I had trouble reading the light-faced type. In the Class Notes section, it would be nice to be able to read something other than the names. I hate to gripe, but I have enjoyed reading the magazine for many years, and this [redesign] makes it difficult, which I’m sure was not the intention. I’m sure the editor works to increase, not decrease, readership.

David DeLancey, ’48
San Mateo, California

still more lore

The letter to the editor mentioning the four bearded professors with top hats and one briefcase hit my funny bone right on its Chaparral (“More Lore,” May/June). On the outside of my bathroom door is a poster with 35 different professor cartoons, plus the vital statement: “The world is not a funny place. But it should be.”

This undated poster notes that “Chappie” began in 1899; the professors first appeared in 1941. I cannot recall where it came from, but suspect mail order from the campus store. If this item is not available permanently, it should be. I firmly believe “Stanford is not a funny place. But it should be.”

All these classics are funnier now than 50 years ago.

David Woods, MA ’55
Hedgesville, West Virginia

I believe the letter from Bert Burns needs some tweaking. My recollection of what
he calls the “bear tracks on Hoover Tower” is that when tuition was raised, the legendary giant who lived in the tower couldn’t take another increase and decided to leave. One morning we saw four or five of his huge footprints pointing downward on the quad side of the tower. We later learned that the Mountain Climbing Club had sneaked into the tower at night and, rappelling down the side, placed these huge black footprints for all to be reminded of the price increase.

Michael “Mickey” Kapp, ’52
Pacific Grove, California

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.

RETURN TO TOP