|
|
|
|
 |
Send
us a letter |
|
|
|
Keeping It to Yourself
Joan O’C. Hamilton (“If
They Could Read Your Mind,” January/February)
asks if “the right not to incriminate oneself
extends to refusing to have one’s brain read.”
But surely the greater issue is the Fourth, rather than
the Fifth, Amendment right to be secure from this kind
of unreasonable search.
Daniel C. Boyer
Houghton, Michigan

|
|
Canon Fodder
I eagerly read Diane Rogers’s “The
Gospel Truth” (January/February), hoping she
would reveal what she learned in her study of Thomas’s
gospel. Gee, it was as if I had read about a ballgame
but giving the score wasn’t considered very important.
How about giving your readers a second chapter: a capsule
summary of what Thomas said?
Glenn Waterman, ’33, MS ’50
Bainbridge Island, Washington
As someone who spent a year of independent study at
Stanford trying to learn enough Coptic to read the Gnostic
texts, I enjoyed your piece on Elaine Pagels and her
work. The Gnostic documents are enlightening and bewildering,
enthralling and alienating, calming and infuriating.
And while their meaning and significance remain poorly
understood, their very existence bears witness to the
chaos and uncertainty of the early Christian movement.
The Gnostics were not alone. Over the course of late
antiquity, there were tens, possibly hundreds, of groups—all
of which considered themselves “Christian”—that
were crushed by that group whose beliefs eventually
became established as orthodox. The doctrinal infighting
was, of course, largely motivated by faith and belief,
but one cannot ignore the political, social and economic
factors that contributed to the shaping of the religion.
One wonders if the truest, most faithful representation
of the religion was not lost during the struggle. For
the faithful, these can be trying issues. But for the
scholar, they are part of one of the most wonderfully
intriguing and relentlessly complex periods in history.
John Hanna, ’01
Boston, Massachusetts
To characterize the first three chapters of Genesis
as a myth gives offense to Christians who believe the
Bible to be true. More important, from the standpoint
of research, believers in evolution have produced no
fossil evidence to support their theory. The astonishing
complexity and order recently discovered in astronomy,
the nature of the atom, genetic information encoding
in DNA and other discoveries in the biological sciences
have discredited Darwin’s theory and confirmed
belief in Darwin’s only competition, the Judeo-Christian
teaching of God’s creation set forth in the early
chapters of Genesis.
Please let me suggest a little research project. Interview
your colleagues in the sciences mentioned above and
ask them whether 20th-century research in their fields
has modified their views regarding evolution and the
biblical accounts of creation. Ask any archaeologist
friends whether 20th-century field study has tended
to confirm or to weaken the credibility of the Bible.
Ask whether archaeology has proved any statement in
the Bible wrong.
Lionel Cross, MA ’65
Wheatland, California
|
|
O Pioneers
The article “Family
Firsts” (January/February) brought back memories
of a 17-year-old girl on a train from Los Angeles to
Palo Alto, soon to become a Stanford freshman and attend
summer quarter (a somewhat barbaric introduction to
college). I, too, was a first-generation student; in
my case, neither of my parents had graduated from high
school. It was because of the encouragement and work
of a high school history teacher, himself a Stanford
grad, that I applied to and was accepted to Stanford—a
place I had never heard of. It was a shock coming from
being a top student at my high school to struggling
to adjust to a different environment and to adjust academically.
But at Stanford my life was changed forever, and I discovered
the talents that have shaped my life over the past 45
years. Reading the article, I realize how difficult
it was in many ways and the courage it took to persevere.
Three cheers for Stanford and three cheers for me.
Alexandra Carter, ’58
Pinehurst, North Carolina
From the simple pictures and key quotes, [the first-generation
students] deserve to be there. They just need reminding;
they belong. The article mentioned very little to change
my concept that Stanford accepts without embracing these
students who come from a different part of the academic
world. Talented, yes; intelligent, yes; gifted, yes;
but fully accessing all of the wondrous opportunities
Stanford provides? I hope they enter more places and
see more marvelous visions than I encountered.
Paul Juarez, ’71
Oakland, California
First
Impressions (January/February) truly encapsulates
my thoughts about being a first-generation student.
Although I found my way to college without an “extra
seat in the car” and “tuition of $12,”
my experiences along the way have created the opportunity
for the same outcome and made the journey memorable
and worthwhile.
Wow! I am still trying to ingest $12 tuition. I guffawed
as I wrote my astronomical tuition check to the NYU
Bursar’s Office. Thank you for sharing your experience;
I too hope to show my future family how far we have
come.
Michelle Acitelli
New York, New York

|
|
Artful Dodger
Your article on the emerging exhibit at the Cantor
Arts Center (“The
Work of Art,” January/February) brought back
one of my great memories.
In spring quarter 1958, I needed three more units to
graduate and registered for Museum Methods, which was
to meet at the Stanford Museum every Friday afternoon.
I was the only student, and Professor John LaPlante,
curator of the museum, was my supervisor. My project
was the total refurbishing of the dingy Northwest Indian
Basketry Collection, located on the second floor in
the eastern rotunda—I could look over the balcony
and see the Gold Spike under a glass dome, locked in
a display case.
Professor LaPlante suggested that I contact the Smithsonian
Institution to see if they would give us their recipe
for preserving woven baskets by using shaved wax mixed
with acetone. He unlocked the filing cabinet in the
office, so that I could look for their address. The
“S” file felt thick and heavy as I pulled
it out of the drawer. There, along with the Smithsonian’s
address, was the Gold Spike! I picked it up and held
it for a few exciting moments. Professor LaPlante explained
that several large groups were expected to tour the
museum that weekend, and it had been filed away for
safety. A fake had been placed under the glass dome.
Sally Randall Swanson, ’58
Ketchum, Idaho

|
|
High-Stakes Honor
Why bother with the honor system (“Whose
Idea Was That?” September/October) if it means
so little today? Maybe the last time it really meant
something was during the Depression and WWII years when
most of us were probably “first in family,”
and family honor—such as you still see so often
in students from new immigrant families and Asian-Americans—was
a moving spirit.
Family honor, and doubtless the honor system, probably
began to disintegrate after WWII when the big spenders
in D.C. decided we have to support the rest of the world,
no matter how unwelcome our interference. Taxes began
to escalate and with them inflation, and with that,
the necessity for two-income families.
Rosie the Riveter went back to work, and “momism”
came into vogue. Most anything that goes wrong with
the kids is mom’s fault. The inevitable result
is that we now have a spoiled, materialistic, youth-oriented
society in which the young regard as entitlements what
we used to consider luxuries.
Isn’t it time for a zero-tolerance policy to
restore the honor system? Make it quite clear, up front,
that only one mistake will be tolerated, with a zero
grade and no chance to make it up; then, caught a second
time, you’re out. Make it clear to parents as
well as students that there will be loss of scholarships
and transcripts will reflect the fact that the student
didn’t leave voluntarily. But toughest of all,
especially for the parents, aside from their disappointment,
would be the loss of any money involved, part of which
would cover the cost for that student’s replacement.
As Dr. Phil might say, “to get results, all you’ve
got to do is up the stakes high enough.”
Miriam Hallman, ’45
Aiken, South Carolina

|
|
Truffle Kerfuffle
I enjoyed Marisa Milanese’s article about The
Game (“Clued
In,” November/December). I did have one question,
though.
A 3x8 grid of truffles can represent four 3x2 braille
characters. Yet the clue somehow translated into a phrase
much longer than four characters. I figure that the
different characteristics of the truffles (flavor, coating,
etc.) were used to create multiple overlapping sets
of characters, but how were they sorted? Or did the
teams just get several four-character strings that needed
to be assembled like a puzzle?
Darin McGrew, ’85
Mountain View, California
| Editor's Note: A
list of ingredients clued teams in to the order.
Click here
for details. |

|
|
Rock On
What a hoot! Loved your story about Neepa Acharya,
(“What
You Don’t Know About KZSU DJs,” Farm
Report, January/February). Back in about November 1963,
I had just started my sophomore year. Somebody with
a connection to KZSU, a fledgling enterprise at best,
knew that I had stacks of wax and a passing knowledge
of rock ’n’ roll. He literally begged me
to take the Saturday night slot for a few hours. No
training course, no minimum station work-time. Just
get down here with your records and play something.
No station manager, no engineer. There’s the turntable
and there’s the mike switch. Get to it.
Of course I started out with the classics, not to offend
anybody. Such as “Maybelline” by Chuck Berry,
“There’s A Moon Out Tonight” by the
Capris, “Ape Call” by Nervous Norvus and
“The Girl Can’t Help It” by Little
Richard. The article says 500 watts, but I think back
then it was more like 50 watts and probably didn’t
get past White Plaza. The next Saturday night, a person
I had never before met charged into the little studio
and asked me to pack up and leave forever. Why? I had
played a tune called “Annie Had a Baby”
by Hank Ballard and the Midnighters.
John Leuthold, ’66
Montrose, California
Not to be jerks about it, but there are several glaring
factual errors in your article. For example, as representatives
of “post-punk bands from San Diego,” Neepa
Acharya cites “The Strokes or [The] Blood Brothers.”
Unfortunately, neither group is from San Diego, nor
are they in the least bit post-punk. Examples of valid
post-punk acts might be Joy Division, The Cure, Echo
and the Bunnymen—the neat sort of after-punk-movement
groups your older brother listened to in the basement.
Sure, post-punk has been over for like 14 years, but
acts like the Blood Brothers, and megapop ex-indie starboys
like the Strokes (from Seattle and NYC, respectively)
would never in a million years claim to be post-punk
anyway.
Post-punk is not, was not, nor will ever be “a
mixture of funk and rock ’n’ roll.”
Can you imagine Ian Curtis wearing star-shaped sunglasses
and descending onto the Manchester dance floor in a
gigantic illuminated UFO? We can’t either.
Finally, Acharya is only half right about math rock.
It’s true, the “math” refers to geeky
exploration of tempo and sound, but “a rhythmic
cycle, constantly changing” suggests mainly to
us that she needs to take a break from tending “the
herb garden at Columbae.” We politely suggest
that in order to “love music for what it is,”
she must first correctly identify said music.
Noah Barron, ’04
Ted Kolberg, ’05
Stanford, California
|
|
Fish out of Water
As a botany graduate, I was pleased to read of the
care with which Herb Fong manages the campus grounds
and landscaping (“What
You Don’t Know About the Head Gardener,”
Farm Report, November/December). In “the so-called
collector’s garden,” however, he can’t
very well specialize in “cacti and cyclids.”
Your reporter got it wrong; what he said was “cycads,”
an ancient group of gymnosperms having fernlike leaves
and usually seed-bearing cones. Cichlids, on the other
hand, are a group of fish best known for their prolific
evolution of species in East African lakes. End of biology
lecture.
Kenton L. Chambers, PhD ’56
Corvallis, Oregon
| Editor's Note: Fong
in fact grows cacti and succulents, but
we appreciate the lesson. |

|
|
Poetic Timing
In her valuable article on Edgar Bowers (Showcase,
November/December), Cynthia Haven writes that “he
himself used to say that a poet is only a poet when
writing a poem.” I suspect that Bowers, scrupulous
about word placement, would have said, “A poet
is a poet only when writing a poem.”
I also wonder if in the sentence “After the war,
Bowers came to Stanford to study with Winters, whose
In Defense of Reason (1947) inspired him,”
the past perfect (“had inspired”) isn’t
called for, because presumably the book’s influence
occurred before Bowers decided to study under Winters.
George Held
New York, New York

|
|
Getting the Axe
I was shocked—shocked!—to read an obituary
in the November/December
issue, saying of Henry Eric Hill, ’29, “He
was one of the ’Immortal 10’ who retrieved
the Axe from Cal.”
“The Immortal 21” has been a flag to me
since I was just a kid. My parents were alumni and I
was brought up on Big Game lore. When I finally went
to Stanford myself, I remember the thrill as I actually
traveled across the Dumbarton Bridge and could visualize
the 21 racing back to campus in the dark of night. (And
didn’t they get the bridge tender to raise the
span behind them, just in case?)
Now, however, you have redeemed yourselves—though
perhaps unwittingly—in “The
Last of the 21” (Red All Over, January/February)
featuring Art Miller, who showed up last fall at age
94 and donated relevant memorabilia to the University,
including his incontrovertible photo of all 21, count
’em, stalwarts and the Axe. Had you learned of
the error and then featured the Art Miller piece as
a fortuitous cover-up?
More seriously, how do you go about authenticating
a point of campus history, tradition or legend? Kissing
on the Quad; kissing in the cactus garden; prewar (WWII)
automobile speed records from campus to Los Angeles;
women must wear “hose” when walking “below”
the post office; heating system tunnels to Roble; anything
about Doodles Weaver.
You’re vulnerable, I guess, only so long as a
story lives, for the most part no longer than its originators
or participants and their proximate classmates. But
some stuff—Herbert Hoover and the pioneer class,
vignettes from the ’06 quake, the old-time frosh
beanie, sophomore porkpie, junior “plug”
and senior sombrero, the original theft of the Axe,
the 21, footprints up the Hoover Tower and yes, Doodles
Weaver—is Lore on a Higher Level! You have every
reason to retain very old copy readers.
Ralph Whitaker, ’49
San Luis Obispo, California

|
|
Murder, He Wrote
As a Stanford PhD whose dissertation focused on David
Starr Jordan’s Stanford presidency, I have followed
recent attempts to determine “Who
Killed Jane Stanford?” (September/October
2003) with considerable interest.
Dr. Robert Cutler persuades me that Mrs. Stanford almost
surely died of strychnine poisoning. And while he may
be overly critical of President Jordan’s behavior
after her death, at least he stops short of accusing
Jordan of murder.
Professor W. B. Carnochan, on the other hand, crosses
the line. “He had the motive,” Carnochan
says in his American Scholar article. Then,
referring to rumors that Mrs. Stanford was thinking
of dismissing Jordan, he defends this assertion with
a rhetorical question: “Who at the time would
have known his presidency was at risk?”
This is not merely speculation, it’s fantasy.
It posits a motive for which there is no proof and blithely
ignores questions of whether Jordan acted on his “motive”
or even had any opportunity to do so.
Even the notion of Jordan’s “motive”
doesn’t hold up. It assumes that (1) Jordan heard
rumors that he was to be fired; (2) believed them; and
(3) chose murder as his response. But even if he had
heard and believed the rumors (and rumors were always
flying at Stanford; it was like a medieval court), why
would he conclude that his best course was to murder
Mrs. Stanford? Since the University’s founding
in 1891, his relationship with her had sometimes been
difficult, as he navigated between her controlling instincts
and the expectations of an increasingly professionalized
faculty. But it also involved respect and affection
on both sides.
Jordan’s respect for what Mrs. Stanford had done
for the University and his generally protective attitude
toward women would have kept him from acting on this
“motive”—even if he were so motivated.
And Jordan had to know that if he were dismissed, he
would not be jobless for long. In short, to assume that
Jordan even pondered murder requires us to believe that
he would betray both his principles and his interests.
In the past quarter-century, interpretations of the
University’s early history have given Mrs. Stanford
a more prominent and sympathetic role than she played
in previous versions of the story. Now it seems that
improving her reputation involves taking an ax to Jordan’s.
Neither Mrs. Stanford nor President Jordan was a saint
or a villain. The history of Stanford’s early
years abounds in both drama and complexity; it does
not need oblique accusations of murder or melodramatic
portrayals of its two principal characters to spice
it up any further.
Luther Spoehr, MA ’70, PhD ’75
Providence, Rhode Island
Ralph Schaffarzick (Letters,
January/February) raises the possibility that nux
vomica could be the source of strychnine found
in Jane Stanford’s blood.
According to Homeopathic Pharmacopaeia of
the United States, nux vomica is a preparation of strychnos
seed “6X,” i.e., 1 part in 10 to the 6th,
or one million. My understanding is that strychnos seed
itself is not pure strychnine, so the total strychnine
content of nux vomica may, in accordance with
the homeopathic Law of Infinitesimals, be quite small
indeed. Homeopathy is a spiritual art not connected
with medical science—except in a fluke of the
law governing pharmacology in this country. Dilutions
exceeding Avogadro’s number by enormous orders
of magnitude are common in homeopathy, though this is
not one of them.
Matthew H. Fields, MA ’87
Ann Arbor, Michigan

|
 |
| 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.
|
|
RETURN
TO TOP
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|