STANFORD Magazine: July/August 2006 > Departments


JULY / AUGUST 2006

Century at Stanford

Letters to the Editor

1,000 Words

Send us a letter

India’s Poor

In his article on Azim Premji and India’s high-tech boom (“The World According to Azim Premji,” May/June), Joel McCormick notes that others have pointed out that India’s current success in certain industries “leaves 800 million people locked in poverty,” but he refers to those who dwell on this as “pessimists.”

McCormick needs to take another look at the conditions of the poor in India. He cites the efforts of Premji’s foundation to transform education around the country, but he neglects to point out that millions and millions of children do not attend school. Children are often kept out of school (starting at a very young age) to help families at home and in the marketplace. The caste system is still pernicious and segregates people so that even young children become servants in other people’s homes in order to earn a small pittance to help their families.

While Premji’s success, as well as that of others, is admirable, the photo of the “California-style” gated community says it all. A very small percentage of Indians are seeing improvements in their lives; however, the social and economic conditions of the poor will not change until the public and private sectors address some of the underlying causes of the poverty that affects the vast majority of Indians.

Wendy Klein, MA ’90
Santa Monica, California

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

Religious students describe “condescension towards religion,” “fear of being ridiculed,” and being “reluctant to talk outside their communities” (“Soul Support,” May/June). I’m not surprised by these feelings—not because I personally felt them at Stanford, but because I was partially their agent. I had no religious affiliation at the time, and in retrospect harbored a degree of scorn for religious students. But six years after graduating from Stanford, I was a Catholic.

If someone asks me what started my journey to faith, I answer with a straight face, “O.J. Simpson.” Shortly after my class’s Commencement ceremonies, the infamous slow-speed chase unfolded. My Stanford education equipped me perfectly to interpret the denouement of that story; the acquittal was a just verdict because it repudiated the dominant, racist paradigm. The fact that two flesh-and-blood people had been murdered mattered less than a compelling narrative arc. That’s when something in me cried foul.

The search for what is objectively real and universally true is what I expected of the university experience. Instead, I learned that truth is a socially and historically conditioned construct, and that the only terra firma is subjective reality. I had to embark on an intellectual journey of my own to answer nagging questions about ontology, reason and belief. That intellectual journey eventually became a spiritual one.

A person of faith who earnestly seeks to know the eternal and immutable nature of things is bound to chafe against those who don’t or won’t believe that such things exist. So goes the relationship between academia and religion today. Stanford, it seems, is very good at imparting knowledge but not at bestowing wisdom.

John W. Christian, ’94
San Gabriel, California

What one believes and cannot prove is faith,
And all religions must on faith rely,
Lest doubt and disbelief bring down
their gods,
And leave the mind another path to try.

Frank “Bud” Cady, ’38
Wilsonville, Oregon

Thank you for your wonderful piece on faith and religion at Stanford. What I treasure most about my experience at Stanford was that diverse faiths were welcomed into the community, symbolized in part by the multi-denominational church at the center of campus, so that I was able to find a religious tradition of my own. I came for law school, and reacted to the materialism there by seeking something more. I had been raised as a mainline Protestant, a Methodist, but had drifted away. I found the small Episcopalian community at Stanford in my third year. There, as elsewhere on campus, the mind as well as the spirit was engaged in intellectual discussion. The highlight of that year was a Passover seder that we, the Lutherans, and the Catholics prepared and shared with Hillel. A graduate student in Judaic studies led the ceremony, partly as a seminar on the meaning of the ritual. I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church at Stanford 10 years ago and have been an active member since. I am glad that Stanford remains a place where some of the brightest young people in America are challenged not just intellectually, but spiritually.

Darrel Menthe, JD ’96
Los Angeles, California

Reasoned interfaith discussion and inquiry are necessary if we are ever to end the violence plaguing the world. I applaud those members of the Stanford community who are attempting to gain a genuine respect for, understanding of and tolerance for other religious views.

However, this effort will remain incomplete unless all points of view are engaged, including those that do not profess belief in a deity. Although 27 percent of incoming Stanford freshmen and half of Stanford students overall indicate “none” when asked about religious preference, only one atheist, and no agnostics, were quoted. Until the religious community can accept the potentially troubling (to them) view that reasonable people may be nonbelievers, there will continue to be serious conflicts and little progress toward peaceful coexistence.

Further, the omission of any professional to respond to or balance the positions of the Stanford chaplains is alarming. Surely there are members of the philosophy department, or other departments, who spend their professional lives contemplating these questions and can articulate the very real idea that one need not be religious or spiritual in order to live a moral, ethical or humanistic life.

Anne Wolfson, MA ’86
New York, New York

You appear to be a little confused regarding religion (“The God Conversation,” First Impressions, May/June). People do not conflict over religious differences; they rightfully conflict over limited resources and use the excuse of religious differences to dehumanize the possessors of the resources they need to take. If you recall our Revolution, the same notions were used to justify treason against the King of England.

Therefore, it is not a matter of “bridging religious differences.” If there is any hope for “peace,” it is in eliminating shortages of the basic necessities (and not-so-basic necessities) of life. This is a political and engineering problem, not a religious one. An example of this is the behavior you notice on campus. Religious harmony there results from “unlimited” resources for all. There is no need for a freshman to kill another freshman in order to attend class. However, when these students return to the real world, do not expect this same peaceful attitude.

The real question is if we had the political and engineering will to eliminate resource constraints, would people still use excuses like religion (or gang membership, race, nationalism or whatever) to dehumanize other people so that they could treat them inhumanely?

Joe Iaquinto, MS ’71
Leesburg, Virginia

Knuth’s ‘Handiwork’

It could have been “first byte,” but I’m not sure that IBM, Werner Bucholz and others had “byte” defined in the late 1950s when Professor Knuth was first exposed to them (“Love at First Byte,” May/June). The article photo shows Knuth in front of the IBM 650, which we all know used the “bi-quinary (2/5)” representation and was used by Stanford students (Math 139) for projects and for the first-ever computer dating scheme. But I’ll defer to Knuth for the actual history.

Billions of people see his handiwork every day, as the page formatting/rendering and font presentations are seen by everyone who views a web page—the “http” in the URL address refers to hypertext transfer protocol, directly derived from Knuth’s TEX markup language. His work makes web pages look so nice. And of course the console on his home pipe organ looks suspiciously like the front panel of the IBM 650.

Cheers to Professor Knuth.

Mike Chambreau, ’60, MBA ’66
Los Altos, California

Remembering Dr. Shumway

Your wonderful obit on Dr. Norman Shumway (“A Surgeon with Heart,” Examined Life, May/June) brought back instant memories of that night when he performed the first heart transplant in the United States. At the time, I was associate director of the Stanford News Service, and deputy director of the John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships. Dr. Shumway wanted to keep everything secret until the operation was complete, but it leaked—oh, how it leaked.

Somehow the word got out, and a reporter phoned my home. I wasn’t there, but one of my daughters answered and said she didn’t know where I was, but that the word “heart” was on a notepad. Oops.

By coincidence, the Knight Fellows, their spouses and the staff were having a dinner at the home of the director, Herb Brucker. The phone kept ringing—newspapers calling their reporters. One by one, they disappeared, heading for the hospital. Soon, only the Bruckers and the Presses were left. Herb and I decided to go to the hospital.

Just after we got there, a French newspaper phoned and whoever answered yelled, “Does anyone here speak French?” Herb did, took the phone and spilled the beans.

I was assigned to go to the home of [the donor] whose heart was used in the surgery, and to write a story. The family and friends were having a wake, and weren’t thrilled to see me and our photographer, Chuck Painter. But they let us stay. My story and Chuck’s pictures went around the world.

Norm Shumway was a warm, wonderful man, and Stanford is a great place to work.

Harry Press, ’39
Palo Alto, California

Many thanks to Christine Foster for her article remembering Dr. Norman Shumway. Our son, Christopher, became one of the indirect beneficiaries of Dr. Shumway’s vision and commitment when, in June 1997, he received his heart transplant at the age of 13. Nine years later, Chris, ’06, graduated from Stanford’s mechanical engineering department. Thank God for pioneers of medicine like Dr. Shumway and those who followed him.

Timothy Truxaw
Encinitas, California

Many Happy Returns

Two stories in the May/June Farm Report highlight Stanford’s solid progress in diverse undergraduate admission (“For Some Parents, No Tuition Bills)” and financial aid (“Stanford Tops in ’05 Donations”). If ever there was demonstration of the relationship between annual giving by alumni, parents and friends of the University and real results for today’s (and tomorrow’s) students, this is it.

Dixon Arnett, ’60
San Diego, California

Finding Italy

It is with true and heartfelt sadness that I read of the death of Annamaria Napolitano (May/June). In Napolitano’s early-morning first-year Italian class I began my path to a personal rediscovery and an enduring love of Italy and Italian culture. When I once explained to her that my surname originates in Avellino province near Naples, Annamaria’s response was characteristically direct and enthusiastic: “Be proud of it!”

It was with spirit and a sense of fun that Annamaria sought to teach us neophytes the intricate subtleties of Italian grammar. When explaining gender rules for vocabulary, she once used the Italian word for submachine gun, “la mitragliatrice,” as an example of the feminine usage.

Yet, Napolitano could also be quite serious when circumstances warranted. Just before going to the Stanford campus in Florence, I asked her how to handle speaking with Italians about my being disabled. (I have cerebral palsy from birth and have always walked with crutches.) Her advice was to answer any questions honestly, be myself and not to worry; the rest would take care of itself.

And so it did. I went overseas to have the time of my life, which included visiting my grandfather Generoso’s sisters and other Italian relatives. Upon returning home, I spent my remaining two years at Stanford as a resident of La Casa Italiana, known campuswide for its food, cultural events and extravaganzas like La Decadenza. What a way to spend life on the Farm!

After reading of Annamaria’s death, I recall these experiences and how they have enriched my life to this day. After I had a good cry, my two young daughters helped me put out “Il Tricolore,” the Italian flag. A small tribute, but one I hope Annamaria would have liked.

In Italian class, Annamaria also explained in her signature way that, unlike adios in Spanish, the Italian addio is only used “when you’re leaving forever or dying in an opera.” Even so, the word doesn’t seem to fit. Ciao, Annamaria e ci vediamo.

Alexander Urciuoli, ’86
Salinas, California

Guns, Continued

I found the portrait of NRA president Sandra Froman (“Top Gun,” March/April) to be a disservice to the ongoing debate about guns in our society. What duties does Froman have that aren’t ceremonial? What does functioning like a “CEO in a corporation” mean in a self-described grassroots organization? It would be interesting to know whether Froman directs the distribution of financial favors to compliant politicians. Does the NRA accept corporate sponsorship and donations from gun manufacturers and gun dealers? Does Froman sit on the boards of any of these corporations? Was the NRA part of the K Street project? Are all the critics of the NRA and the American gun culture left-wing ideologues? What other views are held on this subject within the Stanford community?

When I was an intern at Highland Hospital in Oakland, I assisted in the care of a 12-year-old boy who had been shot in the back of the head with a handgun that belonged to his father. He and his 9-year-old brother had found the gun and somehow the younger boy shot the older boy. I remember that I was amazed that the child seemed to be awake. He was screaming that he was blind. The bullet passed through his occipital lobes and violated the transverse sinus, a huge venous structure at the back of the brain. The mortal wound was masked by a blood clot that gave way later during surgery, and the child died in the operating room. Where does Ms. Froman stand on gun locks and technologically advanced gun safety systems?

About 10 years ago, I had taken my young daughters fishing on the Lower Owens River near the town of Bishop, Calif. It was midday in early June and as we approached the river I heard a whoosh go by, several feet above our heads. It happened once more before I told the girls to lie down on the ground. We low-crawled back to the car. I then heard the crack of a rifle, at least 500 or 600 yards away. I began honking the horn and shouting until the firing stopped. Apparently, someone was firing a rifle blindly into a state reserve, in the middle of the day, near a town, out of any hunting season, and right at me and my children. Was this a crime committed by a criminal or, more likely, a thoughtless act committed by a law-abiding gun owner? How should these occurrences be managed?

Without taxing my memory, I can think of at least six other gun-related mishaps that have affected people I know; three were deaths of children. One well-known case here in Phoenix involved the child of Otis Smith, ’67, whose daughter was merely standing in her front yard one afternoon when she was struck and killed by a bullet that someone in the area had randomly fired into the air, perhaps in celebration. A law has been established in her memory that makes celebratory gunfire a crime. When does Froman believe such laws restricting the use of guns are necessary?

It is unfortunate that the Stanford article trivialized this important discussion. The alumni magazine should do more than provide a photo op for the new face of the NRA.

Howard Williams, ’70, MA ’70
Phoenix, Arizona

Thank you for your recent cover story on the new NRA president. Ironically, a few bits of historical evidence were revealed in the same issue, in Georgina Lyman’s compelling account (”All, All is Destruction”) of the ’06 quake and its aftermath: “To us there seemed more real danger from sneak thieves and loosed lunatics. . . . We were glad to see three strong men with guns and pistols.” And: “Last night we moved into the house and all slept on the second floor; the boys and their guns down stairs, and we all slept well.”

Just as Condoleezza Rice has stated that her appreciation for the Second Amendment stems from recalling her father taking up arms to defend his Birmingham neighborhood against the White Knight Riders, the Lyman letters show how the Second Amendment would be meaningless if it did not secure the individual right to bear arms.

Bennet Langlotz, ’84
Genoa, Nevada

Having spent our youth lobbying for sensible gun control legislation in Los Angeles, we were dismayed to be staring down the barrel of a handgun gracing the cover of the March/April issue.

Alumna Sandra Froman believes that “guns in the hands of peaceful, law-abiding people save lives.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that for every one time a gun in a home was used for self-protection, 43 homicides, suicides or accidental shooting deaths occurred among household members. A gun, it seems, poses a far greater risk to its owner and his immediate family than to any potential intruder.

Imagine if every Stanford student, professor and administrator were permitted to pack a loaded pistol in lecture halls, in dorm rooms or at sporting venues. Does anyone truly believe that we would feel safer?

Niko Milonopoulos, ’09
Theo Milonopoulos, ’09
Stanford, California

Your recent cover article reads more like an NRA propaganda piece than anything I have read recently. Most notably, it fails to mention that firearms kill roughly 30,000 people in the United States annually and wound roughly 300,000 more. Firearms are the leading cause of suicides. Firearms deaths are a daily occurrence in New York City, where I live. The front-page story in today’s leading tabloids headlines the death of a 2-year-old, killed by a stray bullet while in her mother’s arms en route to an Easter party. (This is not just a problem in poor neighborhoods: John Lennon was shot and killed a block from my apartment.)

Despite the persistent high volume of gun deaths and injuries, the NRA is continuing its campaign of vigorously resisting efforts by our mayor and others to persuade Congress to pass more stringent gun control legislation.

I’m not opposed to firearms. I started shooting over 60 years ago and was an expert rifleman by age 12. I was a competition shooter in college and the Navy, where I also trained hundreds of sailors in the safe use of firearms. I have long enjoyed shooting—rifles, shotguns and pistols—and at 73 am still a competent shot.

I believe the NRA’s program to promote safe shooting is excellent. However, I have thought its interpretation of the Second Amendment not only bizarre but antisocial. Your magazine, which I get because one of my daughters graduated from Stanford in 1988, should have provided a much more balanced view of this subject than it did.

James Greer
New York, New York

Do-It-Yourself Books

In response to Patricia Lynn Henley’s article, “Brought to Book” (Showcase, March/April), I support her encouragement to authors to consider self-publishing their works. It is relatively easy and inexpensive and can be very satisfying.

I offer a few words of caution. If you have photographs and want good-quality reproductions, avoid the so-called “print-on-demand” printers that can produce one copy of a book at a time. They use a photocopy process with toner instead of printing from plates with ink. To hold down the price, do not use color inside the book or print on glossy paper. Soft covers are much cheaper than hard covers; besides, you can put illustrations on soft covers with color. Do not print anything on the inside front or back covers, as this might require a second press run. Printers can provide additional recommendations on how to save money and will send you samples. Once your book is printed, run ads in publications and notices on websites that strictly target audiences that would be interested in your subject matter.

A few years ago I self-published a 448-page book on two brothers who made movies during the 1930s and 1940s. By advertising in selected publications and sending copies to selected reviewers, I got my up-front expenses back; complimentary e-mails, telephone calls and letters from readers; and new respect from relatives and friends. The book received nice comments from reviewers, including Robert Osborne and Leonard Maltin, and I was invited to a Hollywood film convention and given a free table to display my books.

To all writers out there, I say, “Go for it.”

Merrill T. McCord, MA ’54
Bethesda, Maryland

Maternity Policy

As a Stanford doctoral student, I was thrilled to read “For Grad Students, A Childbirth Policy” (Farm Report, March/April). I was dismayed, however, to recently discover that Stanford is terminating health care coverage for dependents of graduate students. What message is the University sending? We support your family, but only right up until the point your baby needs to go to the doctor because she is sick? Where is the groundbreaking leadership in that?

Peter Ross, ’90
Oakland, California

It is heartening to know that Stanford has at last taken notice of the fact that most female graduate students are in their prime childbearing years, and has put in place new policies to accommodate them. If only such had been the spirit of the University administrators back in 1962, when I gave birth to my first child. That year I had been reappointed instructor in history and I was very close to finishing my dissertation. Two weeks after my daughter was born, I returned to the classroom; the writing of my dissertation had to be put aside.

In the meantime, the lease on our Stanford Village apartment had expired and my husband and I asked for an extension. To our great surprise, we were told by the dean of students that the apartment had been leased to my husband, who was no longer a graduate student, and it was University policy not to rent to female graduate students. Therefore, the lease could not be renewed in my name, which meant that we were not entitled to an extension.

The president of the University, to whom I wrote in protest, referred my letter to the dean of students, who reiterated the policy. With my baby daughter in my arms and the draft of my dissertation safely tucked away in a box (the recollection of the scene is still vivid in my mind), we moved to an apartment close to campus.

My resentment toward Stanford for having treated me so egregiously has not abated over the years, and consequently I have loosened my ties to the University. And yet, despite the trauma of that episode, I remember my time as a graduate student in the history department as the best years of my life.

Eugenia V. Nomikos, PhD ’62
Berkeley, California

Erring PhDs

“How the Brain Conducts Risky Business” (Farm Report, January/February) is a fascinating article and research, but aren’t we getting just a trifle arrogant in drawing conclusions like these:

1. Even “Stanford PhDs don’t make the optimal choices all the time.” Goodness gracious. When the ultimate (PhDs) and the penultimate (Stanford PhDs) can err, what hope is there for ordinary people? Batten the hatches!

2. “Regarding Social Security, how much freedom should we give individual investors to take care of their own retirement. . . ?” Oh my, those poor dumb people, unable to take care of themselves! Just who is in charge of dispensing freedom, and just who will make retirement decisions for the unenlightened? Government? God help us all.

Blaine Shull, ’49, MBA ’51
Palos Verdes Estates, Calif.

The following letters did not appear in the print edition of STANFORD.

Believe It or Not

The recent article on Stanford’s religious diversity illustrated some of the religious movements alive on campus (“Soul Support,” May/June). Unfortunately, it completely marginalized the largest group on campus: those with no religion. There was no mention of atheists and nonbelievers, except to air unsubstantiated claims that a “liberal” college atmosphere is condescending to students of faith. In today’s world, the opposite is more often true.

By casting atheists and nonbelievers in an adversarial light, author Diane Rogers invokes the fraudulent cliché that those without theology are somehow without moral values. Given the level of attention to religious community concerns on campus (not to mention funding), I find it ironic that religions get away with playing the victim card. Last time I checked, it wasn’t the atheists running things.

Danny Cullenward, ’06
Stanford, California

I read with interest the experiences of Stanford students with the practice of their religion while at Stanford. When I was an undergraduate, we were delighted that Kathleen Norris, the writer, had donated her property and Clare Boothe Luce had provided funds to build a chapel where Catholic students could both study and enjoy spiritual life. I remember as a seminarian at St. Patrick’s being in a group, along with the archbishop of San Francisco, who consecrated the new chapel on the Norris property.

I did not remain a Roman Catholic. I became an Episcopalian, then followed an Indian guru and practiced Hinduism and then finally found Unity. I am now a Unity minister after having a number of careers in social services. For the past 10 years I have been involved in bringing together clergy and lay people to share in prayer and understanding the tenets of different faith groups.

While I was the Unity minister in Palmdale, Calif., I was involved with members of our Interfaith council in developing a prayer service at the mosque on the anniversary of 9-11. We found that praying together not only on the anniversary of 9-11 but at other times brought us closer together. Once we were called upon to challenge bigotry against Wiccans. We were able to work with the local sheriff’s office to put an end to their harassment.

At Stanford, both my studies and my participation in the Newman Club opened my eyes not only to the social programs of the Catholic Church but to other religious paths. From the looks of things, the desire to seek truth has expanded among Stanford’s student population.

Alfred P. Johnson, ’50
Temecula Valley, California

Religions are awful. It is doubtful that any fundamentalist of any religion would agree that an ancient ideal, like “peace,” binds one religion to another.

Kevin Henderson, ’92
Austin, Texas

Matters of Fact

I liked the article in Asked & Answered (”Prove It,” May/June) in which Pfeffer and Sutton discuss the importance of evidence-based decisions in management. In medicine, we are becoming more definite about the idea that making decisions based on scientific evidence helps patients more than just our unscientifically supported belief that a particular—even time-honored—treatment would be helpful.

It’s especially interesting to then reread the Letters to the Editor about the NRA. Look at the difference between the letters citing generalities like “left/liberal biases” and “far-right lunatic gun lobby” and other letters citing solid facts (“57 percent of guns used in crimes and traced came from just 1 percent of gun dealers”). Let’s have more scientific evidence—less emotional rhetoric.

Alan W. Ames, ’56
Portland, Oregon

Treaties and Trust

I have read only one U.S.-American Indian treaty, but its enforcement was specifically conditioned on the “discretion of the President” (“All About Indian Law,” Farm Report, May/June). I sensed this might be the case with other Indian treaties, but I never received a response from the Department of the Interior. I think it very unfortunate things did not go better between the longstanding Indian tribes and the European settlers, but I believe [building on] accurate historical facts will do more to improve relations than using endlessly the assertion of broken promises and a breach of trust as a basis for gaining respect out of inculcating guilt. Judge Joseph Thomas Flies-Away’s emphasis on trust with the government harkens back to a breach of trust by the government, but I think if the treaties were predicated on the President’s discretion, then there was a misunderstanding but not a legal breach of trust.

Robert B. Walker, ’69
Soquel, California

A Spouse’s Lot

Thank you for the recent piece entitled “Life as an ‘Accompanying Spouse’” (Farm Report, May/June). I moved with my husband, Roger Chan, ’96, when he started his cardiology fellowship at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center two years ago. While he found an immediate circle of friends through his fellowship, it took me a little longer to acclimate to the area and find my own cohort. I was fortunate enough to find a job in my line of work, editing, at Dartmouth’s business school, and through that community I started to feel more connected to the area.

Eventually I and a few other medical spouses found each other and (with great support from our significant others) started a group similar to the Bechtel Center’s. Our group helps other transplants learn about the area (foliage season and maple syrup!), find housing, look for a job and make friends. I think such groups help the spouse or partner establish their own ties, and not feel like their life must be an adjunct one, or on hold.

I’m glad to report that both the hospital and Dartmouth College have been very supportive of our group. They’ve helped us start a website and mailing list to share news and resources. We’ve started holding more and more regular social events, and will host our second annual New Spouses & Partners Orientation this June.

Genevieve Canceko Chan, ’96
White River Junction, Vermont

Combating Malaria

Michelle Rhee wrote an intriguing article about insecticide-treated mosquito nets to fight malaria in Mali (“Net Working,” E-Mail from Mali, March/April). She wondered if her work made “any dent in their malaria problems” and at the time, I wondered how others might help. I recently found a possible way to do just that in the Life of Reilly column in Sports Illustrated (“Nothing But Nets,” May 1, 2006). According to the May 8 issue of the same magazine, more than 6,000 readers had donated more than $345,000 to the cause via unfoundation.org/malaria. Given the right information and a tool to respond, our society can indeed do the right thing.

Sanjay Arora, ’85
Honolulu, Hawaii

Guns, Continued

I thought some information from Australia might be of interest (“Top Gun,” March/April). In 1996, a 30-year-old social misfit named Martin Bryant killed 35 people and seriously wounded 18 others in Port Arthur, Tasmania. As a result, laws were introduced that targeted the guns used in mass shootings, particularly rapid-fire rifles and shotguns. There was a major buyback from owners of these types of guns.

The impact has been a major reduction in gun-related deaths. In the decade up to 1996, there were 11 mass shootings, with 100 dead and 52 wounded. In the decade since the new gun laws, there have been no mass shootings where five or more people were killed. The closest was one incident where two people were killed and four injured.

From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot—an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. Similar figures apply for firearm homicide: in the same two periods, the average annual number of gun homicides fell from 93 to 56.

A key argument of the NRA is that guns reduce crime (and vice versa). This does not appear to have been the case. Australia’s recorded victims for motor vehicle theft, unlawful entry with intent (Ms. Froman’s big worry) and homicide were in 2004 at their lowest levels since the national crime registry began in 1993.

Greg Joffe, ’87, MA ’87
Sydney, Australia

In the 2000 election we had a candidate with eight years in the House, eight years in the Senate and eight years as the vice president. Perhaps we have never had so qualified a candidate. Furthermore, he won the popular vote. Why was he not elected? The NRA with its 4 million members can swing any election that depends on the Electoral College blocks in the red states. So, the NRA mounted a lying and vicious campaign to convince their members that if Al Gore and the Democrats were elected, they would take the people’s guns away from them. Politics may be a dirty word at best, but the NRA ads bordered on criminal deception.

The decision the American people were led to make in that election will no doubt turn out to be the most costly decision a people has ever made. We lose both American and Iraqi lives, with thousands injured and hundreds of thousands of families in both countries disrupted or destroyed. We sacrifice environmental protections and world good will. We have legal assurances that the rich will get richer and the poor get poorer. We have given an assurance to international terrorists that they truly do have good reasons to fear us and to try to destroy America. We get all of this at a financial cost that will surely exceed trillions of dollars while aid for needy Americans is greatly reduced.

The policies of the NRA are so much to blame for and in accord with this direction in which America has gone that they surely must bear a great responsibility for the disastrous results. I am deeply troubled that you have honored them with such a favorable article.

Herbert Bruce Puryear, ’57
Scottsdale, Arizona

Frankly, I was expecting the typical, liberal distortions of the gun ownership/gun control issues, but instead came away genuinely amazed by the even-handed, rational discussion. You have done a great job.

I am a lifelong gun owner, shooter, hunter, collector, military veteran and NRA life member. In all my years, knowing at least hundreds, perhaps thousands of active gun owners, I have never heard of a single instance of any of these citizens misusing any firearm. And Ms. Froman is entirely correct: law abiding gun owners are the community, as much as any other citizens.

Thank you most sincerely for your terrific articles.

Lloyd Chiswick, ’61
Dunsmuir, California

I feel sorry for Sandra Froman—it is too bad that a woman of her station in life feels so threatened that she has to pack a gun. Surely, the big game she shoots, with seeming pride, pose no threat to her everyday life—she has to make a concerted effort to find and kill them. I am more inclined to admire the famed Cleveland Amory’s “Fund for Animals” whose motto is: “Support Your Right to Arm Bears!”

Peggy Pence Howell, MA ’49
La Jolla, California

You received some interesting letters about your thought-provoking NRA article. Several more conservative writers mentioned “political correctness.” This label (closely related to “social engineering”) was developed by conservative dogmatists in the early 1980s. It was designed for use as a quick dismissal, as in “You have not really thought about this. You are just speaking as you have been told to speak” (liberal dittoheads?). There was some truth to that claim when it was applied to left-wing dogmatists in those days.

These days, however, we have been told many times to toe the story line on Afghanistan and Iraq. If we don’t support George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, then for some unexplained reason we don’t support the young men and women stationed in Iraq. Furthermore, we are expected to allow hypersensitive fundamentalist sensibilities to dictate what is and is not allowed in our broader “free” society. We are told by organized, conservative thought-police what to believe on many other matters, such as prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and global warming.

The United States has come full circle. Those who use the label “politically correct” do so because they have been instructed to, and they respond correctly. The label can apply to all rigid dogmatists on both sides. They are certainly free to voice their opinions, but I wish they would quiet down and let the middle ground speak for a moment. Polls show the American middle is bigger, but we don’t speak with an orchestrated lobbyist voice calculated to divide the country into blocks and bring out the single-issue voter marching in lockstep. We are individuals who wish to have an equal voice with other individuals.

Mark Linne, MS, ’79, PhD ’85
Lund, Sweden

It should be noted that the principal function of the NRA is to be the main lobbying agent of the arms manufacturing industry. Huge sums are donated annually to our political representatives in Congress to promote the NRA agenda. The arms industry in the United States is one of the most profitable and powerful industries. It can therefore afford to shower vast sums of money on politicians through the NRA. It is no wonder that 38 states now have right-to-carry laws.

Nowhere in this article was Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president and highest paid officer in the NRA, mentioned. It was he who proclaimed that law enforcement officers are “jack-booted thugs” during the Waco incident, when it appeared that the NRA supported the well-armed insurgents. Following this remark President George H.W. Bush renounced his honorary membership in the NRA.

As a veteran of WWII and a former volunteer police officer, I have never chosen to own a gun. Following graduation from Stanford, I worked for industrial and heavy commercial contractors in perhaps some of the roughest areas in this country. Packing iron would have been a serious mistake, and I never experienced any trouble. During the five years I served as a volunteer police officer I was told by the regular duty officers that they would rather deal with an unarmed public than with citizens carrying guns.

Citizens who are basically interested in self-protection should look at other measures such as pepper spray, which have the power to temporarily disable but not to kill.

Gene W. Hughes, ’54, MS ’60
Prescott, Arizona

I darn near dropped off my porch when I got my January/February Stanford alumni magazine back in the gray cold days of Tennessee’s winter (“Front and Center,” January/February). There on the front cover was a nice picture of one of my heroes—Ronald Reagan. Thinking that there was no way in h*** that Stanford would put a good picture of President Reagan on the front of any of its publications, I shouted after Wanda, our mailman, “Hey, what is this? Some kind of new parody magazine?!” Wanda shouted out, “Must be. Ain’t nobody at that communist school you went to out west that would do somethin’ flattering about our Ronnie.”

I ran past the screen door into the house to show the magazine to my wife, a UC-Berkeley graduate (heck, a conservative one at that!), about how my school may finally be climbing down from its liberal high horse. She, with a much cooler Yankee eye, said “Honey, this is not an article about President Reagan. It’s about Justice O’Connor.”

Shur ’nuff, it was.

Shoot far, it took a Berkeley grad to bring me back down to reality.

Upon pondering it, though, I realized that those STANFORD employees could’ve easily found a whole bunch of pictures of Justice O’Connor that did not include Ronald Reagan. So my hope came back up: somewhere deep inside the alumni club might be a closet conservative. He/she somehow slipped this picture in. Honey/buddy, I don’t know who you is, but I shur ’nuff admire your guts.

Then, last week, it was déjà vu all over again. Wanda screamed out from the road that I got another copy of that there parody magazine. “This time STANFORD has a pistol on the front cover!”

I nearly tripped over the car in the front lawn as I ran out to get my March/April magazine. Danged if she wernt right. There on the front cover was a pistol. But wait! It was a dirty pistol. That wasn’t a good sign. Daddy taught me when I was a young’un that a dirty pistol is a dangerous pistol. So the article must be one of those “guns kill people,” “gun control is the answer” articles.

But being a Stanford-trained man, I said to myself “Read the article with an open mind.” Once again, I was tickled like all git-out. They’s writing about the NRA president, Sandra Froman, Stanford alumna. (I opened my wallet and pulled out my NRA card to check the president’s name on it to make sure they wernt a-tryin’ to fool me. And they wernt!)

An’ the article was truly “fair and balanced” about a wonderful lady. So I’m wondering if that closet conservative was at it again and might maybe even be converting a bunch of them other alumni magazine employees. More power to you, honey/buddy. Call me if you need any help.

Looking forward, I have some advice (knowing that being at Stanford you may not have many conservative mentors to learn from) for my alumni club. For the May/June edition, notch up this ongoing conservative theme a bit more with a big picture of the new F-22 Raptor fighter plane! I’m sure somebody from Stanford with one of those highly regarded technical degrees figured into its design or making.

(When Wanda sees that she’ll darn near drive off into the ditch.)

That Raptor’s a beauty and a reminder to my fellow alums that there are a whole bunch of pistol-packing, rifle-totin’ boys and girls from my family and bunches of other families that I know who are out there 24 hours a day protecting the butts of those of us both there in Palo Alto and here in rural southern Tennessee!

Time for some target practice out back.

Sam T. Harper, MBA ’82
Tullahoma, Tennessee

I enjoyed reading the article about alumna Sandra Froman. I also enjoyed reading letters to the editor in the following issue, including the one from my classmate at Stanford, Tom Lowry, MD. He is not only a psychiatrist, he has had a great deal of experience with prison inmates and provides a valuable perspective.

I have been a hunter for 60 years and was a member of the NRA. I quit the organization after a fundamental difference of opinion regarding gun safety. While the NRA provides excellent gun safety courses and gives lip service to endorsing it, they oppose requiring gun safety courses before being allowed to purchase a gun.

This is now required in California before one can buy a handgun, and everyone must attend a hunter safety course before purchasing a hunting license for the first time, but anyone of legal age may purchase a rifle or a shotgun with no training at all if they do not plan to use it for hunting. My grandson, now 15, is a hunter, and not only have I taught him about gun safety, he also took a gun safety course before he obtained his hunting license at age 12.

I asked the NRA why he was required to have such a course in order to shoot a gun as a hunter, but his friends who do not hunt can just buy a weapon when they are of age and blaze away. The NRA said they oppose any sort of requirements for the purchase of firearms. “It is a right guaranteed by the Constitution” was their response.

I invited one of my grandson’s friends to our duck club to show him how to shoot trap, and although I gave him instructions about what to do, guess what happened? The first time he had the shotgun in his hands he swept the loaded gun around at body level within a few feet of my grandson and myself. Fortunately he did not pull the trigger and the gun did not go off, but even experienced hunters such as Vice President Cheney make mistakes, and lack of training greatly increases the chances that tragic accidents will happen.

I also oppose the use of assault weapons by private citizens. Those who say there are no differences between them and semiautomatic rifles are disingenuous. No one who has seen them can say with a straight face that a short rifle with a pistol grip and a flash suppressor is the same as a 30-inch hunting rifle even though their firing actions may be similar. I have also never seen an assault weapon used in any of the hunting camps I have been at in several Western states. I did see evidence that [someone used] some sort of assault weapon to spotlight a large buck deer and then cut off its horns and left the body to rot. Legitimate ethical hunters simply do not need assault weapons to hunt game.

I also see people at rifle ranges using semiautomatic assault weapons shooting at human silhouette targets. Isn’t it reasonable to believe that some of them are fantasizing that they are shooting at real people, thereby diminishing their respect for the human form? The first step in abusive behavior is to dehumanize the victim. It must be easier to shoot at a real person after one is used to shooting at human shaped targets. But after all, isn’t that the point? The human silhouette targets are just training people to combat a home invasion.

Semiautomatic weapons are not the best means of home protection. Effective calibers are too powerful and run the risk of going through walls and injuring neighbors. Living in Los Angeles, I am concerned that during a riot someone might try to break into our home and the police would not be able to protect us as happened during riots here in the past and during Katrina in New Orleans. I have a shotgun. I keep the shotgun and the ammunition separate so there is no chance that the gun can be quickly loaded and fired inadvertently. This is a compromise of course, but what frightens me [is the thought of] hoodlums pounding on the door, trying to force an entry. My plan would give me time to get my gun and ammunition, and if they broke in after I warned them to go away, I would not hesitate to shoot. A shotgun is very deadly at close range but does not penetrate walls readily and quickly loses lethality beyond 30 yards or so, which minimizes the risks of collateral damage.

A gun is a tool, but a dangerous one. Like all tools, those who use them should be properly instructed in their use, and because of the serious consequences of the misuse of firearms, laws should be enacted to be sure that gun safety courses are a prerequisite to the right to possess them. Those who refuse to comply should be punished, but those who abide by the law should be allowed to own and use firearms whether for putting meat on the table or plinking at tin cans or shooting at targets. Almost every household in Switzerland has a gun since military service is mandatory, yet the rate of firearm-related crime is low. I believe training is the difference, and until the NRA does more than pay lip service to gun safety, I am not interested in that organization. It will be interesting to see if Stanford-trained Sandra Froman follows the party line, or is it possible she could moderate some of their rigid positions?

Gainer Pillsbury, ’54, MD ’57
Long Beach, California

Your decision to print the new NRA president’s personal opinions on guns in the previous issue certainly stimulated letters, as you likely hoped. Discussion of ideas is what a university is about anyway, so maybe you will print this tardy opinion on its merits.

We always had guns around when I was a kid. We shot targets on family farms in New York and Vermont, and even on our acreage in New Jersey. As a kid, I had two target rifles: one semiautomatic, with telescopic sight; one a classic, octagonal-barrel, Winchester pump-action .22 that a great uncle had captured when working as a federal agent during Prohibition. My father kept a 12-gauge shotgun ready for garden-marauding woodchucks and for celebrating the Fourth of July. We’ve always been patriotic and our daughters are eligible for the DAR.

The contrast of your choice of Sandra Froman to voice personal opinions related to guns alongside serious researchers’ articles on their findings was odd. Perhaps you’re just stimulating interest in the magazine. It certainly isn’t scientific, serious or appropriate. But, what the heck—Stanford really isn’t a “liberal” place, as one of your letter-writers seems to believe.

For example, you publish what she says on her resume: among other posturings, she states an interest in “firing large-caliber handguns.” Well,

golly gee! What a perfect figure to represent to the public the face of perhaps our largest, most successful lobbying entity—a markswoman.

My uncle shot handguns in competition. Sandra Froman’s picture doing so should have been edited—she’s wearing a wrist brace! How non-sporting. My uncle never used such, nor did his competition. They actually took responsibility, with all their musculature, for their aims.

This kind of puffery, like “hunting” pheasant or other small, unarmed birds, has always left me nonplussed. To me, the more strident of the NRA gun gang are just gutless. Let them show their guts by alligator wrestling with maybe only a short knife. Or going on safari with only a camera and being required to get elephant and lion close-ups on film. Or walking into an inner city neighborhood to tutor recovering addicts in basic skills, unarmed. You know, things that require courage.

Let Sandra Froman get the NRA to show it is responsible by following Patrick Henry (as one of her supporters naively quoted): “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” The key is “able.” We have licensing of automobiles, which can be lethally misused. We have licensing of drivers, who can be unbelievably stupid. Using a car in the commission of a crime does not usually escalate the charges. Using a gun, in most states, drops a load of bricks on the accused. Yet the NRA even considers effectively licensing all gun dealers and sales as scary. If Sandra Froman is to be more a citizen and not just an NRA mouthpiece, exploiting her gruff feminity for the benefit of its narrow agenda, then let her design and advocate a trial system of gun licensing and owner testing.

We all hope Sandra Froman isn’t confronted by the fellow from San Quentin (per one of your wiser letter writers) in the middle of her sleep when her “large-caliber handgun” is not off safety and in her hand. And I hope every day that the guns I had as a kid aren’t misused—they were stolen from my father’s house a few years ago, as all too many guns are, whether owned by NRAers or not.

To sum up, Sandra Froman has an opportunity to do something useful for us all. Will she do it and grow out of her resume? Will STANFORD editing become more mature?

Alex Cannara, MS ’63, MS ’72, PhD ’76
Menlo Park, California

Yesterday afternoon I was reading the letters written in response to the cover article about Sandra Froman and the NRA. Then, last evening, I turned on the 10 p.m. news and heard about a small girl being shot to death in the Englewood community of Chicago by a 12-year-old boy. It was his father’s gun and he found it in the house. More than one letter writer noted that more innocent people die from guns in the home than do intruders. And this is the same Englewood community that had to deal with the deaths of two innocent young girls within a two-week span just a couple of months ago. They were accidentally shot by young men in the neighborhood.

The extreme position of the NRA is what makes them unacceptable as an organization. I can accept taking a stand for the right of citizens to own guns; however, like several writers, I cannot accept the excuse of hunters needing automatic rifles, or unlimited sales and uncontrolled gun shows.

The people of the United States have not achieved the same understanding of how to live together as have the Bonobo apes. To quote from an article on the Internet: “Professor Frans de Waal, one of the world’s leading primatologists, avers that the Bonobo is often capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity.” Perhaps humans are not the highest development in evolution.

Cal Audrain, ’58
Chicago, Illinois

The NRA’s Sandra Froman felt understandable panic in 1981 when she was threatened with an assault. She recounts how that panic turned into an anger so extreme that we can still hear echoes of it today when she tells Kevin Cool that criminals won’t realize that she “will shoot their guts out.” Carrying a handgun has empowered her and quieted her panic. Meanwhile, in its excess of fear and suspicion, the NRA defends to the death the need for laws that still permit Uzis and assault weapons because otherwise hunting rifles might one day be banned too. It is sad that a lawyer of Sandra Froman’s talents does not trust the law to distinguish the guns appropriate for civil sportsmen from those for criminal activists. It is sad that she will not work with those in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Her story raises other important questions. What is society to do with extreme anger? What should individuals do with it? There are many alternatives to arming oneself as a solution, and they can be even more effective in reducing fear. But anger will show itself, and at the moment only psychotherapy has techniques that sometimes work to neutralize residual or persistent anger. Medicine can treat the symptoms of anger, but the cause still needs to be found. Religion can treat the symptoms too, but religion often encourages anger as well. Terror (and the anger that follows) is not a source for good policy. Carrying a gun in civilian life is not a good policy, however much it may calm anxiety and temporarily cover up anger.

J. Barnard “Barney” Gilmore, ’59
Kaslo, British Columbia

Sandra Froman’s views on gun ownership seem puzzlingly incomplete. When I’ve considered problems of an anonymous death threat in the early ’90s, as well as self-protection during the 20,000 miles I drove alone yearly hunting folklore, I contemplated buying a gun. To date I haven’t, in large part because of [positions] supported by the NRA. If I buy a gun, I want to register it in a national electronic database, as I do my trucks or a pet. If I were to lose a gun or worse—have it stolen—I want to be able to trace and recover it. Guns are often as expensive as vehicles, and can do as much damage as vehicles. Yet we register vehicles and have elaborate systems for licensing them, insuring them, keeping track of their purchase and sale and making those records quickly available to law enforcement.

I still fail to understand the NRA’s opposition to national gun licensing and owner/gun registration; Froman’s beliefs, as NRA president, are absent from Kevin Cool’s article. NRA members have tried to explain this to me as a part of Second Amendment responsibilities and citizens’ needs for firearms if our culture is faced with a tyrannical government and breakdowns in civil behavior. Considering the past few years of successful insurgencies around the world, I hypothesize I’m more likely to need roadside bomb makings, a functional getaway vehicle and a stash of fuel, if civilization should collapse.

Rosemary N. Killam, ’76
Washington, D.C.

Earthquake Lessons

Thanks for printing Georgina Lyman’s letters to her parents describing her assessment of the 1906 earthquake and its effects on the Stanford campus (“All, All Is Destruction,” March/April). Her letters were well written and very engaging. Her parents must have been proud of her. Academically, I imagine she did well. I hope that her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren have seen fit to hold her as a role model.

Doug White, ’53
Colusa, California

[The earthquake] situation reminds me of Hurricanes Wilma, Katrina, Jeanne and Frances. After Wilma, gasoline pumps and hurricane damage made the automobile unwieldy, too. In fact, after Wilma, children learned to exist without color cable television, computers, iPods and video games; instead, they discovered that reading and playing out of doors were worthy activities, too.

My classmates and I grew up without the aforementioned gadgets and did not miss them.

Judith Toubes, ’51
Tamarac, Florida

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. Please note that your letter may appear in print, online or both.

CORRECTIONS

The obituary of Craig Chris Thompson, ’72 (May/June), should have included his mother, Alice, and sisters Faye, ’74, and Ann as survivors.

Wipro Technologies (“The World According to Azim Premji,” May/June) works with more than 150 of the Fortune 1,000, not the Fortune 500.

The seminary that Carla Fenves, ’06, plans to attend (“Soul Support,” May/June) is Hebrew Union College.

RETURN TO TOP


Privacy Policy		©2009 Stanford Alumni Association