Send us a letter

Political Division

Professor Morris Fiorina’s article (“Beyond Red & Blue,” September/October) divides the U.S. political universe into two profoundly different realms: a political class (officeholder, interest groups, political infotainers and issue activists, all of whom are deeply interested in and well informed about political issues) and an American public (not terribly interested in most political issues and not well informed about them).

It appears that the professor has ground-ruled out a substantial part of the public that does not fit his defined political class, but certainly is interested in and pretty well informed about political issues.

Case in point: the Stanford faculty. Would Professor Fiorina not regard them as interested in political issues and well informed about them? Would he consider them members of the political class?

One could go on and on, citing examples of members of the public who fit neither of the professor’s categories. Let it suffice to note that he has apparently overlooked the Stanford faculty, himself and me.

William L. Shields, PhD ’67
Tucson, Arizona

Stadium Sentiments

The recent FIFA World Cup in Germany brought to mind the festive days when Stanford hosted Olympic soccer in 1984 and World Cup matches in 1994.
World Cup and the Olympics will come again to the United States, but the Stanford community will never again be able to experience the pleasures of international soccer. The tragedy is that, despite vigorous argument to the contrary, those who planned and paid for rebuilding Stanford Stadium (“Ready for Kickoff,” September/October) refused to design a field that could be made wide enough to comply with the requirements of competitive soccer.

James R. Madison, ’53, JD ’59
Menlo Park, California

Having been loyal Stanford football fans since forever (my father “ran” the scoreboards and put up the numbers, manually of course, in the late ’30s); having had good tickets on the shady side for almost 40 years; having made monetary donations each year; my father having donated many historical family items to Stanford and having volunteered all his time at Stanford; and having three family members go through Stanford, I am very upset. I am sure there are many others like me, who, in spite of being loyal Stanford fans, were given bad seats.

I requested in writing that I keep the same four seats in the new stadium. Instead I was moved almost two sections closer to the end zone. I was told records prior to 1986 had been destroyed so there was no way of knowing how long people had held tickets. I am curious as to how many other loyal Stanford football fans were given seats worse than the ones they held for years.

I think it’s sad that Stanford no longer cares about the loyal fans who have done a lot for Stanford but don’t make $100,000 yearly donations. It all comes down to money and who makes the biggest donations.

Due to my personal experiences, I always felt that Stanford University had a heart. Sadly, things have changed and Stanford has sold out; loyalty be damned.

Ann Tietjen Gaskell, MA ’76
Los Altos, California

When I contrast what the University of Louisville has done with its football program and stadium with what Stanford has done, I think Stanford is kidding itself.

When you use Stanford’s bowl attendance in the last several years in comparison with earlier eras to judge the success of your program, have you considered the proliferation of bowls in the last 15 years or so? More teams go now because there are more bowls available.

Stanford’s focus moved from major sports that more than paid their own way to Title IX and minor sports that did not.

Remember also that there was no competition from professional football when the old stadium was built and not for a good many years after. Now Stanford is surrounded by professional teams competing for the sports entertainment dollar.

One of the first things Stanford statistics taught many years ago was the need to avoid apples and oranges in data analysis. Looks to me as if those who made this decision may not have had the chance to take that particular class just yet.

William Gregg, ’47
Louisville, Kentucky

It doesn’t sound like women had much input in planning the stadium. If the crowd is one-third to one-half women and two-thirds of them use the john at intermission, then they will be lined up at each of the 240 stalls 45 to 70 deep.

Ladies, avoid the liquid concession stands once again!

Ron Jensen
Portland, Oregon

By Any Other NamE

Concerning your brief article “Jolie Signs On for Pearl Film” (Red All Over, September/October), I thought I would translate the phrase “Pearl, ’85, who was abducted and executed by Pakistani militants” for people who are too young or poorly educated to distinguish Political-Correct-Speak from facts. What this phrase actually means is, “Pearl, who was kidnapped and viciously murdered by being beheaded alive by Islamic terrorists.”

“Pakistani militants” indeed. You should be ashamed of yourselves for printing such wishy-washy P.C. garbage.

Bill Lorton, ’64
San Jose, California

To Each His Own

Something clicked, about perceived cultural disconnects in my relationships, as I read of Professor Jeanne Tsai’s research in the article “Joy to the World” (Farm Report, September/October). To wit:

“Happiness Is Homegrown”
I splash and laugh
In the water. You pine for a time
When surfaces were calm.
The harder I try to make you happy,
The more roiled your world becomes.

Steve Robinson, ’72
Glendale, California

Gilbert Sorrentino

I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of one of my beloved professors, Gilbert Sorrentino (Obituaries, September/October). The world lost Professor Sorrentino much too early, at 77, as evidenced by his working on his last novel up until one week before his death.

Professor Sorrentino, or Gil, as many of his students affectionately called him, was, of course, an academic and scholarly inspiration. He was straight shooting, clever and one of the most brilliant minds I’ve ever known. But perhaps the adjective that best sums up this iconic character is just plain “cool.” Gil could often be seen smoking his cigarettes while walking across the Quad, tall and striking with his gray hair and inimitable mustache.

His tales of sharing cocktails with some of the best writers of his generation in small smoke-filled New York City apartments permeated his very presence and, as his students, we saw him as the true definition of a “living writer.” He
lived his writing and shared his passion and talent with his lucky brood.

The literary world will feel this loss for some time to come, as will I. In his poem, “As with a Simple Gesture of the Fingers,” Gil himself sums it up best:

As with a simple gesturing of fingers, all my words are turned to singer’s words, held and polished for your unique delight.

Katie Mauro Zeigler, ’95, MA ’96
Walnut Creek, California

kids today

I have not renewed my Stanford Alumni Association membership this year, probably out of lack of motivation, and the July/August issue of the magazine is so shockingly white it gives me no desire to belong to an organization that does not even see its whiteness or is not aware of the white privilege it represents. Don’t you believe in the power of images to change the world? Don’t you know that
in the issue about “Kids Today,” by not having one picture of a child of Asian or African-American or Latino background you deny these children’s existence? At least this is the perception any minority person would have while reading your magazine: they do not exist. Granted, there is a nice story about a “Lost Boy” of Sudan, but he does not represent the American diversity, he is African and he is planning to go back to Africa. I would urge your staff to take a diversity course at Stanford, provided these courses do exist.

Françoise Arnaud Hibbs, PhD ’84
Salt Lake City, Utah

school reform

After reading Terry Moe’s article “Thriving on Failure” (July/August) on the problem of school reform, I think it is fair to say the way he sees the problem is the problem. He doesn’t see it holistically; he doesn’t see the big picture. [He] isolates one part from the whole, one cause from multiple causes. Causes in such a big issue as education are multiple, complex and connected. To ignore this complex connectedness, in my opinion, is not helpful.

For example, Moe sees the cause of low student test scores as “mediocre teachers.” He says teachers don’t have incentives (more money) to do better. And teachers’ unions “do not want anyone to lose a job merely because they are no good at teaching.” Besides being insulting, those beliefs are seeing only one part of the whole.

Research has frequently reported that high student test scores are overwhelmingly correlated with affluent, well-educated parents who speak English. Low test scores are associated with students living in poverty, and for whom English is a second language. Recently the median API test score for all California students was 709. For socioeconomically disadvantaged students it was 641; for English learners 631; for students with disabilities 508.

Gerald Bracey, in his article, points out that most schools have 37 of these subgroups—ethnic groups, special education students, English learners, etc. The student population of classrooms in today’s schools is made up of a multifaceted, multiethnic, multidimensional complex whole. One cause does not fit all.

My point is not that all teachers are superior or that teachers’ unions are always helpful in reform efforts. My point is there are many additional (and maybe more potent) causes of low student test scores. Each child’s capability to learn is dependent on many factors, not only the quality of teaching. Unfortunately, the NCLB legislation, like Terry Moe, sees only one cause.

It is important to add that the exclusive focus on test scores to evaluate schools is another example of not seeing the whole picture. Americans are being told that high test scores equal good education. Surely the learning that takes place in public schools should be more than that. Yet, if we are not careful, we will treasure what we measure.

H. B. Gelatt, MA ’51, EdD ’64
Mountain View, California

The article “Put to the Test” is odd: it is found in the middle of the “Kids Today” section and it’s not about kids at all. In it two experts each have something to say about education.

Professor Moe writes about “motivating employees” of school systems, and “accountability, choice and traditional schooling,” and he trashes teachers’ unions. Dr. Bracey points out that “multiple choice tests taken by 13-year-olds don’t count for very much in the long run,” and trashes the No Child Left Behind Act —“NCLB is to education as Katrina was to New Orleans.” Neither says much about kids today, or even kids in schools.

It seems to me that one could avoid much of this debate about the state of
U.S. public schools if teachers and their schools followed Coach John McPhee’s “principles” of coaching outlined in “Good Sports,” in teaching. These principles should be fundamental for the classroom behavior of teachers.

The purpose of education, as conducted in public schools, should be to learn to love learning, to teach kids to enjoy the search for knowledge and to want more
of it when they think they’ve found it. Most of Coach McPhee’s admonitions are about how coaches/teachers can keep kids “in the game;” by putting them in the game, by listening to them, by showing them respect.

Ideas like these worked well for me in my 30 years of teaching undergraduate
and graduate students at the University of Alberta. Of course, there’s always that final exam or term paper. The good teacher gets his students “into the game,” and, respectfully, tries to evade the “Will this be on the final exam?” sorts of questions. Many of your students learn to love the stuff they’re doing, and it becomes a joy to come to class for both of you. You are a motivated employee and your students don’t have to worry about multiple-choice tests determining their future.

A. D. Fisher, ’58, MA ’59, PhD ’66
Cobble Hill, British Columbia

Terry Moe makes an assumption that schools are the problem in education. Teacher training and school improvements have increased geometrically. Look to the areas outside the actual building—look to where the kids are emerging from, the culture as a whole. This is not a popular place to look, because it is so much more difficult to change. But it is the answer to the “problem.”

Thomas Shade
Dubois, Pennsylvania

It’s always reassuring to have Gerald Bracey as a voice of reason in a cacophony of data heads who bend data like Beckham to fit their narrow agendas. However, I wish you would counterpoint with someone who is a little more up to the task than Terry Moe. The old union-bashing argument is laughable, particularly in the South. Instead of bashing teachers and principals, maybe we should take a closer look at those responsible for providing the resources and spending all that extra money Moe writes about.

This blame game we keep hearing from conservatives like Moe provides credibility to Bracey’s argument that the progenitors of NCLB want to see failure. A Nation at Risk did not begin the reform era. It simply forced the education establishment to circle the wagons and ignore the students we are supposed to be serving.

Paul Bonner
Charlotte, North Carolina

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.

RETURN TO TOP