Kids Today
“Growing Concerns” (July/August)
begins with a quote from my book The Rise
and Fall of Childhood, which originated in
lectures I gave in a course on the history of
childhood at Stanford in 1970. A student who took
the course 36 years ago spotted it and alerted
me!
C. John Sommerville
Gainesville, Florida
The scope of your professors disappointed me—they
are scientists, educators, lawyers. Missing are
poets and philosophers, among whom I include creative
writers. The attitude of the article is that science
has most of the answers to childhood “malnourishment”
[from lack of] the instilled humanity that distinguishes
child from adult, me from we, sharing and caring
from self-indulgence, and identity from lostness.
I write with two credentials. I was a child,
and I now have the maturity of years for perspectives
and years in the classroom as a student and teacher
of middle and high school kids. My references
[are] largely to boys.
Childhood play contains life’s lessons.
They become “poisonous” when
adults instill into the child the fear to explore,
experiment, try the impossible and, yes, be different.
That transfer of fear is an adult invention of
control and selfish protection of one’s
progeny.
A boy wants almost desperately to learn ‘I
am a man.’ Manhood is nurtured by risk-taking,
responsibilities, self-identity—so very
important [but] curbed by peer-conformity. He
wants to feel that he can wield the sword, ride
a horse without help, make a winning derby car,
swim the Hellespont unaided. He will contrive
dangerous enterprises. That is the way he is wired.
Leave him alone. You gotta take the chance. A
friend and I once rode our bikes around on a barn
roof to see how close we could come to the edges.
We shared the experience, and was it fun!
The feminization of male childrearing teaches
selfish care, safety, withdrawal, [and that] receptivity
is better than aggression, which he will need
later in life. Give him Prozac. Change him into
a little girl. Fools! He rebels with his own brand
of violence. The father should lead in rearing
his boy. If he has no father, he will invent or
find a hero . . . maybe in a gang. Boxing was
taught at UCLA before WWII. Gone. Too violent.
We had boxing matches in our neighborhood, and
tin-can street hockey with sticks. Have you seen
the “destroyers” on TV lately? As
in video games—destroyers without rules.
One professor prevaricated by suggesting moral
absolutes are taught—or lest us say, understood—in
the church by a minister. Ridiculous! Maiming
an animal, maiming a human is immoral. Cheating
on school tests is unethical. Those values of
right and wrong are not variable. Some things—not
just sexual misconduct—are fundamentally
right and some are fundamentally wrong. Political
correctness is the attempt to obscure the distinctions
and agree with the herd mind.
A kid comes to school with a set of attitudes,
learned from parents, television and peers in
the neighborhood. He either wants to learn, or
he doesn’t give a damn—it’s
all irrelevant and boring to him. A child comes
to school a wired pragmatist. His experiences
are empirical. If it works, okay; if not, forget
it. It sucks.
He is not learning-oriented if Dad reads Playboy
or comes home when he is in bed or he watches
television 40 hours a week, and Mom has her “meetings”
and the only book in the house is the phone book.
What inspiration is there for him? He will defy
the teacher to teach him, and if he learns little,
let the politicians throw more money at the teacher.
That scenario is stupidity in the round!
A kid joins a gang to gain an identity. He misbehaves
in class to create a reputation, a conscious process.
He can strive to gain a reputation as a good speller,
a good athlete, a smooth guy with the chicks,
a tough nut (don’t mess with me) or—some
passions are borne all though school in secret—to
write, to succeed in law like Dad, to become a
brain surgeon starting with the family cat. Nurture
those secret desires. That’s good parenting.
Above all, be good role models. If you read racy
mags, don’t expect your boy to find joy
in Greek mythology. That home environment is a
major cause of
“drifting.”
Kids are selfish by nature, sharers by experience.
Kids are experimental and often will explore naturally.
(Sex and drugs are unnatural venues.) I am for
more and more field trips. Visit a press room,
an operating amphitheatre, a legislature in session,
a candy manufacturer, a bottling plant, an auto
plant, a Buddhist temple. Take them to see a play.
Integrate them with outer society. They yearn
for that inclusion and they resent exclusion.
Show them they count, they have value and the
payoff to sharing is ultimate achievement. For
as the kid takes true risks and relishes achievement,
boredom will dissipate. He will find exploration
exciting.
Charles E. Miller, ’47
Tujunga, California
School reform
Your introduction to the debate about the state
of U.S. public schools referred to the perspective
of two experts, but only one was evident to me
(“Put to the Test,” July/August).
Terry Moe devoted all of his statement to a tirade
against public school teachers and their unions.
Whatever their faults, I can’t believe the
teachers are that inept and uncaring. Moe offered
no evidence to convince me otherwise. Both writers
note the political dimensions, but Moe seemed
almost paranoid about conspiracies.
The public school question has been a difficult
one for me, but Gerald Bracey’s arguments,
and an article by Charles Murray in the Wall
Street Journal of July 25, 2006, helped convince
me that the No Child Left Behind Act was a mistake
and its implementation is counterproductive. The
schools are only partly to blame for our education
problems.
Allan D. Halderman, ’67
Portland, Oregon
I am starting to understand why public education
in the United States is in such a tailspin. Here
are two highly esteemed experts on the subject,
who have put together eloquent essays, but which
lack any tangible solutions to the problems. Moe’s
solutions are quite theoretical, and Bracey seems
to believe things are actually acceptable.
Management education in the United States is
undergoing a transformation as individuals from
the private sector are making much more of an
impact than are the theorists who have typically
educated Corporate America. Maybe K-12 education
also needs such an influx of nonacademics to cut
through the unacceptable status quo and get some
realistic proposals on the table to move forward.
As for the two experts from the field who lack
the ability to look the problem in the face and
propose practical solutions—Grade: F!
Scott Saslow
Palo Alto, California
I loved the article. It was wonderful how both
perspectives were placed side by side. Terry Moe’s
article appeared to simply reiterate John Stossel’s
poorly researched television documentary on education.
And as much as I would like to agree with Moe’s
contention that paying teachers according to test
scores would better education, I have to disagree.
My daughter’s English teacher graduated
from Princeton and could have had a multitude
of jobs but chose instead to work at an inner-city
high school. A business associate of my husband’s
was lamenting that he spent a bundle on a Stanford
education only to have his daughter become a teacher.
It is obvious that these people are not drawn
to the profession by money—they want to
change the world and they understand that teaching
isn’t a “job,” it is a vocation.
If pay were solely attached to scores, what teacher
would want to teach at a lower socioeconomic level
inner-city school with a large population of immigrants?
Statistics have proven that the odds are against
achievement under these conditions so why would
one want to commit career suicide?
Gerald Bracey, on the other hand, gave a refreshing,
statistically based, data-supported argument that
tells just how competitive the American education
system really is. My daughter visited the schools
in China to find out that not all children are
given the opportunity to learn how to read and
write. My friend went to Japan to study their
education system. When she asked, “What
happens to the children who don’t learn
how to read?” The reply was, “We don’t
have any [special education programs]. Those children
are retarded.” One can imagine how shockingly
politically incorrect those words would be if
uttered in the American school system.
Japan’s intention in importing American
teachers is to understand how to become more innovative.
We, on the other hand, want to become better at
taking tests. The American education system is
beautiful due to the American ideal that all men
are created equal and therefore all should be
given an opportunity to learn regardless of their
limitations, socioeconomic conditions or country
of origin. We must consider all aspects of the
problem and take pride in what we do well. Isn’t
imitation the sincerest form of flattery? If we
want to improve education, we all have to take
part in educating our young and taking ownership
and action in what we can do to enhance our children’s
lives.
Again, thank you for a rare nonbiased article
that showed perpendicular rather than parallel
perspectives on education.
Maria Dong
Glendale, Arizona
The Singaporean father who sent his son to a
private, American-style school answered the question
posed by Gerald Bracey’s column, “Believing
the Worst.”
Public schools force children into cookie-cutter
curriculums designed around political expediency
rather than relevance or effectiveness. Ask any
12th grader how many dozen times they “learned”
about U.S. history through dozens of shallow and
irrelevant survey classes.
The constant pressure on students to go to college
marginalizes students with other plans as well.
I can recall a classmate (who currently owns a
successful auto body business) being looked down
upon because he had no interest in attending college.
Pressure and snobbery fall upon teachers as well.
Great teachers who inspire their students often
find themselves at odds with their peers or with
administrators who are more interested in standardization
than education.
For education in America to be successful, it
needs to reflect the freedom and openness that
has made America a great place. Race and income
have nothing to with creativity—give kids
a safe environment to create in and let them grow.
Take the institutionalism out of the schools and
you’ll erase the stigma of failure.
Bernard Duffy
Albany, New York
I would modify Gerald Bracey’s characterization
of American attitudes towards education from “The
Neurotic Need to Believe the Worst,” to
“The Neurotic Need to Expect the Best.”
Americans want their children to be the best and
brightest, but the United States is polarized
between those who oversimplify the challenges
to quality education in public schools and those
who depict the challenges as insurmountable. Serious,
lasting educational reform in our country depends
on finding the systems that consistently help
students reach high levels of achievement and
replicating them throughout the country.
Masud S. Shamsid-Deen, ’01
Dallas, Texas
Good Coaches
STANFORD was delivered by mistake to my house
(20th Street instead of 19th Street), and I could
not have been happier. To a Creighton University
’87 alum who grew up in Iowa and Nebraska
but has lived in the Bay Area since ’91
and has a soft spot for the Farm, much of [the
July/August] magazine was a wealth of pleasurable
reading. (I will make sure the addressee gets
his magazine, but thank you, USPS, for letting
me see such a great magazine.)
An Iowan, Bob Bowlsby, will be missed by my Hawkeyes,
but you all are very fortunate to have him (“Stanford
Welcomes New AD,” Farm Report).
The article on John McPhee (“Good Sports”)
brought back the fondest memories of my deceased
father. My dad, a high school dropout, raised
five kids in Iowa. We all played in multiple sports,
he coached countless teams and kids for years.
In line in with what Mr. McPhee espouses, my dad
said, “everybody plays, everybody wins.”
Those words I will always live by. Thank you,
Mr. McPhee, for carrying on what I thought was
a lost way of living.
My best to all of you on the Farm and I’ll
see you soon again for more women’s volleyball
matches (please play Nebraska), more men’s
soccer matches (Bret Simon left my Bluejays to
coach your Cardinal) and for any number of women’s
basketball and other sporting events (as well
as academic talks by the likes of Cornell West).
Mark J. Murphy
San Francisco, California
Brian Doyle’s writing was great, and I was
intrigued by McPhee’s background and his
five points for good coaches to keep in mind.
In fact, I plan to write a column on the importance
of youth sports for all kids. I write a regular
column, “Heaven Help Us,” for two
local newspapers and have a new book just released,
Loving Firmness: Successfully Raising Teenagers
Without Losing Your Mind.
Corrie Lynne Player, ’64, MA ’65
Cedar City, Utah
Labors of Love
Thank you so much for “All My Children,”
by Christine Foster (July/August), distinguishing
the everyday commitment that Barbara Shipley,
’70, has made to the children of her community.
So many Stanford graduates are featured in public
media for their magnificent, significant or far-reaching
accomplishments that I suspect sometimes the rest
of us who graduated with them wonder about our
ordinariness.
Having come to Idaho in the ’70s to provide
subspecialty medical care (pediatric oncology)
in a previously underserved area, I would not
have been able to practice had it not been for
a few very dedicated childcare providers who were
certainly educated and talented enough to do other
things, but instead remained true to their own
personal passion: being there for the children
and genuinely caring. Several of them were with
us at the wedding of our daughter, Sarah, ’98,
and continue their relationship with our family
long after our children have grown up.
From another perspective, working day after day
in the clinic and hospital, achieving no measurable
accomplishment yet living in the deep satisfaction
of my true calling, and then downshifting after
20 years of medical practice to a small private
counseling service which is equally, indescribably
gratifying, I celebrate the ordinary. For all
of us who follow our true path, as best we can
know it, and end up doing nothing of particular
consequence despite our advanced degrees, this
article was sweet acknowledgement. Thank you..
Bonita “Bonnie” Klahn Vestal,
’67
Boise, Idaho
Ill Wind
Flipping through the July/August issue, I noticed
a picture regarding a recent protest of more than
1,000 people who blocked access routes to the
Hoover Institution and caused President George
W. Bush to change his campus itinerary and meet
the honorable members of the Hoover Institution
elsewhere (“Presidential Protest,”
Farm Report). Is it no longer true that people
are entitled to have a variety of views—social,
political, theological and philosophical—on
the Stanford campus?
When did Stanford students stop applying the
motto “The Wind of Freedom Blows”
to others? Has the Fundamental Standard, established
in 1896, been revoked? President John Hennessy
cited something from that Standard in describing
the secret of the success of Stanford in the arena
of sports when he introduced the new athletic
director, Bob Bowlsby.
Are Stanford students no longer expected to adhere
to that Standard and show a respect for order,
morality, personal honor and the rights of others
as demanded of good citizens? Or does it just
apply to student-athletes? Am I missing something
here or am I simply having a “senior moment?”
Harlan L. Limmer, ’60
Greenfield, Wisconsin
Annamaria Napolitano
I missed the original article about Italian senior
lecturer Annamaria Napolitano’s death, and
so I was grateful to read Alexander Urciuoli’s
beautiful letter remembering her (“Finding
Italy,” July/August).
During my four years at Stanford, I took at least
one Italian class every quarter (except when I
took two quarters off to go to an art school in
Florence). My classes with Annamaria were definitely
some of my favorites, and like Urciuoli, I have
many wonderful memories of her. Most of all, I
recall her feisty spirit, which was mirrored by
her amazing wardrobe—leopard-print miniskirts,
golden slinky tops, high-heeled shoes, and bleached-blond
hair. A wonderful image to behold! I particularly
recall her, in such an outfit, teaching us to
pronounce the exclamation “super!”
with proper Italian pronunciation— “zoo-pear!”
One of the things that I hold most dear from
my time at Stanford is that I arrived with a desire
to learn Italian, and I left four years later
as a nearly fluent speaker. It has been a few
years, but I can still hold a friendly and functional
conversation; Annamaria is one of the teachers
to whom I am most grateful for that. She really
was super.
Amey Mathews, ’95
Santa Cruz, California
I am writing in response to the sad passing of a
wonderful person, Annamaria De Nicolais Napolitano.
I hope that everyone in the Stanford community realizes
how passionate she was about her profession and
how devoted she was to her students.
During my undergraduate experience at Stanford,
I was fortunate to be under her tutelage for Italian
language and for a sophomore seminar. Upon applying
to study abroad through Stanford’s Florence
program, I was initially placed about 18th (and
last) on the wait list, the first time ever that
this program even had a wait list. Realizing the
small chance that I had of moving up, I applied
to two universities with distinguished study-abroad
programs: NYU and Syracuse University. I asked
Ms. Napolitano if she could write two letters
of recommendation, and without hesitation but
with much enthusiasm, she agreed.
Soon after, I received acceptance letters from
both programs. However, the cost of one semester
at each school was far greater than the cost of
one quarter at Stanford. Unfortunately, I was
unable to afford the tuition because most of my
tuition at the Farm was covered by financial aid.
Upon notifying both universities of my sorrowful
[decision to] decline their invitations, one of
the schools told me that they would call me back
in a couple of days.
I cannot fathom what Ms. Napolitano must have
said in her letters about me, [but] a top administrator
from that school gave me a call two days later
and offered me a very sizeable grant. To this
day, I remember the act of kindness Ms. Napolitano
did for me. I learned that she cared about every
student who passed through her doors, and my stay
at Stanford was filled with many pleasant memories
Michael Valente, ’00
San Francisco, California
Keeping the Faith
As a Stanford alumnus always proud of our motto
“Die Luft der Freiheit weht,” I was
appalled by the lugubrious tone of the recent
article on religious beliefs and strategies at
the Farm (“Soul Support,” May/June).
While all ideas are obviously welcome at a university
and open for candid discussion, this does not
mean that all idiosyncrasies must be forced to
share equal status with well-ingrained values
[that] have existed for thousands of years.
The writer of this egregious leveling would apparently
equate the Bible, the Torah and the Koran with
the adolescent assertions of something termed
“queer spirituality.” Placing all
assertions of human conduct on the same level
as established cultural norms inflicts an insidious
diminution of any comparative thought or profound
scholarship. The article in question was by no
means an objective comparison, but merely a mantra
of the forced equality of the ridiculous with
the profound.
These exhibitions of undergraduate fads constitute
an affront to the social order because they do
not fairly challenge established norms in fair
public debate, but naively insist upon instant
acceptance and indeed even financial stipends
for their unsophisticated relativity. Let them
espouse their “causes” in a public
forum as is routinely done at Oxford University,
rather than hiding behind the skirts of benevolent
deans rewarding them with financial “scholarships”
for crass, obnoxious and academically empty fads.
Perhaps these militant, self-conscious individuals
should peruse Kant’s Critique of Pure
Reason, and at least be apprised of the ultimate
dangers of total relativism. Nietzsche obviously
learned that lesson too late. Law without liberty
is totalitarian, but liberty without law is anarchistic.
Law in turn depends upon the efficacy of social
values. We are apparently morphing into a society
devoid of values, and this journalistic variety
of relativistic extremism in morality and ethics
seems a tentative further step into moral chaos,
and not a legitimate investigation to be countenanced
by a great university.
Kurt von S. Kynell, ’52, MA ’53
Marquette, Michigan
Thank you for the excellent treatment on the
growing spiritual search that characterizes many
Stanford students and their peers around the country.
As a former member of the Stanford Baha’i
Association and current volunteer member of the
University Religious Council at UC-Santa Cruz,
I have watched with concern as our strongly secular
system of higher education has given little room
for students to ground and guide their career
and life choices with the ethical and moral structure
that will give those choices meaning and purpose
throughout the changes and challenges of life
after Stanford. The new multifaith center planned
to open next year will go a long way towards bridging
that gap between mind and spirit.
While comprehensive, the article did not mention
the historic ties between Stanford and the local
and international Baha’i community. On October
8, 1912, at the invitation of Stanford President
David Starr Jordan, Abdu’l Baha, the son
of Baha’u’llah, prophet-founder of
the Baha’i faith, delivered a stirring talk
in Memorial Church on the role of the university
in world peace. In that talk he stated:
“Fifty years ago Baha’u’llah
declared the necessity of peace among the nations
and the reality of reconciliation between the
religions of the world. He announced that the
fundamental basis of all religion is one, that
the essence of religion is human fellowship and
that the differences in belief that exist are
due to dogmatic interpretation and blind imitations
which are at variance with the foundations established
by the Prophets of God. He proclaimed that if
the reality underlying religious teaching be investigated
all religions would be unified, and the purpose
of God, which is love and the blending of human
hearts, would be accomplished.”
With that challenging statement as its guide,
the Stanford Baha’i Association continues
today to reach out to students of all backgrounds
and beliefs to promote understanding and a vigorous
sharing of views on the role of religion in our
rapidly changing world. The Baha’i Association
has been for years a leader in the interfaith
dialogue movement and is a ready partner to any
student group or individual who would like to
have genuine exchanges on the relationship of
spiritual principle to academic life. I am sure
that your article will give a much-needed impetus
to that dialogue.
Robert T. Phillips, MA ’68
Tumacacori, Arizona
The more things change, the more things stay
the same. At first glance, your May/June cover
conjures up images of a vast movement toward spirituality
on the Stanford campus. An examination of the
vignettes, however, makes it clear a personal
relationship with a Supreme Other is still an
isolated and singular experience.
Fifty years ago, Dr. Smith, who taught my course
in aesthetics, led a weekend event with the enticing
title “Religion in the Student Community.”
A bare handful of students in the community signed
up. During the day, as we attempted to discover
some commonality among our motley crew, we didn’t
broach the subject, but that night, around a pleasant
fire, Dr. Smith asked if we believed in an afterlife
and if so, how we envisioned it.
After a long silence, realizing that someone
had to begin, I naively blathered out my belief.
My sharing was followed by an even more profound
silence, broken only by the crackling of the wood
as the fire burned. Finally, out of the darkness
came the cry, “God . . . if only I believed
that!”
It was my first awareness that faith is not a
given but a Gift!
Laurie Hale Feeney, ’56
Washington, D.C.
Things have improved; I remember attending a
dorm Bible study in 1978 and having others counsel
me about hanging out with those losers. I wonder
now if those dorm mates were prescient. Since
graduation my trajectory has lowered.
I traded achievement for transcendence. I have
given up on greatness and now strive merely to
be good.
Stanford is a secular institution. It celebrates
the achievements of human potential and the triumphs
of rational thought. It is a place for rigorous
argument and standards of evidence. The Bible
says, “Faith is the assurance of things
hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Now that’s fuzzy logic.
Keep up the good work!
Molly Durfee Hackett, ’81
Kent, Washington
Thank you for the article; maybe it will contribute
to more enlightenment among all peoples on campus.
It seemed balanced to me. I guess religious students
sometimes feeling a bit out of place among peers
is nothing new, but it’s too bad among such
a diverse population and so many smart people. I
hope it’s a small thing no different from
what can be felt at some organizations where we
work.
I may have read it wrong, but it seemed like
the new religious center is off base. Why make
the decor so generic that people have to bring
in their own symbols and décor? Rather
than argue about whose religion is the truest,
we should foster education and mingling. Have
a few symbols of the major religions always on
display with a brief explanation of what they
stand for. This could be a reminder that religious
wars should have no basis in their beliefs.
Bob Ingols, MS ’78
Tahoe City, California
We have one daughter who graduated from Stanford
and another who currently attends Colorado College.
This past spring we received issues of the Stanford
and CC magazines, both of which had articles about
faith/spirituality on campus. Quite a coincidence.
Both articles covered a broad spectrum of religious
beliefs on campus and both put forth the message
that there was room for all beliefs on their campus.
What struck us, as a family, about both pieces,
however, was that [neither] gave any coverage
whatsoever to students who may be atheists. It
was as if there were none on either campus.
This created the implicit message that while
diversity of religious beliefs was a good thing,
one had to have some religious/spiritual life.
It seemed unacceptable—or at least not discussable—to
have no such belief.
It has been posited that atheism is considered
close to treason in some American quarters. I
would suggest that one of the bridges to be built
is between those of religious belief and those
who are atheists or secularists, especially since
a significant percentage of students and faculty
on both campuses probably are in that second group.
Simply including interviews with students who
are atheists in each publication would have carried
the message that theirs is a view to be respected,
too.
Karen Bradley
New York, New York
Frisbee Fan
I enjoyed reading Karen Telleen-Lawton’s article
about the Ultimate team invading her home (“The
Ultimate Sleepover,” End Note, May/June).
I have fond memories of playing Ultimate at Stanford
between 1989 and 1993. At that time, the women's
team was fledgling, and I remember going to one
of those Santa Barbara tournaments not with 30 players,
but with eight. (And with seven people playing at
a time, that meant a lot of running and very little
rest!) By the end of the season, I had to be strong-armed
into being the captain in my sophomore year, because
if I didn’t, no one else would, and the team
might not exist. I remember plastering fliers around
campus with my co-captain during Freshman Orientation
the next fall, desperately hoping at least a few
people would come join us for some fun at Roble
Field. Today, the women’s Ultimate team has
an incredible history of national championships
and nationally recognized players. I feel very proud
that I am part of that legacy. (And I still have
a mean forehand!) Long live Stanford women’s
Ultimate!
Diane Barram Westgate, ’93
Mountain View, California
Policy Changes
As a Stanford PhD who had her first baby during
graduate school, I am thrilled that Stanford is
taking the lead in accommodating women who wish
to do the same (“For Grad Students, A Childbirth
Policy,” Farm Report, March/April). I was
able to manage motherhood and academics because
of good timing (my daughter was born at the beginning
of the summer, after I’d finished most of
my coursework and before the full press of my
dissertation research) and because of the easy
availability of on-campus childcare with Escondido
Village mothers. I have always felt lucky to have
started my family when I did, especially as, over
the years, I have seen a steady parade of friends
grapple with infertility after delaying childbirth
until after their professional training and their
first years in the workforce. There’s never
a convenient time to have a baby, but, all things
being equal, the sooner the better!
Society as a whole will benefit from policies,
such as yours, that support childbearing by intelligent,
educated women and their partners.
Judy Hochberg, MA ’85, PhD ’86
Scarsdale, New York
I must thank you for printing the letter from
Eugenia Nomikos in your July/August issue, and
by way of your office, I thank Ms. Nomikos for
sharing her experience (“Maternity Policy”).
From time to time, I am struck by instances of
breathtakingly stupid discriminatory strictures
of the past that, on the one hand, reassure me
today of how far we have progressed and, on the
other hand, rile me up about just how far we have
yet to go. I can fully understand Ms. Nomikos’s
continuing resentment of her treatment.
I am a proudly open gay male living with my partner
of 11 years in Colorado Springs, Colo. This is
my home, and I will not be driven from this city
by the forces of the intolerant who seek to marginalize
and demoralize my partner, our friends and me;
nor will I be silenced. But my spirits certainly
flag in the face of the constant and sometimes
overwhelming pressure. I take pride in saying,
“Tolerant views may never predominate here,
but such views will never be unspoken.”
Hearing personal stories in the history of unjustifiable
discrimination is heartening. Many thanks; you
have made it easier to face this fall’s
local elections!
John Birkhead, MA ’86, PhD ’94
Colorado Springs, Colorado
