|
In Praise of Walk-ons
Kelli Anderson’s article was a wonderful review of the impact of true walk-on athletes in marquee sports at Stanford (“The Underdogs,” November/December). However, I wish that she had told a story or two about the men’s and women’s crew teams, where walk-ons not only toil at the fringes but also make up an essential part of the team at the highest levels of competition. As rowing is a sport outside the lens of modern media and national consciousness, these teams often can count their scholarships on one hand (sometimes on one finger). Nevertheless, they have been increasingly successful in the
past decade, earning medals in their Pac-10 and national championship regattas. Stanford does well to compete at such a high level while boasting a roster comprised half or more of walk-ons, including athletes who never participated in the sport prior to Stanford. These teams deserve an article of their own, or at least a respectful mention.
Eric Adamson, ’06, MS ’07
Saratoga, California
As the father of two Stanford student-athletes (both walk-ons), I think Kelli Anderson gave the readers great insight into the time and effort these athletes invest in their sport and on behalf of their respective teams. If you could share my thoughts with parents and possible future walk-ons at Stanford, I would say, “If you love the sport, give it a try. You never know when you will make it to the big time, you will make wonderful friendships, and you will never [have to ask] if you could have made it in Division I.”
Thank you for the great insights. For the record, son Curtis played volleyball for three years before retiring as a jock, and son Taylor has just completed his fifth season as a major league soccer player. Yes, it can be done.
Randy Graham, ’68
Carmichael, California
Other Voices, Other Worlds
Scott Shackelford’s piece about Andrei Linde is interesting for both its content and omissions (“Worlds Without End,” November/December). Science proceeds by avoiding omissions. A good scientist develops and studies as many facts as possible before theorizing on how something works.
Shackelford and Linde both mislead readers into thinking “inflation now has experimental verification” via a quote from Alan Guth, interpreting the WMAP cosmic microwave background data. This, Linde knows, and Shackelford should have determined if he’s really to be respected as a science writer, is false. What can be said is that WMAP results are consistent with theories that propose a way for the universe to appear very smooth at very early times, such as before 1 second in our current 14-billion-year history.
It’s indeed remarkable that we can theorize logically, and predict accurately, all the way down to the first second in the 14- billion-year sequence of events in our
universe. It’s not true that “inflation theory” is the way that the universe became very smooth in energy and mass distribution in much less than that first second. It may have been the way, it may not.
There are alternatives, which Linde knows. One seems even more reasonable than postulating another special expansion force to make “inflation” work. It is a “cyclic” theory of cosmological history. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, well-known physicists, have even written a short book for laymen, called Endless Universe. Linde certainly knows of this, and the question is why Shackelford wasn’t given, or didn’t ask for, information on theories other than Linde’s.
Whatever theory turns out to be more correct, Linde well knows that having need of a unique point of creation, as the Big Bang and inflationary models suppose, is asking a lot from our common sense. Raising a theory, like the cyclic one, which avoids such strained conditions, seems more attuned to how nature works in all the other observations we’ve assembled over the centuries.
In any case, there are three issues of responsibility raised by your printing of this piece: a) why was Linde not straightforward in describing competing ideas, as a true scientist would; b) why did Shackelford not query about alternatives; and c) why did STANFORD pick a “second year . . . law student” and “PhD candidate in international relations” to write about something so physically intense and cosmologically esoteric—were no physics writers available?
As a scientist and engineer, I’m disappointed in Linde. As a Stanford grad, I’m disappointed in your editorial staff. For Shackelford, this could be a good example of why the law requires that testimony only be given after promising to tell “the whole truth.”
Alex Cannara, Engr. ’66, MS ’74, PhD ’76
Menlo Park, California
As an undergraduate physics major at Stanford in 1974, I had the unique pleasure of taking a special graduate seminar by Professor H. Pierre Noyes of SLAC on the foundations of physics. I recall one
of the more fascinating topics [he] discussed was the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was first introduced and published by H. Everett in Reviews of Modern Physics (29, 454-482) in 1957. This was the seminal idea that the known universe (i.e., current and previous reality) is constantly branching and spawning off new universes, much like a tree diagram, that started an entirely new research direction with broad philosophical implications in both quantum and cosmological physics. In particular, this idea provided a common general framework for both opposing concepts of probability at the quantum level (i.e., random occurrence in nature) and classical determinism. Like most paradigm shifts in physics, it has taken a number of decades and intense investigation for researchers to work out the details of this theory. I would hope that Scott Shackelford acknowledges Everett’s work as being seminal. I’m also sure that Professor Linde is well aware of Everett’s contributions to the “multiverse” concept.
Daryl D. DiBitonto, PhD ’74
Reno, Nevada
Running Races
I admire Will Laughlin’s dedication and determination in his long-distance running pursuits (“Long Distance Calling,” November/December). I am curious as to why the article did not name Racing the Planet as the organizers of the 250-kilometer events across the major deserts of the world. Will participated in their Sahara Race and Gobi Desert March. They also have events in Chile’s Atacama and the Antarctic, and there will be a new nondesert run in northern Vietnam in February 2008.
I am a proud and active onsite volunteer at the events, and these enviable athletes would not have these experiences without the leadership of Mary Gadams, the founder of Racing the Planet, and her loyal and hardworking staff. You can follow the participants at www.racingtheplanet.com.
Jane Fraser Fontius, ’64, MA ’65
Encinitas, California
Provocative Publishing
I am writing to express my disappointment with “Publishing to Provoke” (Showcase, November/December). It details the efforts of World Ahead Media, a conservative publishing house run by Eric Jackson, ’98, and Norman Book, ’91. The premise of Jackson and Book—that there are not enough conservative viewpoints in print—is an obvious distortion. Given that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and many other conservative pundits are bestselling authors, how can they possibly maintain that only liberal views are published? Exactly what void in the conservative publishing industry are they trying to fill? Their claim is false on its face and the article’s failure to push them on it is inexcusable. Passively reporting their claim that present views on global warming are due to liberal distortion (with the implicit corollary that their prevalence is not due to scientific consensus) is especially egregious. STANFORD should avoid politically tinged issues unless it is prepared to report on them responsibly.
Matthew Smith, ’06
Chicago, Illinois
Dubai and Sustainability
As I read about the development of an enormous water park in Dubai, I was stunned that among the list of challenges there was no mention of where the water supply would come from (“Just Add Water,” On the Job, November/December). It seems irrational to develop a water park and luxury offices and hotels in a country where annual rainfall is 11 cm. Upon doing my own research, I discovered that most of the fresh water comes from energy-intensive desalination. Given the global stress on our environment and humans due to both scarcity of water and greenhouse gas emissions, it seems irresponsible to write an article that does not acknowledge the strong impacts of this unsustainable development.
Karen Holl, ’89
Ben Lomond, California
Regarding Hoover
I am a bit surprised at the shortsighted campus reaction to the Hoover appointment for Donald Rumsfeld (“Rumsfeld Appointment Meets Opposition,” Farm Report, November/December). After all, for many years Stanford has managed to placate its wealthy conservative alumni (and kept their donations flowing) by offering them a steady diet of traditional patriotism under the auspices of the Hoover Institution programs. It began during the Cold War with supplying a haven to Eastern European scholars seeking a refuge from Soviet communism and has continued in various forms throughout the halcyon Reagan years and beyond. It is hardly shocking that the latest manifestation should feature extending invitations to the neoconservative architects of George W. Bush’s now unpopular military policies; it is simply the logical extension of a long-standing tradition.
More critically, some of these people have really valuable stories to tell. Back in the early ’60s as an undergraduate, I took a number of Hoover Institution courses
from a Yugoslav expatriate who earlier had been an associate of Marshal Tito. He was not only a superb scholar but also had unique firsthand insights into how and why the original idealism of Marxism became twisted into its opposite. Donald Rumsfeld may well be remembered as an arrogant buffoon, but he has been at the nerve
center of critical policy decisions that need to be studied and understood—if only to avoid their repetition. Among its many other roles, the Hoover Institution
provides a safe-haven academic setting
for the debriefing of important conservative politicians.
A further significant Hoover function should also be understood and appreciated by the critics of the Rumsfeld appointment. By concentrating conservative efforts within its confines, the Hoover Institution creates the breathing space necessary for undergraduate liberal arts programs to pursue their academic goals without undue political influence. If Hoover were to disappear, or to be sanitized of its founding right-wing mission, the strong political forces that now find expression through its programs would seek other, less appropriate outlets within the standard academic curriculum.
An explicit conservative political mission has always been at the heart of the Hoover Institution endeavor. The trade-off for this ideological bias has been relative freedom for the mainline liberal arts departments. While one may view this on one level as a cynical accommodation unworthy of a great university, the truth is that this arrangement has served Stanford very well. It would be a mistake to abandon it based on what may prove to be only a temporary shift of the political winds.
Stafford Smith, ’61
Poulsbo, Washington
It is time for Stanford University to dissociate itself from the Hoover Institution.
What started as a noble undertaking to be a library for the Soviet Union archives under President Kerensky has devolved into a sinecure for Republican appointees, and it has become an embarrassment for Stanford.
The first change that should happen is to withdraw the name Stanford from use by the Hoover Institution, other than for postal service and to describe its physical location. The second is to change the name of the physical structure to Hoover Library and to require that all activities of the institution take place completely off campus, making it clear that “visiting scholars” and “fellows” have nothing to do with Stanford University academics. The precedents for this are several, but primarily the transition of Stanford Research Institute, created in 1946, to [independence in 1970 and a name change to] SRI in 1977, due to questions about the too-close relationship.
Michael Chambreau, ’60, MBA ’66
Los Altos, California
I am growing increasingly distressed at apologetically identifying myself as an alumnus of the “old Stanford” (as opposed to the academic idiocy currently promulgated on the Farm). The latest example is the condemnation by Stanford faculty of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s appointment as a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Aside from the fact that this is the Hoover Institution’s board of overseers’ business and not the Stanford faculty’s, the esteemed faculty of the “new Stanford” are confusing their academic work effort with real-world intelligence. It would appear these distinguished educators do not realize it is dedicated men like Donald Rumsfeld whose efforts guarantee the very academic freedom allowing them to make fools of themselves. They are exercising a freedom of speech they would not be afforded in the “perfect society” their intolerant protestations embrace.
Fortunately, my “old Stanford” education taught me to seek out rational truth, ignore the intellectual bigotry of academia and not naively follow the lemmings plunging off the cliff of liberalism.
Richard Griffiths, ’51
Danville, California
In Response to the President
In his column, President Hennessy
defends his decision not to take any action over the Hoover Institution’s appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as a distinguished visiting fellow (“At Stanford, Speak Freely,” President’s Column, November/December). Stanford would, he explains, have been accused of censorship if it had taken any action to stop the appointment. We are gratified that he evokes the values of free and vigorous debate and the need for Stanford, and all universities, to guarantee freedom of speech. But we are truly disappointed by the implication that those who opposed the Rumsfeld appointment were attempting to censor the Hoover Institution and Rumsfeld. While we cannot speak for every one of the nearly 4,000 individuals who signed the letter of protest, we firmly believe that the vast majority of colleagues, students, staff and alumni did not protest Rumsfeld’s presence on campus, but rather the honor bestowed on him with the title “distinguished” visiting fellow. We feel strongly that he does not merit this title and that the Hoover Institution, in awarding him that title unilaterally, has recklessly damaged Stanford’s name.
The bestowal of this title implicitly downplays, if not ignores, Rumsfeld’s actions as secretary of defense. Indeed, such
an honorific title would seem to endorse and reward those actions.
President Hennessy chooses to present only the negative consequences of opposition, and not those of the appointment itself. Certainly, the Hoover Institution has a technical right to appoint whom it pleases; but this right carries a presumption of trust, and it might be argued that this trust has now been violated. It is also regrettable that our objection to an honorific title for Donald Rumsfeld has been presented as an issue of free speech. In fact, many faculty had hoped to engage Rumsfeld in debate—a golden opportunity, we thought. However, the Hoover appointment merely means that he may be visiting campus a few times during the course of a single year, privately in conference at the Hoover Institution. The opportunity for open dialogue and spirited debate will in fact be substantially limited by the very nature of the appointment.
President Hennessy invokes a range of what he considers to be comparable cases: Lawrence Summers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an unnamed law professor. But in all three cases, what opponents find objectionable is a belief (Summers’s beliefs about gender, Ahmadinejad’s beliefs about the Holocaust, the unnamed law professor’s beliefs about the death penalty). In the Rumsfeld case, by contrast, opposition stems not from what Rumsfeld has said but what he has done. (After all, the argument that has been made for appointing Rumsfeld turns on his practical expertise and competence, not on his scholarship.) We opposed the Rumsfeld appointment because of his ineptitude as a practitioner—widely acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats alike—in handling the war on terror. We also opposed the Rumsfeld appointment because of his poor behavior as a practitioner: the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, June 2006) that Donald Rumsfeld and others violated the Geneva Convention. It is this record of action that distinguishes Donald Rumsfeld from Newt Gingrich or John Abizaid, both of whom were appointed to the Hoover Institution without protest.
Stanford faculty and staff signatories:
Joel Beinin, Dorothy Bender, Jonathan Bendor, Steven Block, Stephen Boyd,
Gordon Chang, MA ’72, PhD ’87, David Como, ’92, Todd Davies, ’84, MS ’85, PhD ’95, Sandra Drake, ’66, MA ’73, PhD ’77, Carolyn Duffey, Paul Ehrlich, Russell Fernald, Robert Finn, Charlotte Fonrobert, Deborah Gordon, MS ’77, Roland Greene, Susan Holmes, Paul Kiparsky, Joshua Landy, Pamela Lee, Helen Longino, Andrea Lunsford, Alice Miano, David Palumbo-Liu, Robert Polhemus, Michael Predmore, Rob Reich, MA ’98, PhD ’98, Rush Rehm, PhD ’85, Eric Roberts, Bernard Roth, Jorge Ruffinelli, Robert Sapolsky, Debra Satz, Tom Sheehan, David Spiegel, Charles Stein, Elizabeth Tallent, Tom Wasow, Phil Zimbardo
Stanford just lost my support. The appointment of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a visiting fellow at Hoover is not, as President John Hennessy tries to claim, a question of free speech versus censorship. It is a question of academic and institutional judgment. Through many public information sources, we know enough about how U.S. military policy was shaped with respect to Iraq to know that Rumsfeld demonstrated either gross incompetence or a reckless disregard for both the interests of our nation and the lives of U.S. troops as well as Iraqi civilians. Whatever his earlier contributions through public service, Rumsfeld failed our nation in his recent public role. He does not deserve a privileged opportunity to think, write and advise on important matters of public policy. He should go home and think about what he has done, on his own time.
Bill Stanley, ’81
Albuquerque, New Mexico
President Hennessy’s column was notable for what he didn’t say. He discusses the petition signed by “thousands of students, faculty and alumni” opposing
Secretary Rumsfeld’s appointment to the Hoover Institution, and upholds the
right of people to petition, but he doesn’t say that the petition is an attempt
to stifle freedom of speech. Why not?
He writes that many petitioners argue this is a “question of the academic suitability of the appointment.” But how is Rumsfeld “unsuitable” except that he has expressed opinions the petitioners don’t like?
The Stanford petitioners are clearly exercising freedom of speech, just as UC-Irvine’s did when they protested Lawrence Summers’s speaking invitation. Presumably President Hennessy condemned the UC-Irvine petitioners for their assault on academic freedom. Why didn’t he chastise Stanford’s?
Monty Phister, ’49
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Congratulations to President Hennessy for his brilliant and comprehensive discussion of academic freedom.
Ned Pugh, ’41
Rye, New York
The
following letters did not appear in the print edition
of STANFORD.
Out of This World
After reading the explanation of multiverse theory, it appears to me that there is some inconsistency in its basic assumptions (“Worlds Without End,” November/December). The theory assumes that each parallel universe develops from inflation of a singularity. A singularity supposedly develops in a black hole, which, in turn, develops from the collapse of a star as a result of our law of gravity. Inflation also seems to be based upon and predictable from our laws of physics. It seems strange and inconsistent, therefore, to assume that events arising under our laws will or may result in a different set of laws of physics. The theory also seems to assume that each of the parallel universes exists in the same infinite space-time continuum, but that our universe cannot be in contact with these parallel universes. The question arises as to how the theory can be proven true or false.
The article does not explain how or why each universe is somehow kept separate from all others even though two very similar universes, by random possibility, may develop from singularities that are relatively close to each other. If the parallel universe were exactly the same as ours and were contiguous in space to ours, and in time synchrony with ours, then to an observer it would be simply an extension of our universe and not separate from it.
Our universe is said to be expanding. Presumably, adjacent universes may also be expanding. Can these universes collide or affect us? According to the article, inflationary theory predicted small variations in the intensity of cosmic background radiation. But this does not seem to prove that there are or may be parallel universes.
The fact that our universe developed from a singularity does not prove that there are any singularities outside our universe in the space-time continuum that could be the subject of parallel universes. Nor does it prove that singularities that develop within our universe can serve to create other universes that somehow become separate from ours.
Moreover, the existence of detected cosmic background radiation is said by other physicists to prove that the Big Bang occurred. The variation in its intensity is said to prove that the Big Bang did not result in an even distribution of matter and that this uneven distribution of matter explains how and why gravity formed separate galaxies and structures of matter in our universe.
Finally, chaotic inflation theory, even if it were true, does not eliminate intelligent design and a Creator as a possible explanation for a self-perpetuating random operating system, which yields multiple parallel universes with possibly different laws of physics. Instead of the question what came before and caused the Big Bang and/or inflation, which originated our solitary universe 14 billion years ago, the question becomes: what came before and caused this eternal self-perpetuating system?
Gilbert D. Seton,’46
Beverly Hills, California
Cosmic theorist Andrei Linde missed important breakthroughs that turned some cherished theories into science fiction. Wm. G. Tifft (1976, 1977) found that the Hubble red-shift bears no resemblance to a universal Doppler shift because it is quantized, step-like. This means that the universe is not expanding or inflating and that the Big Bang never happened.
Also Shpenkov and Kreidik (2002) found that the heat source, which sustains the cosmic background radiation at the measured peak blackbody temperature of 2.725±0.002ºK, must be due to radiation from the orbital electron motion of interstellar hydrogen at its fundamental period, which they calculated to be 2.7289ºK. This is another face of the internal heat source, named Nullpunktenergie (Zero Point Energy) by Einstein and Stern, that keeps helium in a liquid condition at an ambient temperature near absolute zero unless a pressure of 25 atmospheres is applied to make the helium freeze solid. This perpetual low-grade heat source was described by Joseph Larmor (1897), who realized that electric charges give off radiation when their direction of acceleration is changed (like cyclotron radiation and synchrotron radiation), so that orbiting electrons must radiate energy indefinitely.
William N. Barbat, ’51, MS ’52
Lake Oswego, Oregon
Twain’s Truths
Shelley Fisher Fishkin’s piece (“Mark Twain’s Inconvenient Truths,” Farm Report, November/December) is a rarity of literary illumination, expressing her well-informed appraisal of Twain’s complex mind and work. As she writes, Huckleberry Finn is like “no other book ever written before . . . about a child who grows up in a world in which no one—including that child—questions the God-given legitimacy of a society in which people who think of themselves as supremely civilized endorse a system that is uncivilized, illegitimate and inhumane.”
With almost unconscious awareness of his humanity, at least at first, Huck expresses his undying allegiance to Jim. From one perspective, the book can be considered a satire, as Fishkin points out, but Twain’s novel is a story of brotherhood and friendship, a story that Twain has Huck tell as no one has told it before or since.
In the upheaval of slavery and inhumanity, Huck and Jim—a white boy and a black man—become friends. As Twain writes in Chapter 31, Huck says, “I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world.” And then Huck tears up the note to Miss Watson that would have revealed Jim’s whereabouts. “All right then, I’ll go to Hell.”
Fishkin’s last paragraph is a gem, a succinct masterpiece of compression and truth. “Just as Huck Finn enters the classroom as a ‘Classic,’ but then engulfs the students in debates about race, racism, religion and hypocrisy, Mark Twain enters the national consciousness as an icon and then upsets our equilibrium and complacency, pushing us to ask questions we hadn’t planned to ask. We need that Twain—the troubling Twain, not the tame one—more than ever.”
Like Twain, Huck isn’t tame. I salute such a writer as Shelley Fisher Fishkin, who so eloquently reminds us about an incomparable book.
Tom Jenkins
Centennial, Colorado
Roundabout Kudos
It was great to see a photo of the new roundabout at Stanford’s “intersection of death” (“Circular Logic,” Farm Report, November/December). However, I was disappointed that the blurb did not mention the history of its implementation. A homemade roundabout structure, complete with statue in the center, was erected in the intersection last November by the LSJUMB trumpz (trumpet section). It lasted more than six months, until the construction of a permanent structure was announced. Campus officials claimed that a roundabout had been in the plans all along . . . coincidence? For once, let’s have positive press for the Band and give credit where it’s due!
Tiffany Lewis, ’02
Woodland, California
Loyalty Oaths
A minor footnote on the splendid Wolfgang Panofsky piece (“Science with a Conscience,” Examined Life, November/December) with respect to the UC loyalty oath controversy which brought Panofsky to Stanford: while it is true that the legislature had acted to impose a special oath (the “Levering Act”), more important was the resolution enacted by the UC Board of Regents on April 21, 1950 (over the strong objection of their presiding officer, Gov. Earl Warren), which went beyond a simple constitutional oath and required as a condition of employment that faculty members sign the following:
“Having taken the constitutional oath required of public officials in the state of California, I hereby formally acknowledge my acceptance of the position and the salary named, and also state that I am not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force and violence, and that I have no commitments in conflict with my responsibilities with respect to impartial scholarship and free pursuit of truth.”
As a young Stanford law graduate I worked for Stanley Weigel, JD ’27, successfully representing UC professors who refused to sign the oath.
Richard E. Tuttle, ’47, JD ’49
Mokelumne Hill, California
Forefathers’ Fun
I’m reading the Century at Stanford (November/December) item under “100 Years Ago” about the freshman versus sophomore clash to see who could capture and tie up the greatest number of opponents. Say what? Would you please give us a full article on this story? So, our forefathers did have a sense of fun. Kinky!
Paul Worrell
La Quinta, California
Speaking Freely
I am speaking here as one of the 195,000 alumni for whom [the president] “certainly [doesn’t] feel able to speak” (“At Stanford, Speak Freely,” President’s Column, November/December). The appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as a distinguished visiting fellow to the Hoover Institution is one that I truly feel is disgraceful.
Since “the University, however, does not oversee such temporary appointments,” it is appropriate to bring to the attention of your readership the artisan of such appointment. The director of the Hoover Institution, John Raisian, has been quoted: “In retrospect I was naive, as I did not imagine the angst that some of you would feel toward this action. But I say to you, I did not intend to offend. I simply wanted to exploit an opportunity to learn from an expert of his personal experiences—current and past—as related to the difficult times we have all endured.”
Raisian has been director of the institution since 1989 and he is still “naive” about the reactions of his actions. Any person with reasonable cynicism (or is that intelligence?) will question this dubious excuse. (I always felt that Donald Rumsfeld himself appeared naive in his press conferences, but most people knew better.) If Raisian is still truly naive, I suggest that he has been in a tower too long and that it is time to release him. In either case, you might agree that it is time to release him of his functions.
It is true that Rumsfeld has “a remarkable record of accomplishments in public service,” as Raisian is quoted as saying, but he forgot the qualifier in front of “accomplishments.” Rumsfeld has a remarkable record, all right—of poor accomplishments in public service, especially in the Bush administration, which, you will agree, he did not leave in the most graceful way. That certainly does not qualify him as distinguished, or “marked by excellence, famous” (Webster’s). In this case, the antonym of distinguished would be more appropriate.
It is true that the Hoover Institution, and by inference Stanford University, has had a very conservative bent. It is probably true of most administrations of corporations because of the stakeholders they have to court. John Raisian saying, “What I can’t discern is to what extent this negative opinion exists throughout the university. If it does, then it’s certainly something to take into account,” displays again his apparent naïveté. There is a negative opinion of him and his appointment, and it extends beyond the University.
Benoit Couet
Belmont, Massachusetts
The controversy over Rumsfeld at the Hoover Institution misses the point (“Rumsfeld Appointment Meets Opposition,” Farm Report, November/December). Every one of the incompetents who mismanaged Iraq—Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bremer, Tenet—has been rewarded with a top job or academic appointment. Is the Hoover a rest home for failures and losers, even arrogant ones?
Thomas Lowry, ’54, MD ’57
Woodbridge, Virginia
It is abhorrent and fiercely ironic that students and faculty who salute the flag of academic freedom now find it in themselves to protest against a great statesman who served our country in a time of war. As Mr. Rumsfeld’s mentor, the great German philosopher Albrecht Heine, once said: “Amerika ist nun erwacht! Die Macht haben wir uns in Amerika errungen.”
David Hahn, PhD ’93
Seattle, Washington
I would like to compliment President Hennessy on his column. I think too often today freedom of speech does not truly exist. True, the statement of an opinion that the majority does not agree with may not generally get you arrested, or worse. However, whereas expressing a “politically correct” opinion will be allowed and encouraged, those expressing less “politically correct” opinions will often be shouted down, if allowed a forum to talk at all. At the workplace, for example, there are many topics (often related to world politics, interpretations of history, etc.) in chatter prior to meetings or at the lunch table, where it is truly only acceptable to state one opinion. “You can’t say that” is the response to tentative discussions about the opposite opinion.
It is not true freedom of speech if the consequences—be they social or [relating to] employment—are positive/neutral if one opinion is expressed and negative if the opposite opinion is expressed. I think true peace in the world can come from empathy to all opinions on a topic. Not that all opinions are equally valid, but all should at least be allowed to be stated, so they can be debated openly and honestly.
Michael Mackaplow, MS ’91, PhD ’96
Chicago, Illinois
President Hennessy’s column shines as a bright spot in what has been otherwise a dark experience for me with the Stanford administration when it comes to freedom of thought. The University cannot ultimately fulfill its role of fostering free thought when it takes positions on divisive political issues instead of providing a neutral forum for all views to be peacefully debated.
In October 2005, the University’s commitment to providing an open forum was tested when military recruiters came to campus. A “student” protest, which included a speech by the [Law School] dean, was organized and held to protest the military “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Several new administrative policies were announced shortly prior to the protest.
Did the University pass the test of providing an open forum when its administration actively joined in a student protest, which the large majority of students already supported? Or did it fail because providing an open forum for all political views requires the administration to stay silent on political issues?
The answer is that if it did not fail because discretion is the better part of valor, then it failed because the protest disrupted classes that were scheduled during the protest. At a university, ideas should always come before action.
Michael F. Martin, ’06
Redwood City, California
President Hennessy confuses the role of the University in open dialogue with free speech, which is a right we should defend for every street corner on or off campus. If Donald Rumsfeld is on campus to engage in the ongoing dialogue about current events, to listen to the perspectives of others, provide insight and thoughtful response, then his engagement is a contribution to the University. If he is sequestered in Hoover Tower to engage in self-serving diatribe, then the University is failing, and the wind is not that of freedom, but patriotism—which “always commemorates a robbery” (Mark Twain, as Shelley Fisher Fishkin points out later in the November/December issue). I hope that a debate with Rumsfeld discussing U.S. military policy is captured online so it can be shared with those of us at a distance—might I suggest Colin Powell as a sparring partner? Perhaps, like the protested Vietnam-era presentation by Dean Rusk, who too many years later confessed the errors of his policies, we may find Donald Rumsfeld acquires similar enlightenment.
Jim Isaak, ’71
Hollis, New Hampshire
It is with great concern that I read about the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld
as a “distinguished visiting fellow” at the Hoover Institution. I fully endorse free speech, and agree that such speech, when at the extremes of any spectrum, is the most difficult to preserve. However, the nonappointment of Rumsfeld would not impinge on his free speech.
The president explains why the University has not called on Hoover to
rescind its invitation: fear of being accused of censorship. I disagree. Lack of “censorship” in this case gives the appearance that Stanford University condones Rumsfeld’s actions in the G. W. Bush administration since the Hoover Institution is part of Stanford. Refusal to rescind this appointment demonstrates that Stanford ignored some of the facts in Rumsfeld’s background that would have proven sufficient for a quick dismissal in any other lesser-known candidate: war crimes complaints, ruling by the Supreme Court of violations of the Geneva Convention, poor handling and mismanagement of the Iraq war, to name just a few.
I am extremely disappointed with my former university for appointing such a
disgraced and disgraceful individual and for ignoring the outpouring of concern from faculty and students who wish their institution of higher learning to set an example in human rights and leadership.
Marie-Christine Zolcinski, MS ’77, ’79, PhD ’81
Belmont, Massachusetts
On the Attack
In the November/December Letters, Griffin Fariello, ’73, draws the analogy between the Israel lobby together with a few of its vocal defenders and the Communist witch hunts of the 1950s (“Perspective, Please”). But where is the comparison? Where today does Fariello see the government itself led by a Senate subcommittee moving from state to state ruining careers and wrecking lives because people criticized the Israel lobby? Where does he see anyone pleading with Congress or any government investigators (as did Larry Parks in Fariello’s moving example) because they had attacked the Israel lobby? Perhaps he would like to see such a committee convened for the purpose of prosecuting American Jews who support Israel? Fariello’s argument is not just a bad analogy, it is a clearly venomous and bigoted analogy, and I note with profound sorrow that the humanistic, cross-culturally sensitive Stanford has seen fit to propagate it.
Martin Abramson, MA ’56
Fort Lauderdale, Florida The most repulsive, the most egregious, the most ignorant and the most bigoted statement in Griffin Fariello’s letter is this: “Zionism and anti-Semitism have long been two sides of the same coin, for they both hold that the Jews must live apart. The sins of both have thus inevitably followed.”
Here are some facts. Anti-Semitism predates Zionism by well over a thousand years. It is not the opposite side of the coin; it is one of the most cogent reasons for Zionism. Zionism, as understood by 99-plus percent of Zionists, does not hold that Jews must live apart. It holds that there has to be one little country in this big world where a Jew can live as a Jew and not have his patriotism questioned by the likes of Fariello.
It is not a sin to be a Zionist. No other people except the Jews have ever lived as an independent nation in the Land of Israel. No other people have comparable rights to live there. Whatever the Holy Land is to any religion stems from the fact that Jerusalem was and is the City of David, the site of the Jews’ Holy Temple. Jerusalem was never the capital of any independent nation except ancient and modern Israel. The history of the Holy Land is the history of the Jews, even during the relatively short periods when they were in the minority.
If not for Israel, there would probably be no chance for a Palestine. The Syrians still refer to the Holy Land as South Syria. If they would not have swallowed it up, some other Arab country probably would have. In fact, before the UN started paying people to be Palestinians, the majority of Gazans were referred to as and referred to themselves as Egyptians. The majority of the remaining Arabs referred to themselves as Syrians.
Rightly, no one ever questioned the loyalty of the Irish-Americans who broke U.S. laws to send money and weapons to the IRA, nor the loyalty of many other ethnic groups who, from our shores, supported their original homelands.
Rightly, some Americans have questioned the loyalty of Arab-Americans who send money and weapons to terrorist organizations that not only target and slaughter children, but also target Americans, both civilian and military, such as 250 of my fellow Marines who were blown up and buried alive in Lebanon. If Fariello has ever questioned the loyalty of an Arab-American in a letter to STANFORD, I must have missed it.
Fariello’s attack on American Jews who support Israel was vicious, but his attack on Zimbardo for apologizing was mind-boggling. Attacks upon Jews who fight what they deem anti-Semitism are almost invariably far more vicious than the original attacks upon anti-Semitism by these Jews. After Professor Zimbardo’s gracious apology, I can’t see where he owes me or anyone else another word.
R. Roth, MA ’81
Miami, Florida
Her Way
I disagree with the letter to the editor from Bill McClanahan, MA ’96 (November/December), regarding the piece by Julie Doherty, “Me Talk Pretty One Día” (End Note, September/October). As one who entered Stanford as a freshman in 1979, struggled with getting through and didn’t make it, I think it’s important to showcase those who struggle with the Stanford experience and yet in the end
make it work for themselves. Doherty managed to do this in a unique way.
I didn’t perceive her attitude to be entitled, any more than the typical upper-middle-class Stanford applicant who has been lucky enough to have a greater than average share of life’s privileges. I can see, though, how this article might have made some standard-bearers of the Stanford mythos uncomfortable, because it shows a shadow side to Stanford: that not everyone who gets in finds the wherewithal to finish, or finds the Stanford experience all it’s cracked up to be.
The only complaint I have about the article is the title chosen for it. It’s ever so slightly derogatory, as if in using poor grammar there’s an implication of mockery of Hispanic culture. Perhaps this was partly to blame for inciting the negative reaction from McClanahan.
Thanks for an inspiring and thought-provoking magazine.
Natori Moore, ’83
Encinitas, California
Strike Up the Band
After reading “They’re Back!” ( September/October) and the sidebar, “How Scatter Bands Fare,” I wanted to add a little more historical perspective. As an alum of the Yale Precision Marching Band (YPMB), I know that Yale was doing scramble/scatter routines back into the ’50s, around the same time as Princeton. They even did them earlier, but as a part of a more conventional marching band. I think it is fair to say that by the ’60s, Yale, Harvard and Princeton, as well as Stanford and other schools, had similar bands in place.
I was a member of the YPMB in the ’80s and we certainly had our share of controversy. We were always dealing with the political issues of the day, getting scolded by administrations (from other schools; Yale generally loved us) and even getting banned from West Point because of dropping trou’.
I am so happy to read of the revival of the Stanford Band—a little humor never hurts!
Timothy Peterson
Stony Brook, New York
Thanks for the terrific story on the one and only, incomparable, Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band! Throughout my tenure as dean of students on the Farm, from 1995 to 2003, I was always impressed with their spirit, energy, creativity, musical talent and love for Stanford. I will always personally be thankful to the LSJUMB (and the Dollies, of course!), for their surprise performance at my surprise 40th birthday celebration in Tresidder and my farewell send-off party in the stadium press box. I am hopeful that the new support structures and clear expectations put in place by the University will result in a new and improved LSJUMB that will thrive in the future as it both entertains and serves the greater Stanford community.
Marc Wais
Vice President for Student Affairs
New York University
New York, New York
Out There
I enjoyed reading the article about Peter Davenport, but I do not agree with him (“The Truth Is Out There,” On the Job, September/October). I do not believe Earth has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings or UFOs. To convince a skeptic like me he would have to show me physical evidence, and I do not believe there is such evidence. Furthermore, programs such as Project Ozma and Seti have failed to make contact with civilizations beyond our solar system. If such an event ever occurs, of course it would be the most exciting event in our history.
Many people assume it is just a matter of developing technology that will permit interstellar travel, and that “advanced” civilizations out there have this technology. We have no evidence that there is intelligent life anywhere in the universe except here on Earth. Considering the vastness of the universe, this does seem unlikely, so let us assume there are hundreds, or even thousands, of planets that support intelligent life. [But] who can say that we might not be among the more advanced civilizations in existence?
No one seems to consider it would be just as difficult for us to visit other solar systems as for intelligent people from other solar systems to visit us. Let us say that there is intelligent life 100 light years from Earth, not a long distance in interstellar terms. If they could travel 10 times the speed of light, it would still take them 10 of our years to get here, which is a rather long trip. I think no one will dispute the fact that the laws of physics are applicable throughout the universe, and that matter (a spaceship) cannot travel faster than the speed of light, the consequence of which is that interstellar travel is impossible, and that contact between interstellar civilizations is improbable. I hope I am overly pessimistic.
James H. Short, ’50
Montgomery Village, Maryland
Helping Student-Athletes Heal
As a former Stanford student-athlete, I am encouraged by Hans Steiner and Katie Denny’s efforts to develop a mentoring program to address student-athletes’ mental health (“Student-athletes and Mental Health,” Farm Report, September/October). Their project will fill a much-needed gap.
During my freshman year, I underwent multiple reconstructive surgeries and spent most team practices either in the training room or on the sidelines, looking forward to healthier days when I could just practice with my teammates, let alone compete for the team. At the end of freshman year, coaches and medical staff informed me that my injury would never heal sufficiently. They shook my hand, wished me well, and sent me on my way—and off the team. To paraphrase Dr. Steiner, half of my life went to hell—and the other half followed right along. At the time, I figured that I was overreacting, and felt like there was something horribly wrong with me because I was unable to “just get over it.” As hard as I tried to escape those feelings, the thoughts and the associated distress wreaked havoc on the rest of my time at Stanford.
Dr. Steiner and colleagues’ work will encourage student-athletes to see athletic-related distress as something to take seriously. The mentoring program will reach out to student-athletes who, perhaps, would not otherwise consider the possibility of talking about their experiences with a mentor and/or seeking professional services. I am optimistic that this program will help more student-athletes make the most of their time at Stanford.
Julia McCraw McLawsen, ’03
Lincoln, Nebraska
Unconventional, Unforgettable
Your Unforgettable Teacher feature is one of my favorite parts of the magazine. I especially enjoyed Fred Romero’s profile of A.W. “Wazi” Zimmermann (“The Best of Beutelsbach,” September/October). As a sophomore, I was a member of the first Stanford in Germany group, and took German from Wazi for both quarters there. Fred captures this memorable teacher well.
I suspect Wazi’s academic credentials were not quite as glittering as those of most of the other professors we had there, such as Dr. Strothmann and Dr. Steiner—also great teachers. And Wazi’s teaching methods were not always conventional, nor were they always confined to the classroom. They included his guitar singing of German folk songs, countless eye-opening museum trips, and, of course the health-restoring sauna visits that Fred mentions.
His (and Stanford in Germany’s) impact on me (as on Fred) have been lifelong. After graduating from Stanford and then from law school, I lived in Germany for a couple of years in the mid-’60s as an Army intelligence officer on the East German border interviewing refugees and defectors. And I still manage to use my knowledge of German on a regular basis. Wazi’s boundless enthusiasm inspired that interest by me in the German language and culture (and in European culture generally).
His enduring place in the lives of so many of us who were his students at the Burg is reflected by the fact that, after we returned home, Wazi developed close friendships with dozens of us. We would regularly entice him to visit us, and then fight over who would get to have him for the longest stays at our homes throughout the country. I still miss him to this day. He was, for us, truly unforgettable.
Jim Garrett, ’61
Lafayette, California
Memory Lapse
The Time Capsule article in September/October (“Two East Enders”) contained two errors. In 1953 Encina Hall had five floors and a basement. There were no students on the first floor or in the basement. There were about 500 students, and rooms were $44 per quarter. During the 1953 football season Stanford Stadium had 92,500 seats. Big Game that year had 92,500 fans. The Athletic Department has had this wrong for more than 25 years. The capacity did not drop to 85,000 until the West Side tunnels were added several years later.
Jim Dunlap, ’58, MBA ’60
San Jose, California
| Editor's Note: According to University archivist Maggie Kimball, ’80, the standard figure given for the stadium from 1927 till the early 1970s was 90,000; she is unable to find a higher figure. Deterioration led to decreases in capacity, to 87,206 in 1972 and 86,352 in 1974. |
Changing Hong Kong
Catching up on my reading, I was particularly interested in Joel McCormick’s excellent article on Hong Kong and Regina Ip (“Trading Places,” July/August). Hong Kong was our last stop on a Stanford Travel/Study trip to China, when my fellow travelers and I “encountered” Ip, who spoke to us at a breakfast meeting in our hotel. Her talk was shortly after the National People’s Congress reinterpreted Hong Kong’s Basic Law, overturning Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal decision regarding residency rights of mainland Chinese in Hong Kong. During her speech she implied that democratic principles were being upheld in Hong Kong, and gave as an example the fact that Hong Kong valued the rule of law and had a supreme court like the United States, called the Court of Final Appeal.
During the question period, I pointed out to her that our Supreme Court cannot be overturned by the whim of our Congress just because they don’t agree with a decision of the Court. Yet it looked like in Hong Kong’s case decisions of the Court of Final Appeal appeared not to be “final.” I suggested to her that the example she gave was at odds with reality. After an icy stare, Ip began a lengthy defense of her government’s actions, with no further reference to democratic principles being upheld. It was a chilling experience.
Joel McCormick ends his article with the observation that “people change,” implying that Ip may do so. Does a leopard change its spots? Not to my knowledge.
Richard J. Borda, ’53, MBA ’57
Carmel, California
Grace and Effort
Thank you for the well-written piece on Carol Dweck’s psychological research (“The Effort Effect,” March/April). It occurred to me that Dweck’s colleagues in the field of religious studies might find useful her distinction between the “fixed” mindset and the “growth” mindset when looking at trends in American Christianity—such as the tendency to downplay the importance of personal effort and free will. The notion that human effort is incompatible with divine grace, an idea which gained traction after the 16th century, seems to suggest the same logical fallacy that, we’re told, prevents some professional soccer players from realizing their full potential. By contrast, the more ancient consensus held that salvation was both something given and something achieved, and that for spiritual athletes effort was indeed the pathway to mastery.
Chris Jensen
Portland, Oregon |
|
