Letters to the Editor
Send us a letter
Golden Days
I was born and raised in Palo Alto and graduated from Paly in 1966. We would ride our bikes to Frost every weekend to play hide and seek ("A Place in the Sun," May/June).
A former girlfriend, Connie Bonner, and Sue Swanson founded the Grateful Dead Fan Club. We first watched them at Magoo's Pizza parlor on Santa Cruz Avenue in Menlo Park. We would later stay with the Dead on Ashbury for the summer events and then in Marin following Ken Kesey's Acid Tests. I remember being in Golden Gate Park when the mime troupe was arrested and Bill Graham announced a fund-raiser to be held at the Fillmore Auditorium. I spent the next two years between Palo Alto and San Francisco, watching . . . every band that played through that time. When Winterland opened and Fillmore West began drawing ever-larger crowds, the original scene as we knew it had died. We went from 350 close friends watching to crowds of thousands. The world had changed and we appeared to be part of ground zero.
The Farm for bowling, folk dancing, Stanford booster club and, one cannot forget, the rifle range on campus. Eucalyptus during summer and paper airplanes off Hoover Tower. And through it all I managed to earn an MA from the School of Education.
I recall an interview with Ella Fitzgerald in which she was asked how it felt to have been part of the golden era of jazz. She replied that had she known it was the golden era, she might have paid more attention.
They say that while life happens in the moment, it is the memories that shape our tomorrows, and I am grateful, but not yet dead. Keep up the wonderful writing.
Jim Cushing, MA '76
Brentwood, California
You generated a warm wave of nostalgia with your article on Frost Amphitheater. I remember the killer July 1968 concert very well (Gypsum Heaps and Sons of Champlin were also on the bill) and in fact reviewed it for Down Beat magazine; that may have been Creedence's first national ink.
I do feel reasonably certain that the aptness of Frost for popular music was conclusively demonstrated, if not discovered, by the Stanford Jazz Year 1965-66, created and directed by Rick Bale, '66, PhD '72. You mention that Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald played there. They did indeed, in the fall of 1965 (Louis and his band by themselves, Duke and Ella jointly), as the Jazz Year's opening concerts. We then went indoors for the winter with concerts by, among others, Dizzy Gillespie, the Modern Jazz Quartet, Thelonious Monk, John Coltrane, Muddy Waters, Jon Hendricks and John Handy. The grand finale—and probably the Missing Link to the rock era at the amphitheater—was the spring 1966 Frost appearance by Ray Charles, drawing what at that time was the largest attendance for any nonacademic, non-football event in Stanford's history. Records are made to be broken, and ours didn't last long, but that was likely the breakthrough. And it certainly rocked.
Those were the days. A not-so-nostalgic postscript, however: Rick first had to persuade the administration to make this the Tresidder Union annual project. They ultimately agreed, and of course without their funding and support it couldn't have been done. But at the outset there was some pushback from some of the higher administrators. They feared, I regret to report, that such a program would bring 'the wrong sort of element' (read: black) onto campus. Those were not the days.
Fortunately, more progressive heads prevailed and the project unfurled splendidly, though my one great sorrow was not to have been permitted to book Jimmy Smith on the Memorial Church organ. Oh, well; can't have everything.
The Jazz Year was among the richest experiences of my life. I will be forever grateful to Rick for pulling me in and letting me contribute, and to the late, much lamented San Francisco Chronicle jazz writer Ralph J. Gleason, without whom, also, it couldn't possibly have come off. What a privilege and pleasure! Thanks for reminding me again.
Alan Heineman, '66
San Francisco, California
After reading the article, I was saddened not to see any mention of the Phil Lesh and Friends concert that took place on June 2, 2002, which was the first time such a concert had been permitted since the 1980s. The Lesh concert was the result of an extraordinary effort by the ASSU, led by Jenny Quiroz, '02, who had taken it on as a personal project and labored for two years making negotiations and arrangements. Phil Lesh was honored to play at Frost that day, as for a few brief hours the post-dot-com crowd had a taste of the Stanford community that came before them. The history of Frost concerts is still being written, and hopefully future documentation will recognize the efforts of Quiroz and her team as part of the Frost tradition.
Ray Rivera, PhD '10
Seaside, California
The caption on the main photograph in the Frost piece reads, "Was this in the admissions brochure?" As far as I'm concerned, it might as well have been. I was courted by a representative of a prestigious university that shall remain nameless. During our talk, the recruiter mentioned that the Grateful Dead had played in the town where the school was located. With a look of disgust he added, "Talk about culture shock." I remember thinking at that moment, "At Stanford, they play right on campus!"
Barbara Saunders, '88
Berkeley, California
Arab Outlook
"After the Revolution" (May/June) asked whether recent events in the Arab world would lead to more democracy or to Islamic rule. The subtitle asked whether freedom and religion could coexist. I consider it progress that only one of the four panel members, Joel Beinin, tied progress in the Arab world to the purported need for U.S. pressure on Israel to give up land. Academia is thus evolving as well, to more serious debate about democracy in the region.
Daniel Jacobs, '82
Orlando, Florida
'Amazing Individual'
I became a member of the Stanford Law Review in the fall of 1956 ("Remembering Warren Christopher," Planet Cardinal, May/June). There are few meetings that cause a major change in your life. But when Warren Christopher made a special trip to the Law School to meet with the newly appointed members of the Law Review, it was a life-changing, inspiring experience that made me realize how important the Law Review is and how very important our commitment had to be. His inspirational message resulted in my total devotion and I became managing editor of Volume 10. Without Christopher's commitment and devotion that would have never happened. Thank you, Warren, for all you did for Stanford, the Law School, the Law Review and our country. One truly amazing individual.
Charlie Page, '56, JD '58
Carmel, California
ROTC Reactions
I am pleased to read that Stanford is considering reinstating military training on campus ("ROTC Redux? A Quiet Debate," Farm Report, May/June). [Ed. note: For debate results, see News Briefs, Farm Report.] I am, however, troubled to hear the opposition to it, especially from Stanford Says No to War group. While I applaud and fully support its opposition to war, its contempt for the military is naïve and insulting to the dedicated men and women who serve in our armed forces.
Sam Windley, the president of Stanford Says No to War, believes that keeping ROTC from returning to the University would be a statement "that Stanford stands in opposition to the values of the U.S. military as it currently stands." While he may not like some of the policies and culture of the military, he is off base to denigrate the values of the armed forces, of which he probably knows very little. The Navy promotes core values of "honor, courage and commitment." Men and women in uniform, deployed around the world, enduring family separations, suffering hardships, facing danger and death in the service of their country, live and die embracing these values. I think that the University, the majority of its students and faculty, and alumni would not align with Stanford Says No to War in maligning the values of the U.S. military.
I would like to remind Windley that no one abhors war more than the men and women in the military who have to do the fighting and dying. And with regard to his statement that "We don't think the U.S. military is a force for good in the world," I'd recommend that this Australian law student read some history and realize that it was the U.S. military, fighting alongside his countrymen, who spilled American blood in the southwest Pacific protecting his country from invasion in World War II. I wonder what he thinks about the values of those American military men who courageously and selflessly risked their lives in ridding the world of its most evil terrorist.
Dave Ashworth, '65
Captain, USNR (retired)
Park City, Utah
I am honestly trying to determine the logic of those who oppose ROTC. Do they believe that students of ROTC cause or initiate war? Since most wars are started by politicians, should we not apply the same logic to our department of political science?
Lest we be too confining, President Obama has expressed genuine concern over the obscene salaries of CEOs and the high profits of corporations. Would not that any of our MBA graduates ever become a CEO! Our conscience might be sorely tried to allow their existence as well.
Lastly, as a physician who has made his living from disease, pestilence and trauma, [I ask whether] we should scrutinize the School of Medicine before we can return our moral compass to its proper alignment.
Irony aside, if Stanford is to truly produce progressive leaders, as President Hennessy has stated, why should we deny our future military leaders a Stanford education? If we do, we are not an inclusive institution.
John A. Ungersma,'54
Captain, USN Medical Corps (retired)
Bishop, California
Professor David Kennedy made a very cogent case for the elite universities reinstating ROTC in a symposium at my 1957 class reunion. His basic premise was that a democracy cannot control the most powerful military in the world unless some portion of its military command is educated in the country's elite universities. I believe he is correct. In the absence of Stanford, Harvard, etc., schools such as mine, a regional university, have contributed many quality officers to our military.
What I find most disturbing are the counterarguments advanced by Todd Davies. To quote him, ". . . in my experience, the campus culture values unity and avoids conflict whenever possible." Apparently, Die Luft der Freiheit weht no longer exists at Stanford.
Jay Weston Rea, '57
Cheney, Washington
A "Quiet Debate"? About ROTC? Not in my time at Stanford, when the discussions of ethical issues about war and militarism were far from quiet.
Sam Windley, president of Stanford Says No to War, stated it clearly: The outcome should be "Stanford stands in opposition to the values of the U.S. military as it currently stands."
Pamela Hutchison Collett, '67
Oakland, California
Kaplan's Guinea Pig
Thank you for the article on Henry Kaplan ("A Cannon for Oncologists," Farm Report, May/June). I was one of the recipients of his kindness. As a student, I was the barium-swallowing guinea pig as my classmates watched my innards glowing green on Kaplan's very advanced image amplifier. As we filed out to our next class, Kaplan took me quietly aside and said, "I think I saw an ulcer. Come back after finals and I'll recheck you." I did so. Happily, no ulcer.
Thomas P. Lowry, '54, MD '57
Woodbridge, Virginia
Design Lessons
I read with great pleasure the cover story about David Kelley and the d.school ("Sparks Fly," March/April). It brought me back to the day when I took ME 101, Visual Thinking. A team of us was charged with building a shelter with foam core and cheese cloth. Limitations: Object must fit in a 3x6 foot space and be assembled within 30 seconds. Objective: Protect us from the rays of a 4 p.m. sun. From the initial brainstorming to the prototypes and failures to our final iteration, I learned the process of design, whose concepts and applications transcend academic disciplines. I have tried to carry that out-of-box, no-silos-here thinking with me in my work as a neurologist and researcher.
Audrey Yee, '85
Greenwood Village, Colorado
Dubious Distinctions
If the article "Weighing History" (March/April) is an accurate reflection of the views of Professor Ian Morris, I fear he is trying to lead us on an intellectual wild goose chase. His designation of "East" and "West" seems rather arbitrary. So is his selection of indicators of economic or material progress. Geography and economics are but two of the many elements governing human development. To view history through such prisms risks presenting a distorted view. Are we not driven as much by dreams? What has happened to the pursuit of happiness? Or the search for contentment?
I believe the professor's approach is an unreliable one. I shall pick on a couple of his indicators to demonstrate part of the reasons I think so.
Take fortification. If his East is a couple of thousand years behind his West in constructing fortifications, so what? It could be that an Eastern location had no neighbors or that the people had learned to live in harmony with neighbors. Or that when hostile outsiders approached, a peaceable people just moved away. Hence there was no need to build fortifications.
The professor would have to demonstrate before comparing one group with another that both were temperamentally the same and in similar circumstances when reacting to similarly hostile neighbors. Then there might be some justification in concluding that a more innovative group built fortifications while the other group didn't know how to protect itself.
Likewise with the building of big shrines: It could be that the latecomers were more advanced in their perception of the world. Maybe they realized earlier that God was part of themselves and everything around them, something nameless, formless and incapable of being replicated or represented in a shrine. Some ancient Hindu and Taoist scripts lend some support to such a thesis. Then people became corrupted and fell back on superstitions: hence the later building of big shrines. Sadly, history is filled with examples of people going collectively backward into Dark Ages.
The professor seems to think that being first in something somehow confers some sort of qualification to "rule" or to "lead." If so, then he might consider drawing up a list of negative firsts and correlating the two lists.
For example, who first came up with torture racks? Or who first perfected human exterminations on an industrial scale? Or who first reached the highest number of criminals per capita? The last would probably belong to Russia under Stalin, who turned whole classes of the population into criminals overnight. But then, the gulags were located largely in Asia. Should the credit be given to East or West?
David T. K. Wong, '52, MA '53
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Hoover's Legacy
The account of Herbert Hoover's relief effort in Russia has a special importance for me ("Waging a Kinder Cold War," Farm Report, March/April). Most people, even those who knew about this remarkable man's heroic efforts to save millions from starvation in Russia, don't know that he was also responsible for saving millions more from starvation in Belgium, a country overrun and ravaged during World War I. As a Fulbright [scholar] in Belgium for two years, I was privileged to visit most of the major cities, and in almost all of them there is a "Place Hoover" or Hooverplatz near the town centers. I also saw a museum in which racks of flour sacks were beautifully embroidered with flowers and thanks to America. I was honored just to have been part of Stanford and thus Hoover's legacy. One of the days at Stanford I most regret was when C. Easton Rothwell, then dean of Hoover Institution, invited me, as president of the Institute of International Relations, to come and have my photo taken with Hoover, Class of 1895. Alas, I was out of town that day. But President Hoover did speak at our 1956 commencement ceremonies (mostly about his fishing activities and the Bohemian Club). It was a great joy to see this great patriot still active at age 82, spry and quick-witted. Thanks for the update on one of America's truly outstanding men.
Richard B. Lawson, '56
Mountlake Terrace, Washington
Wary of Genotyping
I applaud Maya BenBarak's curiosity about genomics and her own personal genetic information, but it should be noted that "recreational genotyping" companies like 23andMe are not providing professional medical advice and can't be relied on for diagnosing any medical conditions ("My Mother, My Cells," Farm Report, March/April). In addition, this information becomes the property of these companies, and in a world where personal information is at risk, why take the chance? While health-care legislation seeks to protect consumers from being excluded from health insurance based on genetic information that places one at risk for future disease (e.g., BRCA genes 1 and 2), it gets hazy when it comes to life, disability or long-term-care insurance. Certainly genetics has transformed the world of medicine for the better, but until one can be assured that personal genetic information is not mishandled or abused, I remain wary of services like 23andMe that are not recommended by physicians.
Michael Tom, '08
Honolulu, Hawaii
NCAA Proposal
Kudos to President Hennessy for recognizing the accomplishments of Stanford's student athletes and the Stanford athletics program ("Hail to the Victors, a Study in Self-Discipline," March/April). Having such a successful program, Stanford should take leadership to address the abysmal state of Division I football and men's basketball, rife with cheating, exorbitantly paid coaches and exploited athletes.
I suggest that Stanford propose two NCAA options:
Option #1: Schools can choose a semipro league modeled on the European industrial leagues, in which athletes are paid, corporate sponsorships are unrestricted and alumni can do whatever they want to achieve football and men's basketball success.
Option #2: Schools can choose an academic league, in which rules are strongly biased to academic achievement. For example, if a school's graduation rate falls below standard, the school forfeits scholarships. TV and tournament revenues would be shared in a way that de-emphasizes monetary incentives to win. And, importantly, coaches and athletic administrators would have greater protection from the academic side so that their jobs are less vulnerable to impatient alumni. Perhaps it would even be possible to limit coaches' salaries to a reasonable multiple of professors' salaries.
Jon Richards, MBA '67
Palo Alto, California
Questions of Credibility
The article on Uncloaking Autism ("Breaking Through," January/February) provoked considerable response with good reason ("Autism's Unknowns," March/April; "No Easy Autism Answers," May/June). The author's conclusion that it is a proven fact that vaccines do not cause autism is unbelievable. Most who subscribe to this point of view cite the cohort study in Denmark of more than 500,000 children that showed no connection. Yet nowhere does Stanford indicate that the Danish author of this study was indicted [on April 13, 2011] for wire fraud and money laundering while conducting this study for the CDC. The United States is trying to extradite him to stand trial. Given the man's long-time financial connection with vaccine manufacturers and CDC's cozy connection with these companies, many wonder about conflict of interest and the credibility of the study. One would hope that Stanford publications would do their homework before parroting so-called facts from faculty experts. (Readers should know that my daughter with autism had 36 vaccinations by the time she was 18 months old. Despite years of treatments to remove mercury, tests show the levels, both organic and inorganic, are still off the charts.)
Barry Stern, PhD '72
Purcellville, Virginia
Compassion and Competence
Advocating Stanford classes in "basic humanity, ethics and religion" misses the point of Stanford ("Dividing the Pie," Letters, March/April). My father graduated in 1926 from a Stanford that was not particularly socially conscious, yet he was a physician who earned the love of his patients, the working class, the insane and the incarcerated. My son, also a physician, graduated in 1980 from a Stanford filled with opportunities for service and a culture of sharing. But he didn't need Stanford to be a compassionate human being.
Herbert Hoover, Class of 1895, had he not become president, would have gone down in history as one of the greatest humanitarians, for saving the Ukraine from famine. Sen. Max Baucus, '63, JD '67, actually did have classes in ethics; he advanced the SCHIP children's health program and saved Social Security from further privatization, but he also implemented big tax cuts for the wealthy and destroyed the rectification of the social insurance system that single payer advocates (and suffering Americans) cried out for.
People have to have compassion to motivate them to want to help and nurture others. But in the helping, competence trumps compassion.
My father and the American physicians of his generation didn't see the functional beauty in "Everybody pays; everybody gets seen." They supposed that more elite physicians made the European medical system superior. Today's liberals see only the "everybody gets seen" part and think it's lack of compassion that stands in the way of reform; but it's not, it's lack of understanding of the finance mechanism.
The Stanfords' purpose was not to create the cynosure of elitist education. Their memorial to their only son was to educate the poor boys and girls of California—to lead them out of ignorance, to train their minds to observe, to seek knowledge, organize information, discern the significance of what seems only incidental, to share what they learn with others to make a society which allocates resources wisely to enhance the lives of all.
As for Social Security and Medicare, a social insurance that is paid for by the poorest workers—who do not themselves have health insurance and by doing without it are necessarily among the half who never see the pension, which begins at the average age of death—can't be called compassionate and cannot be said to "work." The health access that poor workers—indeed, all citizens—ought to get by simply having a portion of their salary set aside to pay for their present and future health needs is entrusted to parasitic middlemen who abscond with a huge share. Stanford needs to train students to apply their intelligence and knowledge to understand that in an urbanized society, the self-interest of the best and brightest is entwined with the interest of the hewers of wood and drawers of water. I pray they'll do this for my grandson, Stanford '15.
Stephanie Cleary Muñoz
Los Altos Hills, California
Correction:
Photos credited to Fox Searchlight Pictures in the profile of Suttirat Larlarb ("Worlds of Her Making," March/April) should have been credited as ©2010 Twentieth Century Fox. All rights reserved.
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 email. 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.
