Page 1

The Stanford Daily MAGAZINE

VOLUME II

ISSUE 3

NOVEMBER 17, 2017

125 YEAR ANNIVERSARY EDITION THE DAILY AND THE COURT p. 6

‘A CREDIT TO OUR ALMA MATER’ p. 10


Featured Winter Courses Leaders Who Made the 20th Century • Stanford Sports Icons Inside the San Francisco Art Market • Stanford Saturday University: 2018 An Intro to Artificial Intelligence • Design Execution: Bringing Ideas to Life America’s Opioid Epidemic: Today’s Realities, Tomorrow’s Options

Stanford Continuing Studies offers a broad range of on-campus and online courses in liberal arts & sciences, creative writing, and professional & personal development. All adults are welcome to attend. Winter registration opens December 4 and most classes begin the week of January 16. Enroll today!

continuingstudies.stanford.edu

STAP FUND ELIGIBLE

WIN WIN Thanks to our sponsors Heather J. Furnas M.D. ’79 Kurt Kaull Roman Silva ’96 Linh Vo Interested in sponsoring The Stanford Daily Magazine? Contact coo@stanforddaily.com

STAFF Editor-in-Chief Ada Statler Executive Editor Samantha Wong Managing Editors Stephanie Chen, Inyoung Choi, Alli Cruz, Georgina Grant, Hannah Knowles, Fangzhou Liu, Janet Liu, Erin Perrine, Olivia Popp, Jose Saldana, Sydney Shaw, Andrew Solano, Michael Spencer, Aparna Verma LAYOUT Kristel Bugayong, Harry Cole, Emma Fiander, Kate Ham, Irene Han, Jackie Lin, Janet Liu, Roy Nehoran, Jacob Reiter, Joshua Wagner, Daniel Wu CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Do-Hyoung Park Chief Revenue Officer Kevin Martinez


Contents

The Stanford Daily MAGAZINE

Volume II, Issue 3 November 17, 2017

NEWS 06 The daily and the court Examining the legacy of the 1978 Supreme Court case Zurcher v. Stanford Daily

10 ‘A credit to our alma mater’ A look at how The Daily and its relationship with Stanford have evolved in the 125 years since its founding daily staffers, then and now Getting to know the work and aspirations of Daily staffers, past and present. Photo by Andrew Solano — p. 25

18 meet duran The man, the myth, the legend who makes our paper run

SPORTS

Creative

22 ‘It’s just not fair’

16 timeline

A look back at the 1982 Big Game’s infamous “Play” and the ultimate college prank that followed

Putting The Daily’s history in context with those of Stanford and the country

26 The university archivist

ARTS & Life

Working to preserve and shape the narrative of Stanford’s history — and its future

20 ‘walking the farm’ Rediscovering Stanford through DeMund’s book on campus walks OPINIONS 04 letters from the editors Reflections from former and current editors-in-chief Philip Taubman and Ada Statler-Throckmorton

28 snapshots of stanford history Capturing Stanford’s history through pictures from The Daily’s archives 30 spirit of the daily What The Daily has meant to different generations of staffers

On the cover: The Lorry I. Lokey Stanford Daily Building. Illustration by Roy Nehoran. 3


PHILIP TAUBMAN

LETTERS FROM THE EDITORS LINDA CICERO/Stanford News Service

EDITOR-INCHIEF, VOL. 155

T

o this day, I don’t know why the managing editor of The Stanford Daily gave a freshman reporter the assignment, but in April 1967, the editor summoned me to his office. “Martin Luther King is speaking at Stanford tomorrow,” he told me. “King has agreed to do an interview with The Daily on the ride from San Francisco Airport to campus. Can you do it?” Whatever doubts I harbored about becoming a journalist vanished. I hadn’t completed a full academic year at Stanford, and I was on my way to interview Martin Luther King. The opportunity said something about the open, non-hierarchal culture at Stanford, and at The Daily. It reflected the generosity of the managing editor, who could easily have done the interview himself. Above all, it made me see journalism as an intoxicating invitation to witness history, to engage national and international issues, to inform the public, and to meet newsmakers and shapers of history. I found my account in The Daily’s digital archive the other day. The interview ranged across an array of issues, including civil rights, the Vietnam War and politics. As The Stanford Daily marks its 125th anniversary, it’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the role the newspaper has played at the University since the first issue appeared in 1892. As a source of news and information about Stanford produced by students, it has been the chronicler of Stanford’s evolution from a fragile seedling in the lush garden of American higher education to one of the nation’s leading universities. It has been the recorder of events, small and grand, that 4

marked the memories of hundreds of thousands of students. Even now, with the advent of countless new information sources, The Daily serves as a town square for the airing of divergent views. It remains a robust training and testing ground. Like all journalism enterprises, The Daily will always be imperfect. But its aspirations are high, and some of the stories it has emphasized over the decades have put a spotlight on matters that needed attention, including an absence of student and faculty diversity, archaic student dress codes, embezzlement at the bookstore and shortcomings in the delivery of mental health care to students. I had the good fortune to chronicle a fair amount of history as a reporter and editor, mostly for The New York Times. I covered the Cold War from Washington and Moscow, tracked news at the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NSA and the Kremlin. While working at Time Magazine and Esquire, I wrote about sports, shadowing Muhammad Ali, Reggie Jackson, Dorothy Hamill, Jimmy Connors and other memorable figures. I learned a lot about journalism growing up by watching my father, who was a music and theater critic at The New York Times. I worked on my high school newspaper in New York City. But The Daily was the irreplaceable crucible of my education. It’s where I learned how to handle the pressure of competing interests at a time of intense student activism and passionate feelings. It’s where I fully understood the importance of accurate, fair coverage, not only because it’s the honorable approach journalistically, but also because it’s the best way a journalist can serve the public interest. I also learned how to respond to disappointment

and rebound from failure. I wrote a harsh story about Herbert Packer, Stanford’s vice provost in the late 1960s, which I clumsily tried to retract after The Daily had gone to press. I couldn’t change the paper, but I went to his campus home at 3 a.m. and left a series of apologetic notes on his front door, doorstep, car and bike. My takeaway from that incident: The best way to avoid wounding someone, and making a fool of oneself, is to produce a fair story to begin with. I also forged lifetime friendships at The Daily’s scruffy offices at the Storke Student Publications Building, which was demolished a few years ago. There, amidst the paraphernalia of 20th century newspapering — typewriters, carbon paper, spikes, a linotype machine, cigarette butts, crushed beer cans, stacks of discarded paper and a bulletin board where editor critiques of recent editions were posted — I met a fellow student and reporter, Felicity Barringer. Felicity went on to edit The Daily before beginning a distinguished career as a reporter and editor at The Washington Post and The New York Times. We just marked our 46th wedding anniversary. When The Daily needed a new home some years ago, a project generously subsidized largely by Lorry Lokey, another Daily alum, Felicity and I made a small contribution. A modest plaque noting our gift was placed outside the office of the editor-in-chief. It reads: “Where we found our calling.” So it was. — Philip Taubman, Editor-in-Chief, Vol. 155


ADA STATLER

LETTERS FROM THE EDITORS ANDREW SOLANO/The Stanford Daily

EDITOR-INCHIEF, VOL. 252

W

hen I first walked into The Stanford Daily, I knew I cared about what was going on in the world and enjoyed writing well enough. I had never written a news story before, but soon became versed in the time tested method of learning by doing — and by following the example of those that came before me. In today’s political climate, it seems that “mainstream media” is perceived as both more threatened and threatening than ever. But when I step back from this and think about the big picture, I hold a lot of hope for the future of the media. Some of my hope comes from what I observe in The Stanford Daily newsroom: the record-breaking applicant pool of 168 total students and the returning staffers eager to train new journalists; the enthusiastic tips and the concerned emails we regularly receive from the community; the innovative methods of presenting data stories and the exciting new technological platforms to present our content anew. But part of my hope for the media also comes from thinking about the past. When a senior staffer first pitched the idea of taking all 32 pages of our magazine to reflect on the history of The Stanford Daily, I worried it would be self-indulgent. As a writer and then an editor — and as a generally reflective person with a healthy dose of self-skepticism — I have always wondered about what the impact of a college newspaper can be. But as I listened to the senior staffer’s ideas for the themed magazine and really thought hard about stories of The Daily over the past 125 years, it became an easier sell. Why? Questions of media independence and ethics have

been tested again and again throughout The Daily’s history. Perhaps the media is under threat now, but this isn’t the first time and it likely won’t be the last. By examining our past — from expelled editors to Supreme Court cases — we can learn resiliency strategies for the future. There are many factors determining a newspaper’s resiliency. Some of the factors are financial or on the business side, but I fully believe that the most important thing we can do is commit to continuously improving ourselves and our coverage. This means finding the corners of our community that we aren’t yet representing. Examining the ways we approach sensitive topics. Deepening our explorations of issues that matter but might not normally be a topic of conversation. Reviewing our ethical reporting standards on issues such as thirdparty verification and anonymity. Paying attention to our internal organizational culture and inclusivity practices. While making this issue, I learned a lot about the history of The Stanford Daily and of the University as a whole. In the process, I felt energized and motivated, and I hope that you, our readers, will also enjoy both of these experiences. So read and learn, but also feel empowered to reach out. As our Editorial Board once wrote, accountability reporting happens best when the press is also accountable. The communication of journalism, just like interpersonal communication, operates best as a two-way street. So send us an email, whether it’s a news tip or an op-ed or a potential correction. As an editor, I never "enjoy" receiving an email alerting us to a misstated source title or perhaps a more serious ethical issue with our coverage. This means that

we have temporarily lapsed in our duty, and making mistakes doesn’t feel good. At the same time, however, I am honored and humbled and inspired by these emails because each one is a reminder that our community still cares. I myself have had countless opportunities that would never have been possible were it not for The Daily. My freshman year, I interviewed Oprah Winfrey, and my sophomore year, I broke the story when John Boehner announced he wouldn’t support “Lucifer in the flesh” Ted Cruz in the presidential election. Events like these are part of what makes being at Stanford so special, but so are some of the more “ordinary” stories. My sophomore year, I worked as an embedded reporter at the weeklong Fossil Free Stanford sit-in outside the president’s office, and my junior year, I spearheaded a series examining Stanford’s mental health resources. Working on stories like these impressed upon me just how much compassion for others is present on this campus. Without my work at The Daily, I wouldn’t have had these transformative experiences. As The Stanford Daily turns 125 years old, and I am proud to be a part of such a long-standing institution. In just my four years here, I have seen how quickly and yet carefully the newsroom can change, and I look forward to seeing how it continues to grow. — Ada Statler, Editor-in-Chief, Vol. 252

5


THE DAILY AND THE COURT

Graphic by JACQUELINE LIN / The Stanford Daily

y l i a D d r o f n a t S . v r e h c r u Z f

o y c a g e l e h T By Katie Keller

I

t’s rare that a college newspaper creates a nationwide constitutional controversy, but that’s exactly what happened in 1971, when The Stanford Daily was the plaintiff in a lawsuit that eventually reached the Supreme Court of the United States. The Daily sued the chief of the Palo Alto Police Department, James Zurcher, after he led a search of Daily offices in an attempt to find photographic evidence that would assist the department in prosecuting protesters who had clashed with police officers during a sit-in at Stanford Hospital. To Zurcher, his search of The Daily’s offices felt wholly necessary to the execution of justice. But to Daily staffers, it felt like an attempt to coopt the press into serving as an instrument of the justice system. During an era in which the relationship between citizens and authority was already difficult and occasionally explosive, The Daily found itself in a precarious position: caught in the middle of this dynamic while trying to maintain journalistic autonomy. What ensued went far beyond a conflict between protesters, police and The Daily’s photography team: The incident put the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment’s provisions that give police officers with probable cause the right to search for incriminating evidence. The controversy assumed the national stage æ 6

over eight contentious years of legal action, a crushing loss for The Daily at the Supreme Court, national uproar from journalists and elected officials and finally, Congress’s passage of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which prevented such searches from happening in the future without a subpoena. Though surely not as canonical as a Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education, Zurcher v. Stanford Daily and the legal questions it raised continue to challenge constitutional scholars to this day, especially given the changing nature of the journalism industry. The case began humbly, with a small group of students that decided to challenge an injustice it felt it had faced. But it escalated as the students learned that they had just scratched the surface of a deeper tension inherent to news-gathering organizations in democratic societies.

Era of protest

The protest at Stanford Hospital that set Zurcher in motion was not an isolated incident; the late 1960s and early 1970s saw a high concentration of political activity at Stanford, driven by a growing rift between students and authority. “Starting around [1966] or so, there was a lot of protest on campus,” said Felicity Barringer ’72, editor-in-chief (EIC) of The Daily a the time of Zurcher’s search. “The Vietnam War was going on, and that was sort of the undercurrent of everything: the belief that the University was supporting an immoral war,” by

holding military recruiting events on campus, among other issues. It was certainly a busy time to work at The Daily. Clashes between student protesters and their adversaries — University administration officials and the police — were only getting more chaotic and dramatic as time went on, and The Daily had the challenge of reporting for the student body as a neutral third party. As the protesters’ clashes with authority became more and more contentious, the University struggled to hold those students who contributed to violence accountable for their actions. Gradually, the administration began employing its own photographers to create visual records of the demonstrations for its internal disciplinary procedures. These photographers were extremely unpopular among the protesters, and it was often nearly impossible to distinguish them from photographers working for news organizations like The Daily. “If you had your eye behind the viewfinder of a camera in a raucous situation, trying to focus on the activity, trying to get the lighting right, the focus right and everything else, you’re not in a position to defend yourself if someone says, ‘Don’t take my picture,’” Barringer explained. “So, at that point, photographers are terribly vulnerable… Being a photographer at a demonstration became a loaded occupation.” Margie Freivogel ’71, who preceded Barringer as EIC, decided with her editorial board that


DAVID BOCKIAN/The Stanford Daily The Daily needed to do something to protect its photographers and its relationship with protesters. They decided to implement a policy that they had seen other local newspapers use: Going forward, they would destroy any possibly incriminating photos that could be used in court. It was Freivogel’s hope that by publicizing this policy, The Daily might regain the trust of student protesters, who wouldn’t have to worry that Daily photos might be used against them in University disciplinary hearings or even criminal proceedings. At the very least, she hoped that the policy would “make people at least think twice about throwing rocks at our photographers [during protests].” “We didn’t want to be an arm of the court, defense or prosecution,” Barringer said. From Barringer’s point of the view, the policy allowed The Daily to preserve its tradition of uncensored reporting. “We [could] write and print whatever seemed to best express the news of the day without fear or favor… without caring what would come of photographs in which people could be identified,” she said.

A bloody protest

On April 9, 1971, demonstrators from the Black United Front and the Chicano student organization MEChA held a joint sit-in at Stanford Medical School, protesting the firing of a black janitor and the denial of tenure for a Chicano professor. They barricaded themselves

in a second floor hallway in protest and had a bloody clash with the police officers who tried to get them to leave. Covering protests had become a routine part of the experience of Daily reporters by the time the conflict at Stanford Medical School arose in April 1971. So when they learned of the protest and heard that the police were going to show up, Daily staffers were more than ready to report on the controversy. As it turned out, though, the eventual clash between protestors and the police resulted in an unusual level of violence. “When the police stormed in — and our photographer was right behind them taking pictures of them storming in — the demonstrators went out the other side, viciously swinging clubs at the police,” Barringer said. Along with two dozen demonstrators, 13 police officers were reported injured. The police department wanted to know who was responsible, and officers thought The Daily might have some answers.

A surprise search

According to Barringer, the police knew about The Daily’s policy of destroying potentially incriminating photos, but that didn’t stop them from quickly obtaining a search warrant and searching the entire building. In the search, they did not find any photographs that would benefit legal cases against participants in the sit-in. Charlie Hoffman ’73 MBA ’76, who

eventually succeeded Barringer as EIC, was in the Daily office working on an article when the search occurred. “Palo Alto Police came diving in late at night,” Hoffman recalled. “They were flying through [the files on the desks]. There was paper everywhere.” “[The police] were extremely thorough,” Barringer said. “We were kind of shell-shocked.” Barringer and the rest of the leadership team at The Daily knew they would have to take action. “We looked at each other and said, ‘We need a law professor. This can’t be legal,’” Barringer said. “If what is in our offices is essentially open to becoming evidence in court... we cease to be a journalistic organization and become an information gatherer... for legal proceedings.” According to Barringer, she and her staff were motivated to take legal action against the police department not only to address the incident at the Daily, but also to protect

“We looked at each other and said, ‘We need a law professor. This can’t be legal.’” — Felicity Barringer Editor-in-Chief, Vol. 159

ą


other news organizations from surprise police searches in the future. “There was nothing [we] could do to prevent the search, but we did feel as though there was something we could do to shine a light on it, to challenge it and ideally to make sure it didn’t happen to anybody else,” she said.

Early legal success

When Daily staffers looked further into the precedents for the search, they could not find another instance in which police had searched a news-gathering organization with only a search warrant, as opposed to a subpoena. They decided to seek legal counsel from Anthony Amsterdam, who taught at Stanford Law School at the time, and he referred the case to Bob Mnookin and Jerry Falk, two young attorneys at a San Francisco law firm. The three legal experts agreed with the students’ analysis: They had a sound case that the police’s actions toward the press had violated the First and Fourth Amendments. “My first reaction… was that it was outrageous, that they never would have done to The San Francisco Chronicle, much less The New York Times, what they did to The Daily,” said Falk, who still works as a lawyer in San Francisco. He remembers thinking that they “had a winning case for a subpoena-first rule.” On the other hand, Mnookin, now a professor at Harvard Law School, recalls having some early reservations about how the arguments would be perceived. “I was offended by what [the police] had done, but I did not think it would be an easy case,” he said. “There really had been some violence in terms of the demonstrations… and it was reasonably clear that The Daily might well have some photographs that might well be relevant.” But despite Mnookin’s qualms, any early forecast of the case’s strength appeared quite prescient through the first two rounds of the suit. The Daily officially filed suit on May 1971, and in October of the following year, Federal District Court Judge Robert Peckham issued a summary judgment in The Daily’s favor. He opined that such searches of press organizations “are impermissible in all but a very few situations” under the First Amendment. The police department appealed the decision, but the historically liberal San Francisco-based court of appeals issued an even stronger ruling in The Daily’s favor, going so far as to hold the police department responsible for The Daily’s legal fees. “We got a to-die-for decision in the appellate court,” Barringer said, further musing that perhaps “that decision was so good and so much in our favor that the Supreme Court thought, ‘Maybe we ought to look at this.’”

8

“They never would have done to The San Francisco Chronicle, much less The New York Times, what they did to The Daily.” — Jerry Falk Attorney A ‘crushing’ loss

The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case at all cast a pall over The Daily’s celebration of its second win. The Supreme Court “didn’t take [the case] to hand out awards to the district court and the court of appeals,” Falk wryly explained. “They took it because they had doubts about it.” Indeed, The Daily’s early legal success did not last through the case’s eventual hearing in the country’s highest court. The Supreme Court issued its 5-3 ruling in favor of Zurcher in June 1978 with Justice Byron White issuing the majority decision. According to the opinion of the Court, the majority cohort of justices held that “the Court should balance the competing values of a free press and the societal interest in detecting and prosecuting crime” and stressed that the “Fourth Amendment [does not contain] an implied exception for the press.” “Some [justices] thought, ‘Well, it’s only reasonable that if there’s evidence showing who those [protestors] were, [the police] should be able to find it’ — especially since they went to the magistrate and were authorized to search,” said Bob Percival J.D. ’78 M.A. ’78, who began clerking for Justice White in 1978 and became very familiar with White’s perspective on cases like Zurcher. “The police seemed to have conducted themselves very well. They didn’t mess up the offices of The Daily, they put everything back, they didn’t find anything.” He further explained that the justices in the majority were concerned with the appellate court’s award of attorney’s fees against the police, a precedent that they believed might inhibit police from trying to enforce the law. “The justices thought this [was] kind of an overreach to punish the police for what they, in good faith, thought was lawful behavior and when they acted reasonably,” Percival said. Justice Potter Stewart’s dissent, on the other hand, gave more weight to the infringement of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of

the press than to the ability of police officers to pursue evidence. Stewart wrote that a police search of a newsroom not only “will inevitably interrupt its normal operations and thus impair or even temporarily prevent the processes of newsgathering,” but would also threaten the press’s ability to promise confidentiality to sources, which is “necessary to ensure that the press can fulfill its constitutionally designated function of informing the public.” Falk did not mince words as he described his disappointment with the majority’s ruling. “To this day, I think I am more bitter about losing this case than anything else I’ve ever done,” he said. “It was a huge injustice.” Falk reflected that unintended interpretations of The Daily’s policy of destroying possibly incriminating evidence may have cost them the vote of Justice Lewis Powell, who would have swung the decision in The Daily’s favor. According to Falk, Powell “found it offensive” that The Daily could use the policy to destroy specific evidence that it thought might get subpoenaed. “He [was] right, of course; if you destroy evidence in response to a subpoena, it’s a crime,” Falk allowed. “But that wasn’t the intent of the [policy].” For the then-former Daily staffers who had been a part of this legal process since its inception, the defeat in the Supreme Court confirmed their worst nightmare: setting Supreme Court precedent against journalistic privacy instead of in favor of it. “It was crushing,” Hoffman said. “The last thing we wanted was a judicial decision to the negative on this issue.” Hoffman commented that while the decision did not immediately affect The Daily’s regular operations, the staffers were “disturbed” by the “horrible precedent” that the ruling set that could be applied to other instances of police infringements upon press confidentiality. Freivogel, who described the entire process as “exhausting, chaotic [and] heart-wrenching,” remembered having a similar worry about the possible unintended consequences of their suit. “Everyone is always trying to be careful about what cases they bring so that they don’t create a bad precedent,” she said. With a wry laugh, she recalled the reaction of the staffers: “‘Oh gosh, what have we done?’”

Legislative remedy

Outrage over the ruling reached far beyond Daily staffers and their legal counsel: Journalists around the country were quick to condemn it and advocate for a legislative remedy. A New York Times opinion piece warned that “if the free press is eroded in the name of justice, justice will surely be eroded next,” and a column in The Washington Post declared that there was “a critical need to overrule the Supreme Court


STEVEN UNGAR/The Stanford Daily

“There was nothing [we] could do to prevent the search, but we did feel as though there was something we could do to shine a light on it, to challenge it and ideally to make sure it didn’t happen to anybody else.” — Barringer to protect the innocent again from public abuse.” A Los Angeles Times columnist even joked darkly that the right to privacy had been so threatened that “even your mattress is no longer safe.” But despite having lost in the Supreme Court, things started to look up for The Daily as the journalistic privacy issue moved from the judicial branch to the legislature. Many politicians agreed with the journalists who had expressed opposition to the Zurcher ruling,

seeing the need to keep the press separate from the legal system as much as possible. “Shield laws” intended to curb searches of third parties like news-gathering organizations in legal proceedings were quickly proposed, and within a year, many states had passed such laws. The Justice Department also quickly adopted a similar internal policy that discouraged federal prosecutors from seeking unpublished materials from the press in prosecutions. This legislative response culminated in Congress’s passage of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. The law established what lower courts had proposed in the Zurcher case: the requirement of a subpoena to search newsrooms for their unpublished materials. President Jimmy Carter’s signing of the law let The Daily’s advocates breathe a sigh of relief; though not by the means they had initially expected, their lawsuit ended up fomenting positive progress toward the preservation of the autonomy and confidentiality of journalists. “The most important impact [of bringing the lawsuit was to raise the issue [and call] attention to what Zurcher had done,” Mnookin said, adding that he felt relieved that Congress “essentially cut back the breadth of the Supreme Court’s decision… and [redressed] the balance toward the direction we wanted.”

Privacy Protection Act applied

Establishing this subpoena-first rule with the Privacy Protection Act proved to be an important step toward regulating the often tense relationship between the press and prosecutors. In fact, this issue resurfaced multiple times for Freivogel during her long career as a journalist. Freivogel worked as the news editor for St. Louis Public Radio in 2014 during the massive demonstrations in protest of Michael Brown’s shooting, which occurred a few towns over in Ferguson. Not long after one particularly serious protest, the radio station received a subpoena from the City Attorney requesting all of the reporters’ notes, audio outtakes, photos and the like. Political unrest, grassroots social movements and police turning to journalists for help with prosecutions? Freivogel had seen this movie before. “It took me right back to the same principle,” Freivogel said. “You don’t want your reporters and photographers to be seen as gatherers of evidence for the authorities.” Because of the Privacy Protection Act, police officers couldn’t enter the newsroom with a search warrant alone as they did in The Daily office in 1971. According to Freivogel, requiring the police to acquire a subpoena preserved St. Louis Public Radio’s agency and confidentiality by allowing the two parties to discuss the merits of the request, outside the heat of the moment. Though challenging the subpoena in court did not end up becoming necessary — it was

eventually dropped — the organization could have challenged it in court. The guarantee of that right, she said, was an important accomplishment in itself. However, that the fact that they even received the subpoena is cause for concern, Freivogel said. To her, the incident represented the legal system’s lack of respect for the merit of the free journalistic process and the chilling effect that the system’s actions can have on free journalism. “The federal justice department has a guideline that basically says they’ll only go to reporters as a source as last resort,” she pointed out. “And [the St. Louis City Attorney] had not gotten even close to seeing if that was the case here.”

An uncertain future

Freivogel’s déjà vu may be emblematic of continued tensions in the relationship between the media and the government. But while those tensions may not be going anywhere, the relationship itself has surely changed in the years since The Daily’s Supreme Court case as the media continues to expand into new frontiers. The onset of the Digital Age has made it less clear whom the Privacy Protection Act actually protects. As both Freivogel and Percival noted, the country’s press has shifted from legacy media to a fluid space to which everyone can contribute. According to Percival, applications of the Privacy Protection Act are much more complex today, given that the situation the law was written to prevent — a police search of physical files and photo negatives — feels glaringly antiquated. “[The Act was written] in an era when the only way [for the police] to get the photographs was to actually look in the files of newspaper,” Percival said. “Today, everything would be on social media.” The rise of the Internet and proliferation of online media organizations have also led to an expansion of the newsmaking profession beyond traditional journalists. “Anybody can be a reporter and can reach everybody through digital media,” Freivogel said. “Now, you get into the question of, ‘Who is the press?’” It would have been difficult at the time to predict the ways the media would change in the years after the Zurcher decision, and it remains to be seen if any new legal precedent will arise in response to these changes. But the principle for which The Daily advocated at the Supreme Court remains a central tenet of the modern journalism industry: that privacy and autonomy are paramount to the preservation of the free press. Contact Katie Keller at ktkeller@stanford.edu. 9


‘A Credit to Our Alm

A Daily editor (third from left) watches as members of the Undergraduate Senate (known then as LASSU) voted to give the student legislature the power to veto The Daily's selection for Editor-in-Chief.

125 Years of The Stan 10


ma Mater’

by Rebecca Aydin, Courtney Douglas, Fiona Kelliher, Hannah Knowles, Fangzhou Liu & Claire Wang On Sept. 19, 1892, John C. Capron, Carl S. Smith and John A. Keating, the first editors of The Daily Palo Alto — the precursor to The Stanford Daily — articulated their vision for their brandnew news organization, a year after Stanford’s founding. “True it is that the daily will not make a great university, but just as true is it that the daily is one of the signs of a great university,” they wrote. “This is not a paper by a few individuals, acting in a private capacity. It is the organ of the students of Stanford University.” The Stanford Daily has now been a campus fixture for 251 volumes over 125 years, spanning such landmark events as an editor’s expulsion from the University, a stand-off with student government, dozens of political protests and a decisive push for independence from the University. During that time, Stanford University has evolved. The beliefs of its students, faculty members and administrators have evolved. Naturally, The Daily and its role in campus life and discourse have had to evolve to meet the ever-changing needs of the Stanford community. As part of that evolution, The Stanford Daily transformed from what was effectively a campus bulletin to an independent news organization. In this feature, we consider those founding editors’ ambitions in the context of the paper’s history — and whether the paper has stayed true to their vision of it becoming the “organ of the students of Stanford University.”

The Daily Palo Alto The Daily Palo Alto was founded in 1892 under the auspices of the nascent Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU). Capron, Smith and Keating envisioned a nationally conscious publication that would “span the distance between this and other universities.” They also wanted The Daily to serve as a sort of collective bulletin board conveying pertinent information regarding student groups’ and professors’ work. The early Daily, even if it merely served as that collective bulletin board, was no small feat. According to a story in Stanford Magazine, “President David Starr Jordan and others questioned the need for a student paper.” Capron, Smith and Keating recalled opposition to the establishment of a Stanford paper just a year after the University’s own beginnings. “The substance of the cry was, We are a college not old enough nor large enough to support a daily,” they wrote. “We could not disregard the cry… As yet there is no demand for a daily but there is a field for it.” Despite initial pushback, the ASSU authorized the paper’s creation in one of its very first actions, even before the drafting its own constitution. The close association between The Daily and Stanford student government persisted until the 1970s, when The (Stanford Daily File Photo)

anford Daily 11


Daily became independent from the University (by student vote, in another ASSU election). The paper’s earliest editors in 1892 requested criticism and feedback from professors and students alike regarding the paper’s operations and content. The editors also did not tackle controversial issues related to the University. The Daily Palo Alto’s earliest iterations unquestionably lauded Stanford — or at least avoided direct institutional criticism. The paper often advertised then-University President David Starr Jordan’s and other professors’ addresses, athletic competitions and events related to student organizations. In this way, the paper’s earliest editions did fulfill the inaugural editors’ vision of a collective “bulletin board.” In late January of 1906, however, a particularly daring editor-in-chief (EIC) challenged this standard. Ben Allen ’07 penned an editorial condemning roughhousing and drunken behavior among student monitors in Encina Hall, where male students lived at the time. University administrators took issue with the editorial; just six days following the editorial’s release, Allen was forced to withdraw from Stanford by the Student Affairs Committee, which evaluated various disciplinary cases. Allen also had to forfeit his editorship. Prior to Allen’s dismissal, President Jordan said he would halt Allen’s expulsion should he comply with certain conditions, which included Allen gathering signatures from Encina Hall residents who would pledge to not oppose the proctors in the dormitory. If Allen agreed, he could be readmitted to the University but could not resume his role as EIC of The Daily. Allen declined these terms and was forced to withdraw from Stanford on Feb. 5. Allen explained that he refused President Jordan’s offer on principle, to take a symbolic stand for The Daily’s agency to criticize Stanford. “I consider this to be a question of greater importance than my mere personality,” Allen said in an interview with The Daily. “It is a question of policy. How is the student press of this University to be governed? It is because of this that I am taking my present attitude.” Allen was later allowed to return to Stanford but never regained his position as EIC. In the spring of 1926, in order to associate itself directly with the affairs of the University and to avoid confusion with The Daily Palo Alto Times, an entirely separate publication founded in 1905, the paper officially changed its name from The Daily Palo Alto to The Stanford Daily by means of a student vote in an

12

ASSU election.

Conflict with student government Student government’s control over The Daily since the paper’s inception eventually led to conflict over the degree of independence the publication desired from the student body government, which was known at the time as the Legislature of the Associated Students of Stanford University (LASSU). On March 6, 1957, the editorial staff led a walkout following the LASSU’s 12-to-4 approval of a bylaw change that would allow it to appoint and approve The Daily’s EIC. According to former LASSU President Robert Freelen ’57 M.B.A. ’59, the conflict arose between the LASSU and The Daily because the LASSU wanted The Daily to prioritize local and campus-specific news over national and international coverage. Freelen claimed that relations between the LASSU and The Daily were generally amicable; still, that difference of opinion between the LASSU and The Daily’s editorial staff on coverage priorities precipitated the legislation that would eventually lead to the walkout. The University administration ultimately sided with the LASSU. Steve Tallent, assistant to the president of the University, stated that since he was unable to get a ruling on the constitutionality of the Legislature’s proposed amendment from the Law School or the Department of Political Science, the LASSU had jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of the clause. “The only thing that permits freedom of the press on this campus is the Legislature’s good judgment,” Tallent was quoted saying in a Daily article. According to Stanley Gross ’57, who worked as a night editor at the time, Daily staff voted to go on strike to protest what he described as “the government trying to take over the newspaper and … take advantage of [The Daily].” The day following the walkout, two former EICs wrote letters to the editor, which were printed in the LASSU-published March 7 issue of the paper. Both writers argued that the actions of the Legislature violated the principle of freedom of speech. “This issue of The Daily marks the end of an era; the shutting off of the only organized voice of independence which has ever existed at Stanford University,” wrote Dick Meister ’56 M.A. ’57. Helen Dewar ’57 echoed his sentiments,

writing that Stanford “[deserves] more than a ‘trade journal’ of the LASSU — a propaganda sheet for the empty shell of what was once a student government.” Editorial staffers from some college newspapers, including the University of San Francisco’s San Francisco Foghorn and Washington State University’s Daily Evergreen, also backed The Daily’s actions against the LASSU’s move for control. “As I see it they were perfectly right to stand up for their principle — a principle of a ‘free, enlightened, critical Stanford Daily with no legislative shackles on it,’” wrote Dale McKean of the Daily Evergreen. Staffers at other college papers, such as UC Berkeley’s The Daily Californian and the UCLA Daily Bruin, sided with the LASSU. Following the walkout, a referendum was called on The Daily’s behalf; the paper won its cause by a 500-vote margin. Former managing editor Jim Palmer ’57 L.L.B. ’59 believes that the walkout was early evidence of the rift that would eventually lead to The Daily’s separation from the University in 1973. “Part of the staff ’s concern that they be independent was that they be uncontrolled by the administration or the student administration of the school,” Palmer said. “There was an evident desire to protect the freedom of the press that I think still exists today.” Felicity Barringer ’72, who served as EIC in the years leading up to The Daily’s establishment of independence, also argued for the necessity of The Daily’s independence. While the paper often covered issues of student government involving the LASSU, she said, it must be done “with the distance that … is always required of a journalistic organization looking at a quasi-governmental organization.”

Campus protests Although The Daily was able to resolve its 1957 conflict with the ASSU, friction between the paper and University institutions would only escalate in the years following. In the 1960s and early 1970s, The Daily attempted to navigate a particularly volatile time for both the Stanford community and the country at large — and in doing so, created the conditions under which the newspaper would seek independence. During these years of turmoil, the paper provided comprehensive news coverage of campus political activity, recording pivotal


events and providing a window into the highly charged campus climate at the time. “There was this whole zeitgeist against the war and against the establishment — against President [Lyndon B.] Johnson and against the government,” said Joseph Rosenbloom ’66, who served as managing editor of The Daily at the time. He added that there was a growing mood of student activism during the ’60s not only at Stanford, but also at universities across the country, with demonstrations such as the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, the Mississippi Freedom Summer and the start of the feminist movement. On Jan. 31, 1966, following the resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam, 800 students marched in Stanford’s largest protest to that date, one of many anti-war protests on campus

40 students stayed overnight. The activists demanded a moratorium on the selective service test, which was to be administered the following day. “It was an example of how more radical measures were being taken by the protesters, so they were escalating their tactics,” Rosenbloom said. “A small minority of students — nevertheless, a very vocal minority — was beginning to act more militantly.” In 1969, Vietnam protests at Stanford had shifted in focus to the University’s participation in classified defense research for the Defense Department through the Stanford Research Institute. According to former Daily EIC Philip Taubman ’70 — who now serves as an adjunct professor, Secretary of the Stanford Board of Trustees and Associate Vice President for

“It was a real challenge to, on the one hand, tell the goals of the anti-war demonstrators but then to be willing to stand up to their tactics when we thought their tactics — breaking windows, shooting at counter-protestors — were wrong.”

Independence

— William Freivogel Opinions Editor, Vol. 158 MARSHALL SCHWARTZ /The Stanford Daily

over the course of American involvement in Vietnam. Faculty also played a significant role in campus political activism; 32 professors and teaching assistants announced their endorsement of the January protest. Several faculty speakers also addressed the massive crowds outside of White Memorial Plaza and Cubberley Auditorium to publicly decry President Johnson’s decision to resume bombing. Later that year, on May 19, 1966, students participated in a sit-in in Stanford president Wallace Sterling’s office over the administration of selective service exams on Stanford’s campus, which allowed certain students to defer the draft on the basis of intellectual ability. Seventy-five students marched into Sterling’s office and occupied the lobby; approximately

The following academic year saw additional protests against the war. On Oct. 5, 1969, more than 8,000 students, faculty and staff gathered to participate in the Vietnam Moratorium, a nation-wide movement that called for an end to the war. For the entire day, students and faculty alike participated in rallies, panel discussions and leafleting campaigns to protest the war and discuss issues of foreign policy. This event remains the largest political gathering in University history. “You had people like me, who were coming from growing up in the ‘50s, in the kind of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ world, and we come to a campus, and there [are] drugs, there’s alcohol, there’s sex, there’s political turmoil,” said Bob Michelet ’72, who wrote for The Daily at the time. “A lot of people were coming into an environment that was extremely different from the one they had grown up in and were trying to figure out: Wow, what’s going on here? It was very exciting.”

Community gathers during Vietnam University Affairs — students actively lobbied the University to ban classified research at Stanford, blocking CIA recruiters and taking part in a sit-in at Old Union. “Stanford was convulsed in those days,” he said. On April 3, 1969, members of Students for a Democratic Society staged a nine-day sit-in at the Applied Electronics Laboratory in protest of classified research, which the faculty ultimately voted to end. The protest eventually turned violent and police arrested several participants. “It was upsetting to see an institution where vigorous disagreement is of the essence descend into a battleground — literally — over these issues,” Taubman said. “That was heartbreaking for me to see as a student.”

As Daily reporters covered campus political protest throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s and tried to occupy a neutral middle ground between campus activists and Moratorium. the authorities, the newspaper often found itself in tussles with administrators. Former staffers recall that administrators often felt that The Daily, which had implemented a policy of deleting unused negatives of protestors to protect their identities from police, was too sympathetic towards activists. But by the nature of the newspaper’s work, said William Freivogel ’71, a former co-editor of the Daily opinions section, reporters could not be revolutionaries. In addition, Daily writers did not necessarily agree with everything the protesters did in the first place. “It was a real challenge to, on the one hand, tell the goals of the anti-war demonstrators but then to be willing to stand up to their tactics when we thought their tactics — breaking

13


windows, shooting at counter protestors — were wrong,” Freivogel said. It was against this backdrop that The Daily eventually sought independence from the University, after a clash with administrators made both parties realize such a break was in the best interests of each. That clash was set in motion on Oct. 2, 1970, when The Daily published an op-ed entitled

which McGuire agreed. While discussions of independence had previously been “very vague,” according to Freivogel, the issue suddenly came into sharp focus as a result of the op-ed. That winter, 15 staffers and a communications professor convened for two quarters to study the potential pros and cons of The Daily’s independence, eventually producing a 150-page report.

“News has consequences, and journalism has consequences. You’d better understand what those consequences are ahead of time rather than discovering them after the fact.” — Rich Jaroslovsky, Editor-in-Chief, Vol. 165 “Snitches & Oppression,” written by Diarmuid McGuire M.A. ’73. The controversy stemmed from a line telling readers to “take care of snitches” and named two students who told the police that McGuire had allegedly broken lights outside the ROTC building during a protest. McGuire penned the op-ed during his 30-day jail sentence. To Marshall Kilduff ’71, Freivogel’s co-editor of opinions at the time, the language of the oped provides an example of the sort of rhetoric that consumed campus at the time — rhetoric that The Daily had a right to publish. “It was a time when everyone was writing very hot stuff,” Kilduff said. “Very angry, plenty of raw, tough opinions out there. This one I wouldn’t say was typical… It doesn’t age well… But at the time, groups on campus were really upset about things and would say just about anything.” McGuire said that the language of the piece, while more “explosive” than he meant it to be, was never intended to threaten specific people but rather was trying to warn fellow protesters of the potential dangers they faced. Still, the piece was so incendiary that he was jailed a second time for inciting violence, a sentence that was ruled unconstitutional after he spent another 30 days in jail. The University administration was not pleased. Then-Stanford President Richard Lyman said in a press conference broadcast on KZSU, the student radio station, that publishing the op-ed was a “journalistic atrocity,” and he saw an “increased urgency” in “making the Daily completely independent,” particularly because the administration might be held liable for any violence incited by the article. At the time, Freivogel and Kilduff maintained that the op-ed was not meant to incite literal violence, a characterization with

14

According to former EIC Rich Jaroslovsky ’75, the importance of independence was twofold. First, The Daily’s connection to the ASSU made it vulnerable to student politics, and second, the ASSU’s connection to the University also could threaten staffers’ freedom if administrators threatened to cut off funding or otherwise impinge on the organization’s ability to function. Meanwhile, as Lyman pointed out, the University could potentially be held liable for the paper’s contents. All of these issues together seemed to point to one solution: legal separation from the University. Full independence, however, took nearly another two years to achieve. It took effect Feb. 1, 1973, when The Daily established itself as The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation — a nonprofit, which legally disentangled the publication from the ASSU. “Independence will mean more work and responsibility for both our editorial and business staffs, but this is a small price to pay for total freedom from the threat of control by the University, the ASSU or any other special interest group,” then-EIC Donald Tollefson ’73 was quoted as saying in a Daily article at the time. “We are very happy.” Today, The Daily is legally and financially independent from the University and finances its operations through a combination of advertising and circulation revenues as well as annual printing subsidies from ASSU — which also separated from the University in 1995. For the young reporters who had covered the campus turmoil, debate over how to cover controversial events grounded their future careers. Jaroslovsky, Freivogel and Kilduff went on to become professional journalists, and they all felt that their Daily experiences helped them understand the risks of real-world reporting

from an early age, even if the challenges were unpleasant. “It sensitized me to the fact that news has consequences, and journalism has consequences,” Jaroslovsky said. “You’d better understand what those consequences are ahead of time rather than discovering them after the fact.”

The balancing act Separation from the University 44 years ago did not put an end to the challenges of balancing scrutiny of the institution with maintaining a relationship with the University administration. In recent years, other campus publications — most notably the anonymously written Fountain Hopper e-newsletter — have also challenged The Daily for the place of goto campus news source, forcing Stanford’s oldest paper to both explain and re-evaluate its practices. While The Daily has surfaced important stories over the years, the paper has a ways to go to reach its potential as an investigative force on campus. One of the paper’s biggest investigative successes came in 1992 when, following his tenure as EIC, John Wagner ’92 conducted an investigation in winter and spring that uncovered an embezzlement scandal in the Stanford Bookstore. On Feb. 5 of that year, The Daily published Wagner’s article revealing that the managers of the Stanford Bookstore, a nonprofit at the time, had created a private consulting firm to lease a vacation house to employees and then embezzled funds from the bookstore to buy items for said house. From February to May, Wagner wrote a slew of stories chronicling the bookstore’s corrupt practices, Stanford’s attempts to examine the situation and ultimately the California attorney general’s investigation. Wagner’s penchant for reporting led him all the way to The Washington Post, where today he serves as a White House reporter. In other cases, The Daily has struggled to stay afront of major developments on campus. In January of 2015, The Daily failed to break the news of Brock Turner’s sexual assault of a woman outside the Kappa Alpha fraternity house — a story that would explode onto the national news landscape in the months and years to follow. Joey Beyda ’15 M.S. ’15, incoming EIC at the time of the assault, lamented that The Daily initially missed the story amid regularly


“You always want to avoid being sort of the puff-piece, light feature and do harder-hitting journalism. I think that [is] a constant struggle... when you’re covering your classmates and professors and staff.” — Billy Gallagher, Editor-in-Chief, Vol. 242

published police records. “We were not the first on this story, which is something that I always regretted,” Beyda said. “The [Fountain Hopper] caught it first; they found it in the news blotter in a way we probably should have.” Since then, the Fountain Hopper has also challenged The Daily on what it perceives as a pliancy toward University officials. In spring 2017, the Fountain Hopper criticized The Daily directly in a series of newsletters, claiming that the paper “[kowtowed] to Stanford’s administration” when reporting on University Title IX issues because The Daily was financially beholden to the ASSU. The Daily’s Editorial Board disputed allegations that it had obscured facts and defended the paper’s relationships with administration officials — with whom Daily staffers frequently correspond and occasionally meet — as part of its efforts to provide balanced reporting. “Unlike the FoHo, The Daily has a relationship with administrators, and we are proud of this relationship,” wrote the Volume 250 Editorial Board. “Part of our job as a news organization is to keep the administration accountable, and we have a duty to hear and attempt to understand the University’s account — to include direct quotes from Stanford officials in our articles.” The Fountain Hopper, which argued in a response that it enjoys “an excellent relationship with many Stanford administrators [who] provide useful sourcing,” declined to comment for this article, referring Daily reporters to previous newsletters and its op-ed published in The Daily. The Daily’s policies for including those administrative perspectives have fluctuated over the years. In 2012, then-EIC Billy Gallagher ’14 announced in an op-ed that The Daily would no longer accept email interviews — a decision that the paper would later reverse, striving for phone and in-person interactions with sources but wary of excluding perspectives. While the no-email policy applied to everyone, Gallagher explained in a recent interview that the move was spurred by concerns over communication with the administration.

“We felt like there were some administrators who were really abusing the email interview process, and rather than it being more backand-forth, answering questions, we were getting basically PR statements in response,” Gallagher said. “It was a tough decision because obviously there’s a lot of administrators and professors [who find it] a lot easier to use email; they’re busy.” Now, The Daily does employ email, particularly for more factual queries — or when it needs comment on a quick turnaround. Over the years, the paper has cited its journalistic priorities in breaking at times with administrators’ wishes. In April 2000, The Daily was the first to report that John Hennessy would be selected as the University’s 10th president, going against search committee co-chair John Etchemendy’s explicit request. “It was one of those things that we thought of it as a truly Stanford University and Stanford student story; if anyone was going to break it, it had to be The Daily,” said then-EIC Ritu Bhatnagar ’01 M.A. ’02. Dana Mulhauser ’01, the managing editor of the news section at the time, got an off-therecord tip that Hennessy was to be selected, and Daily editors became determined to be the first publication to break the story. Mulhauser remembers that Daily reporters staked out a local hotel where the board members were staying. Mulhauser later had a private meeting with Etchemendy and the other co-chair of the search committee, who confirmed the tip but said they preferred the presidential news come straight from the press office. The Daily acknowledged the committee’s concerns about breaking the story but decided to go ahead with a piece. Mulhauser went to Hennessy’s house the night before his selection was to be officially announced to try to get a quote from him. She recalls approaching his home and calling to him while he stood on his porch and she stood by his front gate. “We were shouting to each other across the front yard and I said, ‘Well, we’ve learned that Stanford is going to name its new president tomorrow; do you have a comment on that?’” Mulhauser said. “And he said, ‘Well, that’s news to me; thank you for letting me know.’ So, I

got to tell him he was becoming University president.” But there is always more The Daily can do. While Gallagher is proud of coverage on tough topics like Title IX and mental health during his tenure as EIC, he noted that it’s challenging to produce stories with impact as a student publication with staff always in flux. “You always want to avoid being sort of the puff-piece, light feature and do harder-hitting journalism,” he said. “I think that [is] a constant struggle for any student paper because of how much the staff turns over and the unique relationship with subject matter when you’re covering your classmates and professors and staff.” Echoing The Daily’s mandate as a local newspaper, Theodore Glasser, professor of communication, emeritus — who served on The Daily’s board of directors for 19 years and was chair of the board from 2011 to 2013 — said he hopes The Daily will move towards publishing more articles that are tapped by national news sources. “I’d like to see more aggressive, investigative reporting — the kind of reporting that distinguishes one newspaper from another,” he said. “I’d like to see The Daily do stories of the kind that get quoted in other publications.”

In The Daily Palo Alto’s inaugural issue, its editors wrote in a letter to the Stanford community that they aimed to “make our paper such that it will be a credit to our alma mater.” For most of its early history, The Daily sought to do “credit” to the University by essentially acting as its bulletin board, for the most part simply documenting public events, sports games and research discoveries. But by the mid-20th century, the paper had begun to extricate itself from Stanford’s oversight. Accordingly, The Daily achieved editorial independence from the ASSU and ultimately its separation from the University, while working to tell stories that mattered to the Stanford community — even when that meant shedding a negative light on aspects of the University. One hundred twenty-five years later, this paper is almost unrecognizable as what was once The Daily Palo Alto. Yet if one thing has remained the same — while perhaps not in the way its earliest editors intended — it is The Daily’s mission: to be a “credit to our alma mater.”

15


Important Events in Daily History

The Daily Palo Alto before becoming The Stanford Daily.

Graphic by JACQUELINE LIN / The Stanford Daily

1892

The Daily Palo Alto publishes its first issue.

1894

1926

One of the earliest drafts of the ASSU constitution is published in The Daily Palo Alto.

The Daily Palo Alto is renamed The Stanford Daily.

1890

1900 1910 1920 1940 1960

1891

1906

Stanford opens on Oct. 1, 1891, with over 500 students enrolled.

An earthquake of estimated 7.8 magnitude destroys parts of San Francisco and Stanford’s campus, including the Quad.

1918

World War I ends.

1928

Herbert Hoover, part of Stanford’s first graduating class, is elected president of the United States.

1945

World War II ends.

1963

President John F. Kennedy is shot and killed in Dallas.

1964

The U.S. enters the Vietnam War after Congress approves the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

1968

Members of the Black Student Union interrupt a speech by Provost Richard Lyman, demanding the University do more to combat racial injustice. The University ultimately agrees to meet nine of BSU’s 10 demands.

1969

1906 earthquake damages Memorial Church. (CHRIS EISENBERG/The Stanford Daily)

16

Stanford alumnus Herbert Hoover is elected president. (FRANK CLOUGH JR./The Stanford Daily)

More than 8,000 people participate in the Vietnam Moratorium, calling for an immediate end to the war. It remains the largest political gathering in Stanford history.


1970

Daily op-ed “Snitches and Oppression” is met with backlash by the administration, eventually leading to The Daily’s independence from the University.

Marc Tessier-Lavigne is inaugurated. (Stanford Daily File Photo)

1971

Palo Alto Chief of Police James Zurcher obtains a search warrant and raids the Daily office in an attempt to find photographic evidence related to campus protests. The Daily sues Zurcher in response.

1973

The Daily breaks from the University, forming a non-profit, The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation.

Two hundred ninety-four arrested in Old Union sit-in. (RANDY KEITH/The Stanford Daily)

1992

1982

1978

The Supreme Court of the United States rules against The Daily in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily.

Following Stanford’s controversial loss to California in the final seconds of the Big Game, The Daily distributes a fake edition of The Daily Californian around Berkeley’s campus, reporting that officials had reversed the call and Cal had actually lost the Big Game.

1970 1971

Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo conducts the Stanford Prison Experiment.

1972

Stanford President Richard Lyman removes the “Indians” as Stanford’s mascot.

The Daily publishes an exposé revealing corruption at the Stanford Bookstore.

1995

2008

The Daily launches its online edition, becoming one of the first college newspapers to publish on the Internet.

The Daily staff moves its operations from the Storke Publications Building to its current home, the Lorry I. Lokey Stanford Daily Building.

1980

1990

2000 2010

1989

1992

2000

The Loma Prieta earthquake causes $160 million in damages to Stanford’s campus.

Donald Kennedy resigns as Stanford president amid allegations of improper government billing.

John Hennessy is appointed as Stanford’s 10th president.

2016

Marc Tessier-Lavigne becomes the University’s 11th president.

1977

Two hundred ninety-four students are arrested for trespassing and failure to disperse following a 16-hour sit-in at the Old Union over the University’s investments in South Africa.

Important Events in

Stanford and National History 17


Duran Alvarez A PILLAR of

STABILITY in an

Evolving Institution

by Ada Statler

W

hen I ask how long he’s been at The Daily, Hiram Duran Alvarez — known to most as just Duran — shrugs and then looks up at the collection of framed front pages on the wall, carefully curated to represent significant moments in the paper’s history. He points to the “7.0 quake rocks Stanford” headline from 1989. “Around then. That quake was crazy.” It’s his typical way of speaking: short and to the point, in soft but slightly laughing tones. Duran’s laid-back presence in the office is something students in the newsroom have come to expect like clockwork. He is most often in his corner workstation, eyes flitting from one monitor to another and fingers alternating between the keyboard and tablet-mouse, his wrist in a carpal tunnel prevention brace. Officially, Duran’s role is listed as “production manager” in the paper. This means that he uses special software to format and place all of the articles, pictures and advertisements into the paper each day before editors fill in blank headline and caption spots. In addition to this role, however, he has also been a guide and

18

MICHAEL SPENCER/The Stanford Daily

mentor to generations of Daily staffers. When Duran started at The Daily, the paper was laid out by hand each night. It was his job to manually cut and paste stories, setting column sizes and arranging them to fit together. Each page would then be set onto a cookie sheetlike tray in order to be copied. Photos were processed by hand, and an AP wire machine sat in a nook in the wall making mechanical clicking noises as national and world news was tapped out onto a rolling sheet of paper. Duran laughs about all the changes that have happened since then. Throughout all the changes in the newsroom — physical, technological and otherwise — Duran has been the lone constant. In an organization where student editors turn over twice a year, Duran is the primary source of accessible institutional knowledge. And yet, Duran was reluctant to be featured and even more reluctant to be photographed when I told him about the upcoming magazine issue themed around the history of The Daily.

He has a calm and quiet demeanor, tending to shy away from the spotlight. In keeping with these traits, Duran’s method of sharing his knowledge is more hands-off than a typical teacher might be. As former editor-in-chief (EIC) and COO Margaret Rawson ’12 described it, “Duran has a way of not needing to tell you that something looks bad but still somehow making sure that you know, and you learn it for yourself.” Duran himself said he enjoys teaching students but that he also knows it’s important to give new editors the time to make their own mistakes and learn that way, too. Some volumes, he says, it takes more time than others. But eventually the new team figures it out. “It’s just his simple observations that pack a punch and can really make you reevaluate what you’re doing,” Rawson said. “It has been years since I’ve seen him, but I can hear his voice perfectly in my head.” In all my conversations with former Daily staffers, there was one description of Duran that everyone came to at one point or another: patient. Patient, but still dedicated to getting the work done and done well. “What stands out most, even now, is the uncanny ability he had to infuse everything with that unmistakeable easygoing energy of his, making even an obsessive like me feel calm and, more importantly, like what we were doing deserved exactly that much time and care,” wrote former EIC Nadira Hira ’02. “It’s a lesson — in both staying centered and taking our work deeply to heart — that’s never left me.” As one might imagine, nights in a newsroom frequently go late, with deadlines ranging from midnight to one or two o’clock in the morning. But when a photo doesn’t come in or an error in an article is caught at the last minute, these nights can quickly turn even later. For students, this often causes escalating stress levels. Duran’s response? “He’d always just say something like, ‘Woah dog, what happened?’ but never get mad or anything like that,” said former EIC Victor Xu ’17. Another way Duran teaches is by making personal and lasting connections with the students that cycle through The Daily each volume. When I talked with Xu, he proudly reminded me that he won he “Duran’s Favorite” award at three end-of-volume banquets, a record. He also fondly recalled engaging in lengthy discussions about sports at Duran’s favorite


taco joint in San Jose. Xu is not the only staffer to have bonded with Duran over sports. Former editors told me numerous stories about venting over games or speculating on boxing matches with him. In one of the periods when Duran wasn’t working at The Daily, he ran his own exercise gym and boxing studio. Even now, he trains boxers in addition to his work with the paper. According to former sports editor and EIC Joey Beyda ’15, who also presented Duran with the Spirit of The Daily award in 2015, football or boxing are easy go-to topics when he returns for visits. “I’m not a big NFL fan, but I keep rooting for the Raiders for Duran,” Beyda said. In Beyda’s time, it was fairly common for sports editors to gather in the office at night and toss around a football. Duran would occasionally join in — but only when the game was far away from the layout computers. “Once we hit one of Duran’s monitors, and he got pretty protective, understandably,” Beyda said. “I think that was the only time I ever saw Duran get mad.” In many ways, Duran is the muscular, tothe-point guy wearing basketball shorts and a sweatshirt that you might expect from a boxing trainer — one popular entry on the office’s quote board featured Duran’s sarcastic comment about watching his “girlish figure” — but he also builds relationships with the less sports-inclined members of the office. When former staffers come back to visit the office, Duran is sometimes one of only a few faces Daily alumni will know on staff. With current staffers, he has little rituals with different students, whether it is two-handed high fives or barking “arts!” after he’s finished laying out the section and ready for the editors to add headlines. On particularly laid-back evenings in the office, Duran will share battle stories from Daily deadlines of past. Sometimes it is laughing about a physical fight that nearly broke out between staffers; other times it is recounting late production nights when the power went out and everything had to be redone. More rarely, Duran will talk about his personal life. Rawson remembers how Duran’s face lights up when talking about his kids. Sure enough, Duran’s smile widens as he tells me his youngest daughter is now studying to become a graphic designer, too. When the paper is finished and sent to the printer each night, it’s typically just one editor left and, of course, Duran. According to Duran, this is one reason why he has forged such strong connections with each set of EIC and executive editors. On one memorable night, Duran showed me all the files uploaded to the shared print server, with publications ranging from high school zines to The University of California, Berkeley’s Daily Californian. He opened up

the PDF, pointing to a headline or a photo and suggesting a potential change or two in the spirit of the front-page-switch following The Play. (For the record: This is not an opportunity we plan to take advantage of.) When I asked Duran if after all these years he still reads all the articles he lays out, he laughed a bit and hid his face under his hands. “Sometimes I read them, I guess — especially sports and opinions.” He laughs a bit more before adding that even without reading the articles, it’s pretty easy to know their content just from being around the office. “I hear a lot of conversations,” he told me. I pressed him, of course, on how much student gossip that also includes. “Oh, there’s always gossip or Daily politics,

but I try to stay out of that. That’s not for me.” But that doesn’t mean Duran doesn’t appreciate the fresh faces and constantly changing conversations at The Daily. He says he enjoys the intergenerational aspect and the high energy of the office. In addition to the time he spent on the gym venture, Duran took a couple of years away from The Daily early on to make fundraising graphics for Stanford. He learned quickly that this type of isolated, high-stress environment wasn’t what he wanted. “When you’re made to feel you can’t make a mistake, when the deadlines are always one after the other, that’s just not a good place to work,” he said. It didn’t take long before he was back with the paper. “The Daily’s been loyal to me, and I’ve been loyal to it,” Duran said. “After being in a situation where that wasn’t appreciated or present, that means a lot to me. It’s the culture

I come from.” Duran’s loyalty hasn’t gone unnoticed in the office, where he hasn’t missed a single day of work. But for many readers, his work goes unattributed. As former Daily staffer Kelley Fong ’09 wrote in her senior farewell column, “when the paper looks particularly good, people praise the (certainly deserving) students who write and edit it, overlooking the man whose behind-the-scenes labor and creativity make everything possible.” Fong concluded her column by thanking the people in her life that she called “Durans,” the unsung heroes that have supported her and countless others through the Stanford experience. Indeed, Duran’s job doesn’t sound the most appealing on the surface: late nights in the

MICHAEL SPENCER/The Stanford Daily

office, with a commute from the East Bay, to boot. Duran says he’s got the night owl sleeping schedule down by now, though, and jokingly declines to tell me exactly how fast he drives on his way home. “It’s all worth it,” Duran told me as we wrapped up our interview after production one night. It was 2:45 a.m., but he was as energized as ever. “You know, it’s cool to see all the students come through here with this drive and a want to take on challenges and the talent to take on the challenges. When I see people who really want to be a part of The Daily, I want to be a part of them.” Duran told me that nothing at The Daily feels permanent, but it’s hard for me to doubt that his legacy will be a lasting one. Contact Ada Statler at adastat@stanford.edu. 19


Exploring Stanford through history with

Tom DeMund’s

‘Walking the Farm’ by Julie Cross

U

nlike most new students to Stanford, my first view of campus was on the day I arrived to move in shortly before autumn quarter began. I explored after arriving, weaving my way through wrong turn after wrong turn to find Tressider and pick my Stanford ID card, walking through the Quad and snapping pictures for Facebook in front of Memorial Church and the palm trees along Palm Drive (and tagged that pic with a palm-related pun). Since I’d already decided to attend Stanford (and moved in), taking a tour now seemed low on the priority list in the whirlwind of orientation activities, class registration, actual classes, studying and joining clubs. When I heard about a new book written by a Stanford alumnus with themed walks that take readers all over campus, I figured it might be time for me to stop being on the go and start looking around, taking in my new surroundings. Thus, I picked up “Walking the Farm: 18 Themed Walks Exploring the Stanford Campus Plus 20 Local Hikes from the Foothills to the Bay,” by Tom DeMund and Stanford’s Bill Lane Center for the American West. In the book’s foreword, David M. Kennedy, History Professor and Emeritus of the Bill Lane Center, tells readers: “To walk the farm with [DeMund] — or to walk with his fine book in hand — is not only to limber the limbs and bask in sunshine and breathe fresh air, but to be instructed in the rich legend and lore of the Stanford campus.” Those encouraging words were

20

convincing enough to send me on what would be my first of several exploratory adventures. It was late afternoon when I set out on foot, preparing to tackle a walk titled “A 60 Year Flashback Stroll on Old Fraternity and Women’s Residences Row.” More than 50 years ago, this area was considered Stanford’s official fraternity and sorority row, something most universities are known for having. Today, the buildings and large houses featured in this walk are still used for student residences, though only a few are Greek-affiliated. I’m not a sorority girl myself — and haven’t really had much interest in their history before — but when taking this flashback walk, I was sucked into all of it. It was fascinating how the first of dozens of sororities formed at Stanford in 1892, but in 1944, the University Board of Trustees decided they were fed up with all the competition, and the Board voted to ban all sororities indefinitely, turning the former sorority houses

were turned into women’s residences. It took 37 years for sororities to reappear at Stanford, with Delta Gamma being the first in 1977, but even then, sorority houses weren’t approved on campus until 1998. I also found it interesting that the board hadn’t decided to remove all the fraternities — surely the male students were just as competitive in their house rivalries as their female counterparts? Even though I hadn’t set out on this journey to get wrapped up in fraternity and sorority drama, it was impossible not to think about how much change had happened in the span of just a few blocks of campus. Eventually I quit looking at the included map and began to trust the written directions DeMund provides for readers. DeMund’s skill of providing just the right amount of historical content to entertain, but not bore, reluctant historians like myself made the experience very enjoyable for me. In addition, his conversational DEVON ZANDER/The Stanford Daily


FEBE MARTINEZ/The Stanford Daily

first-person narrative made the experience far more personal and intimate, like having a friend guide me through his old stomping grounds. It felt like hardly any time had passed when I returned to the end of Lasuen Mall, where my trip had begun, and I was immediately eager to try another of DeMund’s guided tours. Staying with the Stanford residences theme, I next chose to explore what DeMund calls the “Noteworthy Residences Loop.” During this two-and-a-half-mile walk, I ventured up a hill not far from Tressider to check out the Knoll, a beautiful pink mansion, which used to be home to each of the University’s presidents until 1943. The pink mansion on the hill served a number of duties since 1943, including housing a Women’s Army Corps during WWII. Today, Stanford’s Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA) is located here, after a hefty interior renovation project prepped the space for the job. After the Knoll, I retraced, per the author’s directions, some of my earlier walk down the old fraternity and sorority row and then ended up winding through neighborhood streets where beautiful, architecturally unique houses sit — many of them providing homes to Stanford faculty members. The most interesting house to me was the Hanna House on Frenchman’s Road. Though it isn’t fully visible from the street where I stood, the book provides a great photo that makes it possible to visually fill in the blanks. Designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, the house is definitely unique with its geometric hexagonal shape, but the most interesting part definitely lies in its history. Wright designed the house for a married couple of educators and their three kids, who needed a nice home on a small budget, with construction completed in 1937. Nearly 50 years later, the Hanna family donated their

home to Stanford, but the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake did extensive damage to the place, making it unlivable. In 1991, preservationists jumped in to ensure Wright’s original design and artistic interpretation remained. This led to a four-year battle over how to reconstruct this house, and the reconstruction project ended up costing around $2 million and 10 years to complete. Continuing onto new adventures, pages 88-94 in “Walking the Farm” are devoted to what the author named “My Favorite Campus Walk.” I initially thumbed through the book in a similar manner to how one might view a cookbook, glancing at photos and bold-lettered headings. After skimming DeMund’s favorite walk on campus, I quickly shifted that one to the bottom of my to-do list, mostly because it covered areas of campus I’d seen already. At that time, I was more eager to see new parts of campus, but after covering over four miles under DeMund’s guidance, I wanted to know what he thought of these iconic spots at the heart of campus. The beginning of the walk led me to Rodin Sculpture Garden and then up to where the Memorial Arch once stood. I spent more than a minute admiring the view looking towards the Oval, soaking in the California sunshine and thinking about where I was a year ago, how far away my home in central Illinois seems and how lucky I am to live here, gifted with the chance to see this view every single day. I couldn’t help but wonder if this affection for Stanford’s campus and its beauty was simply a honeymoon phase of sorts, and eventually I won’t see it the same way. Nevertheless, I thought about how many times DeMund must have taken this walk to be able to provide such detailed descriptions, and he still found the campus compelling enough to

write an entire book about it. In total, I completed eight of DeMund’s themed walks on campus (thus far) and also had the pleasure of meeting and talking with the author following an on-campus event celebrating the release of “Walking the Farm.” I was curious about why he divided the book into themed walks rather than geographic locations, and he replied, “It’s impossible for visitors to see the whole campus in a one visit.” For example, “If a family of an athlete comes to visit, they’ll want to see the athletic facilities but might not have time for more.” This led me to ask Tom when his own exploration of campus began. He explained how during his first year, the one male dorm at the time was filled to the brim, and he was housed in overflow housing all the way in Menlo Park. He drove to campus every day that first year. Watching Stanford grow and change, returning frequently for football games and alumni events, is what inspired the guided exploration. Since I had already experienced Tom’s favorite walk through his book, I had to ask him about his second favorite. He had an answer ready: the sculpture walks, as “there’s so much art to see in one place.” Being an older, non-traditional transfer student, I came to Stanford feeling more than a little out of place. There were times in those first couple of weeks, while walking around campus, that I half-expected someone to emerge from an office and tell me that I’d wandered into private property. Despite my excitement, my amazement of everything around me, this place still felt like a stranger. Even when I set out on my first themed walk of Stanford, I expected it to be a lot like my other campus walks — lots of guessing, hypothesizing about which students might live in a certain residence hall or why Panama Mall seems to be the shunned cousin among the other magnificently landscaped campus malls. Nevertheless, with Tom DeMund’s trustworthy conversational narrative, soon I was no longer walking alone. The more I learn about this campus and its history, the more it begins to feel like home. I encourage anyone who has a desire to get to know this place and shift from feeling like an outsider to being on the inside to check out “Walking the Farm.” Like a recipe book, “Walking the Farm” is a novel you can keep on your shelf and test out one recipe (or in this case, one walk) at a time, because Stanford is a place where many of our dreams and goals will be accomplished, and we all deserve to know it to its fullest. Contact Julie Cross at jcross80@stanford.edu.

21


‘It’s just not fair’: An oral history of The Play and the 1982 fake Daily Cal By Neel Ramachandran and Sandip Srinivas

O

n Nov. 20, 1982, California shocked Stanford on a last-second miracle that is remembered to this day as one of the most iconic moments in college football history. After Stanford kicked a last-minute field goal to go up 20-19, Cal returned a kickoff for a touchdown with time expiring on a play that involved five lateral passes, an errant trombonist and enough mayhem to last a lifetime. Although Cal won the game, one of the lasting memories from the ordeal was a fake issue of The Daily Californian, Cal’s student newspaper, that members of The Stanford Daily's staff published four days following the game. The issue fictitiously proclaimed that the NCAA had reviewed the final play and invoked a made-up “Rule 55, Section C” that allowed it to overturn the referees’ decision and award Stanford the victory. After distributing copies of this fake issue on Cal’s campus, chaos broke out as a large portion of the Berkeley community fell for the hoax. Meanwhile, as news of the prank made its way back to Stanford, Cardinal students shared in a much-needed moment of comic relief as they tried to get over the heartbreaking loss. For their intricate and far-reaching work, these Daily staffers are now remembered for pulling off one of the most famous college pranks of all time.

Part I: A memorable game A once-promising season had turned sour for the 5-5 Cardinal as the team entered the Big Game losers of four of their last six. Nevertheless, a win in the final game of the season at Cal would give Stanford bowl eligibility for the first time in four years. 22

Tony Kelly ’86, entertainment editor: We weren’t used to having a good football team. Every Saturday, you would go and see [quarterback John] Elway do things that no one else could do on a football field, but we wouldn’t really win that much. Ivan Maisel ’81, former sports editor: They were still in contention for a bowl game when they got to Berkeley. All the bowl games wanted John Elway because it was John Elway, and everyone knew he would be the first pick in the draft. In the 85th Big Game, 5-5 Stanford faced off against 6-4 Cal, which was led by first-year coach and former Cal star quarterback Joe Kapp. Mark Zeigler ’85, writer: It was always played near the end of the season, and Stanford and Cal back then were never any good... This game has no [major] implications, but to me, that made it even bigger because that was basically your bowl game. Basically the entire student body went, and the student section was packed. Down 19-17 late in the fourth quarter, Elway lined up under center at Stanford’s own 13-yard line. A miraculous fourth-and-17 conversion and a big run from Dotterer helped set up kicker Mark Harmon for a 35-yard field goal with eight seconds on the clock. The kick was good, and Stanford took a 20-19 lead with four seconds to go. Todd Davies ‘85: I'm looking at the backfield and Elway about to take the snap, and I remember he kind of knelt down, and I thought that was kind of an interesting

moment of, like, either praying or reflection or thinking about the task that was ahead. And then he orchestrated this drive that eventually led them to score and it was amazing. Zeigler: That fourth-and-17 completion that Elway made, I think he would admit was one of the best passes he threw in college and maybe in his career. Maisel: [Stanford head coach Paul] Wiggin called timeout with eight seconds left, and I remember thinking, “Wow, that’s a lot of time.” But we kick the field goal, and we’re up by a point; what could go wrong?

Part II: 'The Band is out on the field!' After the go-ahead field goal, Stanford incurred an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and had to kick off from its own 25-yard line instead of the 40. From there, Harmon squibbed a kick to the Cal 45, picked up by Cal safety Kevin Moen. What followed was a seemingly endless cascade of lateral passes by Cal returners trying to keep the play alive. When a Cal player appeared to go down, Stanford band members and students began to rush onto the field, but the play continued to unfold. The Cal lateral train managed to get the ball back to Moen at around the 25-yard line. With no defenders left to catch him and a barrage of fans to weave through, Moen charged at full speed toward the end zone, running over Tyrrell as he spiked the ball in celebration. A hoarse Joe Starkey, Cal’s radio play-by-play announcer, crystallized the moment with his famous call, screaming, “The band is on the


field! ... The Bears have won! The most amazing, sensational, dramatic, heart-rending, exciting, thrilling finish in the history of college football!”

Gary Tyrrell ‘83, LSJUMB trombone player: With about two minutes left in the game, that’s when we started heading down to do our postgame concert. That’s why we found ourselves in the back of the end zone in that corner of the stadium while the game was still happening. Out of the corner of my eye, I see this Cal player running towards the end zone, and I figured he just wanted to get the hell out of here because there’s chaos going on around him. Then I realized, “Oh, he has the ball,” and the next thing I know, I was down. Maisel: The officials congregated at midfield, and the longer they met, the more my stomach began to sink. If they're meeting that long, it wasn't a good sign. The referee signaled touchdown, and Stanford people continued to celebrate because they weren't paying much attention.

Part III: Hatching a plan With a sense of gloom surrounding the Stanford student body, a group of Stanford Daily staffers saw an opportunity to brighten people’s spirits and needle Cal in the process.

Berns: I really thought that Stanford campus needed something, some kind of revenge for what had actually happened. [The idea for the Fake Daily Cal issue] came to me while I was at the Sunday Flicks, where they would put on a movie at Memorial Auditorium on Sunday evening. Sunday night, it popped in my mind that it would be a brilliant idea to do a fake paper after the game that basically said that the NCAA had given the Big Game back to Stanford.

Zeigler: Growing up playing a lot of pickup games in the neighborhood on the street, someone would always say, "Last drive, winner takes all," and then some kid would score and the other team would be like, "No no no, we want one more play," and that's kind of what it felt like.

Kelly: You don’t live or die with the football team, but it was close, and it was Cal, and it was Big Game, and the last game that Elway was going to play for us. It was a heavy mood in the way that sports can cause a heavy mood for a period of time.

Berns: This was pre-Photoshop, so we had the photo managing editor doctor a photo of the ref calling the play dead. We had a state-ofthe-art computer system at The Daily where we could change the type space and things like that, and we had copies of the Berkeley paper so we made it look exactly like the Daily Cal paper down to everything. In really, really small type we wrote that it was a Stanford Daily prank, but it was in such small type that you could barely read it.

Zeigler: It was a lot of work since we had to put together literally an entire paper, and we didn't end up sleeping two nights in a row. The story I wrote about Joe Kapp, I wrote in about 45 minutes at four in the morning. I'm not sure it would have come out that good if I'd had my senses about me.

The contingent of Stanford fans was convinced that the referees had gotten the ruling wrong.

Davies: “Oh my God, we've been robbed.” I mean, you know, they said we won the game. The play was ruled dead, and we should have won the game. And now because we're at Cal, and all the fans stormed the field, they ruled the other way.

After getting the go-ahead from the the EIC and business manager, the small team got to work assembling the entire newspaper from scratch in the span of two days.

Kelly: Mark wrote the most brilliant article that’s in there, which is the interview with Joe Kapp, who was always the kind of coach where one cliche would never be enough. Making up quotes for him like, “Life isn’t fair, I just swear to God it isn’t,” just sounded so perfect and so hilarious for that article in that time.

Mike Dotterer ’84, Stanford running back: I felt like I was an actor on stage. The whole thing was like a Shakespearean play.

Adam Berns ’84, sports editor: There's no doubt, and I've looked at it many many times on YouTube, that that last lateral was a forward lateral.

a lot of stories to write and a lot of schoolwork that week. He said, “Look, in 20 years when we're sitting on my Greek yacht, you're not going to remember the tests you missed -you're going to remember this paper," and that was what convinced me. I don't know where he came up with the Greek yacht, but it hasn't happened, and I'm waiting for my invitation.

Zeigler: There was a lot of resistance. It was Thanksgiving week, and people were getting ready to go home, and it was going to take a whole lot of time and money. It was going to require us doing it while we were doing our regular edition. And then there was the whole debate of, "Why are we doing this? Is it going to work? Is anyone going to care? Are we just being bad sports?” Tom Mulvoy, Knight Journalism Fellow: One of the fellows down there, the EIC named Richard Klinger, was initially quite reluctant. I said to Richard offhandedly, “I think if you don't do this, 35 years from now you're going to regret it.” Zeigler: Adam had to convince me, since I had

Mulvoy: I asked if I could take a crack at the lead story — I'd done some sports coverage, so the flow of such a story wouldn’t be a problem, especially if we were going to make it up anyway. Off the top of my head, I made up Rule 55, Section C — took me five minutes. Berns: We had seen some current event topics in columns in the [real] Berkeley paper, so we wrote humorous topical letters to the editor in the fake paper. We put some fake ads in there. I can’t believe we actually did this — I'm a lawyer by training, and I look back at this and laugh and think, “Oh my God, are you kidding me, we could have gotten in such trouble” — but we put in a two-for-one ad from the Berkeley bookstore [laughs]. The only people that knew about the paper were the EIC and business manager, me and Mark, the graduate fellow, the photo editor and the guy that laid it out. Everybody was told to say nothing about it. 23


Part IV: 'Life isn’t fair' After hours of frantic work to put together the fake issue, the group of Daily staffers drove up to Berkeley Wednesday morning to distribute the newspaper.

Kelly: I had a car at the time that had a Cal Berkeley sticker on it, and that made a lot of difference. I was the one that would end up transporting the issue to campus because it was a car that wouldn’t be noticed on the campus, because it had a bear sticker on the window. Berns: That morning, at 5 or 6 a.m., we took off with around 15,000 copies of the fake paper to drop off all over campus and in the Berkeley dorms. We got unbelievably lucky in that the Cal paper was coming out with a special double issue before the Thanksgiving holiday, and they ran into printing problems, which we had nothing to do with. Complete and utter luck. The Berkeley paper was eight hours late the day we ended up going up there with the fake Daily Cal, so we were the only paper on the campus. Zeigler: I had this blue and yellow sweatsuit, and after I got into Stanford, I was like, "I can’t wear this," so it had been sitting in the back of my closet, but that day, it came in handy. After distributing copies of the paper across campus, the Daily staffers stuck around to observe the reactions of the Berkeley community.

The buzz didn’t end at Berkeley. Upon returning to campus, The Daily was hounded by phone calls from media outlets across the country. Kelly: By the time we got back The Stanford Daily office that day, somebody had tipped off someone in the media, so there were all these radio stations and TV networks calling, and it was Richard and the sports editors who had to handle all of that. Richard Klinger ’83, editor-in-chief: The best phone call was from an adult at Cal — someone on the board of the Daily Cal or their faculty advisor — but he was threatening to sue us. He was very upset and said we'd done the paper wrong. My attitude was to let him blow off steam, but I was thinking, “We're happy to make this a bigger public matter if you want to do that.” Kelly: They somehow got a copy to CBS in New York. So here’s [CBS sportscaster] Brent Musburger on TV holding up a copy of the fake Daily Cal and laughing and saying, “This is great.”

Zeigler: We'd drop off a stack innocently and then wait 50 yards away, just to see what people's reactions were. We saw a cheerleader cry and a football player stop in his tracks and sit down. Eventually people would figure it out, but it took them a while.

Berns: I was shocked. I normally watched NFL Today because I was a big pro football fan. I was literally just watching it, and Musberger held up a copy — I don’t know where he got it — and he starts reading the Joe Kapp story, with the "Life isn’t fair. I swear to god it isn’t" quote. I almost fell out of my seat.

Kelly: There was this spectacle of the publisher of the Daily Cal collecting armloads of the paper just saying, “What the hell is this?” Meanwhile, people are taking copies of the paper from him while he’s complaining about it.

Davies: The fact that [Cal fans] could see how we felt in some sense, I thought there was justice in that and that it was an effective way to convey — I thought it was a clever thing at the time.

Berns: [In the fake issue] we had called for an all-campus rally to protest the NCAA, and something like 1,000 people showed up to this fake rally.

Part V: Remembering The Play and the fake issue

Zeigler: People relied on the newspaper to know what was happening, and in a sense we abused that trust, but it's also a college prank against a rival, so we didn't really care [laughs]. It was the ultimate example of fake news. 24

As a whole, the 1982 Big Game is remembered as one of the most absurd moments in the history of the sport. Maisel: The Play was the original. It still stands as the craziest finish to a college football game

in the history of the sport. Anytime a crazy play happens now, people compare it to The Play. The prank was wonderfully and artfully done. It just added to the lore. Berns: Back in my first year of law school at UCLA, I ended up working for a federal district judge, and I remember I had put the

KEVIN CASEY/The Stanford Daily

[fake] paper on my resume at the very bottom, and this federal judge happened to be an enormously huge Stanford football fan. When she read this thing, all she wanted to talk about in my interview was the fake Daily Cal. Obviously I got the job. Dotterer: What [The Daily staff] did was so ingenious. I would have loved to have one of these iPhones with a camera taking pictures of Cal students reading that paper. It took a lot of the sting out of it for people that loved Stanford football. Klinger: It was well received on campus, and that was the principal reason we'd done it, other than just a sense of justice and aggrievement. Mulvoy: It was terrific journalism and nothing to do with being on the college level. They did as well as any major newspaper would have done, and it did what it was supposed to do. Contact Sandip Srinivas at sandips@stanford. edu and Neel Ramachandran at neelr@stanford. edu.


Name: James Hohmann Graduation year, major: 2009, History Current job: National political correspondent for The Washington Post and author of The Daily 202 newsletter. Previously, senior reporter at POLITICO for six years. Role at The Daily: Editor-in-chief, Vol. 231 Favorite Daily experience: Breaking stories that had a huge impact on the campus conversation. Putting the paper to bed every night as EIC with a super talented team of desk editors. Making some of my best friends for life. Getting the chance to interview fascinating newsmakers who came through campus.

Name: Lindsay (Coleman) Allen Graduation year, major: 2005, History Current job: Trademark attorney, Perkins Coie LLP Role at The Daily: Managing editor of photo, photographer Favorite Daily experience: Daily banquets with the editorial staff, meeting my future husband (Scott Allen ‘05 — sports) in the newsroom sophomore year! Courtesy of Lindsay Allen

Name: Joel Stein Graduation year, major: 1993, English Current job: Time Magazine, but only until December. I've been working in magazines and TV sitcom writing — mostly magazine writing. Role at The Daily: I wrote a column for three years, editor of diversions, editor of intermission, managing editor Favorite Daily experience: Spelling things the British way. Also, the retreats. And just staying up late and putting out a paper. And having people read my column. Courtesy of Joel Stein

Courtesy of James Hohmann

Daily Staffers, T hen and Now

by Vibhav Mariwala

Name: Maximiliana Bogan Expected graduation year, major: 2020, Biology Career intentions: Primarily field research in biology or marine biology, but alternatively, maybe journalism or policy Role at The Daily: Photo desk editor Favorite Daily experience: Editing nights, 7–11 p.m.–ish, everybody is upstairs working, there's always food. MICHAEL SPENCER/The Stanford Daily

Name: Caleb Smith Expected graduation year, major: 2017, B.A. Public Policy; 2018, M.A. Public Policy Career intentions: Return to my hometown of Oakland and do work in local government to serve the community. Down the road, possibly run for elected office. Career aspirations include solving the Bay Area housing crisis and fixing the decay of the modern international system. Role at The Daily: Current news senior staff writer, formerly desk editor for campus life and graduate student affairs Favorite Daily experience: Writing articles that make a difference you can see in front of you. ROBERT SHI/The Stanford Daily

Name: Samantha Wong Expected graduation year, major: 2018, Human Biology Career intentions: Interested in combining science communication with being pre-med Role at The Daily: Executive editor, managing editor of The Grind Favorite Daily experience: When people started telling me that their favorite section of The Daily to read was The Grind. Just seeing The Grind transform over the years and become what it is today! Also, end-ofvolume production nights. All of them. ANDREW SOLANO/The Stanford Daily 25


The Archivist: A living time machine engineer The Hopkins Room in the Bing Wing of Green Library is spacious, with large, arched windows featuring a magnificent view of Hoover Tower and lined with antique books in wooden bookshelves, giving it that distinctive old book, museum-y smell. This beautiful room is the headquarters for the University Archives, which are not, contrary to what one might assume, located in hidden underground vaults deep within a mountain. With its juxtaposition of antique furniture against top-notch computers and digitization tools, the room is at once historical and futuristic: a perfect reflection of the work that is accomplished there. Preserving and creating narratives The goal of the University Archives is to preserve institutional memory by capturing student and faculty life at Stanford and to make this content available to researchers and students. With the archives spanning over 60,000 linear feet of manuscript and archival material and containing almost 300,000 books, this is no light task. Charged with deciding what is archive-worthy and what is not, the archivists play a unique role in the simultaneous preservation and creation of historical narrative. The University Archives is not the only such repository on campus. While the Special Collections branch of Stanford Libraries manages the University Archives, Curators, Reading Room and Manuscripts divisions, the other repositories include Stanford Law School, the Hoover Institute, the Stanford Medical History Center and the Archive of Recorded Sound. There is even an unofficial annual get-together of archivists, where they all convene to discuss ideas for enhancing Stanford’s various collections. The University Archives has a small staff, with only three full-time archivists, and, according to Head University Archivist Daniel Hartwig, it is difficult to say when the Stanford collection exactly started. There have been four official head University Archivists: Ralph Hansen (who in 1965 was the first to take the 26

role), Roxanne Nilan, Maggie Kimball and now Hartwig. In his current role, Hartwig collaborates with University offices, faculty, student organizations and institutions to take in materials, write descriptions of them to be used by researchers or in exhibitions and often digitize them. He hopes to broaden the diversity of collections and types of stories that the Archives harbors and also to raise awareness of its tools and interesting collections to the broader University community. “[Something is archive-worthy] if it documents the history of the University with a keen eye to research value,” Hartwig said. “But this research value changes and evolves. In the past it may have been letters or manuscripts; nowadays, it’s computer files, data sets, email… It gets more sophisticated and more complicated.” Hartwig contends that while his job is not as grandiose as it might sound, it also does not fit the image of the archivist as someone who simply stores antiquated objects on dusty shelves. On the contrary, archivists thoroughly engage with the material by describing and organizing it, and researchers in turn analyze and take inspiration from it. Almost every archivist that The Daily spoke with described their work as an extremely active process. “I fell in love with the tangible history of seeing in my studies works or ideas that literally changed the world,” Hartwig said. “I was just fascinated by those materials.” Diversifying collections Across the board, one of the major goals of repositories on campus is to diversify their collections to better represent Stanford students and faculty. Jenny Johnson, Collections Management and Processing Archivist for the University

by Ellie Bowen Archives, explained that working with many of the researchers and putting on exhibits has shown a need for more inclusive collecting and outreach to historically under-documented groups such as women, communities of color, activists and LGBTQ groups. Assistant University Archivist Josh Schneider also commented on this effort to collect underrepresented materials, officially titled the “Make Your Mark” campaign, stating that archivists are less afraid of exhibiting forward thinking and becoming political where it matters. “Archivists as a profession are moving away from the idea that we need to be entirely neutral when it comes to collecting,” Schneider said. “[We are] committed to providing that larger context … moving towards being committed to social justice, to being inclusive.” Drew Bourn, historical curator at the Stanford Medical History Center, spoke to this idea of the archivist as a promoter of social goals. Bourn collects materials both about the history of medicine at Stanford Medical School and about the history of medicine in general, and he believes that some of the most interesting work that can be done with primary source materials in medicine has to do with social work in relation to race, immigration, gender, sexuality, and labor and capital. “Being an archivist means you are responsible for making sure the primary source material of history is available and accessible to researchers today and in the future,” Bourn said. “[These materials] are there for researchers to put the pieces together to help us understand the past and figure out why things are the way they are now.” Part of the Medical History Center’s collection includes materials from a former student at Stanford Medical School, Leo Stanley M.D. ’12, who went on to become the chief medical officer at San Quentin Prison. His papers documented the unethical experiments he


FEBE MARTINEZ/ The Stanford Daily

conducted on prisoners as part of his research on eugenics. To Bourn, these papers testify to the history and evil of white supremacy and the denial of prisoners’ rights. But not all of the collections are grim. The Medical History Center also houses the papers of Adelaide Brown, who graduated from Cooper Medical College (a precursor to Stanford Medical School) in 1892 and who later opened up a family planning clinic in San Francisco. (Although it was highly illegal to provide information about contraception, she felt it was important for women, especially poor women, to have this information.) Archiving in the digital age Preserving these materials for the future can be a difficult task. Schneider and Johnson pointed out that, counterintuitively, the digital materials are actually at the highest risk of obsolescence. Hartwig echoed their sentiments, pointing out that the fundamental challenge of contemporary archivists is that software is ever-evolving and impermanent, which creates complications for preserving digital media. Hartwig used the examples of AOL Instant Messenger and Myspace, jokingly commenting on how communication via these mediums is lost to the void of software obsolescence. If archivists do not preserve digital media in a timely manner, it is lost forever. Because of this, the University Archives has focused much of its efforts lately on its digital repository. While digitizing materials can be both expensive and difficult, Hartwig believes the benefits outweigh the costs. Hartwig explains that if nothing is done with the magnetic video and audio recording in the archives, it could lose $44 million, according to a cost of inaction calculator that he and his team utilized.

The headquarters of the operation to digitize and provide access to media materials in the collections is the Stanford Media Preservation Lab in Redwood City. The lab consists of three specialists: Media Production Coordinator Geoff Willard, Audio Digitization Specialist Nathan Coy and Moving Image Digitization Specialist Michael Angeletti. If the Hopkins Room of the University Archives is the quintessential archive base — with its antiquated books and boxes filled with artifacts — the Media Preservation Lab is its 21st century counterpart. It consists of two separate high-tech recording studios, a video lab and an electronics work studio. All of these studios are used by the members of the lab to create objects for the digital repository, modeled after work done at Indiana University and The British Library. The recording studios are soundproofed and contain advanced software and audio devices used to digitize outdated record players and compact cassette tapes, while the video studio contains many old-fashioned film monitors and tapes. All of this equipment is serviced in the electronics work studio, where the team cleans and fixes old technology using parts purchased from anywhere they are still sold (primarily eBay). They also call in specialized mechanics who are often retired or the sole technician still working with that format of media. While the process of digitizing so much content can be cumbersome, lab members on the whole state that they enjoy the work. “My favorite part of this work is the content,” Angeletti said. “It’s hard to imagine doing this job if you don’t really enjoy the material you’re working with, and they do have some really fantastic collections. You’re learning

FEBE MARTINEZ/The Stanford Daily

something new every day.” Franz Kunst, Processing Archivist for the Preservation Lab, said that the most rewarding part of the job is when collections start coming together thematically. “[My favorite part of my work is] when you have a mess of a collection, and you sort it into an order... it’s a tricky thing, and it takes a lot of experience and a lot of judgement calls,” Kunst said. “But there are so many occasions where I will sort through a bunch of papers that don’t make sense, get them into chronological order, and then you see this narrative that just suddenly pops out.” Some of the highlights of Stanford’s collections include early photographs of Eadweard Muybridge (the founder of motion photography), papers from Black Panther Party members, the largest collection of rare books written in Arabic script (dating back to the 13th century) and recordings from Allen Ginsberg (an American poet and one of the lead figures of the Beat generation). To the archivists, while these materials are incredibly unique and valuable in and of themselves, they’re not worth anything if they sit on a shelf somewhere, unused. Teaching, learning and research based on these materials adds the real value, so the archivists of Stanford’s collections strive to make them increasingly known and accessible to the academic community and beyond. Although it may evoke a history already set in stone, in reality, the University Archives is anything but stagnant. Contact Ellie Bowen at ebowen@stanford.edu.

27


LIGHTROOM The Stanford Daily Archives

Snapshots of Stanford History

GRANT HOCHSTEIN/The Stanford Daily The Dalai Lama visits Stanford.

MARK FUNK/The Stanford Daily Beginning of building Florence Moore Hall. 28

CHRIS VALADA/The Stanford Daily Two technicians at SLAC’s nerve center.


MIKE TOPOLOVAC/The Stanford Daily “PoliSci Under the Sky,” a political science class taught outside in Main Quad.

MARK FUNK/The Stanford Daily View of the Oval from the top of Hoover Tower.

BURT HERMAN/The Stanford Daily The Stanford tree mascot and company. Beat Cal! 29


THE

Spirit of the Daily “Staying up each night to get the paper out and then breakfast at an all-night place.” — Thomas C. Dawson ’70, Managing Editor

“The endless hours of putting out the newspaper, walking across campus at 2 a.m., getting up and doing it again.” — Ivan Maisel ’81, Sports Editor

“Leaving the office at 3 a.m., I looked down at a stack of that day’s newspaper (which I hadn’t read); I reached for one, then paused... realizing it was already yesterday’s news.” — Michael Nichols ’94 M.A. ’95, Section Editor, Columnist

“Many mornings walking through campus before dawn after a night of covering protests. I remember broken windows, frayed nerves, dead-tired muscles and the certainty we’d be doing it all over again that night.” — Margaret Wolf Freivogel ’71, Editor-in-Chief

30


“All the late nights closing the paper with Bev and the gang, fueled by Jack in the Box burgers and pizza from Mountain Mike’s (the original one) and then wrapping it up with a drive (top down, freezing cold) to the printer in Menlo Park at 2 a.m. Nothing could top it.” — Bill Burger ’80, Editor-in-Chief

“Sitting around the office cracking jokes with the staff, dazzled by the intelligence and wit in the room.” — Mary Horngren ’80, Summer Intern

“Fascinating interviews — from the next Bill Gates (current students) to Bill Gates himself.” — Margaret Rawson ’12, Chief Operating Officer, Editor-in-Chief

“The Quote Board! Anything witty or stupid that was said in the newsroom was instantly greeted with shouts of ‘Quote board!’ — and it would be immediately typed up and posted for the enjoyment of all. You might say it was social media sharing in the pre-Facebook era.” — Terry Anzur ’76, Editor, Columnist

31


HEY, CARD! PRE-ORDER

THE QUAD 2018 A campus tradition since 1895. It’s a great keepsake for anyone, packed with event coverage, this year’s milestones, class photos and so much more!

PURCHASE HERE: http://jostensyearbooks.com/?REF=A09801557 CONTACT THE YEARBOOK TEAM: yearbook@stanforddaily.com

The Stanford Daily Magazine (11.17.17) — @125 Anniversary  

The Stanford Daily Magazine, November 17, 2017 (125th Anniversary Edition)

The Stanford Daily Magazine (11.17.17) — @125 Anniversary  

The Stanford Daily Magazine, November 17, 2017 (125th Anniversary Edition)

Advertisement