Anyone reading this blog knows that I am not satisfied with the way historical Stanford is being commemorated.

 
Why is this commemoration so important? James Baldwin wrote, “History does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it with us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.”
 
During a Stanford student’s busy life, I doubt, with all the weight of study, social obligations, the future, that much time is spent contemplating what might have happened during Stanford’s early days. For returning alumni, visitors, prospective students, it would be a different matter. Seeing sites, statues, reading plagues, being told about the early difficulties, and honoring the people who overcame them, would give insight into why Stanford University is such a great institution, to enter, to support.
 
If this is the case, why is it that: the statue of the Stanford family is relegated to an isolated site; the Chemistry building stands deserted; the Stanford Museum is devoted to art objects; unrelated statuary dominates Memorial Court; the first administrative area is unmarked; the first temporary chapel is unmarked; the first library is unmarked; Encina Hall is an office building with no visitors; Escontite Cottage, the first domicile in the area is unmarked, no visitors, and probably up for demolition when a new housing complex is built; and Ernest Johnson, Stanford’s only African American graduate for five decades is not honored. (Imagine the  impact a statue of Ernest Johnson in Memorial Court would have on visiting tourists and prospective students.)
 
I am sure there are other sites and people that are being forgotten or neglected that deserve mention.
 
There is a Historical Society and there is an Archivist and I am sure they are doing the best job they can under prevailing circumstances. My head is not in the sand and I understand those circumstances involve considerations of donor dollars, growth, and space. If these considerations meet historical significance head-on, there is no question that they will prevail.
 
If you agree with me, please bother the Stanford hierarchy: president, archivist, historical society, trustees, or anyone else who has clout. A single voice will not be heard.
 
One day, twenty-five, fifty years from now, the Stanford Community may ask our grandchildren, “How could they have done this? What were they thinking when they destroyed our Stanford heritage?”
 
Will our grandchildren answer, “We think they thought there were other considerations that were more important. Yes, they were wrong, but, now, that it is destroyed, what can be done?”