斯坦福大學的創辦過程非常不順利。斯坦福開課的兩年後,老斯坦福與世長辭了,整個經營和管理大學的任務就落到了他的遺孀簡•斯坦福的身上。當時整個美國經濟情況不好,斯坦福夫婦的財產被凍結了。(我估計要麽當時美國財產法關於信托財產方麵不健全,要麽斯坦福夫婦沒有把他們的財產轉到自己信托 Living Trust 下麵。這種情況現在在美國不會發生)校長喬丹(Jordan)和學校其他顧問建議簡•斯坦福關掉斯坦福大學,至少等危機過去再說。這時,簡•斯坦福才想到她丈夫身前買了一筆人壽保險,她可以從中每年獲得一萬美元的年金。這一萬美元大抵相當於她以前貴族式生活的開銷。簡•斯坦福立即開始省吃儉用,將她家裏原來的十七個管家和仆人減少到三個,每年的開銷減少到三百五十美元,相當於一個普通大學教授一家的生活費。她將剩餘的近萬元全部交給了校長喬丹用於維持學校的運轉。從斯坦福夫人身上我們看到一位真正慈善家的美德。慈善不是在富有以後拿出自己的閑錢來沽名釣譽,更不是以此來為自己做軟廣告,慈善是在自己哪怕也很困難的時候都在幫助社會的一種善行。
It's interesting that some people always suppose others have the worst possible motivation imaginable, even when the result of their actions are obviously beneficial to many people.
I'd only say I don't know any loving people think like that. It's impossible to be truly loving if you think people are fundamentally evil.
7grizzly 發表評論於
回複weston的評論:
As for me being different, you are damn right! And I hope I always have the courage to be.
7grizzly 發表評論於
回複weston的評論:
> To make her human? Pardon me. You're being mean now.
I understand you disagree but I don't understand why you think I have been mean.
I certainly didn't intend to and I don't want to be called so.
weston 發表評論於
回複7grizzly的評論:
>to make her human?
Pardon me. This is pretty mean.
What she did is beyond that.
I think there is no point in carrying on this. You're just different and I disagree with you
weston 發表評論於
回複CJ20878的評論:
Here is the official quote re. to the asset freeze. Nothing to do with you said, re. the legality of the mean he acquired the asset.
The cause was related to the ownership of the estate. And the supreme court ruled in the favor of Stanford estate.
If you disagree with this version, please give your source to support your assertion.
"On June 21, 1893, Leland Stanford died at his Palo Alto home at the age of 69. His death created a significant financial crisis for the university because Stanford managed the university as if it were part of his estate. His assets were frozen and all income to the university was halted. Jane Stanford refused to allow the university to close and used her own income ($10,000 a month to run three households) as executor of the estate to support the university through six difficult years, during which the federal government sought early payment on the long-term loans made in the 1860s for the building of the Central Pacific Railroad. Determined to keep the university open, Jane traveled to London in 1897 with the hope of selling her treasured jewel collection during Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee celebration, but the world economy was depressed and she found no buyers.
In March 1896, the United States Supreme Court rejected the government's claims against the estate of Leland Stanford and its assets were released from probate in December 1898. "
7grizzly 發表評論於
回複weston的評論:
> I think you tried a little too hard to put down her.
Did I? I thought I was trying to make her human which she might have appreciated. I thought I said she was brave. By elevating her to stratosphere, wouldn't one risk putting down so many not-so-famous people that, proportionally, made no less sacrifice? She wouldn't approve of that.
> But you're entitled to your opinion and you don't need to be moved by her story.
Thank you. I respect your experience, too.
weston 發表評論於
回複麗雅的評論:
I don't know why some people are so hard on others.
Doubt they'd do the same, given the same opportunity.
Cheers.
weston 發表評論於
回複7grizzly的評論:
I think you tried a little too hard to put down her.
But you're entitled to your opinion and you don't need to be moved by her story.
What she did may be not extraordinary to you but it is to me, at least.
This world has seen hundreds even thousands of billionaires, past and present. Maybe 5-10 have done something similar. This tells you something.
麗雅 發表評論於
回複7grizzly的評論:
I can replace "I believe" with "Of course" if that is what you were looking for.
回複麗雅的評論:
> 樓下有人說斯夫人的貢獻不值一提,甚至比不”great sacrifices made by each of the millions of Chinese moms“。
This kind of straw-man style attacks are not helping anyone to achieve a better understanding. Please stop and re-read what I wrote.
7grizzly 發表評論於
回複麗雅的評論:
> 前人種樹,後人乘涼。教育孩子感恩,先從為人父母做起。這就是”the fuss."
I think 感恩 is a much different concept in the West. Mrs. Standford herself would agree to be grateful first to her Christian God. If she were alive, she wouldn't think it's appropriate for people to feel 感恩 to her personally.
7grizzly 發表評論於
回複麗雅的評論:
> - I believe it is relevant...
Beliefs are not rational. So we should stop here.
> - Then, you should have also mentioned in your comments the positive outcome of Mrs. Stanford's effort
Yes. Peoples lives are changed. So that must be good? Again, I wouldn't judge. I guess that depends on your values.
As for the outcome of Mrs Stanford's effort, there are enough ``positive'' comments already but they don't make the whole picture.
麗雅 發表評論於
謝謝分享,很感人的文章。
樓下有人說斯夫人的貢獻不值一提,甚至比不”great sacrifices made by each of the millions of Chinese moms“。實在不敢苟同,家長為自己孩子的教育前途”sacrifice“的結果是隻讓自己的孩子得益,斯夫人的慈善結果卻造福於人類。前人種樹,後人乘涼。教育孩子感恩,先從為人父母做起。這就是”the fuss."
麗雅 發表評論於
回複7grizzly的評論:
[As ``philanthropists'' they are not tiny or great--they are irrelevant.]
-- I believe it is relevant. The Gates could choose to donate 5% or 95% of their fortune to their charity foundation, and they chose the later; that's what makes him one of the greatest philanthropists.
"I'm seeking not to judge but to see the whole picture."
-- Then, you should have also mentioned in your comments the positive outcome of Mrs. Stanford's effort -- Having fostered generations of entrepreneurs including the founders of HP, Intel, Yahoo and Google who are also great philanthropists and have changed the world and the lives of millions including yours.
helloworld1000 發表評論於
我輩都折服於斯夫人的勇氣,善良.
7grizzly 發表評論於
回複麗雅的評論:
> On the other hand, these men are/were the greatest philanthropists in history.
They are the means and not the end. As ``philanthropists'' they are not tiny or great--they are irrelevant.
> Are we going to deny that they have/had made positive impact on society just because they had made mistakes?
I'm seeking not to judge but to see the whole picture.
麗雅 發表評論於
回複7grizzly and CJ20878 的評論:
Yes. Andrew Carnegie encouraged child labor and made his workers work for long hours with very low wages. J.D. Rockefeller used predatory tactics to make outrageous fortunes and was indicted on charges of monopolizing the oil trade. Bill Gates' software empire was ruled a monopoly that wielded its power to stifle competition.
On the other hand, these men are/were the greatest philanthropists in history. Are we going to deny that they have/had made positive impact on society just because they had made mistakes?
7grizzly 發表評論於
回複CJ20878的評論:
> I suggest reader to learn the history of Stanford - how did he accumulated his wealth!
It's good that you did and commented here. Otherwise, some of us would stop at reading this article and go no further.
CJ20878 發表評論於
I suggest reader to learn the history of Stanford - how did he accumulated his wealth!
Yes, it is great that he donated his wealth to the society - but his wealth was built based on the corruption of the age of public railroad from east to west.
That is why the congress freeze his finance.
But there is no doubt that his wife's contribution to this University and luckily the congress finally release the freeze but under the condition for the use of funding.
7grizzly 發表評論於
Given her circumstances, I don't find what she did was particularly great or her story especially touching.
Yes. She was brave and cut costs to support the U. But the U was virtually her baby--remember it was created by the couple to remember their only son who died early. To her, making money to make ends meet or accumulating wealth was not the goal any more. Her (and her husband's) legacy came first. Many people in her situation would have chosen to do the same thing.
Proportionally, hers might not even touch the great sacrifices made by each of the millions of Chinese moms and dads for their kid(s).
So what's the big fuss? I don't think Mrs Stanford would care if she were alive. She would think what she did was the most natural thing.
斯坦福大學的創辦過程非常不順利。斯坦福開課的兩年後,老斯坦福與世長辭了,整個經營和管理大學的任務就落到了他的遺孀簡•斯坦福的身上。當時整個美國經濟情況不好,斯坦福夫婦的財產被凍結了。(我估計要麽當時美國財產法關於信托財產方麵不健全,要麽斯坦福夫婦沒有把他們的財產轉到自己信托 Living Trust 下麵。這種情況現在在美國不會發生)校長喬丹(Jordan)和學校其他顧問建議簡•斯坦福關掉斯坦福大學,至少等危機過去再說。這時,簡•斯坦福才想到她丈夫身前買了一筆人壽保險,她可以從中每年獲得一萬美元的年金。這一萬美元大抵相當於她以前貴族式生活的開銷。簡•斯坦福立即開始省吃儉用,將她家裏原來的十七個管家和仆人減少到三個,每年的開銷減少到三百五十美元,相當於一個普通大學教授一家的生活費。她將剩餘的近萬元全部交給了校長喬丹用於維持學校的運轉。從斯坦福夫人身上我們看到一位真正慈善家的美德。慈善不是在富有以後拿出自己的閑錢來沽名釣譽,更不是以此來為自己做軟廣告,慈善是在自己哪怕也很困難的時候都在幫助社會的一種善行。