2007 (228)
2008 (195)
2009 (139)
2010 (93)
2011 (90)
2012 (50)
2013 (77)
2014 (72)
2015 (67)
2016 (62)
能這樣愛子和堅韌不拔, 豈能不成功
下麵文裏說的為"全加州孩子", 並不正確. 原文是:
Within a few hours of his son's death, Stanford said to his wife, "The children of California shall be our children."
憲章裏也沒有這一說.
ZT:
***
老裏蘭德•斯坦福夫婦把他們唯一的孩子小裏蘭德•斯坦福（Leland Stanford Jr.）送到歐洲旅行，孩子在歐洲不幸去世。斯坦福夫婦很傷心，後來決定用自己全部的財富（大約幾千萬美元，相當於今天的十億美元。）為全加州的孩子（Children of California，而不是傳說中的全美國的孩子或者全世界的孩子）建立一所大學，紀念他們自己的孩子。這所大學被命名為小裏蘭德.斯坦福大學（Leland Stanford Junior University），簡稱斯坦福大學。
1885 年斯坦福大學注冊成立，兩年後舉行了奠基儀式，1891 年正式招收學生。共有五百名左右的學生，隻有十五名教授，其中一半來自康奈爾大學。在這首批學生中，產生了一位後來美國的總統胡佛。（就是那位被評為最差的、把美國帶進 1929-1933 年大蕭條的總統。但是斯坦福仍然很為他感到自豪，建立了著名的胡佛研究中心）雖然斯坦福是一所私立大學，但是它在早期的時候不收學費，直到二十世紀三十年代經濟大蕭條時期學校財政上難以維持為止。
***
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。
靠斯坦福夫人的年金補貼學校畢竟不能使學校長期維持下去。斯坦福夫人親自動身去了首都華盛頓，向當時美國的總統克裏夫蘭尋求幫助。最終，美國最高法院解凍了斯坦福夫婦在他們鐵路公司的資產。斯坦福婦人當即將這些資產賣掉，將全部的一千一百萬美元交給了學校的董事會。斯坦福大學早期最艱難的六年終於熬過去了。喬丹校長讚揚道：“這時期，整個學校的命運完全靠一個善良婦女的愛心來維係。”今天，不僅是幾十萬斯坦福校友，我們所有的人都應該感謝斯坦福夫人。她用她的愛心，靠她堅韌不拔的毅力開創出一所改變世界的大學。
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.
As for me being different, you are damn right! And I hope I always have the courage to be.
> 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.
>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
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. "
> 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.
I don't know why some people are so hard on others.
Doubt they'd do the same, given the same opportunity.
Cheers.
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.
I can replace "I believe" with "Of course" if that is what you were looking for.
是啊，感恩是個大概念，感恩他國提供留學的機會，感恩可以過上言論自由的生活，感恩高科技提供了上網的方便、不出門可以知道天下事，有很多事可以感恩呢。通過斯夫人的故事教育孩子感恩，培養為人類造福的胸懷，不是很好嗎？
I totally agree that we should stop here。
> 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.
> 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.
> - 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.
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."
[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.
> 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.
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？
> 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.
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.
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.
我輩都折服於斯夫人的勇氣
I agree.