2007 (228)
2008 (195)
2009 (139)
2010 (93)
2011 (90)
2012 (50)
2013 (77)
2014 (72)
2015 (67)
2016 (62)
能这样爱子和坚韧不拔, 岂能不成功
下面文里说的为"全加州孩子", 并不正确. 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."
宪章里也没有这一说.
ZT:
***
老里兰德•斯坦福夫妇把他们唯一的孩子小里兰德•斯坦福（Leland Stanford Jr.）送到欧洲旅行，孩子在欧洲不幸去世。斯坦福夫妇很伤心，后来决定用自己全部的财富（大约几千万美元，相当于今天的十亿美元。）为全加州的孩子（Children of California，而不是传说中的全美国的孩子或者全世界的孩子）建立一所大学，纪念他们自己的孩子。这所大学被命名为小里兰德.斯坦福大学（Leland Stanford Junior University），简称斯坦福大学。
1885 年斯坦福大学注册成立，两年后举行了奠基仪式，1891 年正式招收学生。共有五百名左右的学生，只有十五名教授，其中一半来自康奈尔大学。在这首批学生中，产生了一位后来美国的总统胡佛。（就是那位被评为最差的、把美国带进 1929-1933 年大萧条的总统。但是斯坦福仍然很为他感到自豪，建立了著名的胡佛研究中心）虽然斯坦福是一所私立大学，但是它在早期的时候不收学费，直到二十世纪三十年代经济大萧条时期学校财政上难以维持为止。
***
斯坦福大学的创办过程非常不顺利。斯坦福开课的两年后，老斯坦福与世长辞了，整个经营和管理大学的任务就落到了他的遗孀简•斯坦福的身上。当时整个美国经济情况不好，斯坦福夫妇的财产被冻结了。（我估计要么当时美国财产法关于信托财产方面不健全，要么斯坦福夫妇没有把他们的财产转到自己信托 Living Trust 下面。这种情况现在在美国不会发生）校长乔丹（Jordan）和学校其他顾问建议简•斯坦福关掉斯坦福大学，至少等危机过去再说。这时，简•斯坦福才想到她丈夫身前买了一笔人寿保险，她可以从中每年获得一万美元的年金。这一万美元大抵相当于她以前贵族式生活的开销。简•斯坦福立即开始省吃俭用，将她家里原来的十七个管家和仆人减少到三个，每年的开销减少到三百五十美元，相当于一个普通大学教授一家的生活费。她将剩余的近万元全部交给了校长乔丹用于维持学校的运转。从斯坦福夫人身上我们看到一位真正慈善家的美德。慈善不是在富有以后拿出自己的闲钱来沽名钓誉，更不是以此来为自己做软广告，慈善是在自己哪怕也很困难的时候都在帮助社会的一种善行。
靠斯坦福夫人的年金补贴学校毕竟不能使学校长期维持下去。斯坦福夫人亲自动身去了首都华盛顿，向当时美国的总统克里夫兰寻求帮助。最终，美国最高法院解冻了斯坦福夫妇在他们铁路公司的资产。斯坦福妇人当即将这些资产卖掉，将全部的一千一百万美元交给了学校的董事会。斯坦福大学早期最艰难的六年终于熬过去了。乔丹校长赞扬道：“这时期，整个学校的命运完全靠一个善良妇女的爱心来维系。”今天，不仅是几十万斯坦福校友，我们所有的人都应该感谢斯坦福夫人。她用她的爱心，靠她坚韧不拔的毅力开创出一所改变世界的大学。
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，感恩是个大概念，感恩他国提供留学的机会，感恩可以过上言论自由的生活，感恩高科技提供了上网的方便、不出门可以知道天下事，有很多事可以感恩呢。通过斯夫人的故事教育孩子感恩，培养为人类造福的胸怀，不是很好吗？
I totally agree that we should stop here。
> 楼下有人说斯夫人的贡献不值一提，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.
> 前人种树，后人乘凉。教育孩子感恩，先从为人父母做起。这就是”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.
楼下有人说斯夫人的贡献不值一提，甚至比不”great sacrifices made by each of the millions of Chinese moms“。实在不敢苟同，家长为自己孩子的教育前途”sacrifice“的结果是只让自己的孩子得益，斯夫人的慈善结果却造福于人类。前人种树，后人乘凉。教育孩子感恩，先从为人父母做起。这就是”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.
我辈都折服于斯夫人的勇气
I agree.