CoopAtStan-28W Weds May 16 7:00 pm Draft Only — Draft Only — Draft Only

Co-operative Living at Stanford A Report of SWOPSI 146

May 1990 Preface

This report resulted from the hard work of the students of a Stanford Workshops on Political and Social Issues (SWOPSI) class called “Co-operative Living and the Current Crisis at Stanford.” Both instructors and students worked assiduously during Winter quarter 1990 researching and writing the various sections of this report. The success of the class’s actions at Stanford and of this report resulted from blending academics and activism (a fun but time-consuming combination). Contributing to this report were: Paul Baer (instructor) Chris Balz Natalie Beerer Tom Boellstorff Scott Braun Liz Cook Joanna Davidson (instructor) Yelena Ginzburg John Hagan Maggie Harrison Alan Haynie Madeline Larsen (instructor) Dave Nichols Sarah Otto Ethan Pride Eric Rose (instructor) Randy Schutt Eric Schwitzgebel Raquel Stote Jim Welch Michael Wooding Bruce Wooster ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people who contributed to this final report and the resolution of the Co-op crisis. Although we would like to mention everyone by name, it might double the length of this entire document. Our everlasting thanks go out to everyone who contributed. Especially Leland Stanford for having his co-operative vision, the SWOPSI Office for carrying it on and providing the opportunity for this class to happen, Henry Levin, our faculty sponsor for his help with the proposal process, Lee Altenberg, whose tremendous knowledge of Stanford co-operative lore is exceeded only by his boundless passion for the co-ops themselves; the Co-op Alumni network, the folks at the Davis, Berkeley, and Cornell co-ops, NASCO, and all of the existing Stanford co-ops for their support during this entire process. For special help with the house histories we would like to thank Susan Larsen, Sam Sandmire and Chuck Spolyar, Duane, Arvind Khilnani, Magic House, and all of the other co-op alums for their stories and contacts. Thanks go to Norm Robinson, Jim Lyons, Keith Guy, Charlotte Strem, Larry Horton, the Row office and Res. Ed. For the wonderful cover, we thank Irene Stapleford. We’re grateful to Eudaemonia house for their community, space, and food. To everyone who wrote a letter or signed a petition or filled out a survey, you contributed to what Bob Hamrdla called “the blitz”, thanks. AND and extra special thanks go to “Jack and Diana, two administrators, doing the best that they can....”

Co-operative Living at Stanford Table of Contents

Table of Contents Summary ...... i I. Overview...... 1 II. Co-operation ...... 3 Theories, Models and Issues Concerning Co-operation...... 3 What is Co-operation?...... 3 Five Kinds of Companies Co-operative in the Narrow Sense ...... 4 Principles of Co-operation...... 5 Notes on Community, Co-operation, and Sustainable Living...... 7 Leland Stanford’s Ideas on Co-operation...... 7 Residential Education and Co-operative Ideals...... 8 The Co-operative Houses at Stanford ...... 11 Goals of Residential Education Embodied in Co-ops ...... 11 The Co-op / Res-Ed Relationship ...... 12 III. Background ...... 13 Current Campus Residential Co-ops...... 13 The Stanford Residential Co-op Timeline...... 13 Co-op Vacancy Statistics: 1980-89...... 14 Columbae House ...... 14 Hammarskjöld House...... 18 Kairos House...... 20 Phi Psi House...... 22 Synergy House...... 25 Terra House...... 31 Theta Chi ...... 33 Defunct Residential Stanford Co-operatives ...... 35 Walter Thompson Co-operative...... 35 Jordan House...... 35 Androgyny House (aka Simone de Beauvoir)...... 36 Ecology House ...... 36 Other Co-operative Institutions at Stanford...... 37 The Co-op Council ...... 37 The Co-op Alumni Network ...... 37 Non-residential Stanford Co-ops...... 37 The Kosher Eating Co-op...... 38 Co-operative Living at Stanford Table of Contents

Stanford Federal Credit Union...... 38 Co-ops in the Community...... 39 Residential Co-ops at Other Universities ...... 39 Introduction ...... 39 UC Berkeley...... 40 Harvard...... 40 Cornell...... 40 Madison...... 42 Brown University...... 42 UC Davis...... 42 Conclusion: Implications for the Stanford Co-ops...... 44 Survey of Stanford Co-op Alumni...... 49 IV. The Current Crisis ...... 57 Chronology of the Post-Quake Events...... 57 Effects of and Concerns about Closing Synergy, Columbae , and Phi Psi Co-ops ...... 61 The Structure of Decision Making...... 64 V. Recommendations and Alternatives...... 66 Introduction ...... 66 Recommendations of the Class...... 66 Repair of Buildings...... 66 Changes in Co-op Programs This Year...... 71 The Co-op Union...... 73 Ethnic and Cultural Diversity...... 75 Options for the Future ...... 77 Co-op Office...... 77 Co-op Contract with the University...... 78 Resident Fellows...... 80 A Separate Co-op Housing Draw ...... 81 Future Co-op Buildings...... 81 Outreach to Other Co-opers ...... 86 For Further Reference...... 88 Appendix ...... 90 Co-operative Living at Stanford i Summary

Summary The students of SWOPSI 146 believe that they Overview have had an important role in the process that led As a result of the October 17, 1989 earthquake, to these decisions and hope the University admin- three Stanford residential co-ops were closed istration will continue to value their concerns and indefinitely due to structural damage. A group of input. co-op community members formed to monitor the administrative process as it made crucial Co-operation decisions regarding the future of the displaced The concept of co-operative living is hardly new. communities and to rally for their successful con- Indeed, most people across the world live in some tinuation. Several of them designed a SWOPSI type of co-operative housing (for instance, in a (Stanford Workshop on Political and Social nuclear- or extended-family home). At Stanford, Issues) class called “Co-operative Living and the however, the very word ‘co-op’ conjures up Current Crisis at Stanford” and taught it during images of extremism and deviance. This occurs in Winter Quarter, 1990. spite of the fact that Leland Stanford himself was The uncertainty of the aftermath of the earthquake a strong advocate of co-operative associations and made it imperative that the co-op community take considered the co-operation of labor to be, in an active role in the University decision-making general, a leading feature lying at the foundations process. It is only through the joint efforts of the of the University. The present co-operative administration and concerned students that movement is not directly connected with mutually satisfactory decisions are made. The Stanford’s vision, but with the student “Co-operative Living and the Current Crisis at movements of the 1960’s. While this period was Stanford” class filled this role by providing a a formative one for co-operation at Stanford, the forum for co-op community members to actively Stanford co-operatives must transcend this participate and by researching co-operation and pigeonhole and affirm those characteristics of how it relates to Stanford University. co-operative living from which all students can The changes forced by the crisis of the earth- learn and which further the goals of Residential quake made it necessary to analyze the Stanford Education. University residential co-ops. It also provided an The co-operative community at Stanford is opportunity to re-evaluate them. Although remarkable in its diversity, and there exists no Stanford co-op community members tend to be unified manifesto of purpose for members of the very satisfied with their residence experiences, the community. There do, however, seem to be some members of the Co-operative Living at Stanford ideals shared by many of the co-operatives. These class felt that an in-depth look at further co-ops strive to blur the distinction between potentials was appropriate. The class produced school and home, between mental and physical the following report based on their research. The labor, between the personal and the political. report includes background research regarding Consonant with this ideal is the emphasis placed co-operation and the Stanford community. It then on limiting environmental impact and rejecting the treats the nature of the current crisis. Finally, it opposition between “nature” and human society. recommends specific developments for the future Co-ops also act to encourage co-operation as a and presents other possibilities for the future that viable and fulfilling alternative to competition, and the class did not come to consensus on. serve as a forum where methods of co-operation Since the commencement of the class, the can be explored. Stanford Administration has committed to repair Lastly, co-operatives take many of the goals of one house, Columbae, and allow its displaced co- Residential Education and apply them within the op community to return there in the 1990-91 framework of the house itself. Thus, goals like academic year. The Administration has also social awareness and involvement, individual committed to temporarily rehousing the other two responsibility, and tolerance are not imposed by displaced co-op communities (putting Phi Psi in Res Ed, but are intrinsic to the ideals of co- the Alpha Delt House and Synergy in the Grove operation itself. Co-operation can be a way of life Houses), and to repairing their damaged houses which, while aware of its own history and origins, by an unspecified time no earlier than 1991-92. looks forward and works to create tangible Co-operative Living at Stanford ii Summary change. It forms, we believe, an indispensable part Theta Chi is organized around the idea of self- of a Stanford education. control — the house is owned by the co-op (technically its fraternity alumni group), and repairs, improvements, and all aspects of house Background managing are done by students. The house is Seven residential co-ops operated at Stanford known for having many singles and is close to prior to the earthquake in 1989. Through campus (as well as being cheaper both for rent extensive research, we explored their unique and food), a characteristic that usually brings in a characters and spirits. Each house has special diverse crowd. Theta Chi stays open all year features that make it unique structurally, and to round, and in the past has been a haven for some extent this affects the student population. groups seeking escape from University red tape. Columbae House still maintains its original theme Synergy and Columbae tend to stay away from of Social Change Through Nonviolence — a processed foods and run non-hierarchically. theme that has included ideas such as vegetarian- Many students mistakenly associate these traits ism, consensus decision-making, and recycling. with all co-ops, an attitude that residents have Columbae comes from a tradition of political attempted to change through outreach. In fact, the activity, which varies from year to year, and the survey conducted as a part of the class discovered house generally focuses on building a tightly-knit that some students thought a co-op (Synergy, I community. The house has an extensive co-op suppose) had a goat! library and archives. Several co-ops previously existed at Stanford, but Phi Psi House has a long tradition of “good are now defunct. Jordan House (now Haus Mitt) living” which encompasses the large house and was started in 1970. Little is known about the yard, and has in the past included traditions of house other that the fact that it had a few murals house bands and wild parties. The house is con- (some from Alice in Wonderland, and a Rolling sidered less political than other co-ops on Stones tongue on the door). Apparently the food campus. was bad, and the house was unclean. In 1977 it Hammarskjöld House was created to foster was terminated, and became Androgyny (or “International Understanding”, and in order to Simone de Beauvoir) House, a “theme” house further this goal has a separate draw which is focussing on feminism and gender issues. The more self-selective (to insure a geographically house was not fully equipped until three weeks and culturally diverse group). The small house into the school year, and was mysteriously has many Eating Associates. terminated after Winter Quarter of its first year, leading many people to suspect a conspiracy Kairos House draws a more “mainstream” (Haus Mitt, which had been approved to become group. Decisions are made by majority vote a theme house at the same time as Androgyny, rather than consensus and it is the only co-op that was placed in Jordan the following year). hires students from the house to cook. Kairos has Ecology House, an environmental theme house, maintained independence from the other co-ops started in 1971, it became Terra in 1973. The in the past, and only recently was officially listed reason for the name-change and loss of academic as a co-op in the draw book. theme is not known. Terra, once Ecology House, has become a more Stanford has many other co-ops on campus “mainstream” co-op in the 1980’s. It was nearly besides the seven residential co-ops. The closed by the administration after relatively Associated Students of Stanford University unsuccessful Draw seasons, but has survived and (ASSU) is a co-op of all Stanford students. The thrived since then. It is located in a large Cowell- Stanford Bookstore is owned co-operatively by cluster house. Terra has several interesting the faculty. Breakers Eating Club is also a murals. co-operative and recently Jewish students created Synergy House, originally created with the theme a Kosher Eating Club in the Elliot Program “Exploring Alternatives”, which included alter- Center. native energy, organization (non-hierarchical), and In addition to University co-ops, there have been sometimes vegetarianism. The house has a large a number of co-op houses in the local community garden and keeps chickens in the back yard for in which many current students or recent gradu- eggs. Also, the house boasts a large “Alternative ates live. These are usually transient (with a few Periodicals Rack” as well as many murals. exceptions). The Food Chain, a network of these Synergy residents tend to feel relatively detached houses, was started in 1978 so that food buying from mainstream Stanford University life. could be combined. Five or six houses would buy Co-operative Living at Stanford iii Summary bulk food and have parties or potlucks together. community’s involvement with the long-range The Food Chain lasted until about 1981. Magic planning of their future. By October 20, three of was started in 1979, in order to explore “human the co-ops knew they would not be able to return ecology”. Members of Magic work to organize to their houses for at least the remainder of the community projects (such as planting trees) and academic year. develop a larger community of people associated A difficult but often gratifying dialogue between with Magic interested in service. A number of co-op community members and the University other spin-off co-ops once existed, but no longer administration has continued till the present. Two do. functioning student/administrator groups that One of the most instructive aspects of the course formed in the aftermath of the quake were the has been the exploration of co-ops and co-op “task group” and the “work group.” The systems at other universities. For example, the co- former helped give student input, while the operative association at UC Berkeley is a full second was a decision-making body. These corporation with 1500 members, owns and even groups fit the consensus process of the students builds its own co-ops. Most other co-op systems into the complex bureaucracy of the University. are smaller — University of Wisconsin (at Madi- son), Brown, and Harvard all have small-scale co- In January, it was announced that Columbae was ops, usually two or three houses. Probably the scheduled to reopen the following fall, providing most diverse co-op system is at UC Davis, which a boost to the co-op community. Soon thereafter, includes off-campus co-ops and newer houses the University administration determined that they constructed on campus (which are parts of would fix the remaining houses within a few different co-op organizations), as well as Baggins years, and that the displaced communities would End, known as the “Domes”. There is a lot to be rehoused temporarily. In March it was finally learn from the ways students have set up co-op announced that Synergy would occupy the Grove systems at other universities. This report includes houses and Phi Psi would occupy the Alpha Delt names of people who know in-depth about co-op house in the coming year. construction and funding. The campus survey conducted as a part of the Recommendations and Alternatives class sought to identify common ideas held about A major focus of this class from the beginning co-ops by different student populations. Many was to consider and recommend alternatives for students believed the houses to be dirty, or felt the short, medium, and long term futures of the that co-ops were too large a time commitment, or co-ops at Stanford. This included both those held extreme political views. Clearly there is a closed by the earthquake and the co-op commu- need for education about co-ops, especially nity as a whole. This section presents the class’s among freshpeople. recommendations and other alternatives for the future. These sections should be read in full by The survey of Stanford co-op alumni was those interested in possible future action on responded to by members of many co-ops, but behalf of the co-ops. especially Synergy and Columbae. The vast majority considered living in a co-op a positive Some of the actions of the class have already experience. Many alumni explained the benefits been completed, some are continuing, and some they see in co-operative living. Their co-op are still in the form of recommendations or experiences at Stanford influenced many alumni options for further consideration. Actions that are in their lives and professions after graduation. completed need little discussion. The future houses of Phi Psi and Synergy, after much debate in the class and wrangling with administrators The Current Crisis and cooks, have been decided: the old Alpha Delt A chronology beginning with the quake on house for Phi Psi and the Grove houses for October 17, 1989 points out those events which Synergy. Suggestions for the repair of Columbae were particularly strengthening or disem- have been proposed but were rejected (although powering, with the hope of reinforcing the further suggestions might still be appropriate). former. Five of the co-ops were among a group of University residences temporarily closed by What specifically have we done and do we the quake. Co-op residents along with other recommend? displaced students met on the lawn in front of Columbae on October 19 to meet with the Modifications to Columbae House University administration. This meeting began the We recommend bringing Columbae closer to environmental sustainability by means of Co-operative Living at Stanford iv Summary insulation, passive and active solar energies, grey water, and a more flexible heating system. We A Co-op Union recommend returning temporary first floor rooms We recommend the formation of a co-op union. to lounges, the removal of two walls, new sinks, a House participation in this union should be new floor in the kitchen, and wheelchair voluntary. Each participating house would have 1 accessibility. We request that the individual – 2 representatives; the Union would be funded. character of the rooms in Columbae be retained, The co-op union could serve as a spokes- that the murals be saved, and that the size of the organization for the co-op community and a kitchen not be diminished. liaison to the administration. It could arrange both educational and hedonistic programs. It could Phi Psi and Synergy Structures help co-ordinate outreach for the draw. Possibly We point out the importance of the quasi-rural in the long term it could save money, perhaps for setting of these two houses, unique on the an emergency or to hire a staffperson. Stanford campus, and the importance of students’ living in a place with beauty and character. Their Ethnic and Cultural Diversity homes must be personal and personalizable. The Why do few of the co-ops attract a substantial murals, the chicken coop, pool table, wood floors, minority population, when generally these com- chimneys, and the items that contribute to the munities value cultural diversity? We must strive individuality of the houses must be preserved. to understand why racial and ethnic minorities do The second-floor bathrooms might be made co- not come to the co-ops. We should reach out to ed. Perhaps the Phi Psi attic and the Synergy roof ethnic communities in the form of joint programs can be adapted in such a way that people may and discussions, and by offering information. We safely make use of them as common spaces. could engage in workshops involving minority issues, invite professors to dinner, and bring Synergy and Phi Psi Transition ethnic bands to the houses. Now that Synergy and Phi Psi have houses (the Groves and the Alpha Delts) for next year, some Alternatives for Further Consideration concrete actions need to be taken. We suggest We suggest a number of other possibilities for that a “transitional manager” for each of the changes in co-ops in the coming years. For houses be named to ensure the process goes example, we could have a co-op office, in a uni- smoothly. The Alpha Delt kitchen should be versity space or in a co-op, staffed with paid equipped with burners and additional cutting- employees or with volunteers. Such an office board space. ASSU funds may perhaps be used. would presumably increase the clout and pro- Summer storage needs to be found, the kitchens gramming of co-ops, but it would cost money and must be assessed, managers and exempt spots perhaps introduce undesirable bureaucracy. must be assigned for next year, the house The co-ops could set up a contract with the belongings must be gathered from the offshoot University, clarifying mutual rights and duties on residences, and so on. a variety of issues (maintenance, the draw, leasing, unofficial practices, etc.). Such a contract would Co-op Outreach be both liberating and constraining, as the current We feel that a strong and united outreach effort ambiguity works sometimes against, sometimes would help more students see co-ops as an in favor of the existing co-ops. An additional attractive living situation and show the diversity problem is that one generation of co-op dwellers that actually exists among the co-ops. We would might, in violating or unwisely signing a contract, especially like to concentrate on making the cause unnecessary problems for future gen- currently unhoused co-ops (Columbae, Phi Psi, erations. and Synergy) more visible, providing them with extra support to compensate for their lack of Would we like to have “Resident Fellows” or operational facilities. Among the specific plans perhaps “visiting scholars/activists” in our suggested are study breaks and dorm outreach co-ops? The relation need not be hierarchical. The meetings, tabling in White Plaza and contacting term of stay need not be two years. Perhaps the people who signed petitions of support after the house could select one themselves. They would earthquake, updating and distributing the all- cost money but could bring in valuable resources. co-op booklet Co-operative Living at Stanford, Do we need a separate co-op housing draw? and holding a co-op week with various activities Co-ops (like Hammarskjöld) could be selective in White Plaza. and use their own criteria of student placement, but perhaps it would be exclusionary, and it might Co-operative Living at Stanford v Summary eliminate people interested both in U-op and co- existing co-ops (to limit liability). We don’t op housing and who put a mix of selections on recommend purchasing houses, though, unless their draw cards. the demand is sufficient and good management We discussed the possibilities for building could be assured. We do recommend the co-ops co-ops on Stanford land, but at present this consider starting a fund that would be devoted seems, if not unfeasible, at least far off in the exclusively to long-term projects, and that the future. We could build behind the foothills, in old co-ops consider joining NASCO as part of our faculty areas close to campus, or between the co-operation among co-operatives. Alpha Delts and the frat cluster, for example. The University right now, however, is sinking its Outreach Beyond the Class money in Kymball Hall, and afterwards will The class made an effort to communicate the probably focus on graduate housing or other ideas and actions of the class to the co-op com- kinds of building. Faculty houses are expensive munity at large, both formally and informally. to convert to full-scale co-ops, but they could be Although formal participation by people outside rented to students and operated pretty much as the class was not great, discussion with friends they are. A co-op or outside group could build on and acquaintances helped us in our decision- Stanford land with its own money, but it would making process. Some concerns expressed by have to meet strict safety codes and the University residents of Kairos are included. could take over and convert the house under certain conditions (much as they now take over Appendix frats). If such a group did build a house, it would An appendix includes numerous original be about as autonomous as Theta Chi, but its documents from the period of the earthquake and architecture could be as funky and appropriate to from the research and activities. co-op ideals as we wished. Also, if demand for co-ops mounts and a group of students have an interesting idea (e.g. a communal farm), the University administration is willing to stay flexible and open. A Late Note At any time, a group of students could take over As we went to press we learned the results of the an off-campus house. The primary problems housing draw: would be funding and demand (and persuading students not to participate in the draw). Buying a house off campus and turning it into a co-op would have several advantages. The co-op residents would be independent from the University (thus rent would probably be cheaper) and members could modify their house (paint murals, make improvements) as well as let non- students live with them. The house could stay open over breaks and summer. The main difficulties are in funding (houses in this area are expensive), housing demand (demand to live in co-ops on campus is low), and responsibility (mistakes or failures could have serious financial and legal consequences). Other co-op groups have taken this route in the past, though. At UC Davis an equity fund was accumulated through an increasing “tax” on the rent levied towards the eventual purchase of the house. At the University of Chicago, students relied upon loans from the National Co-operative Bank and several other co-op associations (such as USCA and Madison) plus their own funds, to purchase a house. Legal difficulties could be handled with the help of NASCO, and the houses could be owned independently of the other

Co-operative Living at Stanford 1 Overview

I. Overview Late on a cool clear Tuesday afternoon in of academic subject matter. The class was seen as October 1989, a major earthquake shook northern inevitably becoming an interest group, advocating California. From Santa Cruz and Watsonville to for the co-ops. But, at an October 1989 Oakland and San Francisco, the quake inflicted conference marking the 20th anniversary of serious damage, leaving more than 60 dead, many SWOPSI at Stanford, a group of current and more injured, and hundreds of homes and former SWOPSI participants were enthusiastic businesses destroyed. The image of a collapsed about reviving an old SWOPSI idea: focusing double-deck freeway in Oakland transfixed a SWOPSI classes on developing and implemen- stunned population, and it took weeks before ting solutions to real, local problems. This class almost anything else could be thought of or dis- would be a perfect re-incarnation of that spirit. cussed in the media. Together with reading and research on co-op At Stanford, where only by luck were major history and theory, the group would prepare a injuries avoided, hundreds of students were report outlining alternatives for the three closed displaced from their housing for a day, a week, or co-ops and the Stanford co-op system in general, more. Seven student residences were closed for and would also put forward recommendations the year, some perhaps never to be reopened. among those alternatives. Among them were three of Stanford’s seven Several alums provided resources for the course student-run co-operative houses. Along with two planning; the student co-instructors worked on fraternities and two other row houses, the resi- the planning while struggling to find new houses dents of Synergy, Columbae, and Phi Psi all had and patching together their academic lives. The to scramble for new quarters — tucked into result was a detailed 10-week plan outlining converted rooms or guest spaces in dorms, or off- background reading, research questions and campus. methods, and a process and framework for Many of the residents of the co-ops felt strongly exploring and evaluating alternatives. that the continued existence of their communities Twenty five people came to the first class, and could not be taken for granted. Deprived of the twenty remained all quarter. The first five weeks shared living that is the substance of a were devoted to providing a common framework co-operative community, students feared that the for discussion through reading different types of ties and traditions that sustained the houses materials, learning about co-ops at other univer- would erode to nothingness. The idealism that sities, and compiling and sharing histories of the motivates students to co-operate thus was directed co-operatives at Stanford. Four task groups were towards ensuring the future of co-operative living identified to organize different aspects of the after the quake. work; these groups focused on compiling a With the larger tragedy of the quake as an ever- history of the Stanford housing co-ops, present background, students reconstructed their researching other co-ops at Stanford and else- lives. Dealing with the University Administration where, surveying students campus-wide and became suddenly an everyday issue. Competing co-op alums, and monitoring the development of demands, lack of communication and an unavoid- University policies affecting the future of the able uncertainty left student/administration co-ops. relations tense. In the second half of the course, a larger number Madeline Larsen, a former resident of Phi Psi and of groups was formed to pursue different areas Theta Chi who now works in the SWOPSI office, and develop recommendations. From short-term first suggested organizing a SWOPSI class as questions such as “how do we communicate to part of a campaign to keep the co-ops open. Her students not in the class?” to long term issues contacts with students and other co-op “alums” regarding autonomy and alternative funding for soon produced a core group that conceived and the co-ops, groups of 2 to 4 drew on what they’d won approval for what became SWOPSI 146: learned to form concrete proposals. Co-operative Living and the Current Crisis at Controversial proposals were brought before a Stanford. meeting open to all co-opers not in the class, or Some people felt that such a class stretched the discussed by the whole class. Those on which the boundaries of even SWOPSI’s broad definition class did not agree consensually were left as Co-operative Living at Stanford 2 Overview options for the future. Where there was substantial agreement, proposals were advanced as recommendations. It is the collected results of this process that comprise Part V of this report, and which are the fruits of the seeds planted at the SWOPSI reunion conference. As we publish this report, we know vastly more about the future of the co-ops than we did just three months ago. On the one hand, we know where the three displaced communities will be physically located next year, and this provides a foundation on which to rebuild the communities. On the other hand, through the class we have studied a wide range of possibilities for the development of the co-ops and highlighted those we think feasible and desirable. We hope that this examination of the past, present, and future of co- ops at Stanford will provide an inspiration to the students and others who will take responsibility for their direction. Co-operative Living at Stanford 3 Co-operation

II. Co-operation control over a large amount of property. These two basic forms of property may be combined Theories, Models and Issues variously to yield the other forms of property, Concerning Co-operation such corporations, state-controlled property, or co-operative property over which certain people have disproportionate control. Holding property What is Co-operation? co-operatively requires the individual to submit to Broadly defined, co-operation is interaction the group will, but by so doing allows large harmonized for mutual benefit. Co-operation in resources to be effectively harmonized and direct- this sense may be contrasted with competition. ed toward goals unattainable by the individual. Co-operating organisms struggle together toward All companies are co-operative, at least in the mutual goals. broad sense. That is, they are animated by a Competing organisms struggle against each other common aim. This common aim may be artificial toward mutually exclusive goals. or natural. A farm, for example, may be animated by two purposes: first, to generate income for the Clearly, both kinds of interaction are essential to owner; second, to meet a need. In general, the first the proper functioning of society. For example, a reason will dominate. If the owner employs wage corporation must have internal co-operation if it is labor toward fulfilling the first purpose, owner going to succeed in external competition. and employees are animated by different (and to Co-operation and competition are suited for some extent competitive) goals: the owner to different goals. Any motion that is co-operative is maximize his or her profit, the employees to necessarily not competitive. Co-operative and maximize their wages. The company will only competitive companies must both co-operate and exist as a company so long as employee wages compete with each other. are sufficient to motivate the employees to pursue More narrowly defined, co-operation is quite the secondary interest that links them to the literally, “co-operation” — that is, the collective owner: providing food. Since this interest is not operation of a company. In a company collec- the first interest, it is sustained artificially by the tively operated, (1) every person served by the motivation of profit (for the owner) or wages (for company is a member of the company, and (2) the employees). every member has (at least potentially) equal A collectively operated company, on the other influence on the behavior of the company. The hand, is sustained naturally by the mutual interest goals of the company are thus guaranteed to be of its members. Profit and wages are identical and equivalent to the goals of its members, taken need not be reconciled. A collectively operated collectively. company arises to satisfy the needs of all its The word “company” is taken from the Latin members, and will be stable so long as the “co(m)-” (together) and “pan-is” (bread), in members share their mutual goal and find the origin identical to the word “companion.” A company an effective means toward their ends. company is thus a group of people who take their Students keep company. Every student residence bread together, a group of companions. Our is a company, animated by companions. Resi- definition of “company” shall encompass the dents are united in the task of residential living narrow use of the word in business, but shall also and share the goal of making their surroundings go beyond it. By “company” henceforth we pleasant and livable. Thus, they form associations mean any group of people keeping company for a of friends, floors, and halls, and act co-operatively mutual purpose, such as making bread, or any to create social events or to adjudicate differences. group of companions. They even hold co-operative property in the form Property may be held by a company. In a purely of house funds. However, not every residence is competitive system, each individual (or each co-operative in the sense of being collectively individual company) has total control over a operated by the students. Residences go various certain, generally small, bit of property. In a degrees in this direction, but none at Stanford is purely co-operative system, each individual (or entirely outside University control (nor, if one each individual company) has partial and equal was, would we call it a University residence). Co-operative Living at Stanford 4 Co-operation Residences tend toward co-operation as students where students cook and clean so that they might gain control of their environment. When students save money. band together to cook or clean, they act co- operatively toward a mutual goal. When students Marxist purchase their own food supplies, they maintain Marxist co-operatives are co-operatives initiated and direct co-operative property. Hired labor is by communist governments. Membership is not anathema to co-operation because it provides for voluntary, and control is so remote from the the mutuality of goals only through the artificial individual members that all but a few of the incentive of wages. Self-determination, on the members have, in effect, no control over the other hand, is essential: co-operation is a means system. Without voluntary membership, it is of directing resources and thus requires resources difficult to assure the singularity of the member’s to direct. aims without artificial means. In a competitive university environment, the Student housing may learn from Marxist benefits of co-operation and mutual support may examples the advantages and disadvantages of unfortunately be given slender attention. Co-op- enforced membership (a result of not filling in the eration is a skill that must be learned and prac- draw), of enforced ideology, and of outside ticed, and it is essential to the proper operation of control by those who “know better.” society. If a student learns only competition and never co-operation, he or she is not well prepared for a constructive role in society. A co-op can be: • a group of people coming together to produce something that benefits Five Kinds of Companies Co-operative all and that couldn’t have been in the Narrow Sense produced otherwise Drawing on and extending the work of George • an exploration of methods by Melnyk1, we may distinguish five general types of co-operatives in the narrow sense: the liberal which people can work together to democratic, the marxist, the socialist, the com- improve their lives or others’ lives munalist, and the informal. Each of these types • a method of saving $ by sharing has a degree of bearing on the residential resources co-operative companies at Stanford. • a method of empowerment, people banding together to work towards a Liberal Democratic collective goal and to gain strength Liberal Democratic co-operatives are generally businesses within a capitalist system, created as a unit — Classmember primarily to reduce consumer cost, and competing directly with more traditional businesses. They Socialist play a very limited role in the members’ lives Socialist co-operatives, like Marxist co-operatives, (unless the members happen to be employees), are multi-functional, serving more than one need and serve a narrowly defined function. One joins (such as employment, education and community). by paying a small fee, or even simply by entering Unlike Marxist co-operatives, however, they exist the place of business, and generally receives in within mainstream society, and their membership turn either reduced prices or periodic rebates. The is voluntary. The Basque Mondragon and the managers of liberal democratic co-operatives limit Israeli Kibbutz are examples of socialist co-ops. profit and return on investment, and return this They form full communities, and range over money, instead, to the consumer. The Stanford almost every aspect of their member’s lives. They Bookstore and the Stanford Federal Credit Union minimize private property. The members of are both co-ops in this sense. socialist co-ops are often united in their concern The student housing co-operatives, most narrowly for each other by a separate ideology, such as defined, are co-operatives of this sort. To be a co- Basque Nationalism or Zionism. This unification operative house at Stanford, one need only be a helps overcome the stresses put on the system by house operated in a liberal democratic manner: the competing goals of the members. As co-operation increases in the student housing co-operatives, they tend in some respects toward socialist co-operation, because (unlike, for 1Melnyk, George. The Search for Community. (Montreal: example, the Stanford Bookstore), the company Black Rose, 1985.) Co-operative Living at Stanford 5 Co-operation or companionship is pervasive in the student’s co-operation and a discussion of co-operation is life and serves multiple functions. general, is to acquaint the reader with what co-operation is in its ideal and to set the Stanford Communalist housing co-ops in the larger context of the Communalist co-operatives are small, utopian co-operative movement. communes. The members are generally united by common political or religious beliefs. The 1. Voluntary Membership. “hippie” communes of the early seventies Because formal co-operation often also depends belong to the political communalist tradition. upon informal co-operation (and thus trust and Monasteries and Hutterite societies belong to the goodwill) and because all members are taken into religious communalist tradition. Communalist account in decision-making, destructive influ- co-ops are small, and generally stress total egali- ences in co-operative companies can be particu- tarianism. They seek to dominate every aspect of larly damaging. For this reason, it is imperative their member’s lives, and are often the product of that the Stanford housing co-ops not have empty a single charismatic leader. They criticize and spaces that may be filled with people not isolate themselves from the mainstream of interested in contributing positively to the com- society. They control every aspect of ownership, munity. production, and consumption. They allow little or no private property. 2. One Person/One vote. When the Stanford student housing co-operatives This principle is implied in the definition of initially arose, they were associated with the co-operation. Every person must have the communalist tradition, although they are less so opportunity to exert influence upon the decisions now as communalism has waned in popularity. of a co-operative company, and this influence Still, the co-ops are small and sometimes tightly- should be equalized as much as possible. Voting knit communities, and Synergy and Columbae in per se is not essential. Most informal co- particular have tended to promote idealism and operatives are run by consensus as opposed to political involvement. voting, as are several of the Stanford housing co- ops, and this is generally not seen as incompatible Informal with co-operation. Informal co-operatives are companies of people banded together for a specific, informal purpose, 3. Open Membership. such as to go on a ski trip, or for a formal That anyone who agrees with the object of a co- purpose with largely informal attendant demands, operative company be admitted is in general a such as marriage or membership in a club. good rule of thumb. However, cases may arise Informal co-operatives are generally grounded in where exclusion (or selection, which amounts to the trust of friendship, and last so long as the the same thing) based upon an objective principle trust and the mutual goals remain. Informal co- such as ethnic diversity (Hammarskjöld) or based ops may control one or many aspects of the upon subjective criteria may be justifiable. member’s lives. They are generally the smallest co-operatives and the co-operatives most respon- 4. Limited Capital Return. sive to the demands of individual members. Companions working co-operatively may of course save or make money by doing so. What Informal co-operation appears constantly in this principle suggests is that investment, which is student housing in general, although it is an open a competitive principle, not be the guiding motive question whether it appears more or less for co-operation. frequently in the co-ops. Much of the positive experience of co-operation may be attributed to 5. Education About Co-operation. informal co-operation. It is often the prop without If a co-op is to be successful the members must which more formal co-operative companies would of course learn how to work co-operatively. If fail. one agrees with the ideals of co-operation one might be inclined to persuade others of these Principles of Co-operation ideals, and so long as such persuasion is done What makes a good co-op? Melnyk in The considerately, it is utterly appropriate. Search for Community lists fifteen basic princi- ples, which can serve as a good beginning for reflection.The purpose of presenting them here, along with descriptions of different kinds of Co-operative Living at Stanford 6 Co-operation the form of a co-op council or in the form of 6. Co-operation Between Co-ops. control by the Stanford administration). Once co-operation is learned on a smaller scale, it may be attempted on a larger scale. The results 12. Multifunctionalism. will generally be beneficial. If one agrees with the principles of co-operation, one would like to see these principles operative 7. Egalitarianism. on more than one plane of one’s life. Students in This principle is tied to the second principle, but the Stanford housing co-operatives should seek is considerably broader. The sentiment here is not only to co-operate about cooking and that social and political inequalities are largely the cleaning, but also in other aspects of their product of competition, and are anathema to interaction. co-operation. Co-operative groups are in a position to address these inequalities and should 13. Work Outside the Co-op. strive to do so. Members should not only co-operate within their communities, but should seek to promote positive 8. Nationalism. change in the larger community. Co-ops should adapt as best they can to their (national and other) environment. This does not 14. Self-Reliance. mean that they should go against their moral Self-reliance generates an atmosphere of mutual conscience or that they cannot strive to change commitment and responsibility. Self-reliance their environments, but rather that co-operatives separates one from involvement with and depen- should not be hostile or revolutionary, but rather dence on non-co-operative companies. Also, it sympathetic and evolutionary — that is, they ties in with the eleventh principle. Stanford should exist in a co-operative relationship as students should learn to take care of themselves, much as possible with those around them. because soon they may find themselves taking responsibility, not only for their own lives, but for 9. Class-Consciousness. the lives of others. Co-operatives should be aware of social problems (and not simply those of class) and do what they 15. Open Principle. can to alleviate them. This should be the case for The co-operative communities should be allowed people in general. The argument that co- to develop other principles as they wish. For operatives should maintain political neutrality so example, one co-operative might develop a as not to alienate members, however, also has specific principle of environmentalism, another some weight. might wish to be an all women’s co-operative. The ideology of a community should reflect the 10. Evolutionary Development. interest of its members, and should always be Co-operatives should engage in peaceful social open to change and input from its members. change. These principles are meant to guide, not to dictate 11. Decentralization. absolutely (nor could they dictate absolutely, even Central control and central administration provide if we wanted them to). In general, they are already the advantages of experienced decision-makers present in some form in the Stanford and continuity and consistency in decision- co-operatives. making, but these advantages must be balanced against the co-operative virtues of self-control and self-determination. The closer authority is to home, the more responsive it is to the needs of its members. This applies even if the members themselves are “in control” (e.g. as in the case of the voters being “in control” of the United States). Yet, co-operation itself is a means of centralizing action and guaranteeing that it will be harmonious, that individuals will not work at cross purposes. At Stanford, tension will always exist between those who want more independence and those who want more centralization (either in Co-operative Living at Stanford 7 Co-operation ability to limit environmental impact. In practice, Notes on Community, Co-operation, students who cook and clean for themselves are and Sustainable Living often in a better position to reduce conversion of People living in a community share, learn, teach, resources. Choices made concerning type of and grow in understanding as they cultivate an foods (plant, animal; fresh, processed), utensils, appreciation of the unique contribution which dishware, and handtowels (reusable, disposable), each person has to offer. People who work to waste (composting, recycling, throwing away), build community share common interests, values, and soap (biodegradable, non-biodegradable) all and purposes and also exhibit diversity in make a difference in the total environmental expressing these. A community fosters support impact of the people living in a house. for and from others, and encourages acceptance and toleration. Leland Stanford’s Ideas on Co-operation is an essential element of commun- Co-operation ity. The essence of co-operation lies in the idea It is one of Stanford’s best kept secrets that that people benefit more from sharing and Leland Stanford Sr. was himself a powerful working together than from competing against booster of co-operation in his later years. In an one another. Collectively, we can more fully article written in 1989 and published in the realize our purposes than we can working alone. Winter 1990 edition of the Stanford Historical Co-operation is an ongoing process which Society’s quarterly journal Sandstone and Tile, requires communication and understanding former Stanford co-oper Lee Altenberg docu- between members of the community. When we ments in detail the Senator’s beliefs about the co-operate, we acknowledge and celebrate the values of co-operation. interdependence of all the inhabitants of the Evidence of Stanford’s beliefs can be found right planet. in the Grant of Endowment of the University, People create a residential community when they which lists among the leading objects of the share housing and the responsibilities of daily University “...the independence of capital and the living such as cooking and cleaning. By engaging self-employment of non-capitalist classes, by in these activities, people feel closer to each other such system of instruction as will tend to the as they develop appreciation and understanding establishment of co-operative effort in the of the other members of the community. industrial systems of the future.” Additional The behavior of life, and increasingly the behavior sources Altenberg cites in his article include of human life, affects the environment. Each time Stanford’s address at the University’s Opening we act on ideas we carry inside of us, the Exercises in 1891, a letter of Stanford’s to the environment becomes a more accurate mirror of first University President David Starr Jordan human thinking. In turn, changes in the from 1893, and an address from Stanford to the environment impose demands for changes in University Trustees. From the Opening Address human behavior. comes the following quote: “We have also provided that the benefits resulting from co-operation shall be freely taught. ... Co-operative societies bring forth the best capacities, the best influences of the individual for the benefit of the whole, while the good influences of the many aid the individual.” Lifeforms interact with their environment like lock and key. Lacking a close Stanford also sought to advance the practices of fit, they cease to complement each other. When a co-operation through his role as a U.S. Senator. sufficiently large gap opens between the pattern Stanford introduced a bill that would lend money of a lifeform and that of the environment, death of to farmers on the basis of their land value, which the individual or extinction of the species ensues. Stanford saw as supporting farm co-operatives Humans are currently changing the environment and other small industrial ventures. Stanford’s in ways unprecedented in both type and speeches to the Senate on behalf of the bill magnitude. We will benefit by reducing the rate at further document his belief in co-operation and which we change the environment. the desirability of the independence of labor from capital. People living in University-operated, self- operated, and co-operated houses all have the Stanford’s beliefs had an influence on some early students of the University, including those who Co-operative Living at Stanford 8 Co-operation founded the Stanford Co-operative Association in fundamental way to develop characteristics of 1891 (which later evolved into the Stanford responsibility, involvement, co-operation, and the Bookstore, which is still legally a co-operative). A like — values which the Office of Residential class on “Co-operation: It’s History and Education hopes to promote. Influence” appears in the first year’s course At an institution like Stanford today, we run the catalogue. But Stanford died just two years after risk of buying into the myth of the high-status the University opened, and neither his wife Jane student who should be exempted from the nor President Jordan appeared to share “grubbery” which those in the real world must Stanford’s concerns. Moreover, the larger co- face. Many members of the Stanford community operative movement dwindled in the 1890s, and (including many of the students themselves) have Stanford made no provision to actually organize the attitude that students are here to do “mind the University as a co-operative, giving it instead a work” and not “physical work.” This attitude standard hierarchical Board of Trustees and an establishes inequality between students and the executive President. physical laborers we hire. Yet physical activity is Over time nearly all knowledge of his not a lesser form of labor than the mental activity commitment to co-operation disappeared. Men- that goes on in classes, discussion groups, and tion of Stanford’s vision appears in a Daily workshops. What we do (and do not do) article concerning the closing of Walter physically is a very real basis for how we think Thompson Co-operative in 1945 (see p. ???), and about the world. If we, as students, attend was resurfaced by a founder of the Palo Alto Co- Stanford for several years with a squadron of op in 1950, but when the student co-operatives we cleaners and cooks catering to our every need, know today were founded in the early ’70s, there how can we expect to develop the skills of is no mention of Stanford’s ideals. Perhaps with responsibility, working with others, or building a the publication of Altenberg's article, this little true community? known side of the famed “robber baron” might once again find its way into the lore and life of A co-op house should be a house or the University. place where people can live together and become good friends and Residential Education and community by sharing the tasks of Co-operative Ideals living. I’ve found that a tightly knit A full residential education could encompass co-op can foster healthy discussion such things as individual responsibility, social and can raise the consciousness of involvement, openness to difference, co-operation, and creativity. The Office of Residential the people living together. Education has been successful in promoting a — Classmember myriad of speakers, workshops, and programs which encourage these values. Student residences, In the University’s founding grant, Leland however, have the potential to provide an even Stanford himself stated a commitment to greater and more complete educational establishing and maintaining co-operative institu- experience. tions at Stanford. While it is true that several Students at Stanford might more fully explore the student-run housing co-operatives have been in ideals of responsibility, co-operation, and operation on the campus for decades, they are still creativity if they are able to cook and clean for the exception rather than the rule. The rule is that themselves. The policies concerning the day-to- unless students express a strong desire to live co- day operation of student residences at Stanford operatively, they will be provided with cleaners reflect a wider cultural belief that students, and cooks who will take care of their “dirty especially at Stanford, have certain rights which work” for them. Unfortunately for the co-ops, the rest of the population lacks. One of these student housing is currently approached from a “rights” is the right to avoid such day-to-day market analysis standpoint. If student demand for inconveniences as cooking for themselves and co-operative housing exists, then so does cleaning their own house. The fact that the University support for this type of residence. But University supplies cleaning and meal service to if demand seems to wane, then so does University the majority of student residences inadvertently enthusiasm. Regardless of student demand, condones irresponsibility and unco-operativeness certain things might be regarded as fundamental among students. Asking students to cook and to a worthwhile education. Is co-operation funda- clean for themselves (and each other) is a mental? Co-operative Living at Stanford 9 Co-operation Co-op houses face an obstacle in recruiting new members and promoting the ideals of co-opera- tion as long as co-operative living is viewed as a strange exception rather than the norm. Though unusual, co-operatives are a valuable interactive and truly educational housing option. Through co-operation, students create a real community, learning to take pride in their own contributions, and learning to respect and appreciate the contri- butions of others. By promoting co-operative residences, the University has the opportunity to continue to take education beyond academics, teaching students self-sufficiency and community responsibility through co-operation. Despite the rise and fall of interest in co-operative ideals, the benefits of co-operative living are too important to ignore. On the next pages we present a comparison of the official goals of Stanford University’s Residen- tial Education program and the the goals and practices of co-operative living at Stanford. Co-operative Living at Stanford 10 Co-operation Co-operative Living at Stanford 11 Co-operation

THE CO-OPERATIVE HOMES AT STANFORD

The essential conviction behind the Stanford co-operative homes is that the integration of living and learning is best enacted through daily interaction of community members. Our intellectual and social development is, in fact, greatly enhanced by our co-operative lifestyle. We are constantly exploring new ideas and incorporating knowledge gained in the classroom by openly discussing and critically examining such important issues as gender dynamics, racial and cultural differences, nonviolent social change, organization of human and natural resources, and environmental ethics. Furthermore, we imple- ment our values in the very way we live. Together we create a challenging intellectual environment and a supportive community for each other.

Goals of Residential Education Embodied in Co-ops Through co-operative living, we provide the following: • A supportive and friendly environment where members develop above all else a spirit of community strength and cohesion. • An intellectual and friendly atmosphere in which the constructive conflict of ideas provides incentive for personal academic research and achievement. • A stimulation of interest in cultural, social, and political activities sponsored by the University or other organizations; formal and informal discussions; the development of special house libraries which offer access to resources otherwise unavailable, and which record the historical evolution of the community, building awareness of traditions and past experiences; and encouragement of artistic expression and appreciation, ranging from mural painting to musical concerts. • An opportunity for co-op members to interact with each other, and with faculty guests, so that their ideas and values are constantly challenged and developed. The co-operative experience also offers a rare chance for undergraduates and graduate students to live together, providing greater diversity of perspective and insight as well as invaluable mutual assistance. • A place where the community as a whole concerns itself with aiding individual members solve personal and academic problems. • An alternative housing experience that many students are unable to have elsewhere, and one that truly represents the diversity of residential possibilities. • An opportunity to live and interact with students of different backgrounds, ethnicities, classes, religions and nationalities in a structure that emphasizes the importance of celebrating and reconciling these differences. • An environment in which we learn that “good citizenship and consideration of others” can mean much more than is usually expressed. In a co-op, each member is equally responsible for the functioning and governing of the house. • A social network that involves member interaction on many levels, helping “social competence” to grow as broadly as it does deeply. • Finally, co-operative residences provide living situations which give students a feeling of “empowerment.” We assume responsibility for our own decisions on the most essential aspects of our lives: food policies, living arrangements, work schedules. As members of a co-operative, we learn to see how our individual behavior affects the environment and community at large and to act responsibly. Co-operative Living at Stanford 12 Co-operation cation. Working together, the co-operative homes The Co-op / Res-Ed Relationship and Residential Education could revitalize general The co-operative housing experience dynamically interest through outreach programs (on the part fulfills Stanford’s goals for Residential of the co-ops) and commitment to making co-ops Education. Co-op homes build consciousness of more attractive by improving facilities or the union between living situations and education. augmenting programs (on the part of Res-Ed). Co-ops are then motivated internally by the Further tensions in the co-op / Res-Ed relation- desires of their members to build supportive and ship are the product of a mutual lack of trust. Co- healthy environments. Their independent agendas ops fear the encroachment of University authority coincide with the stated ideals of Residential on the independence they need to exist. We Education at Stanford. currently depend on Stanford for support, but we Why, then, are co-ops repeatedly compelled to recognize that self-determination is an integral justify themselves and assert their value within the component of co-operative living. Residential residential system? Since the problem is Education, conversely, must fear this very self- apparently not a conflict of values, it must determination. The University is held accountable necessarily lie in the relationship of the co- for its students’ living conditions, and it is operative homes to Residential Education. consequently reluctant to relinquish direct control over us. Although we share the purposes and One detrimental factor in the relationship arises ideals of Residential Education, we are inhibited from the perceived low demand for co-operative from developing a healthy relationship due to bad life by the student body as a whole. Residential faith. Both parties must work to re-establish their Education must cater to the desires and needs commitments through open communication. expressed by the student community, because it is basically useless to create a potentially ideal The co-operative homes at Stanford are a unique residence environment if it cannot attract experience in Residential education. To preserve members. Co-ops are not the highest priority of the co-op alternative, effort must be made to build Res-Ed because they are not the highest priority a relationship of goodwill and understanding of the student body. The solution to this problem between Res-Ed and the co-ops. Together we can could emerge from commitment and communi- generate a climate for growth and improvement. Co-operative Living at Stanford 13 Background

III. Background One of our aims in compiling this report was to first was distributed to current Stanford students. provide a fairly comprehensive description and From the results of this survey, we have a fairly history of the co-operative movement at Stanford. broad view of the images which the co-op houses Towards this aim, we present descriptions of past have within the various Stanford communities. and present residential co-ops, co-op The second was distributed to co-op alums. With organizations, and non-residential co-ops within their hindsight, we are better able to understand the Stanford community. We also take a look at all the various pros and cons of co-operative co-operative living arrangements within other living as it is takes place at Stanford. By careful universities for comparison’s sake. Finally, we self-examination, we are more likely to improve present compiled versions of two surveys. The our own co-operative homes.

Current Campus Residential Co-ops In this section, we present synopses describing each Stanford Co-op (Columbae, Hammarskjöld, Kairos, Phi Psi, Synergy, Terra, and Theta Chi). We hope to provide accurate images which reflect both the good and the bad, so that perhaps we can better judge where greater effort or even a change in direction may be beneficial.

The Stanford Residential Co-op Timeline

70-71 Jordan Columbae 71-72 Jordan Columbae Ecology 72-73 Jordan Columbae Ecology Synergy Hammarskjöld 73-74 Jordan Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi 74-75 Jordan Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi 75-76 Jordan Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi 76-77 Jordan Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi 77-78 Androgyn Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi y 78-79 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 79-80 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 80-81 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 81-82 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 82-83 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 83-84 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 84-85 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 85-86 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 86-87 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 87-88 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi 88-89 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi Kairos* 89-90 Columbae Terra Synergy Hammarskjöld Theta Chi Phi Psi Kairos

* Kairos was first listed in the Drawbook as a cooperative in 1988, but it had been organized co-operatively for several years prior to that (see p. 27???). Co-operative Living at Stanford 14 Background

Co-op Vacancy Statistics: 1980-89

Year Columbae Synergy Phi Psi Kairos Theta Chi Terra 1980 5/2 3/3 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1981 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1982 12/8 19/19 1/1 0/0 0/0 12/11 1983 3/0 4/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/0 1984 5/0 12/6 0/0 0/0 3/0 22/19 1985 7/1 11/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1986 16/7 11/3 2/0 0/0 0/0 5/0 1987 0/0 24/14 0/0 13/7 0/0 10/0 1988 6/0 3/0 7/0 0/0 0/0 2/0 1989 2/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 6/1 (The two entries in the table correspond to first and second rounds of the draw).

plans, but for people on the full meal plans Columbae House rebates usually amounted to about $50 per quarter. Board bills were paid directly to the Physical Structure House, but rent was paid to the University. Columbae, built in 1896 and moved to its present location in 1973, is now centrally located, 2 Food Policy houses away from the Post Office at 549 Lasuen. At the time of the Earthquake, Columbae had not There are 20 student rooms (5 singles, 10 yet reached consensus on its food policy for the doubles, 4 triples, 1 quad, officially, although year. In two house meetings totalling 4 1/2 hours, different configurations were common, e.g. a 10 food policy had been discussed without person, 3 room, “commune”, etc.). Columbae conclusion, and another meeting was scheduled has a large kitchen, pantries, many fire escapes, a for October 18, 1989. In the meantime, food was large common room, a dining room (used to serve being ordered according to the ’88-89 policy, in dinner, not really eat it there— dinner was usually which Columbae was completely vegetarian. eaten on the front porch or, in bad weather, in the Vegan alternatives were served at all common common room), a good roof for sleeping, a large meals. The house avoided buying any types of front hall, and a library with books and archives. drugs (caffeine, sugar) and most processed foods Two first floor common rooms were converted (we had no name brands, except for Enrico’s into doubles for Roble Refugees in 1987-88 and salsa). Table grapes, sugar, and General Electric have remained as student living spaces since. products (I know it’s not a food, but I thought Outside are an organic vegetable garden, a I’d mention it anyway) were being boycotted. compost pile, rose bushes and some lemon trees. Dry goods were ordered from Sierra or Fowler Brothers. Milk was delivered in returnable glass Financial Status bottles. Before the quake, Columbae had a savings of about $1300. Dues to the house and payment for Governance Policy supplies were $57.50 for residents, $32.50 for All decisions were made by consensus, and had Eating Associates. The Board plan was extremely been since the house’s founding. flexible, with house members paying from $367.50 for a full meal plan (6 dinners a week, Rooming assignments were also made by open kitchen for all lunches and breakfasts) to $0 consensus at the beginning of each quarter if they wouldn’t eat there at all. People could talk (rooms changed each quarter). Typically the to the Financial Managers about how often they largest groups had priority over smaller groups, would be eating at the house and figure out how i.e. first the four people living in a quad picked a much to pay. Rebates varied for the different meal room, then the people in triples picked rooms, then doubles, and lastly, singles. A separate Co-operative Living at Stanford 15 Background meeting was held with all people desiring singles to decide who would get singles that quarter. Special Features Columbae is the only completely vegetarian House Work Division house on campus, and one of the very few in which rooms are changed each quarter. A library Columbae began a new system in fall ’89 on a holds Co-op Archives and the archives from one-quarter trial basis. There have been different Project Synergy, as well as books and textbooks systems in the past. about politics, the environment, economics, and Food-making jobs — 5 times/quarter — This other subjects and a collection of periodicals. included dinner crew, making some type of lunch for everyone, or making bread or granola and yogurt. Kitchen clean-up—every week Bathroom clean—3 times/quarter Special jobs/ House clean-up — 5 times/ History quarter — vacuuming, gardening and In April, 1970, a group of students met in Mem whatever else people thought needed to be Chu to discuss nonviolence as a way of life, a done. commitment to achieving social change through peaceful activism, as opposed to the violent means Managers—Columbae had 5 exempt that characterized many student movements spots—a theme associate, 2 other alleging to work for peaceful ends. To heighten manager positions were volunteered for awareness of the nonviolent option and to protest and included Compost, Library, Garden, the presence of ROTC on campus, they decided Dairy and Egg, Dry Goods, Produce, to fast for three days. Thirty people moved into Menu managers. White Plaza with blankets and bongos and Other systems had been used in the past, together planned to start a nonviolent group on including an unstructured system in which people campus and hopefully obtain an on-campus cleaned whenever they were inclined to do so and residence. In the Autumn of that year, academic thought things were too dirty (used in the early year 1970-1971, the group moved into a 1970’s). University house in the Cowell Cluster to build their community. Relations with the University The Columbae Community was housed in what The University assigns residents through the had been the Chi Psi fraternity house at 517 draw. Row Facilities does some maintenance Cowell Lane (in what is now Whitman House). work (asbestos removal, fixing windows, The 50 members of Columbae chose the house’s groundskeeping, etc.) and provides furnishings. name from several sources, including the Latin Columbae is University owned but does its own name for (peace) doves, Columbidae family, and cooking and cleaning. The house is usually the Woody Guthrie song “Columbia” closed over Winter break and over the summer. describing his thoughts about America as it should be. Nonviolence meant many things to the Theme house’s founders, encompassing all levels of Columbae’s theme is “Social Change through nonviolent action, including respect for other Nonviolence.” “Nonviolence” translates into all people and the natural environment, political aspects of house life, the philosophy being that action, a communal life, a non-manipulating, non- people can unthinkingly do violence to others consumer, and non-materially oriented world through overconsumption. To lessen their nega- view. The idea was to change society in the larger tive impact, Columbaens have a compost pile, sense while at the same time building an recycle, conserve energy and water, try to reduce alternative, nonviolent community. To this end, consumption, etc. the group ate only about $1.00 worth of food per Columbae has an exempt spot for a theme person per day, reused products, gave up other associate, and this year as part of house jobs there unnecessary products (like paper napkins), was talk of house members doing theme projects. recycled, had an organic vegetable garden in The theme project was not a part of priority Escondido Village, tried to buy the least assignments or signed house agreements. processed food (including grinding their own flour to bake bread), had a compost pile, and did all their own cooking and cleaning. The house Co-operative Living at Stanford 16 Background abided by the Quaker idea of consensus instead there, and therefore 80 people instead of 37 were of voting because voting was thought to affirm displaced, was that Columbae persuaded the one point of view while denying others. For many housing office that if their group were to have a years Columbaens baked dozens of loaves of chance to succeed, they needed a house and an bread at the beginning of each quarter and gave independent kitchen, and the housing office away slices to students at Registration. understood this and acted accordingly. Finally, in Members of the house organized both political mid-November, Stillman House was ready for and non-political actions throughout the years. Columbae to move into it, so Columbae members Some Columbaens refused military induction and moved out of the Delt House and into Stillman were arrested in March, 1971 for blocking entry House (which became Columbae) and the Delt to the San Francisco Draft Board and were given residents were finally able to move into the Delt five day suspended jail sentences. Others House. researched and published accounts of U.S war Columbae continued to be a community resource crimes in Indochina, worked in ecology and for nonviolence. They maintained a good library conservative projects, investigated Stanford of books, newspapers, and magazines concerned finances, and studied legislation to repeal the with alternative psychological, spiritual, and draft. The next year, 1971-72, Columbae political themes. They harbored and fostered organized the Peace Fund, which (among other many groups interested in various aspects of things) encouraged the Stanford Community not social change by providing volunteers to work to pay the 10% Federal phone tax on their phone with them, making rooms available for meeting bills (legislated in 1966 specifically to pay for the and giving them direct monetary support. war), sending a note to the phone company Columbae was the base for the Stanford Coalition explaining the action, and donating the saved Against the B-1 Bomber, the Trident Concern money to the Peace Fund to support organi- group, and the Stanford Community zations working towards a peaceful world. In Coordinating Center for the David Harris 1972-1973 Columbae collected more than 2500 Campaign, the Alliance for Radical Change pounds of clothing and raised money to fund its (ARC), Against the Grain (the alternative publi- transportation to Mud Creek, a large area of small cation of the Black Rose Anarchist Collective), towns in the Appalachian Mountains. and the Radical Film Series Group. Classes met It was decided to move the Columbae Community at Columbae to discuss political organizing, to Stillman House, with residents moving in sexism, communal living, and holistic health. Autumn 1973-1974. To complicate matters, In the Fall of 1976, the Stanford Committee for a Stillman House (built in 1896, formerly Kappa Responsible Investment Policy (SCRIP), with Alpha Theta sorority house) itself was to be many Columbae residents, challenged Stanford to physically moved to its present location at 549 divest itself of its stock in J.P. Stevens company Lasuen to make room for Campus Drive. The (a textile manufacturer with a record of horrible house was uprooted from its foundations in labor relations — portrayed later in the Sally summer, 1973, moved in two pieces down the Field movie, Norma Rae). Members of SCRIP road to its new foundation, then pieced back put on a Winter Quarter SWOPSI course at together with new wiring and appliances. This Columbae focused on South Africa and U.S. was all supposed to be completed in time for the companies that did work there. In the spring, this 37 Columbae residents to move in in the class grew into a campaign to have Stanford beginning of Autumn Quarter. It wasn’t. divest itself of stock in companies that did work The Columbae residents were temporarily in South Africa. This was an extensive campaign relocated to the Delt House, originally told that involving leafletting every dorm on campus three they would be able to move into Stillman times, dozens of showings of a film about South “October 15 at the latest”. The Delta Tau Delta Africa in dormitory lounges, a dozen rallies, an fraternity was on suspension and was forced out overnight vigil in White Plaza, a day-long fast in of their house for at least one year following which hundreds of students participated, and a many complaints of misconduct from neigh- week-long fast by 8 students. boring houses. The house was to be filled that The campaign climaxed in a sit-in in Old Union year with 43 men and women who were in which 294 students were arrested. Just about unassigned in the housing draw. Those 43 indi- all members of the Columbae community were viduals stayed with friends or found other involved in some capacity (as were many housing until they were finally allowed to move residents of Synergy and other co-ops). Many of into the Delt House. The reason Columbae was the students involved in these campaigns went on Co-operative Living at Stanford 17 Background to live together in households in Palo Alto and of his face to prevent identification so that his San Francisco for many years. Many also family (who were still living in El Salvador) worked with the South Africa Catalyst Project (to would not be murdered in reprisal. organize on the issue of South Africa at Columbae asked that the University recognize California universities). About 10 Columbaens Columbae as a Sanctuary and waive some normal from 1976-77 met every New Year’s Day for housing rules, but the University chose to about 8 years. respond to the matter as though it were a normal In the fall of 1976 year Randy Schutt built a solar housing policy issue, saying that University regu- oven that could bake 3 loaves of bread. The oven lations allow guests to stay for only three days. If has resided at Columbae or Synergy for about Columbae hosted refugees for longer than that half the years since then. This was also the year time, Dean of Students James Lyons said they that Bryan Coleman designed the Columbae could lose their housing privileges. Columbae T-shirt and cut a silk-screen stencil. Most Colum- remained active in various aspects of the bae residents since then have made themselves a Sanctuary movement, and Herman himself stayed shirt with this stencil or its duplicates. in various Row Houses after leaving Columbae. Columbaens were also very involved in the May of 1989 brought an occupation of President proposal to start Androgyny house, which opened Kennedy’s office and the arrest of 58 students its doors in Autumn 1977. In early 1977 the (including 4 Columbae residents), and then on Subcommittee on Residences of the Committee October 14, 1989, SWOPSI held a party at on Services to Students (COSS/R) considered Columbae to celebrate its 20th birthday. Three housing the approved Androgyny House in days later, there was an earthquake... Columbae, suspecting that Androgyny House would cut into Columbae’s constituency. Jordan House, Whitman House, ATO, and ZAP were Hammarskjöld House also considered as possible locations. At a house Physical Structure meeting’s poll only 4 of the 37 Columbae Hammarskjöld is a large house at 592 Alvarado residents said they would leave Columbae for Row. It is is the smallest of the co-ops, with 17 Androgyny, and after much action and many student rooms (9 singles, 8 doubles). Hammar- letters to the Stanford Daily from Columbae skjöld has a large lounge, a smaller TV room and residents, Jordan was picked as the location for a large dining room. The kitchen is small but has Androgyny House. a large pantry and dish-room. Behind the house Political activity and community building there are a study room (poorly heated) and a continued in Columbae, and in Autumn, 1985 guest room with a bathroom (currently housing 3 representatives from the different co-op houses Columbae refugees). met at Columbae to look into ways that they could provide meals for students affected by the Hammarskjöld has a large front porch with tall then possible United Stanford Workers (USW) columns many fire escapes, and a large fireplace strike. They hoped to educate people about a whose chimney was destroyed in the earthquake. possible strike and, at the very least, perform a Exterior amenities include a large lawn, basketball service for other students, estimating that they hoop and a volleyball court. could serve up to 150 extra students. Financial Status In April, 1986, Columbae consensed to declare At the beginning of the year 1989-90 Hammar- itself a sanctuary for Central American refugees, skjöld had an operating budget of $18,300/ possibly in violation of federal and Stanford quarter, somewhat higher after the earthquake. regulations. They did this to call attention to the Board for residents and eating associates is U.S. policy of returning El Salvadoran and $375/quarter. Rent (approximately $950) is paid Guatemalan refugees to their native countries to the University. Hammarskjöld has approxi- where, according to Amnesty International mately $12,000 on reserve in various savings reports, at least one third of those individuals are accounts. kidnapped, tortured, or murdered. Herman, a 40 year old refugee from El Salvador, came to stay in Student Composition Columbae and to speak of how oppression and As of October 17th Hammarskjöld had 26 death squads are forcing people to leave their residents including 2 female grad students and 4 homes. Throughout all of the abundant media male grads. There were 10 female undergraduates coverage that this received, Herman wore dark and 9 male undergraduates. 3 female glasses and a red bandana covering the lower half Co-operative Living at Stanford 18 Background undergraduates were added after the earthquake. from some house jobs, such as the weekly As part of its theme of “International dish crew. Understanding” Hammarskjöld seeks to create a community of diverse national, religious and Theme ethnic backgrounds. This is accomplished The theme of “International Understanding” is through a special draw. International diversity is very important at Hammarskjöld. All residents also reflected in the house’s 30 eating associates. agree to present a theme project at some point during the year, and applicants are asked to Draw Statistics submit possible ideas for theme projects. Theme Hammarskjöld operates its own draw (see Special projects have included preparing a meal from Features, below). The house always fills through one’s native country, to slide presentations of this system. different countries, to story-telling. The desire to create a truly diverse house is the reasoning Food Policy behind the separate draw. Dinner is prepared every night of the week. Meals are always vegetarian with a vegan Relations with the University alternative, and a carnivorous option every other The University has final say in the draw, although night. Meat is also stocked for individual use. the University usually follows the Food is purchased from S.E. Ryckoff and Sierra recommendations of Hammarskjöld in assigning foods. House food boycotts are rare, but have students. Hammarskjöld does its own cooking been proposed (e.g. tuna). The rules in food and cleaning and some minor repairs, but Row selection seem to be convenience (foods that Facilities does major work (repairing the Hobart, require minimal preparation) and cost (the least fixing flooding toilets, mowing lawns). The expensive option is usually preferred. University also chooses and assigns a Resident Assistant to Hammarskjöld. Governance Policy House decisions are usually made at weekly Special Features house meetings. Issues are discussed, then a One of Hammarskjöld’s attractions is its decision is made on a one-person/one-vote hand residential setting—the house feels like a part of vote. Some decisions are made by the managers. the neighborhood. There is a volleyball court and a TV with a VCR (both very popular with House Work Division “Hammies”). There is a nice piano in the living The current system has been in effect for several room, and the large wooden table in the kitchen years with a few modifications. becomes the center for late night socializing. The second floor has a co-ed restroom and shower Food preparation: 1/ cook crew cycle (3-4 room. Before the earthquake, residents could have weeks) — 3 people on cook crew, “head a week’s worth of guest housing (in 3 day cook” plans meal, makes sure menu is increments) in the guest room at minimal cost. posted so managers can order food The Hammarskjöld draw is a unique feature — Kitchen cleanup: 1/week— 2 Saturday dish students apply in the spring to live in crews/ quarter Hammarskjöld. The applications asks about the Bathroom clean: 3/ quarter (residents only) student’s international background and international experiences (travel, or otherwise), Special jobs: 1 large job (usually clean-up) at what it means to live in a co-op. Applicants are the beginning of each quarter, then 2 also asked to submit possible theme projects. weekend clean crews/ quarter Many applicants come and eat a meal at House members are also expected to Hammarskjöld and help prepare food or do a participate in Cook and Clean crews for dish crew. The applications are then reviewed by Hammarskjöld’s two traditional large the Resident Assistant, the House managers and dinners. any interested residents who then submit their collective recommendations to the Row office. Managers; There are exempt spots for 2 The University then reviews the applications and house managers, 1 financial manager, and assigns one half of the residents to reflect 2 theme associates geographic diversity, for instance, at least one Volunteer manager positions include produce resident is from each of the major continents. The and dairy, dry goods and meat, bread and other half of the residents are U.S. citizens with tea, and soda fridge. Managers are exempt international experience or interests. Co-operative Living at Stanford 19 Background at Thanksgiving and Chinese New Year. For History these parties, house members decorate the house Hammarskjöld opened as the International co-op and prepare food for 200 people, including past in the academic year 1973-1974, and is named members of Hammarskjöld who are invited, and after Dag Hammarskjöld, a Secretary General of assorted other guests. Hammarskjöld’s the United Nations. The house was formerly the personality has changed from year to year. One home of the Phi Kappa Sigma fraternity. The current eating associate mentioned that the house plan for the house was initiated by several foreign used to be more “co-opy.” Resident satisfaction students who were actively involved in the Bechtel with and pride in Hammarskjöld reached an all- International Center. Clifford Clarke, the foreign time high in March 1990. After many challenges student advisor said of Hammarskjöld, “This bravely fought and hurdles valiantly overcome, new concept of a living group (will be) composed the Ping Pong table arrived, and the joyous sound of people from other cultures who want to of rubber connecting with white plastic echoed participate in educational and social programs to throughout the halls of Hammarskjöld. facilitate mutual understanding and respect.” In the early years, Hammarskjöld was under the general direction of Clarke and F. Lee Ziegler, the director of the I-Center. Early residents have remarked that an equally strong reason for creating the house was the founders’ belief that Americans who spent a lot of time in other countries returned to the U.S. somehow changed. Hammarskjöld would be a place for them to nurture these differences and explore their own experiences. In March of 1977, student protest against Stanford’s investment in South Africa became active. The University higher-ups seemed to be ignoring the issue of the University’s moral responsibilities, for example; although students were vocal in their objections, the Board of Trustees would not even raise the issue at its meetings. Students took over Old Union to protest both the University’s tacit support of apartheid and their unresponsiveness to student concerns. University police began to arrest protesters. During the night, Hammarskjöld became the command center of the protest. Hammies started a phone network, and called a crowd of several hundred people out to support the protesters. Hammies also cooked food for those inside and outside the building.

Co-ops at Stanford are more of a home, less of a borrowed space/hotel type room from the University. — Classmember

The make-up of the house has changed from year to year. Some years the international students in the house were predominantly from East Asia, other years from Europe. This year many of the residents and eating associates are from India. Hammarskjöld is fond of its traditions, which include ringing the dinner bell, Friday evening happy hours/wine clubs and the big dinner parties Co-operative Living at Stanford 20 Background year, there are eighteen females and seventeen Kairos House males. It is a three-class residence. [Note: A detailed study of the current residents of Kairos is included in the appendix] Food Policy There are two food managers who order all food. Physical Structure Kairos has twenty eating associates. There is a Kairos is an old fraternity house located on wish list for residents and E.A.’s to request food Mayfield a block south of Campus Drive. It is on they would like to eat. The food managers try to “The Row”, close to the center of campus, but satisfy residents’ desires, but make final removed from the larger dormitories. It stands decisions about what the house can afford, when between the DKE house and Grove-Mayfield. to buy it, what “tastes like dog food” or any other factors. Some food choice decisions are There are thirty-five residents in Kairos in brought to vote if it involves a costly item that twenty-two rooms. This includes twelve singles, people cannot agree upon. nine doubles and one quint. The house has three stories. The first has one single bedroom, a piano For dinner, meat is served quite often, and room that was temporarily converted into a vegetarian residents’ needs are taken into bedroom after the October 1989 earthquake, a account. There is normally a vegetarian alternative pool/bar room, a TV room, a laundry room, a co- available if there are people in the house who ed bathroom, a dining room, and a large kitchen. want it, and generally any special requests are The second floor has men’s and women’s directed to the cooks. Historically, Kairos buys bathrooms, four doubles, ten singles, and a sun processed and junk food if enough residents want deck accessed through bedroom windows. The it. There is not an emphasis on food boycotts, third floor has men’s and women’s bathrooms, although when residents decide, alternative foods five doubles, a quint, and a sun deck. are bought. The first floor is unusually well-endowed with Governance Policy community space. This is especially appropriate The managers meet before the residents arrive to for the community atmosphere important to decide how the house will be run. They decide Kairos, and makes the temporary conversion of how food will be ordered, how house jobs will be the piano room into a bedroom an uncomfortable distributed and enforced, and any other structural arrangement. The kitchen is spacious, although it decisions necessary to make the house work. has the same appliance features as most Traditionally most things remain the same year- residences: two industrial refrigerators, a freezer, to-year because they work and the managers like a drink fridge, ice machine, gas range, grill, two them. The residents are free to change any of ovens, five large sinks, a sterilizer, cabinet and these decisions, but they generally do not. pantry space. Room draw is done on a priority system designed Financial Status by Kairos residents in a previous year. All other The House spends roughly $54,000 annually, decisions that require resident input are voted about $1,550 per person (This excludes a rebate upon on a majority basis. All decisions are that averages $250 per year. Eating Associates contestable and can be reconsidered if the are charged $1.50 per lunch and $5.00 per residents so decide. Managers and others often dinner. The house balance averages between make smaller decisions on their own if they feel seven to ten thousand dollars at any given time. the house will not object. This works because the The board bill is calculated with a 12-15% house has a general disposition to put up with the overhead fee to allow the house the freedom to desires of others, and if someone objects make choices such as extravagant food, social afterwards, the situation can be reevaluated. activities or increased rebates at the end of the year. The house has never had any financial House Work Division troubles according to University and student The Kairos managers take a strong role. Not only sources. do they make many decisions independently of the residents, but they are required to do a Student Composition considerable amount of work. They receive an Kairos has not admitted graduate students. There exempt spot in the draw for that year, and receive is no information indicating that this has ever a full or two-thirds reduction in the board bill. been considered. During the ’89-90 academic They also are given priority in room choice. The managerial jobs are outlined as follows: Co-operative Living at Stanford 21 Background House Manager — does all finances, deals Kairos was listed in the Draw Book as a special with the University upon occasion, legally program house that is co-operatively run, but with responsible along with the R.A. for the no special sign-ups. Although house house, does some shopping, and is a management, upkeep and cooking policies were backup for the Operations Manager. not changed, in 1978-79, Kairos ceased to be Operations Manager — Coordinates house identified as co-operatively run. jobs and enforces their execution, handles In 1980 or ’81, Kairos began the kitchen policy it all work orders and orders cleaning and now has. Reportedly, in the fall no one liked the bathroom supplies. cook. The house took a vote and decided to fire her at the end of the quarter. They decided that Food Managers (2) — Order and shop for all everyone would cook each week until they found food. a new cook. Over Christmas vacation, everyone All residents do one dinner hashing job per week was to go home and find a recipe that could easily (about 45 minutes), one house job per week (1/2- be cooked for fifty people. During winter quarter 1 hour), one house work day per quarter (about people liked cooking, and it worked so well that three or four hours), one weekend hashing per they decided to continue it, only hiring cooks quarter, and one job for every party. Cooks are from within the house instead of everyone hired from within the house. Generally two cooking. At this point, as Diana Conklin, Director people cook each night and are paid $25 each. of the Row, put it, Kairos began its evolution into a co-op. It remained a self-op until 1986-87 when Relations with the University it was listed as a row house with a special The University owns the house, runs and pays for priority. In 1988-89 it was first listed as a co-op central heating, electricity and gas, pays all repair with special priority. The management of the bills except for student-caused ones, owns all house never changed, though. furniture, ovens, industrial refrigerators, and chooses the Resident Assistant. The residents A co-op is a haven for people who own the kitchen utensils, plates, pots and pans, want to make decisions for etc, all small kitchen appliances, the TV, VCR, and small refrigerators. They run the kitchen themselves as an autonomous group. themselves, and do all cleaning in the house. In a co-op we have a special ability to create our own futures to suit us Special Features as a group. A co-op The dining room has two murals. One has an community/atmosphere allows us to Egyptian theme and was painted before 1981. interact in an unusual way: The other, a Doonesbury cartoon, was painted somehow to value others as people during the Autumn quarter of the ’89-90 school year. In the front of the house is a porch that was for what they contribute. — boarded up after the earthquake. In the past this Classmember was a center for eating dinner. The second and third floors each have a sun deck that is widely In 1981-82, Kairos received the large pool table used for social purposes. There is a one-ton pool that now sits in the back common room. It had table on the first floor. previously been in one of the Toyon eating clubs. That club closed that year, and the University History needed a place for the table. At Toyon the table Kairos House was originally built and used by was used exclusively for the game “squash,” a the Delta Chi fraternity. The house was built in rowdy game often involving twenty people where 1910. The construction and furnishing was one rolls the cue ball with the hands to hit the supervised by student member Earle Leaf. In active ball, the point being to never let the active 1935, the house was rebuilt to roughly its modern ball stop or be sunk. The table was in very bad condition in what was called at the time “French repair as a result, and so the University offered to Chateau” architecture. give Kairos the table if the residents would refurbish it. For two hundred dollars, the table The house became a self-op in 1968 because the was removed from the eating club, redone, and Delta Chi fraternity did not fill the house and delivered to Kairos. It is an incredibly heavy table, could not pay its bills. As a self-op, the residents with three large slates of marble. After a very managed all house upkeep and hired a cook. difficult time, it was moved into the house. The From the 1971-72 school year through 1977-78, only problem was that it warped the floor. Pieces Co-operative Living at Stanford 22 Background of wood stuck under the legs on one side remain strict, kind of easy-going, comfortably and the solution. friendly. It is a positive image, but with no detail. In 1983, the quad on the third floor was turned “It is the one house I shrug about,” she says. into a quint. Apparently there was a person who wanted to live in an attic space adjacent to the Phi Psi House quad. He moved in, stretching an extension cord in with him. Eventually the University discovered Physical Structure him and kicked him out. Afterwards, though, they Phi Psi is a large house at 550 San Juan Road. It decided that the space could be made into a room. is nestled among the trees on a hill overlooking The wall was opened up and a window was the campus. The house was built by Mr. and installed. Mrs. Cooksey and is one of the oldest residential In 1984-85, Facilities completely renovated the buildings on the Stanford campus. We believe the house. According to a resident, relations between house was acquired by the Phi Kappa Psi the house and facilities were very good at the fraternity in 1897. A floorplan exists dated 1900. time, so the process was friendly and done to Phi Psi has 24 student rooms (7 singles, 16 everyone’s advantage. They redid the carpets, doubles, and 1 triple), two lounges, a study room, walls, and most notably remodeled the kitchen. a dining area and a large kitchen. The house has According to a resident, the house used to have a several fireplaces, and two large porches, which strong tradition of athletics. In the early eighties, were popular with students. Phi Psi’s attic was almost the whole women’s crew team lived there. off-limits to residents, while 2/3 of the basement Around 1984 and ’85, most of the women’s was used for University storage. volleyball team lived there. Financial Status In the early eighties, the first female house In 1989-1990 Phi Psi had an operating budget of manager was elected. There was a managers’ log approximately $24,000 and board was $400. The book that caused severe difficulties this year. It house had a safety fund of $1,000. contained many secret passages that those holding the book did not want a female to see, Student Composition most likely because they were chauvinistic Phi Psi had 44 residents, including 3 male grads, statements. An attempt was made to erase parts, 1 female grad, 19 male undergraduates, and 20 but that didn’t work. The previous manager female undergraduates. In fall 1989 Phi Psi had 8 decided to hold the logbook until the next male eating associates, but the number of eating manager was elected, but it has never been seen associates varied from year to year. since. The house was never particularly “co-opy.” It Food Policy never co-operated with other co-ops. Reportedly Phi Psi served dinner 5 nights a week. The meals it is more involved with the other co-ops now than were mainly vegetarian, although meat with a it has ever been. The character of the house used vegetarian alternative is served 1-2 times a week. to go in a three-year cycle. A new group of Residents were composting their biodegradable sophomores would draw into the house, bringing refuse, and there were some food boycotts, grapes with them new ideas and energy. Because of the in particular. Food was purchased from Ryckoff, now abolished returning resident priority, they Sierra Natural Foods, and Cal Fresh Produce. would live there for the next three years and become the house officers. When they graduated, Governance Policy a new group would draw in. All decisions are made by consensus, with the The house has had consistently good relations exception of room selection. Room assignments with the University. Around 1986 and 1987 it did were decided at a consensus meeting, with the not do as well in the draw as usual, but other than knowledge that seniors and then juniors would be that it has filled without any problems. Kairos has given priority in choosing rooms. been a mystery to Diana Conklin as long as she has been in the Row office, since 1978. She has House Work Division never heard it referred to by students, and she Residents had one major house job each week. cannot pin it down in her mind. She senses it is These jobs included cleaning the bathroom, different from other houses and fraternities, but vacuuming the living room, breaking down she does not know why. She describes it as low- cardboard, and were usually done in teams of key, with an ethos of not being demanding or two. Residents and eating associates did one food Co-operative Living at Stanford 23 Background preparation/clean-up job each week. House According to Peter Fox, president of Phi Psi in members signed up either to cook or do dishcrew 1976-77, they remained a fraternity for the benefit for a given day, with three or four students of the national chapter and to have control over cooking and two or three cleaning each day. the selection of residents until the 1977-78 school year. Although they did participate in the draw Theme prior to this, they still had control because priority Phi Psi has no official theme, but it is known as a was given to fraternity members. In 1976, the co-op whose personality is truly defined by each national chapter sent a representative out. He saw year’s residents. When asked what was the uni- that Phi Psi was not behaving like a fraternity, fying force for the Phi Psi residents of 1989-90, precipitating a letter of reprimand. According to one resident responded, “Location.” Fox, the national chapter never revoked its charter, but rather Stanford ceased to recognize the house Relations with the University as a fraternity. At some point in the late 70’s, Students do their own cooking and cleaning, but ownership of the house was transferred to the University performs major repairs and Stanford. The only notable structural change that groundskeeping. The University also assigns a occurred with the change in ownership was the Resident Assistant to Phi Psi. Several years ago removal by the National of two large stained glass University storage took over the basement, much windows sporting the fraternity’s emblem above to the dismay and anger of Phi Psi residents. the front door. From 1976-81, Phi Psi is reported to have had a Special Features very laissez-faire co-op mentality. There were few When asked what was Phi Psi’s best feature, imposed attitudes such as environmental nearly all residents named its location and sense awareness or nonviolence; instead, there was a of seclusion. Phi Psi is on a hill, away from most real variety of people with contrasting lifestyles. of the campus, and residents really felt like they They moved into Phi Psi seeking more autonomy were out in the woods. The large porches and from the University, escape from dormitory food lawn were residents’ next favorite features of the and University-hired laborers, a quiet yard for house. Phi Psi has a darkroom, a piano and a frisbee, and a good view from the roof. Also, Phi 1911 pool table that was known around the Psi was famous for its mellow friendliness, its campus. Phi Psi’s murals, painted over the years drugs, and its wild (and often illegal) parties. by different residents, also helped define the During this period, the house was heavily house’s personality. Among other special involved in music. Many of the residents from features mentioned by residents were the co-ed this period reported that the house had a strong bathroom on the second floor and the sense of rock tradition, and was one of the contemporary mystery surrounding the house (e.g. what’s in music centers on campus. In the beginning, a the attic?). bunch of friends in the house all happened to play complementary instruments. They rehearsed History together in the living room. After awhile, they In the late 1960’s, the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity built three practice rooms in the basement. This had troubles filling its house. At the time, the was a major project for those involved. The fraternity owned the house. By 1969, there were rooms would flood in the wet winters of the only eight or ten members living there. They had period (Lyle Zimmerman, ’81, once caught a a cook and a local fraternity advisor. To solve salamander in the basement). The musicians did their problem, and in keeping with the character cement repairs, wall patching, and got wooden of the current members, beginning in 1972 they pallets to cover the floor, raising the equipment allowed women to live in the house. The fraternity above water level. They covered the pallets with advisor and student members applied to the carpeting, and lined the ceilings with carpeting national chapter for women to be allowed in the and egg cartons for sound insulation. There was fraternity. In a desperation move to keep the only one bedroom in the house that was affected house open, they were officially made a co-ed by the noise, so a band member usually tried to fraternity, possibly the first in the country. In occupy it. University permission to have the 1972-73, Phi Psi was run completely co- practice rooms was eventually secured. operatively. The next year, though, a cook was hired because people were tired of doing it The first band from the house was The Phi Psi themselves. In 1975-76, the house once again Band which first played in Spring of ’79. It became a complete co-op with student cooking. evolved into Rooftop Magic and Claude Monet. These two lasted for two years. They merged Co-operative Living at Stanford 24 Background again in ’81 as the Druids. They played until ’83. RA, their ability to organize and do extra projects The band then went through the following increased dramatically. progression: Missy and the Boogieman, The During this general period, a number of high Heptiles, The Blenders, and finally Zsa Zsa quality murals were painted in public areas by House (still playing, one album released). The residents. Mimi Wyche painted a 20’ by 30’ early band members and the current ones are still mural of the Last Supper with residents of Phi good friends and all keep in close contact. Psi substituted for the disciples. A few years later this was painted over by an offended resident. There was also a version of the Sistine Chapel in a stairwell and a Hindu deity with the head of an elephant painted by Nicki Roy. A resident in 1984-85 remembers the Tom Jones Traditions from this time period parties, Halloween parties, and the Druids as include a Tom Jones Party (named after a scene highlights during her time at Stanford. At this in the movie based on the Henry Fielding novel) time, house managing was done by all residents. where people dressed in old English costumes There were a long list of management positions and messily fed each other large amounts of food that residents volunteered for, such as dairy, (called a “glorious tradition” by a resident of the produce, bread, and dry goods. This contrasts time). The Halloween Parties were mentioned by with earlier times when there were a few participants as consistently the best parties they managers who did all the work. At this time, there ever attended at Stanford or since (“legendary”). was still meat in the house with vegetarian Haunted houses were held in the Phi Psi attic. alternatives. Frost Amphitheater was opened for all co-op parties. Every night at 6:00 was a community Phi Psi was hit particularly hard by the closure of viewing of Star Trek. At one point, Phi Psi had a Roble in 1987-88. Seven spaces were added to sauna, but a Marilyn Monroe poster in it caught the house. The large Phi Psi doubles were on fire and burned it down. In ’79 Phi Psi had converted into triples, and the residents of these six people starring in Hair. doubles forced to accommodate new, unfamiliar roommates. The residents of this early period are described as easy-going, “artsy mega-pre-professional” From the earliest times through the late eighties, (most have since gone on to get advanced degrees Phi Psi has reportedly had good relations with the or high-paying positions), aristocratic, not University. The house tended to be isolated and particularly political or organic, non-hierarchical, independent, making the residents feel like the diverse, and as a silent majority dominated by a University largely let them do as they wished. vocal minority who wanted meat and cold cuts Previous residents report that Phi Psi was always around. (The people belonging to this “vocal more mainstream than others such as Synergy or minority,” however, described Phi Psi as primar- Columbae. It has been called the “beautiful ily vegetarian.) The house was also described as people’s co-op” because it has tended not to be inconsistent in its dedication to house work. For dedicated to co-operatives at Stanford or example the house was relatively dirty compared conscious viewpoints. The experience has been to many other houses, and especially in Spring, described as pleasure-oriented and decadent. dinners were often not cooked at all. House management was done by a few residents while Synergy House the majority was uninvolved due to lack of interest. For example, Nicki Roy, ’79, says he Physical Structure hardly remembers how the house was organized. Synergy House, built in 1910, is a large 25-room At the time, it seemed to him that no one house at 664 San Juan. The house has three specifically managed the house. Nevertheless, the floors and a semi-basement, which had windows house did well in the draw and consistently filled. facing out the back. Usually, there is one triple One resident described the role of RA as and five singles, and the rest are doubles, but important to the general success of the house. these figures can vary depending on how the Around 1976-77, RA’s were assigned from house decides to break up rooms. The house has outside of the house, whereas later around 1979, a large dining room and two spacious common RA’s were selected from the community. When rooms on the first floor, as well as a smaller the community was able to get along well with the common or guest room to one side. The kitchen is fairly small compared to most co-ops. Co-operative Living at Stanford 25 Background Originally, the house had a sleeping porch, since and also attempts to buy from local growers or removed. The back yard is large enough to distributors. The house ordered virtually no contain a garden and space for chickens. name-brand processed foods, and no red meat. The house is not registered with any historical Milk was delivered in returnable glass bottles. As associations. It was built in 1910 or 1911 as a of this year, the house has not decided to boycott house for the Sigma Nu fraternity (Beta Chi any specific foods, but last year the house chapter). The kitchen was enlarged in 1953. The refrained from buying canned tuna, table grapes, three singles and double on the second floor used Coors, GE, and Nestle products. to all be part a sleeping porch, but this was converted into rooms in 1971 before the house Governance Policy opened as a co-op. A large chapter room for the All major decisions in the house are made by fraternity in the basement was also divided into consensus. Sometimes committees will be created rooms (numbers 001 and 002). The second floor to handle the organization of house parties. bathroom, currently divided into two very thin Managers make most of the day-to-day bathrooms, used to have a stairway leading up to decisions. Rooms this year were decided on a it, presumably removed in the conversion process. lottery system (draw a number, pick a room), with The house, which is currently painted red, is house members re-drawing each quarter. clearly visible from the foothills and some parts of campus. House Work Division Synergy is well-known for multitudes of manager Financial Status positions. Everything from keeping the bees to The house funds now amount to about $700. ordering food is done by a “manager”. Five Before the quake, about $12-15,000 were in the manager positions had exempt spots this year: bank from resident’s board bills. Bills for this dry goods, outreach, kitchen, house, and financial year and last were about $250 per quarter for a managers. Others, such as produce, dairy, garden, full plan. House members contributed another compost, and condom managers were filled from $100 per quarter for social fees and a deposit, house volunteers. Manager positions can change making a total house member’s contribution every quarter, and often are taken by more than $350. Last year most of the deposit (about one person at a time. Members of the house are $48/per quarter) was returned. After the quake, expected to do the following jobs: one kitchen job residents who had paid their board bills were per week (cooking, cleaning, bread-baking), one refunded $300. Rent, at a fee set by the Saturday kitchen-cleanup per quarter (group of University, was $1114,$1018, and $991 for four), and one work-crew per quarter (group of Autumn, Winter and Spring quarters. four). Cooking was done by four people, cleaning by three, and bread-baking by one. Theme Synergy’s original theme was considered “Exploring Alternatives”. While the University has redefined the notion of a “theme” house to Student Composition be more academic (a change that occurred sometime after 1977), Synergy continues to Generally Synergy has 42-45 spaces, 10 of which explore alternatives. The house has organized are reserved for graduate students. This year, the alternative career speaker series, an organic house had 6 grad students (4 men, 2 women), and gardening class, built solar collectors, and done 39 undergraduates (19 men, 20 women). Racially other projects that help residents explore the house is mostly Caucasian. alternative ways of living. Food Policy Relations with the University This year Synergy decided to serve fish or Synergy used to be a full co-op, but since its chicken at meals once a week. Lunch meat would near-termination in 1987 Synergy has been also be available in the refrigerator. Synergy cleaned by the University. The past two years principally orders food from Sierra or Fowler (including this one) the house has attempted to brothers, and occasionally from S.E. Rykoff resume full co-op status, but to no avail. This (produce from Palo Alto produce, dairy from year, however, the house had succeeded in Peninsula Creamery). The house tries to order returning to full co-op status prior to the organic produce when cheaper than non-organic, earthquake. The University owns the house and Co-operative Living at Stanford 26 Background collects rent money, and also does repairs. The SWOPSI course “New Vocations and New Life University keeps the house closed over Christmas Styles” in Winter 1972. The action project of break and usually over summer. that course was Project Synergy, whose goal was to create a counseling and resource center on new Special Features ways to live and work. The house has many spectacular murals painted The concept of “synergy” was one of the hot by former co-op members. Also, Synergy is new ideas floating around at that time. Synergy unique because of its 20-30 chickens from which means “together energy” (syn-ergy), i.e., the the house collects eggs for cooking. Synergy has energy released by bringing things into a very large roof with flat areas where people relationship, creating something new which is not would often congregate or sleep (although this is predictable from the original things which were not sanctioned by the University). An “Alter- combined. Bringing ideas, people, and resources native Periodicals” magazine rack and ecology into new relationships was then recognized as a library was started by Glenn Smith several years basic strategy for achieving innovation, for ago. It contains many hard-to-find and back- creating alternatives, and for restoring ones own issues of radical, anarchist, gay/lesbian, ecologist, spirit, which is why “synergy” was chosen as feminist, and spiritual magazines. A smaller right- the name of the action project. wing rack was started in 1988 by Chris Balz to provide an alternative. Meanwhile, the alumni of the Beta Chi fraternity had become fed up with the “Beta Chi History Community for the Performing Arts” that the Synergy House began as a SWOPSI action fraternity had evolved into, and sold the house to project in 1972 and embodied new directions that the University for $11,000. Larry Horton, Dean the cultural movement for social change took as of Residential Education, told Alan of the the Civil Rights and anti-war movements became available house. So Project Synergy decided to exhausted in the early ’70s. Ten years of psychic create Synergy House, a community where shocks to the country, the main one being the students could explore new ways to live and work Vietnam War, and ever growing visions of better for real. The organizers described their vision ways that life and the society could be left thus: students extremely ambitious about effecting “Our attempt is to create here and now at the change, about the possibilities for how their lives Stanford community a society we envision where could be. co-operative relationships and collective actions The years 1968 to 1971 saw the energy of are encouraged, where all the aspects of out lives student activists going toward ever-increasing can be integrated. ...[Synergy House] has been violence, mirroring the increasing use of violence organized around the theme of alternatives. by authorities and in the war itself. A counter- ...Here people will live and work together to vailing spirit, that of nonviolence and constructive create a community integrating work, study and action, began taking root at Stanford in 1970 and interpersonal relationships and maintaining close coalesced in the creation of Columbae House that contact with other alternatives.” year. The miserableness of the war, the miserableness of throwing rocks at police in Beginnings protest, and miserableness of giving up one’s What exactly would be the new ways to live and personal freedom to become a cog in a work that everyone would be exploring? The corporation called out for redemptive, positive, open-endedness of Synergy’s theme made for action. To escape from dependence on the life some initial vagueness but ultimately for vitality. choices offered by the status quo, students were Choices and diversity were the root of the theme, determined to create their own choices — in so it functioned basically to give individuals careers, ways of living, goods and services, and permission to share and pursue their own visions. ways of running business — and this became And it gave the community the ability to respond known as the “alternatives movement”. over the years to the current issues of the day. Synergy started right out with many of the Alan Strain, a draft counselor at Stanford and a practices pioneered at Columbae, including being long time pacifist and Quaker, had helped place a co-operative, consensus decision-making, bread many conscientious objectors to the war into the baking, vegetarian cooking, avoidance of required alternative service, and many of them processed foods, co-ed bathrooms, and organic started to wonder how they could live their whole gardening. In addition, Synergy started a “Guest lives “conscientiously”. So Alan organized a in Residence” program, in which people working Co-operative Living at Stanford 27 Background in alternatives could stay at the house for one or Radical Change, which in turn gave birth to the more weeks. One of the first real debates in the Black Rose Anarchist Collective, which published house was whether to continue the Beta Chi “Against the Grain” to which several Synergy tradition of having a bowl of acid punch at the people contributed. The 1976 South Africa Halloween party. After long discussion the divestment movement, the forerunner of the consensus was yes — but it would be kept 1980s movement, grew out of a SWOPSI course upstairs so as to be more responsible about it. at Columbae and climaxed in a sit-in in Old Along with Synergy House, the Synergy Center Union in which 294 people were arrested. Cook opened up in Old Union with a library and a crew at Synergy didn’t happen that day, since 27 counseling program. The big project for the first members of the house had been arrested at the year was the Synergy conference on Alternatives, sit-in. A number of the Synergy and Columbae which Project Synergy and Synergy house residents would go on to help organize the anti- organized. Five hundred participants from the nuclear Abalone Alliance the next year, taking Rockies west assembled under big tents in the with them the principles of consensus and Cowell Cluster during May 9-13, 1973, to share nonviolence they had learned in these houses. their experiences in such areas as: new ways to In 1977 the Synergy Journal was started, which work and alternative vocations; communes and added a whole new dimension of discourse to the alternative living groups; access to resources and house. The Recycling Center started that year, information; third World peoples; the activist and another SWOPSI action project, and recycling social change; approaches to personal and became an avidly pursued activity at Synergy. interpersonal relations; co-ops, food conspiracies Though not the original organizer, Synergy and land trusts; new options in the professions; member Bob Wenzlau became the Recycling women’s concerns; new technology and Manager the next year, and went on to create Palo alternative world futures; and alternative media. Alto’s Curbside Recycling Program. Throughout Synergy was one of the most popular houses on the 80s Synergy would be the source for all the campus until the culture began to move in the late Recycling Managers and a good deal of the ‘70s toward the “Reagan era”, and until 1981 workers at the center. experienced an uninterrupted period of Co-ops had established the concept of theme development. housing at Stanford, first with Columbae (nonviolence) in 1970, then Ecology House in Growth 1971, then Synergy and Hammarskjöld (interna- Many Synergy members were interested in solar tional understanding) in 1972. Whitman (intellec- energy and studied it with Professor Gil Masters. tual culture) followed, and when the French In Spring 1976 (?), they built a solar water House proposal was being considered in 1975, heating system and installed it on the roof, Larry Horton (Dean of Residential Education) making Synergy one of the first solar dorms in had said to the Daily, “Above all, we want to the country. A group called “Ecology Action” maintain a spirit of vitality and innovation. If we had been working to get people into growing their did not have a policy of innovation, we would not own food as they had during the two World have some of the successful houses we do now,” Wars, and was teaching people “biodynamic/ pointing to Whitman, Columbae, Synergy, and French intensive” horticultural techniques from Hammarskjöld as examples. their experimental garden at Syntex. Synergy incorporated these techniques into its gardening Clouds on the Horizon (described in “How to Grow More Vegetables” In 1977 Larry Horton went on to become the by John Jeavons). In 1976 and 1977 the drought University Lobbyist, and Norm Robinson became hit California, and water conservation became a the Dean of Residential Education. That time also new imperative. Synergy built a “gray water marked a change in campus climate. A few system” that allowed used laundry water to be vacancies started showing up in some of the co- used to water the trees. In the Spring of 1977 a ops. Alan Strain closed the Synergy Center. In local resident donated a glass greenhouse to the 1978 Stanford Informational Bulletin, Synergy which greatly improved the gardening Synergy had been mysteriously deleted from the system. list of theme houses, along with Terra (ecology) and Whitman. A new co-op theme house, Campus political activity was centered at Androgyny (transcending sex roles) had been Columbae, but a large number of Synergy terminated by Residential Education in Winter members were involved in political actions. The 1978 just a few months after it had opened, to be 1974 union strike spawned the Alliance for replaced by Haus Mitteleuropa. When Norm Co-operative Living at Stanford 28 Background Robinson, explained his decision he said, “I an introduction to the co-ops in the draw book. don’t believe a strong theme house and a co-op The co-ops were among the most popular houses are compatible. Each requires a great deal of time. in the draw that Spring, and Synergy applied and Its hard to focus on important things to be done was able to stay open in the Summer. for each.” Synergy’s theme was embodied in One Synergy member organized the co-op how people lived in the house, which fell outside council in the Fall 1981-82. The co-ops helped the newly emerging definition of what constituted host the annual California Co-operative Confer- an “academic theme house”. ence that was held at Stanford that year. Synergy Attitudes on campus were changing as well. also requested that graduate students be inte- Sororities were permitted back on campus again. grated into the house as part of its theme of Animal House energized interest in the Greek “Exploring Alternatives”. The house requested system. A vignette: when flow-reducers were to be open again during the summer and this was installed in the dorm showers to conserve water granted. during the drought, a group of students protested Meanwhile, cultural changes were taking place on by leaving their showers on all night. In the 1978 campus. The results of the Spring 1982 draw left draw, Synergy had 3 vacancies for the first time. Synergy with 19 vacancies, Terra with 12, and Because of this, the house was placed on pro- Columbae with 12. It was an unprecedented bation and a review was made of the program. If result. Fortunately, Residential Education chose Synergy did not fill in the 1979 draw, it was told not to terminate any of the co-ops. Synergy was it could face termination. Faced for the first time occupied with 19 “006” students: those who as with this threat, the house mounted an put down “assignment anywhere” on their draw “outreach” effort to interest students in the card. They demanded that meat be served at least house, and it worked; the house filled. three time a week, and the pro-vegetarian mem- Synergy was very active that year. Some bers realized that they had to give in or else there members wrote the original version of “Living in would be mutiny. Most of the “006” people Syn: A Handbook for Residents”, which moved out after Fall, but Synergy filled due to an introduced members to all the things that were outreach program done in anticipation of this. In going on in the house. The house helped produce the midst of this crisis, Synergy celebrated its the video “Working against Rape”. Martha tenth anniversary at the Halloween Party. The Watson heard that the Biology Department was return of the people who had lived in the house giving away a bunch of chickens, so the house five and ten years before helped bolster the sense built a coop and she brought them to Synergy. among the current members that Synergy meant The house now had fresh eggs every morning. something and was worth preserving for another An unusually strong bond formed between generation of students. residents that year, and they still continue to go in Synergy, Columbae, and Terra pulled together large numbers to each other’s parties, picnics, and put on a “Co-op Week” in the Spring as a weddings, and so forth, and have been Synergy’s joint outreach effort, and it worked. They all filled strongest alumni allies. by the second round of the draw. Residential 1980-81 was a flagship year. Many people who Education finally agreed to allow graduate had been away from Stanford and who had lived students to live in co-ops. in Synergy two, three or even four years ago The summer of 1983 dealt a hard blow to returned to the house. They had a strong sense of Synergy, though. The house was denied its where Synergy had been and knew they wanted request to stay open that summer, and a former to go further. New ideas were incorporated into eating associate volunteered to take care of the the consensus process. A biology graduate from chickens, but was negligent. Row Facilities Cornell who had come to stay at Synergy created decided to “clean up” Synergy’s back yard. It a circular “medicine wheel” herb garden in the gave the chickens to Hidden Villa Ranch, tore back yard. A second “bread box” style solar down the green house, bulldozed the Herb collector was built. Nineteen members of the Garden, knocked out some fruit trees, threw away house went to Santa Barbara for the wedding of a the oil drum barbecue used by the carnivore club, couple in the house. The house artists had a “bag and then piled dirt dug from street repairs in the event”. Synergy made its first T-shirt, “If it back yard. When students returned in the fall, the moves, hug it. If it doesn’t, compost it.” One back yard was a “moonscape”. Plastic had been member who had lived in Berkeley’s co-op laid down all around the base of the house with system organized the other co-ops into producing red volcanic rocks over it, much to the dismay of a promotional pamphlet on the co-ops, and added the people who liked to walk barefoot in the back Co-operative Living at Stanford 29 Background yard. Workers cleaning out the house had also Draw. Both houses mounted intense outreach taken some of Synergy’s house items, including campaigns and managed to squeak by. a pair of stereo speakers in the kitchen, cast iron There were some notable innovations that year. pots, and the house job board. The director of The house had a retreat to Hidden Villa before Row Facilities was replaced a month later, and the Winter Quarter, with various sorts of recreation new director offered to make amends to Synergy — a group painting, “Mind Vomit”, milking the by removing the red rocks and dirt, and by paying cows, and so forth. In the Spring a group of 10 for a new chicken coop and greenhouse. The red people decided to create “the commune” and rocks were taken away, but the piles of dirt divided the third floor into one room for partying, remained and were finally just spread out over the one room for studying, and one room where all back yard. Gardeners still find chunks of asphalt 10 people slept. It had its advantages and when digging. disadvantages, but the participants agreed it had been worthwhile. The next year (85-86) continued to be something of a renaissance. Louis Emery added two beehives to the farming operation. Synergy held a “Science Night” with the showing of several Renewal science movies such as “Donald Duck in Mathe- 1983-84 was a year of renaissance. The new grad magicland” and “Our Friend Mr. Sun”. The students added a new dimension to the house house decided to build a new, permanent chicken (e.g. Jose Giner’s 3-D slide shows). A big cohort coop. Due to a successful outreach campaign, from Branner got the sense of community started Synergy squeaked by with only 3 vacancies. right away, and one member donated her family’s Lee Altenberg stuck around that summer to build portable chicken coop. Eight new chickens were the coop, and Row Facilities contributed $300. bought. One member built an Indian Hogan hut The chicks were ordered by mail and Louis, Lee, where the Herb Garden had been. Synergy even and several other residents raised the chicks in held a benefit party for Nicaragua, and was storage rooms at Hammarskjöld and Phi Sig. A accused in the Daily of helping to arm the chicken collective was organized in the Fall to Sandinistas. Even a Hoover Fellow joined in the care for the chickens. Lee led a SWOPSI course accusation! with a person from Columbae which many Even though Synergy was renewed in vitality, it Synergy residents took. Henry Bankhead and had lost many of the concepts that founded it. several other members formed a band “Henry People carried on many of the house traditions and the Vegetables”. such as consensus, the garden, and recycling, but Unfortunately, Synergy again had a disastrous without knowing that they grew out of a draw in the Spring of 1987. Round one left conscious exploration of new ways of life. Synergy with 23 vacancies, which dropped to 14 Ironically, just as the American Medical after round two. The axe finally fell. Synergy was Association was starting to say that the hippies terminated. Quickly house members such as had been right about eating legumes, whole Glenn Smith and Louis Emery organized a “Save grains, less meat, and less sugar, Synergy began Synergy” campaign. A petition drive collected baking white bread, using sugar, and eating meat. 700 signatures. Alumni across the country wrote The house failed to mount an effective outreach in letters of support. A full-page add appeared in campaign that year, and the realities of the rest of the Daily, asking why Residential Education campus came penetrating the warmth of the would terminate a house with such an outstanding house: Synergy had 12 vacancies after the first academic reputation that seemed to embody its round of the Draw, which shrank to 6 after the principles. Finally, in the summer, the house was second round. Terra was left with 19 vacancies. saved, but with several program alterations. Henry Throughout the 1984-85 year Synergy and Terra Levin became the faculty advisor, and the house lived under the sword of Damocles, otherwise was forced to accept University cleaning service known as COSS-R, the committee that would (Residential Education believed that the house review them. COSS-R wanted to terminate one drew badly because it was not kept clean co-op, and they chose Terra. Norm Robinson enough). took the Synergy RA’s alternative proposal, that Over the summer, some members recruited Peter Synergy and Terra would both be allowed to Donelan of Ecology Action to teach a SWOPSI continue if they filled 90% by round two of the course on sustainable agriculture in the Fall, and Co-operative Living at Stanford 30 Background they took to work on the garden with miraculous was so successful that a few residents who had effort. That Winter Laura Bonk and Greg lived in Synergy could not get back in the house. Cumberford also taught a SWOPSI course on environmentalism To celebrate Synergy’s fif- 1989 Started as a good year. The house had an teenth anniversary Lee organized a reunion, and early retreat to Point Reyes. The new members Glenn Smith organized an “Alternative Career were enthusiastic and willing to learn how to bake Speaker Series”. The house had its best draw in bread and participate in consensus. The house seven years, a trend that has continued since. The almost decided to have vegetarian meals. A few house that year had only three Sophomores, and residents began to work in the garden and there were many extra spaces (which made for organize the composting. Then the earthquake more singles). Several people did not even eat at happened... Synergy, and the tradition of having “stuffers” died out to only one person. Spring of that year Terra House saw the arrival of the “Alternative Periodicals Rack” set up by Glenn Smith. Glenn noticed a Physical Structure large wooden magazine rack in near White Plaza Terra is located in the Cowell Cluster on Campus and, after discovering that the Jewish Center did Drive, across the street from Wilbur Hall. Fifty- not want it, he took it back to Synergy (despite five people live in Terra in 28 rooms, mostly the scoffs of Jose) and stocked it with an doubles. The house is divided into two parts, one incredible array of alternative magazines he had of which is composed almost entirely of student collected over the years working at the Recycling rooms, the other of which is almost entirely Center. Since then the rack has grown (including common area. Students seem to feel that having a right wing/military rack added by Chris Balz in the common area separated from the student 1988), and several smaller rotating book-racks rooms reduces house interaction. The kitchen is have been added. large. Two years ago the house was renovated for The 1988-89 house had many new Sophomores, earthquake safety. In ’87 - ’88, after the closure leaving only a few house members to preserve the of Roble, the guest room off the lounge was old traditions. Nonetheless, the house continues converted into a double, and again after the to be active in the Stanford community: members earthquake of October ’89. Some Terrans have of SCAAN, STAND, and REP were in the house argued that part of the reason Terra has tended to and brought in a good political contingent. The draw a more mainstream group of people than the house followed the 1988 election, with activities other co-ops is because it is built like a dorm and including the throwing of a “George Bush” located on the main drag of campus. pumpkin from the roof. The house attempted to get off University cleaning, only to get a letter Financial Status back from Diana Conklin stating essentially that Terra was group charged (the University sent a the University needed the extra money generated composite bill to the house, and it was the by charging for cleaning. Dominique Snyers, a financial manager’s duty to collect the rent from graduate student, posted a letter calling for a new the residents) until the ’88 - ’89 school year, at Synergy, emphasizing a search for new which time the University began to charge each alternatives to consensus and living, and calling resident independently. Terra currently collects for an active program to change the “drug $390 from its residents, of which $335 goes to counterculture” stereotype of Synergy. The food and $55 goes to house and social. Typically house erupted into conflict over personal issues, the students hope for a $50 rebate per quarter, at and held a large emergency house meeting to the end of the year. Terra currently has about discuss how people relate to diversity and $8000 in the bank. In ’86 - ’87 Terra’s finances difference of opinion. Spring quarter outreach were computerized. went smoothly as the house organized garden parities, and a giant paper-mache chicken was Student Composition constructed and left in White Plaza to advertise a Terra has fifty-five residents, 30 males, 25 party. (The chicken was damaged by a storm that females, of which sixteen are returning residents. came the next couple of days, and was moved to Terra has an additional thirty eating associates. Columbae where it stayed for three weeks. The house has no African-Americans, a few Residents moved it back to Synergy). The house Chicanos, a few Asian-Americans, two students RA organized a dinner with the Delta Tau Delta from India, and one from Pakistan. fraternity (Synergy’s closest neighbor), but it fell through due to a scheduling problem. Outreach Co-operative Living at Stanford 31 Background

Food Policy Relations with the University Terra serves dinner six days a week, and serves The University owns Terra, and collects rent from meat at each of these meals (but offers an its members. Terrans are permitted to cook and alternative, for the few vegetarians in the house). clean for themselves, and do a few exterior jobs The Terrans proudly purchase many more on the house, but all repairs and outdoor processed foods than such co-ops as Synergy maintenance must be done by the University. and Columbae. They do not have long food Most of the furniture also belongs to the policy discussions at the beginning of the year. University. Several Terrans have complained that Food policy is decided by the head cooks (one Row Facilities neglects them, and gives the other for each day, called clowns) and by the food Cowell Cluster houses better treatment. managers who do the purchasing, and by wish lists. Eating associates must be full time, and, like Special Features the other residents, are charged $390 each Guests at Terra must tell a joke at dinner. quarter. Terra has a mural entitled “Let’s Eat!” that dates Governance Policy back to sometime after the Ford campaign (one of Until ’82 - ’83, the house made decisions by the characters wears a “WIN” button). The consensus. In ’83 - ’84, Terra switched to voting, mural has been the source of much Terran lore, with a twist. Three-fourths of those present at the and seems perpetually in danger of being painted meeting must vote, and they must be able to over. It is a frame from Zap Comix #2 by Robert obtain a two-thirds majority, or the status quo Crumb, but (contrary to the rumor of some years) prevails. Currently the house manager (“beast was not actually painted by Mr. Crumb. The master”) leads discussion. Generally, issues are character “Chet” is the hero/villain of the house, decided by majority vote, or, in some cases, a two- and the house receives mail (such as “Mellow thirds majority (if it is a big issue). In extreme Mail” and the Weekly World News in the name situations, a person may call for consensus. At of Chet Terra). In ’88 - ’89 Susan Starritt painted the end of the year after the draw, returning two murals, one of a sunset in the dining room, residents have a rooming meeting, which is and one of the Starship Enterprise in the TV “more or less consensus.” These students select room. roomed based roughly on an informal priority system. The incoming residents go to a happy History hour and fill out a questionnaire. The house In 1971 the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity manager assigns them to the remaining rooms on moved out of the Cowell Cluster back to the row the basis of their answers to this questionnaire. (its brother fraternities in the Cluster died, so this was probably a wise move). From 1971 until House Work Division 1973 the house was used for the Ecology co- Currently, everyone must serve on one kitchen operative. Ecology house had a five unit theme crew each week. Kitchen crews consist of a head requirement, satisfied by a class taught in the cook, five assistant cooks, four cleaners, one house. They began the practice of baking bread, lunch cleaner, and two bread bakers. Also, still an important tradition at Terra, and at first Terrans must perform one job every weekend. even ground their own grain. They protested the These jobs rotate between people, and mostly University’s preventive use of pesticides outside consist of cleaning duties. House officers are the houses, and they gave a big push to organized exempt from weekend jobs. House officer recycling at Stanford, beginning with the positions are: financial manager, house manager, collection of cans at football games. They shared social manager, two food managers, eating a garden with Columbae. associate co-ordinator, and a beverage manager. In ’73 - ’74 Ecology House was de-themed and Every Tuesday and Saturday, two people go to Terra began. Little is known about the Terra of Safeway and two people go to the Price Club. the seventies, except that the mural “Let’s Eat” This excuses them from one job. Terra also was drawn. Terra is absent from the Daily. The orders food from Palo Alto produce and the house journals they kept are lost, and alumni Peninsula Creamery. contacts are sparse. It is, however, known that Terra kept up good relations with other co-ops in Theme these years, and held all co-op coffee houses. Terra does not have a theme. Between 1971 and In the ’81 - ’82 year Terra went through a period 1973, it was Ecology theme house, hence the of crisis. Although the journal of this year begins name “Terra,” meaning “earth” in Latin. Co-operative Living at Stanford 32 Background optimistically, it ends fragmented and hostile, and never had.” The Terrans managed to fill two and many of the pages are torn out. Throughout, but a half journals that year, primarily with gossip, especially in the beginning, there is much open sexual innuendoes, and private jokes. At the end talk about drugs and political issues. At this time, of this year, however, most of the Terrans moved and in the year previous, Terrans debated over, out. The sophomores of ’81 - ’82 had become and decided against allowing red meat in the seniors, and the house did horribly in the draw, house, although people typically sneaked private with nineteen spaces still remaining to be filled by supplies in. A Terran from previous years the end of the second round. comments on finding tuna, hamburger, and As a result, the University threatened in ’84 - ’85 Cheetos in the kitchen, and of hearing “offhand to shut Terra down. Stanford seemed to be at the sexist remarks.” The agenda for the only house peak of its conservatism, the co-ops were doing meeting in this journal includes such topics as poorly in the draw, and Terra was the largest and consensus, drugs, food philosophy, and faction- most readily convertible into standard University alism at Terra. One Terran commented that the housing. Through the diligent efforts of the year was a sequence of bad events, culminating in Terrans and Jack Chin (former Terran and R.A. the suicide of a “roofer” (someone who sleeps at Synergy), Terra was able to postpone its fate on the roof). for a year, arguing that the University should see Conflict centered around the RA, who Terra felt what happened in the next year’s draw, and close was imposed on the house against their will, and Synergy or Terra if they filled less than 90%. around the division of the old Terrans from the Outreach was stepped up and the two houses new Terrans (many sophomores drew in that survived. Terra has filled adequately since then, year). The old Terrans felt that Terra was losing and unlike Synergy, has received no further its older ideals and mood. The new Terrans felt threats of closure. Nevertheless, few of the alumni that they should be able to change the house from this period have kept in contact with the co- however they liked, regardless of the tradition op alum network, and the entries in the the journal they felt the old Terrans were imposing on them. seem impersonal and distant. Only six Terrans Throughout the eighties, such conflict existed in wrote final entries to the house. Terra, each generation of Terrans accusing the In ’85 - ’86 a new period in Terran history previous generation of being too much like the began. The journal records open war. Jeff people in Synergy and Columbae. (Each Philiber’s Monday Crüe (loud, and all male, generation also places Terra in the center of the enduring with changes of personnel over a span spectrum between the dorms and the more radical of several years) was cooking traditional middle- co-ops.) American dishes and meating with popular suc- The ’81 - ’82 year took its toll. For the first time cess, but the vegetarian contingent complained. in its history, Terra did not fill, but still had eleven The house, already owning a TV, now had a VCR empty spaces in the second round of the draw and a microwave. Mike Hahn threw cardboard (which resulted in people ending up in Terra who away, expressing his distaste for the attitudes of ordinarily would not have chosen to live in a co- the environmentalists. op). Most of the older Terrans were gone, and a new group of Terrans, more in the mainstream, The years following brought further success to dominated the house. These new Terrans were the efforts of those trying to bring Terra more determined to make the house more “fun,” and toward the mainstream, and the house has stabi- less crisis- and conflict-ridden. The journal for lized somewhat. Ballroom dancing has become that year is almost empty. There were many beach popular, volleyball, and keg jousting (trying to trips and house activities. There is talk of getting push each other off empty beer kegs). Still, Terra a barbecue and of increasing the number of is frequented by old Terrans who feel a “meat nights” each week from two. The new sentimental attachment to the house. Terrans also worked on restructuring the work division and manager systems, and switched the Theta Chi house from consensus to voting. Terra begins to see itself as the co-op that can appeal to students Physical Structure more in the mainstream than Synergy or Theta Chi is a large white building on Alvarado Columbae. Relations were good with Theta Chi, Row. The core of the house (kitchen, dining which was a co-op of the same ilk. ’83 - ’84 was room, library and several rooms) was built in the much the same way, and house enthusiasm late 1910s by the Alpha Epsilon chapter of the continued to rise. One Terran described it as Theta Chi fraternity, and in 1935 the house was “happy and hyper, like the freshman dorm I enlarged and took on more of its characteristic Co-operative Living at Stanford 33 Background Spanish architecture. In 1949 the living room, with its columns and fraternity embellishments, Food Policy was expanded, and the entrance area with the Unlike co-ops such as Synergy or Columbae, arched front door was added. The house normally Theta Chi has a history of not having a has room for 29, with 19 singles and 5 doubles. “Politically Correct” food policy. They serve Eleven spaces were added to accommodate meat regularly and buy bread and groceries from students left unhoused by the quake. The house Safeway or the Price Club (and occasionally from has a prominent Spanish architectural theme, with S.E. Rykoff). Vegetables are purchased from Cal a large front lawn and a secluded courtyard Fresh. Theta Chi has a large number of eating behind the house. The large living room and a associates (approx. 30) and has a reputation for row of singles facing the alley were added in the good food (although this hasn’t always been true ’40s or ’50s. Common rooms include a fraternity in the past). Alternatives for vegetarians and chapter room (formerly for fraternity rituals, later people with allergies are served along with meals. the TV room, and now a double), a pool room which houses the infamous “Speed 1 hit $5” Governance Policy (constructed from a “Speed Limit 35” sign), and A 3/4 majority voting system was decided on a small Library. The pool room was originally a before the quake. The house decision-making porch/patio. There are two sleeping porches, policy varies from year-to-year, but most often where fraternity members would sleep as a group end up being some sort of voting system. Rooms (using their rooms for study) in order to promote are selected with a priority point and lottery bonding. The two large showers are co-ed. The system. Three points are granted per quarter for fraternity seal remains above the fireplace, along residents (including summer residents), and one with letters “Theta Chi” embedded in the for EAs per quarter. A lottery resolves any concrete walks near the house. conflicts once priorities have been determined. Financial Status House Work Division Theta Chi is unique because it owns its own The house is primarily run by people in three house, and is able to determine how much money manager positions: financial manager, kitchen to charge for housing. The house currently sets manager, and house manager. Each of these its rent payments as 90% of Terra’s rent positions gets free rent. If more than one person (Autumn: $894, Winter: $817, Spring: $794). takes a manager spot (which happens quite Rather than itemizing all the items that the rent frequently), the rent is split between those people. goes to, the financial managers consider the cost Kitchen managers co-ordinate food buying of Terra to be a good approximation to what the (making shopping runs) and make sure that actual costs of Theta Chi are, less 10% because people plan meals, as well as draw up a food Theta Chi is student-run (in the past, though, budget. The financial manager deals with collect- Theta Chi used to be by far the cheapest place to ing house rent and pays bills. House managers live on campus, with bills up to $200 less than take care of the house (including repairs and they are now). Board is $350/quarter. The Theta general maintenance). Regular house jobs include Chi Alumni association actually owns the house, house cleaning (about 1 hour/week), kitchen jobs and pays the taxes and insurance every year, as (about 2 hours/week) and a quarterly work- well as funds major capitol improvements. Of the weekend (a work-week at the beginning of the money collected for rent from members, 45% is school year). Meals are planned by head cooks, paid to the Alumni association. The rest is spent who rotate through house members. on power, gas, water, land rent ($5133/month to the University), and supplies and maintenance. Theme The house tries to maintain a $10,000 reserve for The house has no official theme. Past members emergencies, and the Alumni association keeps have enjoyed the diversity of the people who live money in reserve for long-term improvements. at Theta Chi. The house has always had a very independent mood, and attracts people who like Student Composition self-management and self-control. The house is split almost equally between males and females. There were four graduate spots Relations with the University before Roble closed, but none were filled. Theta Chi is unique in its relations with the University. The house is owned by the Alumni association, which pays the taxes and insurance costs for the house, as well as funds capital Co-operative Living at Stanford 34 Background repairs. The University leases the land to Theta because of this, used to assure that incoming Chi, and charges a land-use fee ($5133/month groups are interested in the co-op and not in after the quake) that the house pays. Periodically taking over the house. The house continued to the University will request that the house comply live under the shadow of the national chapter with safety regulations, which the house has to (which was still donating money for repairs and fund (such as a smoke-detector system installed pressuring the house to convert back), until several years ago at $38,000, the money for members discovered that the Alumni association which the University loaned to the Alumni really owned the title of the house. With this association). The University fills the house information, in the ’82-83 year the house called through the draw. an alumni meeting (mostly co-opers came) and a set of old co-op alums were voted into the Alumni A co-op is a house where interaction Association. In 1984-85 the fraternity president Eric Williams, who had been pledging a token among members is essential to the number of men to the fraternity, joked about set of goals it sets for itself. These pledging a female (whose name was Manley, may include living in balance with nicknamed Lee, making it even more of joke) to the environment, exploring the National Chapter. That summer a Theta Chi alternative personal relationships, fraternity member from Davis stayed at the house gender dynamics, incorporating edu- (needless to say, he and his girlfriend especially didn’t get along well with the co-op crowd), and cational ideals with lifestyles, either served as a spy for the national or informed operating entirely by consensus. Co- them about this “joke” to be played. Eventually a ops are essential support regional representative came to the house and communities in a world of power interrogated the president specifically about Lee imbalances and alienation. — (of course Eric denied any knowledge of such a Classmember person), and the joke was never carried out. The house has only recently (in the last several years) broken completely with the National chapter, and Special Features changed its name to “Chi Theta Chi” (X-Theta Theta Chi has many special features. Because Chi). they own the house, it stays open all year round, Old members have told interesting stories about and in the past has become a haven for groups Theta Chi’s basement rooms — one in particular seeking to avoid University red tape. The called the Black Hole, a small room in the Viennese Ball floorboards are stored at Theta Chi basement. From the time it became a co-op it was (entitling the house to some free tickets), and two occupied for seven years by Keith Nelson, a years ago the house let the Stanford Orchestra graduate student. After he left it became a haven stay several nights after University residences for stuffers, until Diana Conklin cracked down on closed. Theta Chi has also given office or storage them in 1982 or 1983 (one reason was that the space to other campus organizations in the past. basement flooded and University workers An old coke machine sits in the dining area, and discovered the extra occupants). One summer a students can purchase beer and soda by inserting group of 6 or 7 from Columbae needed a place to the correct number of quarters (in 50 cent stay, but the only room left was the Black Hole, increments). so they all “stuffed” in there and paid the house with leftover food from Columbae. After the History squatters were kicked out it became a party room, Theta Chi house was originally a fraternity, but, in or a band room, and before it was converted to the early 1970s with the decline in popularity of storage (which Theta Chi badly needed) the very fraternities, the house had few actual members back part of it gained the nickname and many boarders. The boarders decided to take “Fornicatorium” from the activities that used to control of the house by pledging as a group, and take place there. Theta Chi has also had what was once successful made a deal with the University known as an “Opium Den”, a crawlspace below to be co-ed and filled from the draw. The national the living room where people apparently used to chapter, while not happy with this, agreed to go hang out. along provided that the house must pledge some male members and that if some majority (1/2 or 2/3) of the fraternity members voted to return it to a fraternity, the house would do so. The house, Co-operative Living at Stanford 35 Background agreement” can take the form of Defunct Residential Stanford anything from a beer fridge to an Co-operatives entire social and economic system, and can be based on written, spoken, The seven co-operative residences described or intuitive agreement. In general, above are not the only ones to have ever existed at Stanford. Described below are four other the more forms of competition that Stanford co-ops, including one that began in the are excluded and the more harmony 1941. that is included, the more the co-op is a co-op. Walter Thompson Co-operative — Classmember Spring 1941-Summer 1945 536 Alvarado Row Androgyny House (aka Simone de 17 (men only) Beauvoir) Walter Thompson co-op was formed with an Fall 1977 - Spring 1978 explicit recognition of the value of co-ops held by 620 Mayfield (current Haus Mitt) Leland Stanford. It was named after Walter Thompson, a professor of Political Science who 34 residents had been a supporter of the co-operative Androgyny house was founded by students movement. It was financed originally by 18 desiring to live a lifestyle consistent with the Stanford faculty. principles of feminism. A SWOPSI course in the According to an editorial in the Daily of August Spring of 1977 helped provide structure for the 23, 1945 (written at the time the house closed), founding group. The house was placed in what Walter Thompson was international and multi- had been Jordan House the previous year. racial in composition, and attracted students of the Residents participated in consciousness raising highest moral and academic character. It also had groups; an undergraduate special on “Feminism good meals and low board bills. and Androgyny” was also taught in the house. The reason for the closing of the house is not The house operated by consensus, and sponsored clear, but it apparently coincided with the or supported a variety of feminist activities. There institution of direct University supervision of the was some conflict between proponents of fraternities and other residences. androgyny, seen as a matter of lifestyle, and of feminism, seen as a movement for social and political change; part of this was reflected in the Jordan House adoption of the name Simone de Beauvoir. Fall 1970-Spring 1977 One resident reflected on her experiences in the 620 Mayfield (current Haus Mitt) house as “an amazing mental experience,” and that being a woman she was considered “by defi- No records of the founding of Jordan have been nition a competent leader.” She noted, however, uncovered yet, nor founding members located for that at the time there was no feminist studies interview. Draw book listings are generally short program to provide academic and intellectual sup- and vague: “we enjoy working together, and port; the house depended on a few sympathetic we’re cheap.” faculty spread through the University and on the According to an interview with a resident of the RF. last two years, Jordan had a somewhat deserved The house apparently was known for having great reputation as a drug house — he said it was murals, including one of “Alice in Wonderland” sometimes known as “drugs, dogs and dirt.” He (probably remaining from Jordan), but for having described the house as being closest in spirit to lousy parties. Androgyny also had co-ed rooms, Synergy, being strongly left of center yet also but, according to a former resident, the house was “apolitical”. He also described it as “poly- “completely asexual — the only PC sex was gay sexual”, with many gay and lesbian residents. or lesbian.” Androgyny was terminated at the end of Winter A co-op is a non-competitive living quarter of its first year, before it had a chance to agreement between people. “Living participate in the draw. The fact that it was Co-operative Living at Stanford 36 Background replaced by Haus Mitt, a house which had been The Co-op Council has always been a strictly approved but not housed the previous fall, led voluntary body, with no compensation of any many residents and supporters to think that there kind for the representatives of the different was a deliberate plan when it opened to close it houses, and has thus competed for the energies of within the year. the same individuals most dedicated to their own houses. Furthermore, participation has tended to be limited to the more “hard-core” co-operative Ecology House houses (Columbae and Synergy), although in 539 Cowell (now Terra) recent rears Hammarskjöld has also been Fall 1971 - Spring 1973 strongly represented. Ecology house was founded as a co-operative Prior to the 1989 earthquake, a group of current dedicated both to living an ecological lifestyle and co-op residents were working together on an to fostering related academic interests. It was inter-co-op newsletter called The Co-oper. Two started the year after Columbae, and included issues were published before the earthquake and residents who had lived there. The house one afterward, before the energies of the attempted to recycle everything and shopped at a participants disbursed into the quest for more co-operative store that sold organic produce. basic academic and community survival. Residents were required to take five units of related coursework. The Co-op Alumni Network They began the practice of baking bread, still an important tradition at Terra, and at first even In the Summer of 1988, a group of co-op alums ground their own grain. They protested the (primarily Columbae and Synergy residents) University’s preventive use of pesticides outside came together for a potluck dinner to consider the the houses, and they gave a big push to organized formation of an ongoing co-op alum network. recycling at Stanford, beginning with the The group brainstormed a list of possible collection of cans at football games. They had a projects, and for its first project chose to raise garden in Escondido Village that they shared with money to send current co-op residents to the Columbae. annual NASCO (North American Students of Co-operation) conference in Ann Arbor in Ecology operated primarily by consensus, but October 1988. Enough money was raised to send held votes a few times as a last resort. There were two students; the fund-raising mailing also many long discussions of food policy, with the generated the beginnings of an updated co-op result being a policy of vegetarian/non-vegetarian alum directory. alternatives. The house also decided room assignments by consensus and had co-ed rooms. Later in the year the alum network held two “Oldsters Cook for Youngsters” dinners, one at Ecology lasted only two years before the theme Columbae and one at Synergy. Work continued was eliminated and the house renamed Terra. The on compiling an alum directory. In the summer of cause of the transition is not clear. 1989, members of the alum network in Palo Alto worked with current students to help start a co-op Other Co-operative newsletter. By the fall of 1989, more than 250 alum Institutions at Stanford addresses had been gathered. After the earth- quake, a mailing to the list generated a substantial amount of mail to the University in support of The Co-op Council rehousing the closed co-ops. The list was also From at least the early ’80s onward, there has used for mailing the alumni survey described been a Co-op Council that has tried with varying below. There are currently more than 400 names degrees of success to coordinate activities and addresses in the directory, and more being between the different campus co-op residences. added constantly. Contacts for the alum network In its active periods, the Co-op Council has are Paul Baer, 4062 Second St., Palo Alto, 94306 helped co-ordinate outreach, organized inter-co- (415-494-3006), Randy Schutt, 390 Matadero, op social and educational activities, and at times Palo Alto 94306 (415-424-8559), and Martha attempted to lobby the University on the behalf of Watson, 1209 Villa St., Mountain View, CA the co-op system or a particular concern of one or 94041 (415-964-1468). more of the houses. Co-operative Living at Stanford 37 Background They were informed that they got the kitchen during Dead Week winter quarter and so had a Non-residential Stanford Co- couple of weeks to set it up. After some time and ops bureaucracy Food Service provided them with a stove, a freezer, a Hobart, and some bowls; since then they have bought a barbecue, dishes, and pots and pans. Daniella said the community was very comfortable and supportive but it suffered from a Stanford has many other co-ops lack of continuity. Only two people have been on campus besides the seven residential co-ops. there three years and a few have stayed for two. The Associated Students of Stanford University Part of the problem is outreach; most people on (ASSU) is a co-op of all Stanford students. The campus don’t know about the co-op. In fact they Stanford Bookstore is owned co-operatively by could probably serve 20 people if that many the faculty. Breakers Eating Club is also a wanted to sign up. The people who join, therefore, co-operative, and Jewish students recently created tend to be juniors and seniors who have heard a Kosher Eating Club in the Governor’s Corner about it through word of mouth. A second Suites. problem is that Elliot Program Center is located a ways from the center of campus and people don’t In addition to these “official” co-ops, there are want to go that far to eat. also many other institutions that are run quite co-operatively. Fraternities and sororities are run The kosher eating co-op welcomes new members; co-operatively and are responsible for having anyone interested in joining next year should built all the current Frat houses and many Row contact Michael Tylman, who will be next year’s houses. KZSU radio station and most of the kitchen manager. other student clubs and organizations on campus are also run co-operatively. Stanford Federal Credit Union Late 1959 — Present The Kosher Eating Co-op The Credit Union was formed in late 1959 by 6 Spring 1988 — Present faculty and staff members who deposited $268. It The kosher kitchen has had about 10 members was seen as an alternative for faculty and staff to since its inception in the spring of 1988. They regular banks. It pays dividends to depositors and cook dinner every weekday evening and have uses its assets to make home and auto loans to open kitchen the rest of the time. Two people other shareholders. John Littleboy, a personnel cook and clean each day, and there is a kitchen director, was apparently the guiding light. manager who orders food and supplies. Board is Originally housed in Encina Commons Room $560 per quarter. On Fridays they have a 221, then 210, then 130, the Credit Union moved somewhat special meal with wine when people several more times until it built its own building at have a little more time to sit down and relax. the current location in 1970. In the early days it About 35 extra people join the co-op for the was only open Tuesday, Wednesday, and duration of Passover. Thursday for a few hours. Dale Hannen was hired as the first full-time director. After one year The kosher kitchen was started in the spring of the Credit Union had assets of $46,000, after 2 1988 by Daniella Evans and two other students. years $92,000, and after three years $186,000. When they were looking for kitchens they were By 1965 it had assets of $1 million. The Credit told that there were only three available in the Union now has assets of $100 million and is in entire University, two Elliot Program Center the top 2% in size of all credit unions. It has 66 kitchens and one in the suite of rooms above the employees. Wilbur offices; they ended up with the smaller Elliot kitchen. Daniella Evans said that Jean Fetter In the early days, membership was limited to and Donald Kennedy both took a personal Stanford employees and faculty, but it has now interest in the project and that may have expanded to include students, alumni, and people eliminated some bureaucratic hurdles to setting who work on Stanford lands (the Industrial Park up the kitchen. Norm Robinson and Alice Supton and the Shopping Center). in Res Ed approved the project and got the space The Credit Union still sees itself as a co-operative for them. dedicated to serving its depositors/customers/ Co-operative Living at Stanford 38 Background shareholders rather than the needs of bankers or spective. See the Appendix for further informa- corporate shareholders, and the employees “do tion. not just think of it as another job.” Every person with a deposit account in the Credit Union has an equal share in selecting the Board of Directors (who are volunteers). The Supervisory Committee that audits the books and oversees operations is also voluntary. The Board hires the Manager of Operations who then hires other staff. The Board also approves dividend and loan rates. Most of these volunteers are University employees with strong financial and management skills thus aiding the Credit Union greatly. The Credit Residential Co-ops at Other Union generally offers lower loan rates and Universities higher dividends, since it is a non-profit organization, its board of directors are volunteers, and its depositors and loan recipients are Introduction relatively stable (and hence default less The Stanford co-ops are only one example of the frequently). variety of co-operative housing systems on campuses all over North America. Different types The Stanford Federal Credit Union might be a of co-operative living options include houses, source of funds for purchasing student co-op dorms, and apartments, in sizes ranging from ten houses. The Credit Union recently gave a low to two hundred. The management structure can interest loan of $5,000 to the Washington Square also take many different forms, beginning with Credit Union that was recently organized by San the basic difference in university or co-operative Jose State University students. ownership of the properties. There is also an um- Sources: Interview with Sam Tuohey, Marketing brella organization of student co-operatives called Manager, (694-1020), January 1990 (very the North American Students of Co-operation helpful) (NASCO). Although there is a great deal of flexibility in the co-operative model, most structures contain two Co-ops in the Community types of participation. First, short term member In addition to the on-campus co-ops, many participation in management is essential. Mem- Stanford students or recent graduates live or have bers provide much or all of the routine custodial lived in co-operative houses in the surrounding and maintenance labor, along with dividing up area. These houses, often started by former resi- leadership responsibilities through assignment of dents of the on-campus houses, typically house managerial positions. This process is important 4-7 people, and have a life of from 1-2 years to as because it not only empowers students with much as 10 or more. responsibility and control over their own lives, but also ensures the low-cost, high-quality services of These off campus houses have varying degrees of co-operative living. ties with the on-campus houses. In many cases they identify themselves as part of the larger co- Second, the continuity of long term management operative community, in other cases less so or not must be provided either through professional at all. A brief description of some of the houses is management or direct affiliation with the contained in the Appendix. university. The expertise and experience of these people is helpful especially in the areas of long One house worth special consideration is Magic term maintenance and finance. The balance House, located at 381 Oxford Street in Palo Alto. between and teaming of these two aspects is In addition to a house, there is a non-profit Magic essential in maintaining student co-operatives Incorporated, and a larger community all dedi- within the given constraints: transience, inexpe- cated to the principles of human ecology. One rience, and limited finances. major focus of the group has been replanting trees in the local area. The group recently pub- lished a report called “Stanford University: the UC Berkeley Second Hundred Years” that addresses the The University Students Co-operative Associ- University’s future from a human-ecology per- ation at UC Berkeley is a nonprofit, equal opportunity corporation fully owned and operated Co-operative Living at Stanford 39 Background by its 1500 member residents. The students own recognized as illusory (school/home, their fifteen houses and are heavily centralized normal/ abnormal, techie/fuzzy, and organized at the Central Office (CO). A system of points indicating how long an etc.). individual has lived in university co-ops — Classmember determines who has house and room priority; an elaborate system of workshift credit determines how much work each individual must do; Harvard members elect representatives to the Board of There are currently two University-owned co- Directors and different committees which make operative houses at Harvard: Jordan (about 15 decisions about various aspects of co-operative people) and Dudley (about 50). The Jordan living. Houses (once three co-ops) were originally built The student-run bureaucracy and hierarchy seems as Radcliffe housing so that young women could to be the price of having not only such a massive learn to cook and clean. They were converted into number of participants but also autonomy from co-operatives in the late ’60s. They were the bureaucracy and control of the university. originally very competitive to get into, and the Their system of “capital improvements” people living there had some say over who got in. provides incentive for house members to invest in More recently, however, there has been less house improvements like refurbishing, repainting, demand, resulting in the conversion into regular or remodeling. The result is a marked difference housing for all but one. from Stanford’s university-owned co-ops in the The Dudley community is based in two neigh- quality of the facilities. boring semi-Victorian houses with stained glass Within the constraints of this unified system, windows, cats, and a garden. Management is led each co-op has a character of its own. Lothlorien, by a president or co-presidents who are compen- the only vegetarian and consensus-run co-op, sated with reduced rent/board bills. Interests shares two beautiful houses, one kitchen, and a within the house vary widely: from Marxism to hot tub between fifty-seven people. Le Chateau bridge, gay and lesbian rights to dancing, contains nearly a hundred men and women, elects recycling to baseball. Rent is very low (e.g. $300 a council to make decisions, uses fines to enforce for the summer). house jobs, and sits in front of a pool and carriage house. The thirty-four inhabitants of Cornell Davis House take great pride in the historic nature and conventional beauty of their house. Cornell University, located in Ithaca, New York, Each member is required to spend five hours a has about 15,000 undergraduate students and 300 quarter on capital improvements. Barrington Hall graduate students. There is relatively little on- (now closed), an experiment in radical existence, campus housing available; about 7000 live on housed over 150 people within its mural- and campus. Forty-four percent of the student body graffiti-coated walls and served as a living affront are in Greek organizations. As part of the dorm to basic tenets of U.S. society. These are merely system, there are several program houses, four examples; Berkeley holds many other including Ujamaa, Ecology house, the interna- options for co-operative living, including two all tional living house, and the theater, art, and music women’s houses. house. It is in this context that the 8 University-owned A co-op is a place inhabited by a and 7 off-campus co-ops operate. There are a group of people who realize that total of 168 students living in the University owned co-ops and about 90 off campus.1 The co- “education” is more than ops are small living units in which no custodial “academics.” Refusing to accept a services are provided; the residents cook and dichotomy between school and residence, co-opers strive to create an 1The information in this section was provided by Kurt environment wherein people can Hulander, 100 Sheldon Court, Cornell University, Ithaca, explore alternatives in lifestyle (as NY 14850-4666, who works for the Department of Resi- well as “normal” lifestyles). Indeed dential Life in the Small Residences Office. He is very interested in strengthening the Cornell co-op system, the idea of a co-op, to me, is a place hoping eventually to enable them to buy their own where many different dualities are houses, and he was quite helpful. He used to live in the co-ops at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Co-operative Living at Stanford 40 Background clean for themselves. The residents sign contracts which there are only a house manager and a with the co-ops, not with the University, and the treasurer who do almost all managerial tasks and University used to collect a single rent bill from are compensated by room and board in return. each co-op, although now rent collection is done Decisions are made in the houses in meetings through the University. They do call on the which are held at least once a month. People talk University to do repairs on the buildings. In until there is more or less consensus and then a addition the University conducts health vote is held. Consensus is not implemented as a inspection, including food, sanitation, fire, and formal policy, however. safety inspections. A story is told by a former There is little formal interaction among the co- resident that a treasurer of one of the co-ops ops; they all act pretty independently. There has embezzled five or six thousand dollars, so the occasionally been an organization called the University now bills the students directly for rent. Cornell United Co-ops, but it seems to have Rents in the co-ops are very cheap1: They ran produced few memorable results. Two years ago, $110-140 per month a couple of years ago, plus the co-ops organized to fight the threatened $50-70 for food; this year most singles range closing of two co-ops. As a result of this, only from $170 to $250 (including utilities), as one of the co-ops was closed, and a list of off- opposed to over $300 per month in the dorms. campus co-ops was compiled. This organization For years the co-ops kept only a small cash has faded from the scene. reserve on hand; they kept no money for long The co-ops all started in the last 20 or 25 years, term expansion. Starting in 1985 Cornell insisted many as sorority or fraternity houses that wanted that the co-ops accumulate some funds to pay for freedom from their national organizations. improvements to the houses. In the last two years Prospect of Whitby began as a sorority and quit this money has gone to pay for a new roof and a in 1965 or ’66 which quit the national and let new porch (the latter of which cost $18,000), men in. There are no formal written histories of which were built buy University hired workers. the houses, just oral traditions and house journals. Most of the students in the co-ops are undergraduates, although there are no policies restricting it to be so. The balance of students of different ethnicities, classes, etc. has not been The big draws to the co-ops considered to be an issue, but when I brought it appear to be the cheap rent, the relaxed and up, a couple students said that co-opers were integrated lifestyle, and co-op living. None of the predominantly white. houses has particular themes, and the politics were described as vaguely left of center and as a Of the eight on-campus co-ops, four houses with response to the Greek system. Admission is done about 50 students are all women and one of these by lottery, so that there would be no biases in is an eight person house with only women of preferential admissions policies. Recruiting is color. The rest balance men and women fairly done by word of mouth and a recruiting fair every equally. spring. Because there are so few co-ops on campus, most students have no impression of the Madison co-ops whatsoever — students simply don’t know about them — and this may be the co-ops There are roughly a dozen co-operative houses in biggest problem at present. There have Madison, largely comprised of students of the occasionally been problems filling the houses, as University of Wisconsin, but independent of the in 1984, when they resulted in the closing of one University. Many of the houses were old frat house. If they don’t fill, the houses just keep houses, turned into co-ops in the ’60s and ’70s. advertising. The houses are owned by the MCC (Madison Community Co-op?). Bulk food items for the The different houses are managed using two different houses are purchased together. The co- basic systems: one in which there is a series of ops house both students and non-students, which elected officers — a president, vice president, is sometimes a source of tension. The houses all house manager, food steward, and treasurer — have their own personalities, but by and large who run day-to-day operations, and another in represent the progressive/counter-cultural end of the spectrum (they’re called Granolas by the locals, whom they call Cheeseheads). 1These later stats are from interviews with residents and former residents. Co-operative Living at Stanford 41 Background

CAHC Brown University The co-ops have recently formed a coalition There is an association of co-operative houses at called the Campus Alternative Housing Coalition Brown Univ. (in Providence, Rhode Island) called (CAHC) to facilitate inter-co-op co-operation and BACH (Brown Association of Cooperative socializing and to lobby the University for the co- Housing) which grew out of an independent op cause. CAHC will have to respond to threats study project in 1971. It is made up of three to the continuation of both the Domes and the houses — Carberry, Milhaus, and Waterman. Old Co-ops (see below). At present CAHC Each house is a former family home, and holds collects 25 cents per month from each co-op 15-20 people. The houses are fairly independent member to be used to publish meeting minutes of one another except for admissions and certain and a newsletter. CAHC is talking about financial matters. incorporating and perhaps accumulating financial BACH owns Waterman, and the rent from all resources (for an as yet unspecified use), but they three houses goes towards the mortgage. Brown are as yet “still building the structure” under University owns Carberry and Milhaus and which they will operate. leases them to BACH for some low sum. Rent One student from the Davis Campus has gone up recently, but is less than University Cooperatives told us that they had originally been housing and less than most apartments in the really interested in working with CAHC, but that area. Some houses have extra food co-opers, they had been warned that they might be per- people who don’t live there but share meals. ceived as trying to take over or dictate the direc- Waterman has been vegetarian in the past, and tion of the organization since they have so much each house will provide a vegetarian alternative to more money than the rest of the co-ops. A any meat-containing dinner. There are other co- student at the domes said that she was disap- ops which spring up around Brown which are pointed by the lack of involvement in CAHC often associated with BACH — usually because events by DCC members; she thought that a bar they’ll order bulk foods together and split the to further inter-co-op development. costs. These last as long as there are people to live in them and keep them going. Old Co-ops There are three “old co-ops” at Davis, the Davis Student Co-op, Pierce, and Agrarian Effort. The UC Davis Old Co-ops started around twenty years ago with There are three sets of on-campus student co- twelve men who wanted a cheaper place to live; at operative houses at Davis, and at least two off- present they each house between eight and twelve campus student co-ops (which are associated with people of both sexes. non-student houses). Altogether they house about [56+25+28+18] 130 students, about 110 of The houses are three old Victorian houses located 1 in a group that were originally built as temporary whom live on campus. housing. The University may tear at least one of them down in the next few years to make room for the expansion of a neighboring building. The fact that there is no common facility among the 1Resource people for the Davis co-ops include the three co-ops makes it so they tend to have few following: ties. Davis Campus Cooperatives: Students New members are selected by consensus of the Denice Dade current co-op residents at that particular co-op. 340 Parkway Circle Davis, CA 95616 The reason for this is to ensure that the new resi- dent will fit into the community and be committed Domes to the co-op. Prospective residents come around Tullen Bach to meet the present members and may help cook a 7 Baggins End dinner, but there is no formal application process Davis, CA 95616 set up. The residents that I talked to liked this (916) 754-0993 system for the most part, preferring it to the lack Old co-ops of screening in the first come, first serve system Todd T. Jordan T.B. 13, UCD (Davis Student Co-op) Davis, CA 95616 More Davis contacts on file with the course (916) 754-0433 archives. Co-operative Living at Stanford 42 Background of the DCC. The fact that there are only nine social activities such as parties and picnics. The people makes continuity and history very difficult houses also all contribute work to the two to preserve, and this has presented problems on at gardens associated with the community. least one occasion. The new board includes 7 members, one elected The rent and board bills tend to be quite low: in by each house and three elected at large, and January 1990 they were $170 at Davis student operates by consensus. Any resident may speak co-op and $190 for a single or $220 for a double at the board meetings. The houses have hired a at Agrarian effort. The co-ops have accumulated manager responsible for finances and operations, some money in a University account. In addition, who receives free room and board and they have loaned some money for the off-campus $500/month. Included in the rent is a $10/month J Street Co-op to buy its house. tax on each room which goes into a development fund; any spending proposal must be approved Davis Campus Co-operatives by both the Board and the Trustees. The newest of the Davis co-ops are the Davis The houses engage in no special outreach activi- Campus Co-operatives, a cluster of four houses ties. A resident attested that they seem to be rela- that opened in 1988. Each house holds 14 tively ethnically diverse without any special effort. persons; they are located on University land, and Relationships with the other co-ops seem weak, are part of a cluster of which the remainder are though there were some joint social activities; primarily frat houses. The houses are managed other co-opers referred to them as “the yuppie by a co-op board which just took over formally co-ops” or “concrete court”. on the first of February; prior to that, the houses were overseen by a trustee group which arranged Baggins End, aka “The Domes” financing for the houses and still functions as an Baggins End is a community of 14 prefabricated advisory board. fiberglass domes, each of which holds two The houses were actually built buy a developer people, located on an acre of land at the edge of along with some other houses on campus, and are campus. The group calls itself a collective, not a presently rented from the developer with some co-operative; the housing units are independent, portion of the rent ($10 per person per month the but there are central work requirements, and the first year, increasing $11 the second year, $12 the community as a whole must approve new appli- third year, and so forth for ten years) being cants. There is a fairly long written application. collected in a co-op development fund to be used The residents are primarily undergraduates, and for the purchase of the houses. After six years the include the stereotypical eco/deadhead types. co-ops will be bought outright, and the co-ops They all think their community is great, but spend have a 60 year lease for the land on which the co- most of their time involved in non-community ops are located, after which time the University activities (such as the annual Whole Earth may continue to allow the co-ops to live there or Festival) and wish they had more time to give to may choose to do something else with the land. community projects. Community dinners are Efforts to build the new co-ops took at least 8 organized most nights of the week on a fairly ad years, and were led by two individuals who are hoc basis. part of the Campus Alternative Housing Coali- The domes themselves are very interesting. Each tion. Financing came from a variety of sources, dome is unique on the inside, with lofts of various including NASCO and the UC Student Associ- shapes and sizes. They are all painted an ugly ation, and a Japanese co-op association. They are beige, and the University will not let residents all two story houses, with a fairly conventional paint the interior or exterior walls (they were once style. They are named Pioneer, Kahweah, all painted in different colors). The setting is very Kagawa, and Rainbow, names that were given by attractive, sort of a small orchard, hidden from the the builders/trustees. streets. Admission to the co-ops is on a first come, first served basis, for students only. The houses have The community does not expect to survive long, varying character, but no specific themes. The as the land is zoned for higher density housing in rooms are singles and doubles; singles are mores the University’s plan. In fact, one of the residents expensive, at $270/month. Leasing is on a twelve at another co-op is working on a plan to replace month basis; residents may sublet their rooms for them with a type of cluster housing, with 8-10 the summer. The houses run their food buying person units clustered around a single common relatively independently, but are all affiliated with building. The residents of the domes didn’t seem the Davis Food Co-op. The houses collaborate on to be informed of this plan. Co-operative Living at Stanford 43 Background

Off-Campus Co-ops utilities, how much are we saving by doing our There are at least two off-campus co-ops which own cleaning? house mostly students, the J Street Co-op and The biggest implication of the Davis system is Sunwise Co-op in Village Homes. J Street may that it is possible to fund and build new houses. house organizers of a Davis area co-op umbrella Luke Watkins and David Thompson are great organization. Sunwise is part of a complex of sources of information on building new student alternative housing; the rest of Village Homes co-op housing. They know about all aspects of does not house students. the process: funding sources, dealing with the University, getting the buildings built, etc. Conclusion: Implications for the However, the top-down process by which the DCC were built may stand as a warning to other Stanford Co-ops co-ops: without student input from the very The experiences of these widely varying beginning, it may be quite difficult to make the co-operative systems can be helpful in consider- actual operating of the co-ops successful. ing the specific problems Stanford co-ops face and the ways in which alternative structures could The Domes present an interesting, if difficult to address those problems. These considerations emulate, model of student built housing. The seem to focus particularly on the questions of difficulties the Old Co-ops have had because of autonomy from the University. their small size, high turnover, and lack of histor- ical memory represent a problem we might face if The Berkeley Co-op system is the opposite we get small houses. Perhaps we should make an extreme from the Stanford system. It is large and effort to ensure that small houses will interact fully autonomous from the University. It is a with other houses and will have a smaller turnover mainstream housing option in the crowded rate than larger houses. Berkeley housing market, and many of the houses are considered highly desirable places to Finally, the Davis co-ops embody the conflict live. The system pays the price for its autonomy, between selective and random admission which however, with its own centralized bureaucracy. we will have to deal with. We must ensure that This centralization has allowed the system to fund new members are committed to the co-ops, but its own expansion, but residents may question may not want the exclusivity that member selec- whether this goal meets their needs tion represents. Since the Cornell co-ops are not tremendously more successful than the Stanford co-ops, there is The first human communities on perhaps little to emulate in their system; there this planet could be defined as co- may, however, be a few lessons to learn. The first ops. The problem is, society, as it is one that we are already learning at Stanford: were, still sees co-ops and without the organization, energy, and resources to community living lifestyles as tribal, improve the co-op system, it is likely to fade away. The Cornell co-ops have decreased in which carries a host of misleading number over the last few years, and have connotations. organized only in short bursts in response to — Classmember threats from the University. Their organizational structure and lack of themes and purpose have The independent natures of each of the Stanford prevented them from seeing the larger world in co-ops seem to propagate a myth of individual- which their co-ops operate, the lack of energy has ism, difference from each other, and self-control. prevented them from organizing to change this In fact, centralization could produce much greater structure, and their lack of resources has autonomy from the University and thus the ability prevented them from being particularly effective to develop truly unique living options. If Stanford in those moments when they do organize. co-ops, as a group, differentiate ourselves from A second interesting note is that at Cornell, co-op other living options by creating a separate draw, rents are about half that of the dorms, as was the strengthening the co-op council as our mediator case with the Davis co-ops, but they have to do with the University administration, and gaining their own major repairs. Perhaps we should look control of maintenance and administration by at the rent structure of the Stanford co-ops to developing our own, co-operative, student-run determine what we are paying for: how much is system, we could empower ourselves, improve rent on the kitchen, how much is room rent and our facilities, and be the ultimate authority about decisions that effect our lives and living Co-operative Living at Stanford 44 Background conditions. Centralization and organization are definitely options worth considering. Possibly, when we are eventually given permanent housing Survey of the Stanford for each of our programs, we could negotiate with Community on Residential the University over developing our own administration. Living To enhance our understanding of community views on residential living, we created a ques- tionnaire and distributed it to a broad range of Stanford students. A principle question addressed by the survey was, “What prevents more students from joining Stanford’s co-ops?” Survey results illuminate four contributing perceptions: time commitment, ignorance about the co-ops in general, political beliefs of co-opers, and residential cleanliness. Of these, lack of time to cook and clean was the most prevalent response. Ignorance was largely on the part of freshpersons, who are not given the option to live in a co-op when they get here. A lesser but still significant level of responses reflected concern that co-opers were not open to conservative political viewpoints and could not keep their residences clean. Of the 400 questionnaires that were distributed in February, 366 were returned. Questionnaires were administered to a broad sampling of the student body:

Copies Copies Distributed Returned Stern residents 45 45 Toyon Eating Club members 35 35 Mirrielees residents 10 10 Branner residents 30 30 Manzanita residents 25 25 Wilbur residents 45 44 Roble residents 35 35 White Plaza passing students 60 54 Fraternity residents 45 23 Co-op residents 20 20 Any other Row residents 50 45

What follows is the results of the questionnaire, numerical averages for the rating questions, and finally some specific comments. A copy of the original survey is in the Appendix. Co-operative Living at Stanford 45 Background

Numerical Averages and Results:

For question 3, the average rating is filled in, with the number of people who responded to that cate- gory given in parentheses. 3. On a scale from one to six, rate the following in terms of importance to you and current satisfaction: (Six is the highest rating; one is the lowest.) Importance Current Satisfaction

A. Relationships to the people you live with: 5.4 (363) 4.7 (359) B. The building you live in: 3.7 (362) 4.2 (356) C. The location of your residence: 3.8 (363) 4.6 (359) D. Your studies: 5.1 (361) 4.3 (356) E. Your social life: 4.7 (363) 4.2 (358) F. Meals: 4.2 (357) 3.5 (350) G. Low room and board bills: 4.0 (355) 3.3 (344) H. Residence responsibilities: 3.1 (327) 3.9 (315)

For question 5, parenthetical values indicate the number of people who made that choice. 5. I’d rather live in a: Females (first, second, last choice) Males (first, second, last choice) dorm (73,21,10) dorm (76,24,10) other row house (27,38,0) apartment (31,23,7) apartment (16,20,0) fraternity (25,6,40) co-op (15,19,15) co-op (20,10,19) theme house (14,22,1) other row house (20,46,3) off campus (7,6,39) off campus (18,13,25) trailer (1,3,42) theme house (12,28,7) trailer (2,7,33)

For question 6, the number of responses to each category are filled in. 6. Not including your own residence, how often do you visit: daily weekly quarterly yearly never A. other dorms: 69 179 64 10 22 B. fraternities: 6 83 112 27 108 C. co-ops: 6 27 94 50 161 D. other row houses: 10 65 147 29 91 Co-operative Living at Stanford 46 Background For question seven the average value is filled in, with the number of responses given in parentheses. 7. For the following categories, please rate the average fraternity, co-op, and dorm resident on a scale from one to six. Choose a six if the category is highly applicable, and a one if it is not at all applicable. A. Tolerance for different viewpoints. Dorms: 4.5 (307) Co-ops: 4.2 (220) Other Row House: 4.2 (205) Fraternities: 2.8 (221) B. Weekly drug/alcohol use. Dorms: 4.0 (302) Co-ops: 3.8 (209) Other Row House: 3.7 (213) Fraternities: 5.2 (238) C. Arrogance. Dorms: 3.0 (288) Co-ops: 3.1 (204) Other Row House: 3.1 (201) Fraternities: 4.8 (229) D. Quality of intellectual atmosphere. Dorms: 3.8 (296) Co-ops: 3.8 (202) Other Row House: 3.8 (197) Fraternities: 2.8 (201) E. Sexual close-mindedness. Dorms: 3.2 (282) Co-ops: 2.5 (197) Other Row House: 3.0 (186) Fraternities:4.0(210) F. Low level of community involvement within the residence. Dorms: 3.1 (281) Co-ops: 3.0 (200) Other Row House: 3.1 (191) Fraternities: 2.8 (211) G. Political diversity. Dorms: 4.3 (291) Co-ops: 2.8 (203) Other Row House: 3.8 (191) Fraternities: 2.8 (201) H. Emphasis on good health. Dorms: 3.2 (284) Co-ops: 4.0 (206) Other Row House: 3.3 (192) Fraternities: 3.0 (198) I. Outward friendliness. Dorms: 4.2 (296) Co-ops: 3.6 (205) Other Row House: 3.6 (197) Fraternities: 3.3 (207) J. Cleanliness of their residence: Dorms: 4.3 (294) Co-ops: 3.1 (210) Other Row House: 3.8 (201) Fraternities: 2.6 (216)

Unfortunately, many participants left question seven blank. Some of these people mentioned discom- fort with trying to imagine “average” residents, others found the wording confusing, and some thought it was biased against fraternities. Each of these responses was unintended on the part of the surveyors. Practically, the results of question seven should not be taken as a definitively representative view of community opinion. In retrospect, it may be that the surveying process could have been altered. Is it fair, or possible, to ask people about stereotypes in a survey?

8. Have you ever considered living in a co-op? If you have, which one and why? If you haven’t, why not? yes: 103 responses no answer: 51 responses no: 179 responses other: 33 responses

Specific Comments on Co-ops: • “They’re filthy, flea-infested rat holes.” — These quotations come from question nine. They Sophomore, Roble were selected on a whim, and have no statistical • “Vegetarian commies!” — Senior, Roble grounding. • “I think Stanford really needs the co-ops and 9. Any further comments??? self-ops. The house I live in presently, which is a self-op, is by far the best in my four years here Co-operative Living at Stanford 47 Background — the people are unusually diverse, open, and • “I am attracted to the small nature of the creative.” — Senior, White Plaza community, the greater emphasis on ecological practices, and the apparently less extravagant • “I haven’t been impressed with the (compared to dorms and frats) nature of co-op “co-operation” I’ve observed, and have no time houses. Also, the shared responsibility among a or tolerance for “consensus,” i.e. fatigue tactics group small enough so that you feel you are for professional co-operatarians.“ — Graduate recognized as an important part of it.” — Frosh, student, White Plaza Eating Clubs • A junior thought co-opers were too homoge- • “I don’t clean up after other people!” — neous. Graduate student, Manzanita • A junior thought the co-op images would • “I don’t know about any [co-ops] except the improve by emphasizing their themes. one with the goat.” — Frosh, Wilbur • “I have lost faith in the fraternity system and plan to live in Columbae next year. I hope to • “Someone with my political views (moderate enjoy the co-operative decision-making and to conservative) would not be allowed near a theme of non-violence. I also want decent vege- co-op.” — Graduate student, Wilbur tarian food.” — Fraternity group • “What’s a co-op?” — Frosh, Wilbur • “This survey is really biased against fraterni- • “I think a lot of co-op people are false — ties in choice and wording of questions.” — preach and feel morally correct but don’t really Fraternity group do much.” — Sophomore, Wilbur • “Close-minded, self-righteous people live in • “This survey is a bit confusing.” — Sopho- co-ops.” — Fraternity group more, Wilbur • “I think co-ops are every bit as close-minded • “I think I need my living space. I might go as fraternities, but have a different orientation in crazy.” — Frosh, Wilbur general terms.” — Fraternity group • “This survey is ridiculously directed toward eliciting negative stereotypes. Furthermore, its Survey of Stanford Co-op ambiguity is also out of control.” — Fraternity Alumni group We designed a questionnaire for alumni of the • “I live in Terra because that is where burned- Stanford Co-op system in order to gain a sense out physics majors go to die.” — Co-op group of how co-operative living experiences have affected individuals as well as to gain additional • “Have a nice day!” — Co-op group. input and perspectives on co-operative living. We • “All humans should be forced to live in co- received responses from former members of ops.” — Co-op group Terra, Phi Psi, Theta Chi, and Hammarskjöld, • “I lived in Synergy for three wonderful although the vast majority of the responses came weeks and I cried when I realized I couldn’t go from Synergy and Columbae alums. These back (post earthquake). I now live in Terra and I people had lived in a co-op as long ago as 1971 like it here as well, much more than my dorm last or as recently as 1988. A copy of the survey can year. Dorms are like impersonal hotels with no be found in the Appendix. sense of continuation or community. I hope I In general, the co-op alums surveyed cited never have to live in one again.” — Sophomore, community and responsibility as the primary Co-op group benefits to co-op living. Also learning about group problem solving, alternative lifestyles, and • “I disagree with the politics and with the health were important. One alum just appreciated methods of persuasion found in co-ops.” — having a place to “hang out.” Perceived draw- Senior, Eating Clubs backs were long consensus meetings, transience, • “I didn’t know about the co-ops ’til too uncleanliness, and encouragement of arrogance late.” — Senior, Eating Clubs about outsiders. • “This survey is absurd — it’s obviously Many alums saw room for improvement in designed to incriminate fraternities.” — Graduate ethnic and cultural diversity and outreach. Several student, Eating Clubs would have liked smaller houses or more experienced people. Co-operative Living at Stanford 48 Background Today one finds former co-opers doing a wide Network. Out of 112 respondents, 84 called their variety of things that reflect co-operative expe- co-op experience “very positive,” with 25 calling rience and ideals. Most do volunteer work or it a “positive” experience, and only 3 tagging it community service, many still recycle, are as being “negative.” None answered “neutral” vegetarians, or grow food. Some continue to be or “very negative.” The survey asked people to politically or environmentally active. Members rate certain aspects of their residences on scale of have carried ideas such as feminism, social one to five (five being the highest rating, one the responsibility, political awareness and practical lowest), both in terms of importance and their living skills and applied them to their current satisfaction with these topics as applied to the lives. co-op. The averaged results are as follows: More than 300 surveys were mailed out to lists maintained or acquired by the Co-op Alum

Importance Satisfaction Sense of community: 4.67 4.08 Awareness of gender issues: 4.06 3.90 Ethnic/cultural diversity: 3.68 2.88 Awareness of environmental issues: 4.12 4.19 Intellectual stimulation: 4.19 4.02 Residence responsibilities: 3.97 3.55 Relationship/interaction with other house members: 4.70 4.17

The rest of the questionnaire asked recipients for • Learning how to deal well with other human their opinions on the benefits and drawbacks of beings, while addressing important areas of co-operative living, and how things could be conflict. improved. We also asked what people have been doing since they left Stanford, and whether or not [Co-ops sponsored a] sense of their co-op experience had affected them beyond Stanford. Their comments have been compiled in community, learning to live with the following pages. other people and how to work together. Also, it was cheap — saved In your opinion, what are the most im- portant benefits of co-operative living? money. — Co-op Alum • A supportive community of friends… • Teaching people a sense of responsibility for • Learning to share work and ideas, solve how they live. problems collectively, spirit of play between equal male and female members, cooking and eating • Students live more like real life — they aren’t together, feeling of openness with some members babied by having things magically cooked and to share problems, and seeing your problems in cleaned for them. perspective with larger community and world • Taking a stand, with a group of people, on issues. how we want to live and interact with the world, • Learning how to co-operate with people, and then putting that vision into reality by living learning how to resolve conflicts honestly, buying together in the co-op. in bulk to reduce consumption, learning about • The strong sense of community and the alternative lifestyles. support system it provides during a difficult and rapidly changing time in one’s life. In short, it • Meaningful interaction with a lot of people. really felt like “home.” Not to mention fresh, Close, stimulating relationships. Excellent atmo- homemade bread. sphere for self-reflection and personal growth. Co-operative Living at Stanford 49 Background • Sense of self-sufficiency, self-directedness. I • Living like a family with people who are not learned my life and community could be as good your biological family. as I was willing to make it. • Flexibility and understanding of alternative • Allows for a more balanced maturation views, beliefs, and lifestyles. Also, the space to be process during college… fostering a sense of creative in a supportive community. social responsibility, both to one’s immediate • I wasn’t a naturally gregarious person. In the environment and to the world at large. co-op, cook crew and meetings gave us some- • Finding other people like me. thing structured to do together, which helped • Getting to exercise more responsibility and break the ice. choice about living: food, cleaning, gardening, etc. • To improve the quality of life by providing a Changing room/roommate situation more often. supportive environment to think about and Living (hopefully) with aware and interesting improve human communication. people. • For me, the best part of student life was time • Channeling group energy to achieve more spent hanging out. Because co-ops have open than individual goals. kitchens, they have an automatic, homey place to • An awareness of a world outside of the gather. I always felt that I was living in a home university — which is very important in Stan- for which I had responsibility. ford’s case because it is so isolated from the “real world.” Learning from fellow students and sharing — being a student is a very self-involved What are the biggest drawbacks? process. • Any situation where people live with one another is fraught with conflict and tension as • Interesting people. people have different needs, expectations, moti- • I think the consciousness-raising quality or vations. intent of co-ops is very important, with respect to • None that I’ve thought of. Hindrances come gender issues, environmental issues, and other to mind: student transience, inordinate length of political issues. decision-making meetings. • Eating healthily and learning about nutrition and food preparation, organizing ad hoc political • None. It takes time to fulfill your group groups and actions, becoming more aware, responsibilities, but lots of worthwhile things take making friends, having fun. time. • Independent people aren’t very good at com- • An alternative, experimental living/social ing to agreement — too many strong person- structure from the rest of campus. alities. [Co-ops were a place for] learning • The quality of the meals and the cleanliness of the house is dependent upon the willingness of tolerance and responsibility toward each house member to do his or her assigned task others; learning to consider the good on time, which frequently did not happen. of the group; breaking down • Decreased privacy. Increased incidence of isolation and confronting new and social/political dogmatism. different ideas. — Co-op Alum • Getting to sleep. • Probably smugness, a certain separation, and • In a word, awareness. Many of the thought holier-than-thou attitude. processes tended to extremes, but this was the • Consensus. Frustrating, time-consuming, time for it and all such digging changed my life. irritating, but a valuable learning process. • Dialogue between house members. • Botched meals by inexperienced cooks. • Living in a group enables its members to act • Some people never learn responsibility, and according to shared values more efficiently and others must pick up their slack. with more fun. • Messy house. • Environmentally conscious purchasing. Co-operative Living at Stanford 50 Background • Unco-operative members, especially people • Meetings with some time frame so that the who were assigned to the house by the draw but concept of consensus doesn’t become absurd. didn’t want to live there. • More support from, and co-operation with • Persecution by outsiders. the University administration. • Generally higher level of domestic chaos (but • More connections to alumni and more inter- then, that can be fun, too). action with other co-ops in the area… Keeping houses open and going during summer and • Starting from scratch every year. winter breaks. • Political homogeneity. • Isolation can be bred even in the midst of [Co-ops could be improved by co-operative living, with some co-op extremists placing] more emphasis on rejecting anything “conventional.” ethnic/cultural diversity. More • Academically, co-opers are expected to discussion of world issues in addition “compete” with students who take no responsi- to house issues. bility for anything except their studies. — Co-op Alum • Some complained of too much closeness — “incestuousness.” • We often had a “fuck ’em if they can’t deal • It was difficult to focus on academics, but of with it” attitude — not a great method of spread- course the most important learning occurred at ing peace in the world. We need campus support. the co-ops! • Most of the problems I had were with certain personalities and not the system. How do you think things could have been • A Pied Piper to lead away the Mind Rats? improved? • More hours in the day. • More emphasis on ethnic/cultural diversity. • Changing human nature. More discussion of world issues in addition to house issues. • More emphasis on practical running of What are you doing now, and/or what have things and setting sights on quality of daily life in you done since leaving Stanford? the houses. Meals and cleaning should take up (Occupation, volunteer activities, etc.) the energy, not house meetings. • I’m in med school and live in a 4-5 person • Smaller houses, clear consensus on standards co-op. before people move into the house. • Freelance writing. Environmental consulting. • More experienced people to provide direction Teaching. and stability. • Computer programmer for research labs • More moral support from the University. (non-military, of course). • Greater emphasis on individual accountabil- • Postdoc in astrophysics. ity. This can still be incorporated into co-op • Counselor at Men Overcoming Violence, living. accountant for non-profits. • Focus on outreach to get people thinking • Waiting tables, working on getting more into about co-ops and interested in them — appeal to my career. a wider group. • I work for the Environmental Protection • No 006s [people who choose “any on- Agency. campus housing” in the housing draw]. • I’m working toward an MBA at Stanford, • Putting a lot of front-end energy into includ- focusing on non-profit management. ing and orienting newcomers. • I am a grad student in physics at the U. of • Ideally, a higher degree of co-ordination Chicago. I also helped start the university recy- among co-ops to exploit collective strength. cling program, and am currently half-time recycling coordinator for the U. of C. I also live Co-operative Living at Stanford 51 Background in a new student co-op — we just bought our most significant (to me) volunteer activity has house after one and a half years of trying. been working for the Rape Crisis Center. • Teacher of English as a second language for • I’ve been a nursery school teacher, gardener, adults. I lived on a kibbutz in Israel. mother, housewife— now I’m getting ready to go • I build wooden boats with a boatyard in to law school. Martha’s Vineyard, MA. • Rock and roll record producer. • Coordinate Stanford’s recycling program. • Associate Media Director — Center for Pop- ulation Options — work to prevent too-early • MBA candidate at Harvard. child-bearing among teens and the spread of HIV • I run a vegetarian cafe in a co-op food store among teens. in Taos, New Mexico. • Business Council for the United Nations. • Grad student now, volunteered with APSNICA building houses in Nicaragua, and • Computer scientist, active with the environ- volunteered on a reforestation project in Costa mental movement. Rica. Am starting in a volunteer middle school • 2nd decade — Photojournalist, 3rd decade — tutoring program now. carpenter, realtor, wife, mother of two. • Film — Editing documentaries, now film- • Work for non-profit citizen diplomacy orga- maker at Columbia. nization producing international television “Spacebridges” on East-West, North-South, and • Environmental health scientist — I work at environmental issues. Run own recycled paper the US EPA. business. • Union organizer/representative. • Physician, medical researcher, father, hus- • Information specialist, government energy band. office. • Attorney — CA public employment relations • Teach high school. board; checkbook liberal. • M.D.— surviving internship. • Taught dance, danced professionally, wrote • Grad student in social psychology at Prince- grants for performing artists, done graphic ton. design, presently own a restaurant. • Grad student, water resources program, • Worked in ski industry for four years, Princeton. presently a grad student in hydrology. • I’ve worked as an English and Spanish tutor • Running a special effects film studio, acting, in the Stanford Literacy Project, been a composi- healing work, philosophical questioning, com- tion editor for McGraw Hill Educational Testing, munity volunteer work. and I’m now freelance and going to have a baby. • I’m getting a Ph.D. in the Dept. of Forestry Also, I work for vegetables in an organic garden. and Resource Management at Berkeley. Studying • Presently a grad student in molecular biol- forest hydrology in AK. ogy, previously technical writer, recycling center • 1980-86 (roughly) primarily as a political infantryman. activist organizing direct action against nuclear weapons, Central American interventionism, and • Physician. Volunteer with local midwives, corporate evil. Held jobs as a bike messenger, board of local food co-op. recycler, carpenter. Mural painting in the Mission, • Served in U.S. Military. Computer program- performance art… tried to enjoy the hell out of mer. myself and foment revolution. • Attorney, mother of two children. • Founder of two social investment funds, PhD in Public Policy; board member of Tides • Social worker, and have lived in several Foundation, League of Conservation Voters, co-ops in various cities. Good Samaritan Community Center. • Med student, U. of Arizona, high school • Substitute teaching at Boston inner-city teacher, bum in S. America. school, teaching English in China at a Teacher’s • I’ve been in graduate school at Columbia, College, teaching math at a private all-girls doing research on global climate change. My school. Co-operative Living at Stanford 52 Background • Worked as a legal assistant, then went to • No, but it definitely helped me persist at graduate school to obtain a masters in Public Stanford. Without the co-op experience, I prob- Policy Studies. Now work at a not-for-profit ably would have transferred. organization studying public housing and urban • I would say the inverse — what I wanted to development issues. do after college influenced my desire to live in a • Worked on non-profit co-op housing devel- co-op. opment in Seattle. Studied alternative housing projects in Berlin for one year and worked for a • Yes. I think co-op life at Stanford exposed S.F. non-profit housing developer. me to alternative lifestyles and career interests. • Definitely. I’m hooked on co-op living. I’ve • Program Manager, Middle East Region, Save done it ever since… And I’ve had the examples the Children. Was a Peace Corps volunteer in of other co-opers doing jobs that are in line with Morocco, and worked with a Palestinian their values and “good for the world” — and grassroots health organization. I’ve gone “out into the world” with a clearer • Engineer giving science technology advice to belief that I can so the same. U.S. Congress. • Yes. It helped strengthen and focus my • Now PhD candidate in Energy Policy as objectives in the field of conservation and envi- applied to developing countries. Was a Peace ronmental issues. Corps volunteer. • Yes! The experience taught me the power of • I am a public interest lawyer, currently collective action. teaching at a community-based law school — • Yes. I’m now studying architecture and have worked in women’s movement for last ten brushing up on engineering and hoping to get years. technical and continue work on non-profit and • Administrator at non-profit book publisher alternative housing projects. and international grassroots development organi- zation. Living in a co-op. [My co-op experience] very much • Currently medical student interested in public affected my values and sense of self health, international medicine. and responsibility in the world. — • Dancer/admin. asst. with a children’s dance Co-op Alum company. Now an administrative assistant at Citizen’s Commission on AIDS and Lesbian & • My experience helped confirm that one’s life Gay Community Services Center. should truly integrate ethical & political ideals, creativity, and work. Although I haven’t achieved this balance yet and am still learning what it Do you think your co-op experience had any means, I feel the co-op gave me ideas about some effect on what you chose to pursue after possible ways of doing so. college? • Not really — I was already interested in • Supported the humanistic values which environmental issues — but I enjoyed living in a underlie most of what I’ve done. co-op and living those values. • It’s difficult to say, but my basic world view • Yes. I have gravitated to co-op situations as a was forged during my co-op years, so it must participant and consumer. have had an influence; perhaps it’s more accurate to say it influenced what I refuse to do with my • Working with my peers in creating a com- life (who or what I’ll work for, etc.). munity has been invaluable in terms of experience and wisdom. The most important education that I • I’d say I chose living in co-ops because of got at Stanford, especially when viewed in who I am, more than that co-ops made me this practical “real world” terms. way. • Some effect in the form of favorable light on • Not my vocation; however my lifestyle was helping run the government. profoundly affected — vegetarianism, gardening, recycling, feminism, etc. • The alternative lifestyle in the co-op assisted in legitimizing my alternative life as an artist in • It helped me be myself at Stanford… which our society. Overall my attitudes on the mundane helped me be myself in the workforce. Co-operative Living at Stanford 53 Background sharing of housework with my wife and family to eat meat for a week and didn’t miss it, I reflects the equality experienced at the co-op. decided to see how long I could keep it up. I’ve • Yes, more aware of inter-relatedness of sys- been vegetarian for eight and a half years now. tems and much more environmentally aware. • Living in a group is a great way to get stimu- lation and interaction with people, and the world • Yes — made me more inclined to look for a needs more people working and living together, non-profit co-operative organization dedicated to talking, thinking, and doing together — I’ve genuine community service. continued to apply the co-op style to my living • It helped me see options other than “You style. must get a job right after school that is very suc- • I learned the importance of community and cessful.” co-operative enterprise. For the first time I real- • Certainly the truly amazing people I lived ized how much stronger a group of people with influenced me, but in subtle ways. I was working together is than a single individual. I was inspired and supported by them to travel afar and also introduced to the worlds of politics and low- explore. consumption living. It gave me ideals I’ve been • As far as lifestyle goes, it had an immense trying to live up to ever since. impact. I have lived in co-operative or “semi” • Still a vegetarian. Still recycle. Still bike as co-operative houses ever since college. much as possible for transportation. Still believe • Definitely. Though already politicized, it in consensus decision-making. Still live in a provided avenues and inspiration for me to co-op. It’s more fun! Still psyched about sustain- pursue direct-action and creative living. Gave me able agriculture. tools to continue to live and work collectively and provided some of the seeds of my current I have lived in co-op type houses ever community. since [my Stanford co-op • Solidified my willingness to go out on a limb experience], still vegetarian, and… create a life and line of work for myself. environmentally-oriented career, and • That was decided in advance, but yes, the I’ll never look at chickens the same ideals within my dream career got grounded in way again. reality in the co-ops. Also, I met my husband — Co-op Alum through the co-op network and our co-op experi- ence helps bind us. • Most importantly, co-ops taught me to sublimate ego, listen, compromise, and facilitate solutions for the benefit of the group instead of Are there any ideas or values that you the individual. learned or explored through the co-ops that you have applied to your life beyond • Yes. Tendency to non-authoritarian decision- Stanford? making within my Union and awareness of ecology which influences my consumer deci- • Many. Consensus has come up over and over sions. again in my political work. My cooking skills flowered at the co-op. Also, the notion of working • Socially responsible employment and invest- in tight-knit affinity groups, not necessarily called ment, issues of individual needs/rights versus that. And finally, nonviolence. community needs/rights. • The way I treat money. Instead of thinking • Patience and respect for others. “This is my money and I can spend it however I • Co-operation — necessary in all organiza- want,” I try to think “Is this a business or tions. Commitment — feeling it and developing it product I’d like to support?” Seeing money in others. Ingenuity — searching for a better way. disappear into a worthy business is like putting a fruit rind into the compost instead of the trash. • The importance of homemaking — making a —The way I treat food. I avoided Columbae and home. Listening to my needs for my home as Synergy at first because I thought I could never well as the needs of my housemates. live on a vegetarian diet. Once in Synergy, I was • The co-op experience reinforced my innate careful to eat lots of hot dogs when away from sense of trusting myself and not getting caught the house. But after I learned about protein com- up in life’s compulsions. plementarization, and after I realized I’d forgotten Co-operative Living at Stanford 54 Background • I learned to appreciate reggae music. • The importance of community and the know- ledge that community has to be nurtured, not taken for granted. • Consensus, playfulness, the necessity of pro- viding food for people every day. • Yes. Meeting techniques, active listening (okay, I didn’t apply that too well when I was there), getting along, crisis intervention, baking and cooking in massive quantities. • Temper idealism with practicality. • The co-ops were my first exposure to ideas like feminism, global social responsibility, and environmental awareness. All of these have a large affect on my day-to-day life, as well as my world view. • Awareness of environmental issues, increased interest and awareness of international events/domestic issues affecting home countries of Hammarskjöld residents. • Consensus only works when everyone plays fair. Sharing with people enriches your life far beyond anything materially received. • The value of good cooking, good food, fresh vegetables, etc. Thinking about different people’s ways of doing things. • General acceptance of a much less material- istic lifestyle. • Yes, in terms of “lifestyle can make a differ- ence (and does).” • The act of collaboration — learning to work effectively with others is an immensely useful skill. Also: Life is meant to be fun! • The application of politics to daily life. • Definitely. It is therapeutic and mutually beneficial to express emotion and to work through differences by finding what your pur- pose and the other’s purpose have in common… Sharing is easier than you think. • Yes. I learned that liberals can exert as much conformance pressure as conservatives. • Interest in more egalitarian work situations where everyone’s input is valid. • I learned everything I know about group process and group decision-making — very use- ful information. Co-operative Living at Stanford 55 The Current Crisis

IV. The Current Crisis George Melnyk said that change and even homes. Out of this frustration came the catastrophe is beneficial for a co-operative, for student-organized meeting on Thursday. from this can come rebirth and growth. Well... Thursday 10/19 — A couple of hundred dis- perhaps an earthquake was overkill, yet our co- placed students gathered at 2 PM on the Colum- operative communities have not died and are not bae front lawn to discuss our situation and to set going to, because people from these communities an agenda for 4 PM, at which time several have come together to ensure the future of members of the administration were to join us. Stanford co-operatives. It isn’t a complete “Movers and Shakers”, written by Robert exaggeration to say that this report stems from a Abrams, was a summary of these meetings (See crisis and may be the first step in the growth of Appendix). The mood was very positive and non- our communities. So let us now take a look at the confrontational considering the circumstances. effects of the earthquake. Generally, both the students and the staff expressed a desire and willingness to work together. A task force was created to assist in this A Chronology of the process. Notable presences: Jim Lyons, Diana Post-Quake Events Conklin (who promised and later delivered an extension of the pass/no credit option and By Sally Otto, Columbaen (with Joanna temporary meal cards for EAs as well as Davidson, Synergite) residents), Jack Chin. Notable absences: Don In this section, I chronicle the events which have Kennedy, Alice Supton. affected the Stanford co-operative community since the earthquake at 5:04 PM on October 17, The contrast between the lawn of 1989. My purpose is two-fold: to record events which rapidly fade from memory, and to point out Columbae and the podium, between those events which were particularly strengthen- discussing and being told, between ing or disempowering with the hope that we may working together and being excluded reinforce the former. I draw my information struck me so strongly and mainly from notes taken by Joanna Davidson and painfully... myself. Friday 10/20 — The first task force met at 11:30 October 1989 AM. A damage estimate for Stanford was placed Tuesday 10/17 — QUAKE. Nobody in the at 150-160 million dollars. No kitchen was made Stanford community was seriously injured. We available to the displaced students despite heard by word of mouth (Row Office -> RAs -> students’ concerns. However, the Elliott Program residents) that Columbae, Hammarskjöld, Kairos, Center and Bechtel kitchens could, as always, be Phi Psi, Synergy, Theta Chi (all the co-ops but used by making prior arrangements. It was our Terra) as well as other residences may be severely understanding at this point that “Students will damaged and should not be entered. Many be involved in long-range planning” as Joanna students, having no place to sleep, camped in their noted. At 5 PM, an informational meeting was front yards. held at Kresge at the invitation of staff. Donald Kennedy started by reading a five minute speech Wednesday 10/18 — Classes were canceled. (and then promptly leaving)... Students were allowed into the houses for ten minutes to retrieve bare essentials. At around Please allow a short digression here so that I may 5 PM, President Donald Kennedy announced that explain why this meeting is imprinted on my classes would be held Thursday and mentioned mind so heavily. The contrast between the lawn of that some of his china had broken. We then Columbae and the podium, between discussing found out our temporary housing assignments. and being told, between working together and Several co-opers felt dehumanized when they being excluded struck me so strongly and learned that classes would be held before learning painfully... where they could sleep or when they could Understand that most of my pain during this retrieve necessities (including books) from their meeting was caused not when I learned that Co-operative Living at Stanford 56 The Current Crisis Columbae would be closed for the year but when campus, including Casa Hermosa, Eudaemonia, I realized that the power and strength of co-op- and Iris Corner. I can’t begin to describe the eration had been cast away and a hierarchy headaches involved in the off-campus housing reimposed. hunt. We were hung-up on, laughed at, and pitied, but generally not offered housing. Alice Supton, Houses Closed for the Year: Diana Conklin, and Michael Jackson helped by Columbae, Delta Tau Delta, Phi Psi, Synergy writing letters of recommendation. Donald Houses Closed for the Quarter* : Kennedy said he would write and could be Durand, Roth, Theta Xi (The Taxi) contacted by phone. Houses Opening on Saturday 10/29: Wednesday 10/25 — A meeting about academic French, Grove-Lasuen, Hammarskjöld, concerns for students affected by the earthquake Kairos, Phi Sig. took place (jointly organized by co-op students, Thus leaving around 260 students without Jim Lyons, and members of the Academic housing. Moving arrangements were essentially Standing Office) [repeated on Thursday]. made for all houses (30 minutes allotted per Thursday 10/26 — The Draw took place. All person) except Columbae, which was considered those students who had requested exemptions too dangerous to enter. Students were released from University Food Service were allowed to do from their housing contracts, while if they wanted so. Students had requested this exception so that to remain in on-campus housing, a draw was they could become Eating Associates at the open scheduled for the upcoming week. An all co-op co-ops. Surprisingly, it had been a struggle to get dinner was hosted at Terra. For me, the unity this exception. among the Stanford co-ops was at an all time high. November 1989 Saturday 10/21 — A morning task force Sunday 11/5 — Weekly Co-op Coffee House: meeting took place with Michael Jackson (M.J.), About 40 co-opers gathered in the evening at Jack Chin, and representatives of the displaced Elliott Program Center to study, to drum and play residences. On-campus housing options were guitar, and to consume caffeine and sugar (or discussed. Students proposed increasing the size honey). of the draw group from eight to twenty to accom- Wednesday 11/8 — Well, I’ll lift coverage of modate a community. M.J. voiced a concern this task force meeting straight from the Co-oper: about “taking over” the community into which we entered. Co-op representatives proposed that Displaced Co-ops: A “Task Force” Update the Draw be held among the students by Phi Psi, Synergy, Columbae and Taxi consensus. M.J. is concerned that some students representatives met with Jack Chin on would be railroaded by this process. Members of Wednesday (11/8) to chat about the current state other displaced houses voiced concern about the of affairs in displacement-ville. For brevity’s time involved. Co-op members meet to discuss sake I’ll just list items of interest: off-campus housing at 2 PM. The group agrees to work together rather than to edge each other *Keys should be returned to the Row Office. out of possible options. [This meeting was later *Cyclone fencing will be put up around the criticized by M.J. for not having included the closed houses. other closed houses.] *There have been no new structural reports Monday 10/23 — Yet another meeting...The since we went in to remove our belongings... No Draw was to take place as always (not by con- decision has yet been made as to whether our sensus). Moving vans would be supplied only for houses will be torn down... No commitment has those students remaining on-campus. Madeline been made to reinstate the closed co-ops. Larsen (SWOPSI staff, Theta Chi and Phi Psi alum) began the organizing group for this Co-op *The Row will stop collecting mail on November SWOPSI class. 17th. At that point, all mail will delivered to the houses will be returned to sender [emphasis in Tuesday 10/24 — The draw is explained to all original] unless alternative arrangements can be students interested. Eventually, about half of the made with the Postmaster. You can try to displaced co-opers remain on-campus while forward your mail though the Post Office by several co-op communities were started off- noting your house’s name (e.g. 549 Lasuen rather than Columbae). The Post Office * Reopening was later deferred to Fall 1990. Co-operative Living at Stanford 57 The Current Crisis generally doesn’t forward mail from student rather depressing message was that University residences on-campus. officials had chosen to give the fraternities a *The window on the inside of S.O.S. [Student higher priority for rehousing because of a past Organization Services] on the second floor in agreement made between fraternity alums and Tresidder is the new message board for Stanford. displaced students. Monday 12/11 — Co-op representatives take *Displaced Communities have the second home-baked bread to the Board of Trustees’ highest priority (out of eight) for reserving Elliott luncheon. Program Center (first priority goes to Res Ed and Governor’s corner). January 1990 Tuesday 1/9 — “Reliable rumor” had it that * Call Row Facilities for info on how to get any none of the houses can be fixed by the fall of remaining personal stuff out of the co-ops or out 1990, leaving seven houses competing for re- of Durand (where the boxes finally went). There housing. is still no news as to whether we can get our personal furniture out. Tuesday 1/16 — Task force meeting with Jack Chin and Roger Whitney (Director of Housing). * Have a Nice Day. Roger was hopeful at that point that at least some Jack Chin also mentions that the Draw book goes of the houses would be re-opened in the fall. He out in mid-Winter Quarter, by which time the talked of each of the co-ops as distinct programs 1990-1991 housing options should have been saying that the Housing Office would “try to decided. keep a program going in some form...to some degree and somehow.” Yet he added that the December 1989 U-op and self-op options would also have to be Monday 12/4 — By our request at the last retained. We were told to plan on being included meeting, Keith Guy (Director of Facilities) joined in the draw book. this task force meeting (arranged by Jack Chin). Thursday 1/25 — A back-page article in the He explained that in the latest estimates, Synergy, Daily claims: “Columbae to reopen next Phi Psi, and the Delt house (on San Juan hill) year”. Keith Guy confirms the possibility, would each cost about three million dollars to although building would not start until May. repair while Columbae was on the order of one million dollars. The cost to rebuild is about two- Friday 1/26 — About 150 co-opers attend a and-a-half million for the type of houses in- fantastic co-op dinner sponsored by Hammar- volved. Since the Federal Emergency Manage- skjöld (esp. Bob Abrams). ment Association only supplies aid for repairs if Sunday 1/28 — The poor Co-op Coffee House repair costs are under half of the rebuilding costs, takes its final gasp after weeks of attendance by it was doubtful that all the closed houses would only those few die-hard bohemians. be repaired. If these houses were to be fixed, they Monday 1/29 — Calls to Jack Chin reveal that would probably not be ready by fall 1990, while displaced students who were guaranteed this year if they were to be rebuilt they would probably not would be given another guaranteed year (believe it be ready by fall 1991. Durand, Roth, and Taxi are or not, this had actually been a bone of conten- still slated to re-open by fall 1990. Blueprints for tion) and that all displaced residents would be all the houses had to be re-drawn, which was given an alumni priority essentially guaranteeing causing a big delay. that they would have a spot in their house. As far as decision-making goes, according to Jack Chin, 1990-1991 housing options on the February 1990 Row would probably be decided by Jack Chin, Tuesday 2/6 — The task-force reconvened with Diana Conklin, and Roger Whitney, while long- Diana Conklin and Roger Whitney as guests. term decisions would be made by a host of R.W. confirmed that Columbae, The Taxi, Roth people including the above mentioned, Norm and Durand were scheduled to re-open in the fall. Robinson, Keith Guy, the Housing Operations D.C. mentioned that, to her surprise, nobody Advisory Committee (HOAC), the Housing within the administration had recommended Office, the Programs Office, and the Administra- eliminating any of the closed “programs” during tive Council. By this time it had become crystal the various meetings which had taken place since clear that while the task force may offer sugges- the earthquake. D.C. also said that there was hope tions, it is not a decision-making group. One that Synergy and the Delt house could be rebuilt, Co-operative Living at Stanford 58 The Current Crisis although this process would take at least a couple explained our role in the decision making of years. They recommend that the co-opers write process, and distributed among the people we had a proposal in order to have student input into invited. (See Appendix). structural improvements in the houses, especially Finally, on the 28th of February, the class held a environmentally sound improvements. meeting open to all members of the co-op community in order to discuss our research and The Rest of February get feedback on our recommendations. In Around this time, classmembers started addition to class participants, a few members of discussing which Row houses were preferable the Phi Psi and Columbae communities attended. homes for Synergy and Phi Psi next year. We The main topics were ethnic and cultural diversity talked about the relationship between architecture and the relocation of houses for the following and community, and came up with a list of year. After extensive discussion, the group agreed suggested houses for the Row Office to consider. to put 553 Mayfield, Durand and Phi Sig on our Somewhere along the way, Dave Boat (the cook list of preferred houses to be given to the Row. at Phi Sig) heard that the class was deciding to (See Appendix for meeting agenda.) move into Phi Sig, removing him from his job. He came to class the following week and made a Overall, the issue of rehousing Synergy and Phi statement expressing his concerns. Psi next year was extremely time consuming and often frustrating. However, the discussions were Dave awakened our collective consciousness and valuable in that we learned a great deal about made us acutely aware of our negative impact on consensus and once again affirmed our much our the Row. This started an involved and intense process differs from University decision making. three week debate about our housing suggestions Ultimately, our input had little impact on the for next year. The discussion was often heated; Row’s final decision. some people thought we should put off housing the co-ops for another year until all of the houses March 1990 were fixed, while others insisted that we were Tuesday 3/6 — Present along with the task force going to have an impact somewhere and representatives were Jack Chin, Norm Robinson somehow and that it was futile to try to decide and Keith Guy. We are told that the communities who we were going to put out of a job. of Columbae, Phi Psi, and Synergy will be Everyone agreed that more information was rehoused the following fall in the Alpha Delt crucial, so people went to visit the cook at 553 House, Columbae, and the Grove houses in an Mayfield, talk to the Delts (who were also in need order to be chosen by the co-op community. It of a temporary home), and find out about current was stipulated that the Grove houses had to be student manager positions in the potentially University cleaned, although it was unclear affected houses. After gathering this data, we whether or not a compromise could be struck. reminded ourselves of our position in this Construction for Columbae, as well as Durand, decision - we could merely make suggestions to Roth, and The Taxi, was scheduled to begin in the row, while the administrators still had all May and end by the first of September. decision making power. This was the most Information about Open Houses and outreach frustrating aspect of the process - we were being was also provided at this meeting. held accountable for a decision in which we had Wednesday 3/7 — During the class following limited influence. this task force meeting, we decided that Synergy We decided that the best course of action would would move into the Grove houses, Phi Psi into be to include everyone in the decision making the AD house, and Columbae back home. process. We scheduled an open meeting, and invited all potentially displaced cooks, cleaners, Special Note 1: Although not specifically men- residents, the Delts and the relevant tioned, the displaced students were given free administrators. The purpose of the meeting was meal cards and Oak Lounge in Tresidder for two to create a forum where everyone could discuss weeks as promised on 10/20. These amenities their concerns with those “in power,” in order to made the period much more tolerable and deserve minimize the negative impacts of the relocations. a word of thanks. Unfortunately the administrators from the Row Special Note 2: The task force did in fact consist that we invited vetoed the idea and refused to of actual human beings: among the co-op participate. Realizing that it would be an students who attended were Chip Bartlett, Jon ineffective meeting without them, we drafted a Birnbaum, Joanna Davidson, Michelle Duran, letter which described our attempted meeting and Sally Otto, Matt Price, Ken Sakaie. Co-operative Living at Stanford 59 The Current Crisis Special Note 3: Perhaps because of all the choosing specifically where you want to live.” bureaucratic hoops we were jumping through, the “All co-ops are by far not the same... Co-ops are Co-oper newsletter and the Inter Co-op Council just another kind of theme house (Columbae is failed to become avenues of expression and the non-violence theme house). Each co-op has action. its own character and each serves as a specific Conclusions: The Stanford co-operative world support group for those who become part of that manages to avoid hierarchy in part by ignoring community.” that structure in which it is imbedded. Although I What makes co-op life important for her is that have been very quick above to point out acts “it’s a real community, not just an isolated which led to frustration on the part of co-opers, I existence.” Which compared to a dorm is very must point to our own culpability. Since we different, she explains: “It’s [living in a co-op] didn’t interact with people in the administration like putting out a conscious effort to create a on an individual basis before the earthquake, it communication between those of a mutual under- became close to impossible to establish mutually standing, to walk outside your security without respectful, co-operative relationships after the having to walk into someone else’s four walls, to crisis. Hence, I move forward from this point find a common space, a communal together believing that outreach efforts must extend to all space.” “More often than not,” she says, “the members of Stanford and that open and all- kitchen is such a central meeting place.” The way encompassing discussions should take place work is managed in the co-ops is important to her about the role and the power of a co-op within too because “when you make your own food, or Res Ed and of the role and the power of Res Ed when your friends make your own food, it puts “over” a co-op. you in touch with what you put inside your body.” She expressed that a common denomi- nator among the co-op communities is that they Effects of and Concerns about are all groups of people who practice ways of life distinct from the mainstream dormitory atmo- Closing Synergy, Columbae, sphere. and Phi Psi Co-ops The earthquake of October the 17th, 1989 brought a temporary end to Columbae, Phi Psi, and Synergy. The closing of our houses and the aftermath caused us to realize that our commu- nities were overlooked by some and our needs Our interviewee points out that misunderstood as insubstantial by some. The what she describes as a basic similarity between significance of these communities’ absence — the co-op systems serves a dual purpose, the not only to their members, but to the larger same dual purpose that Residential Education campus — must be adequately explored. The wishes to establish in creating theme houses. She reasons residents value these three co-ops corre- notes, “The co-ops are a support group for the spond directly with the value of the co-operative members system to the Stanford community. This presen- of that community and also inherently comple- tation reveals the serious concerns surrounding ment the diversity of the larger community.” That the closing of these co-ops and the closing’s is, the co-operative work system adds diversity to effect on former co-op residents and the entire the array of campus housing options, and each campus community as a whole. specific co-op, each community of people-who- Instead of presenting the interviews as commen- know-each-other, functions as a support group taries on predefined categories, we have chosen to which has adapted over time and through co- let each community speak for itself, each operative interaction to the particular needs of its interview in its own unity. members.

Columbae Co-op Phi Psi Co-op Our interviewee from Columbae is now relocated “Fragmentation” was the word used by our on campus in a dormitory setting. She begins the interviewee from Phi Psi to describe the effect of interview saying, “It’s not as simple as just the closing of his co-op. Post-earthquake, “The choosing housing on campus, or even members of the community don’t see each other co-operative housing on campus. It’s the idea of anymore.” Relocated off-campus, he says, “I don’t see anyone from the house (besides Co-operative Living at Stanford 60 The Current Crisis drawmates from the house) except by coinci- a dorm setting, he noted that he felt the dence, but it is really nice when I see them.” He co-operative system to be “more natural — it’s notes what may be seen by some as more serious the dorm that’s nonconventional, that’s artificial. impacts: “My grades went down, I drank more But I haven’t lived in a dorm in years.” Echoing alcohol than usual, and I had trouble sleeping, similar feelings, another displaced Synergy because I was . . . ill at ease.” He qualifies, resident, now relocated in Terra, described her saying, “You can never attribute general decision to live in a student co-operative after two problems to one cause, but not being part of a years living in a dormitory setting. Initially community definitely was a factor.” making this decision, she recalls that she felt it “would be a good idea to work, clean in the house; more responsible living compared to the pampering in the dorms, as well as the closeness between people.” Even as a prospective co-oper, the connection between the co-operative work system and “the closeness between people” were important to her. How has he adapted? “To try to keep the co-op atmosphere, I am an E.A. [eating She looked at several co-ops, and chose Synergy associate] at Theta Chi, but if you don’t live with because she liked the house, thought it was the people, it is really hard to be a part of the “pretty random,” [it is a rambling old house community.” He noted that “Some people can fit filled with brilliant murals on the inside] and was in anywhere, but some people thrive in specific situated in a “nice location.” The physical envi- situations. And not being a member of a co-op ronment at Synergy, rare on campus, was an really affected me academically and in my important ingredient of house life. personal life. And it just disrupted things.” The specificity of co-op living situations, that is, their character as unified support systems which tailor themselves to fit the individual character of that community, is important to co-op residents and can be easily destroyed by “fragmentation” of the Because Synergy wasn’t “hard- community. core ‘hippie,’” as she put it, she found it appealing at this initial stage of investigation, Synergy Co-op whereas Columbae was initially “too One of our interviewees, a Synergy resident at the intimidating.” She liked Synergy because it was time of the earthquake, has relocated in Chi Theta less political than Columbae but still promoted Chi, another campus student co-operative. He ideas concerning rape education and resource relates having “recaptured much of what was conservation. Her statements reflect the lost,” adding, “that I have been accepted so University’s loss in sum-total diversity not only warmly reinforces the ideals of a kind of due to the cumulative closure of three co-ops but community we wish to create, and its signifi- also due to the (one hopes, temporary) cance.” “Hearing the stories of my fellow disappearance of these co-ops’ particular spirits, co-opers who miss that community brings me to their historical character as distinct communities. lament for its scarcity.” Asked what in particular Now relocated in a campus student co-op with a those fellow co-opers might be experiencing, he very different character and history, she characterizes it as “a sense of place and summarizes by saying that she is still in a belongingness that’s lacking.” He explained that community which does the cooking and cleaning being part of a community, he has an easier time for itself (her original motivation for living in a communicating because people know where he is co-op) but that now she realizes that what she coming from, and that he “has something to look liked most about co-ops was living with those forward to” when he is “down.” Explaining who shared your ideas and commitments — further, he says, “In a co-op, there is centrality commitments of putting those ideas into practice and identity. The kitchen is the centrality; the everyday. “Co-ops are thought of as places food, the social patterns surrounding food. These where you cook and live and work together but responsibilities give a locus of interaction, a sense the spirit is much more of a prevalent aspect of a of identity.” co-op.” Without the special combination of Comparing the co-operative food plan and co-operative cooking, cleaning, and decision- cleaning system to the corresponding systems in making systems and the ‘spirit,’ different for Co-operative Living at Stanford 61 The Current Crisis each co-op, that went with Synergy, Phi Psi, and to what she had experienced as “pampering in Columbae, the campus will be lacking an outlet the dorms,” and the opportunity for “closeness for students who themselves share this kind of between people” in a residence. But relocated in Synergy spirit, Columbae spirit, or Phi Psi spirit. a campus student co-op with a history and character very different from Synergy, she explains the gap left by the absence of her old Summary community, its “specific situation,” in the words The interviews here represent a portrait of former of our Phi Psi interviewee. In her words, a co-op residents’ attempt to cope with the current significant part of the current crisis is the absence crisis. The detailing and explanation that make up of the “spirit” unique to each co-op — Synergy, the interviews are representative of the questions Phi Psi, and Columbae — that, at least for the and evaluations that one thinks about once one time being, prevails over all former residents of has lost something. What exactly was it? Why these three communities. was it so important, and why do I feel this way about it? How did it work, that I might reconstruct it, or find it again? The Structure of Decision The former Columbae resident interviewed, now Making living in a dormitory setting, explains the importance of the self-contained support ethos By Alan Hayne, Columbaen and personal friendship in a co-op. She stresses This report is an evaluation of the decision- that this support function fulfills the dual purpose making process both after the Earthquake and in for theme houses set out by Residential general. It is primarily based upon five interviews, Education, especially because each co-op has its conducted with the following administrators: own character. Our Phi Psi interviewee also emphasizes the importance of the “specific • Jack Chin, Assistant Director of the Row situation” provided by the co-op setting that he • Michael Jackson, Assistant Dean of Student lived in, and explains the significance of the Affairs absence of community interaction by way of what may be recognized by some readers as more • Jim Lyons, Dean of Student Affairs “serious,” concrete crisis symptoms: decline in • Alice Supton, Director of Residential academic performance, increase in alcohol Education consumption, sleeplessness. • Bob Hamrdla, Assistant to President Kennedy Co-ops are places where people work together and take responsibility for The comments of these folks will be incorporated into an analysis of the basic issues that affect our the mechanics of daily life — they participation in the Stanford environment. Under- live together in a very real sense, standing the relationship between the interests of thinking about cooking and the University and the interests of the co-op cleaning and making their house a community seems to be vital both in defining the home. — Classmember relationship that we have with the University, and in planning for the future of our community. Our two interviewees from Synergy (to keep Work Group and Task Force gender balance in the interviews we made four After the earthquake, there were two groups interviews for three co-op communities) struck a functioning: the “workgroup”, which consisted slightly different tone. Both relocated in co-ops of Alice, Jack, Michael, Jim, Diana Conklin, and fairly well re-adjusted, they focussed more on Roger Whitney, and several other administrators the operative aspects of co-ops as they have them with whom we had little contact, and a second now. The interviewee relocated in Theta Chi group formed later, the “Taskforce”, which lamented for the scarcity of communication other consisted of Michael Jackson, Jack Chin and one residents not rehoused in co-ops undergo, linking or more representatives of each displaced House. the positive communication which co-ops foster Michael and Jack would listen to the comments to the shared responsibility which characterizes of the students in the Taskforce, then take these the co-op work system. comments as suggestions to the Workgroup, Similarly, the other Synergy interviewee noted where he would “attempt to present them in the that this work system meant to her an alternative manner they had been presented.” Co-operative Living at Stanford 62 The Current Crisis

Democracy? and Power! What was the interaction between these two groups? Clearly the Taskforce was an input device and the Workgroup was a decision- making body. All of the members of the Work- group felt that they had adjusted to student input, Hierarchy and Consensus by “allowing” students to live in dorms without Alice’s most memorable moments were “the two buying a board plan and in allowing groups of up meetings,” which were the Friday (10/20) to eight to draw together. Thus, there were meeting in Kresge and one of the meetings in changes made due to student input. This is not Tresidder. In evaluating what works in decision- democracy, however, which everyone I spoke with making, she is without the benefit of the readily conceded. Jack notes that “The Thursday (10/19) meeting at Columbae, which University is not a corporation,” but as Jim puts seems unfortunate. This gives a hint of the it, there were “choices that needed a fair amount problems with communication that have occurred. of student input, but really weren’t up for vote.” Our only existing model of what a meeting Jack also added that “administrators make should be was the Thursday meeting on the lawn decisions.” of Columbae. Everyone appeared to have had the If students weren’t making the decisions, who opportunity to speak their minds and to talk to was? This is an issue that was very unclear during one another. The next day, at the Kresge meeting, the period of dislocation, and seems to be a stage and an audience replaced a grassy yard. enigmatic to most of the people in the Stanford Our system of consensus is seen as a way of community. Jack said that his “most memorable living that needs to be fitted into the hierarchy of moment” in this experience was reading in the the University. This is “a reality,” as Michael put Daily that Columbae would reopen. He explains it explicitly. He “would give students a B” in that we are “working across divisions... therefore their manner of relating to administrators. All of it gets confusing — Can’t point at any one the administrators interviewed saw the need for an person.” efficient administrative hierarchy during the Upon learning that I was with the co-ops, Bob period of displacement. It would have been nice if asked if I was part of “the blitz”. Apparently, our this hierarchy had been planned before the letter writing to the President’s Office was one of earthquake. the more substantial collections of fan and junk mail that they have received in some time. He Education and Economics said, however, that it was perhaps somewhat One competition that exists throughout the misdirected. “The decision whether there will or University, and throughout any organization for will not be co-ops is not made by the Board of that matter, is between educational quality and the Trustees, and it is not made by the President.” availability of funding. This was one reason that Who is making decisions, Bob? “The Dean of immediate answers were not available to our Student Affairs.” questions. We may ask why there was not someone available who was able to make He points to Dean Jim Lyons, who feels that he decisions about everything — in effect we were makes decisions by weighing the needs of the asking for a consolidation of power. This desire different parties involved. His first impulse after was much due to the tremendous anxiety that we the earthquake was to “set up structures,” such faced over school, a fact which Alice and others as the phone network at Tresidder. Because this recognized. was a crisis, the first priority of most of the administrators was health and safety, and Bob spoke a great deal about the importance of therefore expediency. For this reason, democracy “viability” when evaluating the worthiness of a and consensus were sacrificed for a need or particular program. This means to him that a perceived need to immediately rehouse students. program, be it co-op, fraternity, or theme house, Did this sacrifice really act as a catalyst towards “must have a plan about how it will contribute to realizing the goal of “business as usual?” the education of its members.” We have made it clear how valuable our communities are to us, but need to continue to express to the University as a whole the necessity of our retaining our communities. Co-operative Living at Stanford 63 The Current Crisis There is an auxiliary budget, separate from the general budget of the University, that determines the operation of housing. This budget has “very little forgiveness,” to use Jack’s words. The rent from housing and from Summer conferences must cover the expenses of housing. Thus Jack says that the need to fill houses is “totally market driven... well not totally... well, mostly.” Jim sees the primary need as being the housing of students, though he admits that he does not have to deal with the aspect of finances as much as others. Community in the Co-ops, The Need to Fill, Autonomy, and Expansion Those who live in the co-ops feel that they are different than other University communities. This is certainly understood by the people with whom I spoke. Jack feels that co-ops have “much greater commitments by individuals to communi- ties” and “have different goals in mind.” Each time Jim has visited a co-op, it was quickly apparent to him that “There is something special about this place.” Everyone recognizes the difficulty that co-opers have “fitting into” the hierarchy, though they seem to feel that, as Michael said, “everything has worked out in the end.” Jim and I spoke about the possibility of a long term contract between houses and the University, which would ensure the continued existence of the co-ops. We would be able to have many of the advantages of ownership, while Stanford could retain the ownership which it so obsessively desires. One of the conditions of such a contract, and of the preservation of all of the programs is the filling of the houses. We do not have a “Dean of Co-operative Affairs” who is hoping to have 70% of Stanford in co-ops (as is the case with fraternities) but it is apparent that co-ops would be allowed to expand if demand developed. Co-operative Living at Stanford 64 Recommendations and Alternatives

V. Recommendations and Alternatives physical environment. While most changes reflect a desire for greater environmental sustainability, Introduction others reflect a desire to promote a sense of In this last section of our report we look forward: community, open to all. How can we ensure the survival and growth of The reception was especially good when it was our co-op communities, especially those understood that the petition was not a set of unhoused this year? What do we seek to improve demands but of recommendations. Unfortunately in the individual co-operatives and the links there is little money available for the upgrading of between them? How can we increase the use of current Stanford housing, although the long-term co-operative consensual decision-making within goal of the housing office is to create equally the university framework? What roles can the attractive housing for all by renovating current co-op community have within the Stanford houses/dorms (Keith Guy). Hence, while there is community? little hope for the immediate implantation of our Our proposals are for both immediate and longer- recommendations, we believe that they can serve term improvements. Each proposal includes pros as a preliminary plan for future changes to and cons, reflecting the range of opinions that Columbae. were expressed in our discussions. There were some positive outcomes. Thanks • We communicate which structural changes especially go to Jack Chin for following up on we envision as desirable, while understanding that our recommendation to return the rooms taken the university is limited in the amount of money it during the Roble housing crunch. Because of his can currently invest in the remodeling as well as efforts, one of the two rooms will be returned for repairing of our houses. programmatic use. Further, both Ben Assaro • We focus on some of the special issues (project manager) and Keith Guy feel that if which arise from the rehousing of Synergy and insulation can be put in with little additional cost, Phi Psi in different locations. it will be done. • We propose various organization-level im- For future reference, student volunteers were not provements. Acting in unison would increase our as desirable as finding funding for our recom- power and effectiveness...yet we must not mendations because of the liability involved in undercut the diversity and self-determination we having non-contracted workers. currently have within the co-op world. • We examine various sites for the possibility of housing future Stanford co-operatives to deter- mine which options may be feasible. • We address the need for outreach and communication with those outside of the co-ops.

Recommendations of the Class

Repair of Buildings Columbae’s Building Recommended Changes to the Structure of Columbae The following petition was submitted to admin- istration officials with the aim of increasing com- munication about the long and short term goals of our co-operative and how those relate to our Co-operative Living at Stanford 65 Recommendations and Alternatives Co-operative Living at Stanford 66 Recommendations and Alternatives Co-operative Living at Stanford 67 Recommendations and Alternatives

“Untouchable” (even the enforcement power Synergy and Phi Psi Structures behind this term is unclear), it is not likely that Repair of Synergy and Phi Psi any of the co-ops could ever get this status. The University has decided to repair Synergy and Phi Psi. The reasons for this seem to be mainly Future Prospects/Recommendations financial. It currently costs about $65,000/ Project managers will be assigned to Synergy and student room to build a new row house, while a Phi Psi sometime either near the end of next larger dormitory costs about $55,000/student quarter or summer (it will probably be Ben room to construct. Repairing Synergy and Phi Assaro, who is project manager for most of the Psi will cost more like $25,000/student room. other buildings). At this time students can Also, if any FEMA support is obtained, it can approach him and suggest possible alterations/ only be applied towards repair, and not towards modifications that could fit within the proposed the construction of new buildings. In repairing budget. I have already compiled a list of Synergy and Phi Psi the University wishes only suggested changes for Synergy and Phi Psi — to bring the houses up to life-safety standards, perhaps some of these can be implemented. Any and will use University-contracted labor (proba- students taking CE176 (Small Scale Energy bly current Row workers). The houses are Systems) next quarter might want to work on a expected to reopen for the 1991 academic year, solar water heater system for either house. In any but this time frame is only an estimate; no project case, active student involvement is needed for the manager has been assigned to either house, and next year to monitor the repairs and work with the no comprehensive structural damage reports have University. been compiled. Some Thoughts about Aesthetics and Historical Landmarks Student Housing The main way for a building to be registered as The closing of Synergy and Phi Psi as a result of an historical building is to be on the National the earthquake left many former residents dis- Registry. This is a list of all the historic buildings mayed and confused. What was lost was more in the nation. There might also be one for the than just a house, but a very special home. Both state. An example of a building that is on this Synergy and Phi Psi are notably secluded and registry is the Lou Henry Hoover House (now integrated with their natural surroundings, and the University President’s Residence). Getting on both houses represent an older style of this registry takes a large amount of time, money, architecture which cannot be built today. The fact and involves political lobbying. It also has very that many of the displaced students regret the loss little power other than a mere recognition of the of their quiet, beautiful homes brings up the fact that a particular building has historic value. question of the importance of these qualities in The owner still retains power over the structure, student housing. although any plans for exterior changes may A natural setting is important to members of require review. The only building that would be Synergy and Phi Psi. Both houses have large worthy of this kind of recognition would be Phi lawns and are surrounded by trees. Synergy has Psi — about which very little is known. fruit trees, a garden, compost bins, and chickens The University itself, however, keeps records in — features not found in most other row houses the planning office of past campus evaluations — which contribute to a farm-like rural atmos- (see Appendices for documents). Buildings on phere very much removed from the faster pace of campus are evaluated in terms of value to the activity closer to campus. Both Synergy and Phi University, outside community, students, history, Psi are located on hills, and offer spectacular etc. A list of “untouchables” including the Quad views of the foothills, campus, and the South Bay and Stanford Mausoleum was compiled, area. Synergy house is quite noticeable from the including evaluations of older campus buildings. foothills as a large red house with white windows After the earthquake evaluations were made for which complements its setting in the tall some of the damaged buildings (including Phi eucalyptus and pine trees. Three tall palm trees Psi, Synergy, Delta Tau Delta). The evaluations grow at Synergy, and can be seen rising above the serve only to inform the decision-makers of the roof of the house. The large garden area and value of the structures, and no recommendations generally secluded space allow residents the were made either for or against their preservation. opportunity to engage in outdoor projects and Considering that only extremely valuable enjoy the space for recreation. buildings such as the Quad are considered Co-operative Living at Stanford 68 Recommendations and Alternatives Having a natural setting has a soothing effect on • Please save the pool table if possible (it is a residents. Just being able to watch the sunset very valuable antique). from one’s window or swing in a hammock at dusk for a short time can leave one feeling • The wood floors/walls are important to Phi refreshed and renewed. Synergites often ate Psi. dinner or lunch outside. • Chimneys/Fireplaces are very important to The houses themselves offer an affinity to Phi Psi. residents also. Phi Psi is a special case of this, it Synergy Structural Improvements being a beautiful large house, but Synergy can Additions/Enhancements: also be included. Phi Psi is known for its large rooms and fireplaces, and the house is con- • Convert the 2nd floor bathroom to be co-ed structed in a farmhouse-style architecture that (it is currently quite small when divided in two). many other houses can match in shape, but not in • Install TIP or Ethernet wiring in any rebuilt scale. Synergy, with its white pillars, French walls. doors, and red shingled exterior is also a beautiful house. Living in an aesthetically pleasing • A sundeck on the roof would be nice. situation begins to foster a community just by the Valuable Aspects of Synergy: residents’ attachment to the location itself. The fact that one has to walk through the common • Please save murals wherever possible. areas to get to one’s room lends a natural • Please save the chicken coop if possible. inclination to stop and chat, or just hang out, an activity that builds community. Synergy and Phi • The wood floors/walls are important to Psi also have murals painted by former residents, Synergy. a feature that has helped intensify bonds to the houses. Sometimes students would even paint Changes in Co-op Programs This Year their own murals, or even their own rooms, knowing that their changes would last for others to enjoy in the future. We find increasingly a trend in student housing toward compartmentalization, toward large student dormitories, toward carefully landscaped gardens. Perhaps this was why students preferred Synergy and Phi Psi alternatives such as Synergy and Phi Psi — to Transition escape the long dormitory halls or the cookie- Phi Psi Transition cutter rooms, or just to live in a place that seemed At a dinner with Chip Bartlett, RA at the AD more like home, a place with a kitchen, a living house (soon to become Phi Psi), the only room, a yard. structural recommendation we came up with was a need for increased cutting board space. A wood table might remedy this situation. Also, burners are needed on the stovetop. Chip and I discussed setting up a meeting at the beginning of Spring Quarter at the AD house for Phi Psi Structural anyone who is interested in the house next year. Improvements Exempt spots, house positions, and house Additions/Enhancements: government will be topics of conversation. • Convert the 2nd floor bathroom to be co-ed I talked with Lara Rosenthal, who was food (it is currently quite small when divided in two). manager at Phi Psi before the earthquake. She strongly recommended Cal-Fresh Produce as a • More lighting in biggest common room on supplier of produce. For house and bathroom first floor. supplies, they used Faunders. For dairy products, • Fireproof the attic so that it can be used for they used the Creamery. For dry goods, they house activities. used Rykoff, although they were considering switching to an organic food supplier. Valuable Aspects of Phi Psi: • Please save murals wherever possible. Co-operative Living at Stanford 69 Recommendations and Alternatives

Synergy Transition Outreach to the Stanford Community & For a smooth transition into “Synergy at the Priorities Until the End of the Year Groves,” I recommend the following steps, in no We believe that the problem of filling the co-ops specific order (in a weak attempt to avoid in the past has been largely due to lack of infor- hierarchy). This is by no means a comprehensive mation or misinformation about the co-ops. We list — I am sure other items will arise as the time feel that a strong outreach effort would help more draws nearer and we dwell on this some more. students see co-ops as an attractive living situ- But for now: ation. We would like to muster a united co-op 1. Obtain ASSU displaced household funds outreach program this spring, in order to show for spending on transitional purposes (i.e. kitchen students the diversity that actually exists among items, paints for murals, retreat/advance). the co-ops. We would especially like to concen- trate on making the currently unhoused co-ops 2. Figure out how many Synergites are (Columbae, Phi Psi, and Synergy) more visible, returning, sort out exempt spots and some providing them with extra support to compensate managerial positions. I suggest one of the exempt for their lack of operational facilities. spots be allocated to a “transitional manager”, who will be responsible for many of these items. Priorities 3. Locate possible storage spaces for incoming Our fist task was to prepare the list of priorities Synergites. for the closed co-ops to be placed in the 1990 draw book. The following list was submitted to 4. Assess the kitchen in every way, shape, and Jack Chin late in February. form. Find out how much of the University food service equipment remains, how much we have to gather, etc. Proposed Special Priorities for Columbae, 5. Locate all of the dispersed Synergy stuff Phi Psi, Synergy 1990 among the offshoot houses. 2nd Priority: Students who: 6. Print ample copies of Living In Syn for A. Attend a community discussion/informa- incoming residents. tional meeting (dates to be announced.) 7. Write up a one sheet consensus description. B. Participate in a house related job or project 8. Draw up a “blueprint” of the rooms in both (to be explained at the meetings) houses and propose various organizational OR do a house job (cook crew/ dish crew) at strategies (i.e. communal living options, doubles, one of the open co-ops singles, octuples, etc.) C. Sign a house agreement for Columbae, Phi 9. Co-edify the bathrooms. Psi or Synergy 10. Set up the Alternative Periodicals Rack 3rd Priority: Students who attend a discussion/ and Synergy Library in Lasuen’s back room. informational meeting and sign a house agree- 11. Make sure the transitional manager and at ment least one other person arrive at least one week prior to Autumn Quarter in order to set up various accounts (dry goods, dairy, produce, If you have questions or are unable to attend one phone), set up the kitchen, start the garden, order of the meetings, please call: the chickens, visit the bees, establish an opium Columbae: Raquel Stote 328-1954, Sally Otto or den, bake bread, change the world. Matt Price, 321-5135. 12. Have a weekend advance with all residents Phi Psi: Bruce Wooster 328-1040, Chip Bartlett (maybe at Point Reyes?) the weekend before 328-7118 classes commence or the first weekend of the quarter. Perhaps this can be organized by the Synergy: Eric Rose or Eric Schwitzgebel 494- RAs. 9058, Maggie Harrison 856-8568 13. Dream up all sorts of co-operative/ com- Outreach municative exercises for the first house meeting. Our next undertaking will be to plan the meetings, write up the house contracts, and design priority- obtaining activities. Dates for the meetings haven’t been set yet, but will probably be Co-operative Living at Stanford 70 Recommendations and Alternatives assigned by the Housing Center from their During this week representatives from all the calendar of open houses. We envision at least co-ops will be doing all sorts of fun, attention- three meetings, at which people from Synergy, getting stuff in White Plaza during the lunch Columbae, and Phi Psi will make presentations, hour. Suggested activities include making food, answer questions and explain the special house playing games, musical performers (we might be jobs. Prospective residents will be able to sign the able to get one of the old Phi Psi house bands to house agreements at these meetings. Contact come play); basically making ourselves visible as people for each house will also have agreements fun, happy people. There was a suggestion that that prospectives can sign on an individual basis. one day be devoted to each co-op, but that idea Ideas for special jobs have included “Columbae- has been put on the back-burner for fear that a Phi Psi-Synergy Nights” at open co-ops, potential Terran might be turned off by massive bread-baking sessions at Elliot Program “Hammarskjöld Day.” Center, Bechtel, or open co-ops, watering trees in the foothills, decorating the fences around the closed co-ops, or helping in a house job at an off- The Co-op Union campus co-op. We will probably host the We Recommend the Formation of a Co-op meetings in a classroom, Tresidder or on the Union Columbae lawn. The Union would be structured of 1-2 represen- Turning to united co-op outreach, at the tatives from each member house. Membership February 28th meeting we formulated and com- would be voluntary for each house, renewable at menced several plans of action. the beginning of every academic year (in September). The Co-op Union would not take 1. Study breaks and dorm outreach meeting. away the autonomy of individual houses, but Representatives from each co-op will visit dorms would foster co-operation and community and talk about the different co-ops. They will between those houses. This would not be a either do the presentation at dinner or other governing board setting rules for individual specified times, or guest host dorm study breaks co-ops, rather it would be a place to discuss at house meetings, providing food representative issues that will affect all co-ops, and a place to of each co-op. The presentation could either be support the efforts of individual co-ops. Each made to a cluster of dorms or to individual house must maintain their autonomy in making dorms. decisions on issues that affect only their own 2. Tabling in White Plaza, and contacting house. people from the petitions. A strong and active co-op community is our best outreach tool. A co-op union would be a good In the weeks before the Draw, a co-op table will way to get this out. Instead of one house be set up in White Plaza, with food and infor- sponsoring or hosting an event, the Co-op Union mation about the co-ops. Students may be able to could host an event. Frosh often don’t know that sign house agreements at this time. a particular house is a co-op. The Union would During December and January signatures were provide the community with a higher profile and collected to gather support for the re-opening of better publicity. Phi Psi, Synergy, and Columbae. Signers were asked to mark whether or not they would put a Functions co-op on their draw card in the future. Members The functions of the Co-op Union could be as of this task group will contact those people, to see follows. There are many possible directions that it if they are still interested. could go, but we feel that in order to build a 3. Co-op booklet. strong and diverse community, the following functions are necessary. The examples listed with 1989, the Inter Co-op Council, produced an each function are merely to illuminate some of the informative brochure entitled Co-operative Living ways in which the Co-op Union could act in a at Stanford. This group will update the brochure given area. They are not recommendations for and distribute it to people on the petition, to all future agenda items. All examples come from dorms containing frosh, and to other potentially discussions with other co-opers, imagining how a interested folks. Co-op Union might work. 4. Co-op week — a.k.a. “Seven Days of Co- • Liaison between the Larger Co-op Community operation.” and the University and Row Administration. In the union tradition, we support collective Co-operative Living at Stanford 71 Recommendations and Alternatives bargaining as the way to gain more power and legitimacy. In the same way that a letter signed by Some Additional Discussion on Function 18 black students carries less weight than a letter There are many other possible functions that have signed by those same 18 as the BSU; so would a been mentioned during the course of this process: letter or proposal signed by the Co-op Union Establishing an emergency fund; providing carry more weight than one signed by 5 or six co- financial support for the projects of the entire ops. In this role, the Union could support and community, or individual houses; establishing lobby for a need of the entire community relations with other co-ops in the area and (graduates student spots, more program funding, working with them on programs, or events; hot tubs for every house..), or it could speak in establishing an office and part-time staffperson; support of a proposal from one particular house leasing or buying additional houses. We do not (“The Co-op Union supports Columbae’s feel that it is wise to recommend that the Co-op proposal to have an RA collective instead of an Union take on any of these functions in its initial RA.”) This group could also lobby the Row charter. Many of these, while perhaps good ideas, office to keep more co-ops open in the summer seem to be functions that the Co-op Union since Theta Chi is always oversubscribed. should consider adding at a later date. At this point, there is very little long-range planning • Organize Free and Accessible Co-operative ability among the members of the campus co-ops Education and Skills Sharing Programs based in and in order for any of these functions to be the co-ops, primarily to meet expressed needs and maintained, the co-op union must be functioning desires of co-op members, but open to the whole strongly on its own feet first. There needs to be a campus community. Examples of programs: strong and empowered vision of the present and Reading/Discussion groups on Co-operation, imagination about what is possible to do Women’s and Men’s issues; workshops led by tomorrow before one can dream about what might co-opers on breadmaking, crafts, car repair, be possible 2 or 5 or 10 years from now... gardening, aerobics, bicycle repair, and any other skill that we can share. There is nowhere in the Funding University where you can learn any of these and We Recommend that the Union be Funded, other useful skills. In the Co-ops, we have a vast but as yet there is no general consensus on where wealth of knowledge; we should share this with that money should come from, or, in fact, how each other and non-co-opers. much is necessary. One suggestion is that each • Sponsor Co-op-Related Programming: Speak- house pay a flat membership fee each year, but ers, arts, music, dance, political events, public the individual houses get to determine from service events, barbecues, parties, etc. The Co-op whence that money should come. Another Union could plan joint events between the Co-op suggestion is that as each house joins the Union, community and other non-co-op housing groups that each house member pay a small fee for the throughout the year which would strengthen our year to help fund the activities (perhaps position in the housing draw. In addition, the $10.00/year?). Half of this money could be spent Union could be a tool for strengthening the on the current year and half on the following multicultural programs and appeal of the co-ops. year. This little altruistic twist is to insure the As a Voluntary Student Organization (VSO), continuity of the Union; it is a commitment on the there is a great deal of funding that we can solicit part of the members to the future existence of the in order to sponsor larger events, or more Union. After the first year, however, current frequent events, or a series of events. members would be spending the money of the members from the prior year and giving money to • Coordinate Outreach for the Draw: In addition the following year...Clever? We think so. There to all of the work throughout the year, at Draw are also ASSU and Program Board funding that time, the Union could organize the necessary all- might be available. Below are listed possible ways co-op outreach and publicity, perhaps with a to spend some of this money. better eye to the diversity between the co-ops than we have had in the past. The Union could be the Ideas for Projects mechanism through which we present all of the co-ops and their differences, with each house still (of the Hella-cool Hypothetical) responsible for their own outreach as well. We are each distinct communities, but we do have Co-operative Union some things in common in how we live. The FALL — Workshop on “Approaching Co-operation?” Co-operative Living at Stanford 72 Recommendations and Alternatives All-co-op weekend semi-educational retreat surfaced in times of crisis or around outreach time. It is hard to get people active and excited Evening festivity (lunar event?) about a group which they see as serving little real Student-led Skills Sharing—expenses, purpose. We have attempted to develop a materials recommendation for a group with a specific set of functions to meet what we see as needs of the co- The WINTER — op community. Printing up Co-op Handbooks for the Draw Q. If we had such a hard time getting people to Co-operative Education Program be interested in the Co-op Council, what will Party make this any different? The house representative to the Union could be Student-led Skills Sharing compensated for their activity in behalf of the The Lovely SPRING (Since we all know that house and community by treating it as a house more happens in the Spring): job, or even as a managerial position. It is perhaps advisable that this position rotate every quarter, Outreach program to dorms (materials, food?) but this decision is up to the individual houses to Other outreach stuff: flyers, White Plaza make. Happenings. . . Q. Will this detract from the vitality of the indivi- Chat with Administrators dual houses and the commitment of members to Student-led Skills Sharing their own individual communities? Although once a house joins, every student in the All-co-op hedonistic retreat house is a member, the Co-op Union should not Forum discussion: Marginality and really place any additional burden of commitment Counterculture? on anyone other than the house’s representatives. The commitment of the representatives should not Refund or Savings (purchase of a solar draw them away from the house, and could even Winnebago?) draw them deeper into the house community. The The general idea is to sponsor one program, one time commitment of the Co-op Union fun activity, and one skills sharing each quarter representatives shouldn’t be any more involving initially, adding outreach in the Spring. Or less if than SCAAN, the Women’s Center, the that seems too ambitious. Mendicants, or the crew team.

Some Additional Questions, Objections, and Ethnic and Cultural Diversity Possible Solutions Some additional discussion seems to be called for Summary of Recommendations to respond to some of the most common prob- In order to encourage ethnic diversity in the co- lems raised. ops, we have broadly outlined three areas that Q. Is this just a new name for the Co-op merit our attention and action. Firstly, in Spring Council? 1990 we should launch an educational and informational campaign about co-operative living The Co-op Union springs from the same needs at Stanford directed towards the ethnic commu- that the Co-op council has attempted to meet, nities. Secondly, when we are rehoused we however, it is significantly different in structure, should make a creative and concerted effort to agenda and commitment. It should be looked on raise issues of multiculturalism and interact more as a new organization. One notable difference is with the ethnic communities. Thirdly, we should that it will have some independent funding. It is consider the possibility of adopting an affirmative also an organization that each house will have to action policy which gives priority to students of make a conscious decision to join and member- color in the draw. ship carries with it obligations — one or two representatives and a possible monetary contri- bution. The Co-op Union is also designed to fill a A co-op is a place where people live specific role in the community and as such has a together and learn to accept and very clear agenda. Much of the criticism of the appreciate differences among them. Co-op Council seems to stem from the problem — Classmember that it was a group without an agenda. It primarily Co-operative Living at Stanford 73 Recommendations and Alternatives four ethnic theme houses with flyers about co- Background operative living. Lack of ethnic diversity and multiculturalism has been a problem in many of the co-ops, In addition, we have paved the ground at each of particularly Synergy, Phi Psi, and Columbae. these communities for their hosting Spring Heterogeneity, cultural diversity, and the informational programs about the co-ops. These celebration of difference are concepts theoret- programs could be panel discussions with ically aligned with and essential for the true representatives from several different co-ops who manifestation of our co-operative ideals. This have varying perceptions of co-operation. Ideally, inconsistency between our ideal and our actual co-opers of color would be participants in the constituency points to an aspect of our program panel. Along with scheduling the programs at that merits considerable analysis and revision. Lathrop, Okada, Ujamaa, and Zapata, we could do programs or at least make announcements at What is it about co-operative living at Stanford AASA, BSU, MEChA, and SAIO meetings. The (although this problem is not limited to our co-ops should also sponsor late night study campus co-operatives) that is at most alienating breaks with fresh bread, home-made beer, and and at least unattractive to ethnic students? enthusiastic co-opers at each of the dorms. The Although the theoretical ideals of co-operation are need for outreach programming is urgent, given far from exclusionary, the co-ops are historically our lack of houses as bases for our activities. rooted in the white male “back to the land” movements of the sixties. Ethnic communities are Lastly, other Spring outreach activities could instrumental in advocating and enacting change in include formal gatherings between co-op and many facets of progressive politics, but the co- ethnic communities which would provide operative movement has remained primarily opportunities for communication. This could be Anglo. Granted, co-ops are not popular living manifested through inter-community parties with options for the majority of Stanford students. music from various cultures or community-wide This fact undoubtedly contributes to the reluc- service projects with sponsorship by and tance of many students of color to voluntarily participation from both the co-ops and the ethnic separate themselves further from the rest of the communities (such as the AIDS Education University by choosing to live co-operatively. We Project or the student support for the Webb recognize also that many students of color who Workers). are interested in co-operation are, understandably, Expanding the theme of ethnic diversity into a drawn to their own ethnic communities. Still, broader theme of general diversity and celebration these realities do not alleviate the necessity for of difference, we should do similar outreach examination of and action to overcome our own programs in other “different” communities homogeneity. which have traditionally been better-represented in the co-ops. This would include informational programs or study breaks at the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Community Center, Hillel, and meetings of the newly-formed support group for students in financial distress. Solutions We need to communicate with the ethnic A. Outreach in the spring of 1990 offers an ideal communities on campus about co-operation, the forum for members of co-op communities diversity of meanings it has for us, and the variety concerned with our lack of ethnic diversity to of ways it is enacted in our houses. Diversity and address students of color and heighten awareness celebration of differences are essential for co- about the benefits of co-operative living and the operative living: we must strive to reach a mutual variety of ways it is manifested at Stanford. We understanding with ethnic communities of our have already begun by posting literature at the common and divergent goals. ethnic theme houses which explained our concern B. Along with generating awareness in ethnic about the lack of multiculturalism at co-ops, communities about co-operative living and the hypothesized about its causation, and asked for options available at Stanford, it is essential that suggestions and creative solutions to the problem. we, as co-op residents, question our own roles in The flyers were followed up with informal dinner making our communities culturally sensitive and discussions on these issues. Future plans for conducive to ethnic diversity. One obvious forum outreach should include specifically targeting the for change is the increased discussion of racism and multiculturalism within our houses. This can Co-operative Living at Stanford 74 Recommendations and Alternatives be encouraged from a variety of routes: sponsoring workshops in the houses such as “Unlearning Racism,” inviting Ethnic Studies professors and students to dinner for informal discussions on specific related topics, working in coalition, as the co-op council, with ethnic student groups on campus, celebrating diversity by bringing ethnic musicians to our houses for parties, and generating discussion and analysis of these issues by writing in the house journals, Options for the Future painting murals, or even putting scratch pads for ideas on the bathroom walls. Next year, when we are at last rehoused, we must follow-up the spring Co-op Office outreach programs at Lathrop, Okada, Ujamaa, Option and Zapata with specific programs or celebrations organized collaboratively with these houses. For Establish a co-op office that would provide example, Phi Psi could sponsor a Kuumba dance infrastructure and perhaps staff for various co-op performance or Columbae could co-sponsor or activities. participate in the annual Chicano “Celebration of There are several different possible models for a Resistance.” co-op office. One is that of the community C. Along with initiating changes within our co- centers, in which staff paid by the University ops, we could adopt a policy which gives priority operate in space that is supplied with office to underrepresented groups in the draw, therefore equipment, phones, etc. Another is an indepen- guaranteeing that any minority student who dent space operated in one of the existing co-ops, chooses to live in a co-op is able to. Although this with equipment obtained by donations, etc. A policy may arouse considerable controversy, it is third is a separate subunit of residential education, a clear statement of our priorities and the as there is now the Row Office. A primary importance we deem to multiculturalism in our concern is that any staff would be selected either communities. In informal discussions with co-op directly by co-op residents, or with substantial residents and members of Stanford’s ethnic student input. communities, we have heard both encouraging and skeptical opinions about the viability and Background desirability of this route to enacting change. Next Currently, the only support the co-ops receive year, after the implementation of the suggested from the University is that common to all row solutions outlined above, this issue should be re- houses. Diana Conklin and Jack Chin of evaluated. A concerted and true effort to change Residential Education have responsibility for the our communities by making them more co-ops as part of their larger responsibility to the conducive to multiculturalism and celebratory of row, but their role is typically limited to benign difference is a pre-requisite to the adoption of neglect or to representing the interests of the this policy. University when there is conflict. They do at times serve as advocates for the co-ops within the larger Residential Affairs and University systems, but only out of the basis of personal commitment, not any structural relationship to the co-ops.

A co-op is a house and it’s inhabited by people. They co-operate. They want to be there. A co-op is anything people want it to be. —Classmember

In terms of facilities, there is also little support for the co-ops. Such basic office equipment as computers, copiers and phones could be as useful to the co-op community as they are to the other University community centers. Co-operative Living at Stanford 75 Recommendations and Alternatives

Pros Future • Any level of staffing could provide support to This proposal needs to be raised in Residential co-op programming. Education and in the broader Student Affairs bureaucracy early on. Inasmuch as the University • The staff position is flexible — it could be part- is cutting its budget in the current period, it is not time students, as at the LGBCC (Lesbian, Gay, likely to commit any significant funds in the near and Bisexual Community Center), a half-time future. However, as with all demands for Univer- co-ordinator as at the Women’s Center, a part- sity support for the various community centers, it or full-time dean as at the other community takes time for the University to see things as centers, an official such as the Fraternity Affairs priorities, and the earlier we start making the case, adviser, or a Residential Affairs person. the sooner we can hope to see our goals (or some • A professional level person could provide of them) accomplished. invaluable liaison and advocacy within the Un• In the interim, the houses could do things them- An office could provide a central location for selves to create a de facto office — set aside some resources such as books, periodicals, etc. space in one of the houses for inter-co-op • Volunteers working in an office would increase resources, contribute to the hiring of a student our sense of inter-co-op community staff person on a part-time or trial basis, etc. With one of the houses living over the Row Office next • There is precedent in the Women’s Center, the year, some of the facilities questions may be LGBCC, and the Chicano Community for amenable to compromise (can we use their office students having an input in selecting staff. equipment? In the evenings?). Cons More generally, however, this whole idea depends • Any such proposal would cost money. The on there being a consensus evolved that having University has little these days. The co-ops any kind of inter-co-op infrastructure is a good have till now never chosen to spend substantial idea. Supporters of co-op unity and expansion amounts on centralized activities/facilities. need to communicate their vision and a sense of its viability to the broader co-op (and non-co-op) • The largest gains (the added clout from community. The advantage of this proposal is that professional-level staff) have the largest costs. it could be self-reinforcing; it would bring • There is some conflict between co-operative resources to the efforts to create a stronger and egalitarianism and the power vested in staff of more visible community. any kind. • There is not a lot of space in the University. Co-op Contract with the University • The University administration acts like it really Option doesn’t like more than token student input in That a contract be established between co-op decision making. residents and the University clarifying the responsibilities of each party. Solutions Any proposal that includes staff will cost money. Such a contract could cover any number of One possible hook is replacing some of the issues, from responsibility for maintenance and responsibilities that existing Res Ed personnel cleanliness, to a lease on one or more of the have for the co-ops. Another is outside fund- houses. The basic goal is to clarify the raising — would the co-op alum network support obligations and responsibilities of both the co-op a staff position? The houses themselves could residents and the University, to eliminate distrust contribute a substantial amount, perhaps as and hostility caused by ambiguity about expec- “matching funds” to a University contribution. It tations. Establishing honesty about expectations, should also be noted that the University does mutual accountability, and clear channels for provide funds to other communities in the form grievances could bring a major benefit to all of free room and board to RFs, a full-time concerned fraternal affairs adviser, etc. Leland Stanford’s Such a contract could be negotiated by either commitment to co-operation also provides lever- residents of a single house, or by the Co-op age for arguing for such a position, as well as for Council or Union on behalf of as many of the democratic selection of any persons hired. houses as wished to participate. Among the issues which are likely candidates for inclusion are: Co-operative Living at Stanford 76 Recommendations and Alternatives • Maintenance and cleanliness. What are mutually • Increase sense of collective responsibility acceptable standards? What maintenance is the among co-op residents. University’s responsibility, what is the co-ops • Establish clear process for grievances and responsibility? conflict resolution. • Respect for co-op initiated improvements. Guaranteeing the preservation of murals, • Reduce time and energy spent defending co- gardens, etc. ops. • Expectations for the draw. How many unfilled Cons slots in how many consecutive years can the co- • Ambiguity of responsibility on behalf of co- ops have before they face termination? ops: who signs each year? Who is accountable? • Leasing. Could one or more of the co-ops lease • Elimination of flexibility: if contract says “X their houses from the University, increasing open spots in Y years and you’re closed,” you their autonomy, taking responsibility for lose your space to argue utilities, certain maintenance, etc.? • Some practices that are currently ignored might • Other unofficial practices. The University has be explicitly prohibited in establishment of long turned its back on widespread co-op contract. practices which bend standard University housing policy. Possible solutions There is no simple answer to “who signs for the co-ops?” Especially since not all co-ops may wish to participate in such a contract, or might have different needs, they might have to be done on a house-by-house basis. Ideally each house would renegotiate/ratify its contract in the fall, when all new residents are present. Background The question of loss of flexibility is going to Ambiguity about responsibilities and expectations remain, as it is the main trade-off for eliminating has long been a source of tension between the co- the ambiguity of expectations. The contract would ops and the University. Issues such as the simply have to be such that co-op residents preservation of murals and gardens have been understood and took responsibility for frequent points of contention. Unfilled spaces in maintaining their commitments, and felt comfort- the Draw have repeatedly led the University to able that expectations and sanctions for their threaten to close one or more of the co-ops, and violations were reasonable. have drawn co-op residents into extensive and The final issue about currently ignored practices distracting battles to preserve their existence. is also difficult to solve in advance. There is in Conflicts over standards of cleanliness have in fact no way to predict what issues the University recent years led to the University’s imposition of might find objectionable if they were raised its own cleaning service on Synergy. explicitly. This would require extensive The establishment of a contract or contracts discussion among co-op residents in advance of between the University and the co-ops would any negotiations. make mutual obligations clear, would limit arguments about what is or is not appropriate and Process/Futures make it possible when necessary to spend more This spring would be a good time to establish this energy on solutions. Jim Lyons, Dean of Student process, as the interim situations established for Affairs, has said that there is no reason in the 1991-92 school year provide greater principle that such a contract could not be ambiguity than usual in expectations. Immediate established, including the possibility of one or discussions with Residential Affairs staff and more of the houses being leased from the those who will be living in the co-ops next year University. could address such issues as responsibilities for cleanliness and expectations for the draw. This Pros would provide a useful precedent for further • Increase honesty and trust between co-ops and elaborations of such contracts. University. The long term issues such as inter-co-op respon- • Clarify and protect rights of co-op residents. sibilities in such contracts, and the possible Co-operative Living at Stanford 77 Recommendations and Alternatives leasing of houses, are properly discussed at either residents to allow everyone to a co-op council meeting or by the individual contribute towards providing food, houses at such time as they deem appropriate. shelter, entertainment and educa- tion. — Classmember Resident Fellows Option Currently, Diane Conklin, Dean of the Row, serves as RF equivalent for the Row, inasmuch as That one or more of the co-ops establish a Resi- she selects RAs and receives student transcripts, dent Fellow or similar non-student position, such and is the first recourse for serious crises. as “visiting scholar/activist.” A Resident Fellow (as currently defined by the Pros University) could live in any of the existing co- • Bring substantial resources and continuity to the ops, if s/he were willing to live in a regular room co-ops. and participate fully in the process of the house, and forego some of the kinds of authority that • Provide an additional liaison to the University RFs typically exercise. Alternatively, an equiv- on issues of concern to the co-ops. alent position of “visiting scholar/activist” could bring many of the same advantages, primarily Cons bringing the kind of resources typical of older • Difficulty of finding persons willing to persons, without having to fit the existing RF live/participate in co-ops. definition so precisely. • Creating non-hierarchical role for a traditionally Such a person could serve both for a single hierarchical position. house, or alternatively for more than one, or all, of • Getting University to expand definition of the co-ops. They would serve as educational, eligible RFs, or to embrace a new program for programming and counseling resources to the non-students living in student residences. individual house and/or the co-op community. They would be expected to have an expertise in • Cost to the University of losing housing spaces. some area relevant to the co-ops or to the theme • University expects to select RF independent of of a particular house, and a commitment to co- house concerns. operation. Solutions Background The issues are different depending on how close RFs are currently chosen from University faculty we choose to conform to the existing model. If or “senior administrative staff.” They live in we want a more-or-less traditional RF, the cottages attached to University residences, and hierarchy issues will have to be addressed, as well receive free room and board. They are expected to as those of finding candidates. One option is select the RAs for their residence, to foster simply to make the program contingent on programming of various kinds, particularly finding acceptable candidates. Then the Univer- related to their own field and interests; to serve as sity also faces the question of costs; in the current academic and personal advisors, and promote climate, one student-year of room and board is pluralism within the residences. They are not trivial. We would have to argue that the same expected to serve for two years, with possible benefits that other houses get from RFs, which reappointment. They are selected each spring by are not disputed by the University (on the the Associate Dean of Student Affairs and the contrary, they are highly acclaimed as successes Dean of Undergraduate Studies, on the basis of of the Res Ed system) would apply in co-ops as recommendations from a selection committee. well. If we chose a more radical model, where the Co-op: A house of ‘co-operative’ “RF” didn’t have to be faculty or “senior” living, where people ‘co-operate’ staff, we have the option of having the person pay with one another to achieve the their way as well as participate fully; we would common goals of the house, dividing also possibly have a larger pool of candidates. the larger chores, almost impossible We would have to sell the program on the basis of the same benefits that RFs bring. In either or at least rather difficult for a case, arguing for residents’ input into the single person to do, amongst all the selection process would require specifying the Co-operative Living at Stanford 78 Recommendations and Alternatives unique nature of the co-op communities, although to live in such a system? Many of the most active the selection process for the Chicano Dean has residents of the houses in the past have been established a very helpful precedent. people who chose another University house above co-op’s. Would the elimination of 006’s Future/Implementation Process (those who select “any University housing” as Implementation for the 1991-92 school year is an option in the campuswide housing draw) be probably impossible at this point; conversations worth the sacrifice of self-selection? with the relevant persons (Jack Chin, Diane How would such a draw be structured? Hammar- Conklin, Alice Supton, Norm Robinson) could skjöld’s draw selects from students who have an begin this spring, with an eye to feeling out the interest in international relations. Would it be University’s concerns and possible support. A appropriate for Columbae, in similar fashion, to consensus would have to be developed next year ask “who is the most nonviolent?” Should the as to which of the various models to strive for, Co-op Draw be prior to the University Draw and and for which houses. An individual house could allow only those with a commitment to co-opera- pursue this process on its own, or the co-op tive housing? union could negotiate for the whole co-op community. Another possibility would be to simply assign a higher priority to people who put co-op’s as their first choices in the draw. This would ensure self- A Separate Co-op Housing Draw selection and would allow more people who want Option very much to live in co-ops to do so. A possible That the co-ops have a separate housing draw. drawback would be that there would not be as many random surprises. The concept of a separate housing draw for the co-ops at Stanford has been considered. The idea This issue, as the above discussion portrays, now was talked about once in class and was further raises considerably more questions than answers. discussed at one of our task group’s Coffee It has been viewed by our group with House meetings. It has not been made clear, as of considerable skepticism, but it might in fact some yet, that this is the direction in which the Co-op day be an idea worth addressing again. Community should be going. Further, it has not been a priority of our group so it is probably Future Co-op Buildings unlikely that we have considered all of the details that such a choice might entail. There are clearly a Faculty Houses and Stanford Land number of questions that we must ask of Introduction ourselves: If the co-ops at Stanford wanted to expand could A. Would a Co-op draw contribute to creating a they obtain more old fraternity houses on the better, more ideal community, or would it work Row, rent faculty houses, or lease land from the against the non-exclusionary values of co- University and build new houses? What is operation? possible? We asked these questions of Charlotte Strem of the Stanford Planning Department, B. Would there be a demand for such a draw? Larry Horton, formerly Director of Residential C. What would be the format of the draw? Education, and Norm Robinson, current Director D. How is this issue connected with other issues of Res Ed. of housing, such as priorities and exempt spots? Locating New Student Housing on Stanford In response to question A, the majority of our Lands — What’s Physically Possible? class saw the concept of a draw as being segre- Stanford’s land holdings extend from gational, which is not at all the desired effect. Arastradero Road to Sand Hill Road, and from El However, confusion has abounded in our Camino Real to out past Interstate 280, excluding discussions more than clarity. Would a draw College Terrace (the residential neighborhood allow us to have a community of “neat co- between Page Mill Road and Stanford Avenue). operative people?” Do we want to try to make the There are thousands of acres of land, some leased decision about who should live in our houses? to ranchers and farmers, some dotted with telescopes and radio receivers, some with research Though there is some danger of elitism that is companies, some leased to commercial business threatening, making choices possibly ensure a for income, and some sporting faculty housing more co-operative and therefore better func- [see map]. tioning community. Would enough people want Co-operative Living at Stanford 79 Recommendations and Alternatives The Land Use Plan for the University allocates (apartments?) planned for construction in the the land to these different uses, trying to keep Stanford West area (currently slated to house similar functions together. But the plan is flexible Stanford employees and employees on Stanford and can be changed if necessary. In particular, land). land can always be switched over to academic use (including, presumably, “residential education”) Faculty Ghetto since education is the highest goal of the There are some parcels of land in or near the University. faculty area on which small student houses could be built. It might be possible to lease a house Land near SLAC, the Research Park, or the from Stanford in this district or sublease from a Shopping Center are probably not desirable for faculty member. Although Stanford owns all the student housing, but most of the other land would land, faculty members own their houses. When be acceptable. For example, a house like Synergy, faculty members move away or die, their houses with an emphasis on living in tune with the are sold to other faculty members in a complex natural environment might fit well in some of the procedure overseen by the administration. more rural ranch lands (Piers Ranch, Webb Ranch, Guernsey Field, Stanford North and The Planning Office would be concerned about South). A traditional house might fit well on land the noise and different lifestyle of students living near existing faculty housing on Junipero Serra in a faculty neighborhood, but it would be Boulevard or near other houses on Alpine Road, possible if the neighborhood did not mind and Sand Hill Road, or Arastradero Road. But land the student house was more-or-less contiguous close to the academic central campus or in the with current student housing. faculty ghetto area is probably most appropriate and most convenient for students. The Planning Ranch land — Piers Ranch, Webb Ranch, Office has tried to concentrate student housing Guernsey Field, Stanford North and South within the circle defined by Campus Drive to These areas are largely undeveloped and further minimize traffic and safety dangers and to make it from campus than the faculty housing. There are easier to administer. But, like Hopkins Marine existing ranch houses and buildings that could be Station and overseas campuses, unusual converted to housing or new structures could be situations could probably be accommodated. built. Generally these lands are leased for 51 or 99 years, but probably a small parcel of land Central Campus could be released, if necessary. Student houses in There are two parcels of land where new houses these areas should probably be small, because, might be built: (1) in the faculty area across the being farther away, they might have trouble street from Governor’s Corner — the faculty attracting large numbers of students. Also, to houses will eventually be converted into academic develop in these areas it would be necessary to program houses (like Owen House, etc.) and (2) the land on Campus Drive behind the Knoll and between the Alpha Delt House and the fraternity cluster — this space is too small for a dorm, but about the right size for three row houses. The reason they have not yet built on the land persuade environmentalists both behind the Knoll is that row houses are on and off campus that the impact would be considerably more expensive per student to build minimal. than dorms, so it would seem the possibility Reasonable Options would be closed until Kymball is fully built. After Given that almost anything imaginable is possi- Kymball is fully built, however, the University ble, what are the advantages and disadvantages of expects to be able to guarantee four years of the most reasonable options? undergraduate housing. If this is the case, then the University will not feel pressure to build new The University Converts an Existing Row or houses and will concentrate on other projects. Fraternity House to a Co-op House This has been the traditional way of setting up Other Academic Lands new co-op houses and would probably be the There are other places outside of Campus Drive, easiest. Res Ed is most convinced of the need for but still within the main academic area where new co-ops by very strong demand in the Draw, houses could be built, primarily in the medical but it may also be possible to argue on center, Searsville, and West Campus areas. It educational grounds — particularly if one makes might be possible to secure one of the dwellings reference to Leland Stanford’s founding grant Co-operative Living at Stanford 80 Recommendations and Alternatives and point out that co-operative living teaches Resident Fellow and so might not be able to students important things. The decision to build provide the same educational programming Kymball as a mid-size dormitory (rather than a opportunities, but it would provide a different group of Row houses or some other configu- kind of educational experience (equivalent to ration) was based on the strong demand for living off-campus). Roble and Toyon and the types of educational If the house were personally subleased from a programs that are possible in such a structure. faculty member, the house could be completely To decide what new housing is needed, Norm independent of Res Ed and so would demand Robinson forms a committee of students, faculty, complete responsibility by the residents for all and staff who discuss the advantages and operation, maintenance, and governance. They disadvantages of different options. It might be would also be required to find replacements for advisable to get a member of the co-op union on anyone who leaves. But it would probably be such a committee next time one is formed. possible to include graduate students (perhaps Residential Education also decides to what use only grad students), staff-members, or other non- houses with dying programs should be put, but in students (especially if they were somehow a less formal manner. They will probably be open Stanford associated). to lobbying and constructive suggestions. A Co-op Union or Alumni Group Builds New The University Converts an Existing Large Houses on University Land Faculty House If there were a strong Co-op Union or Alumni Faculty housing only becomes available when a group it could, perhaps, build a house on land professor moves out. These houses are probably leased from Stanford. The University does not in great demand, so we would probably have to have a policy against this, but because building make a very convincing case for student co-op codes and contract demands are so stringent (the housing. University maintains control over the structure The big, old houses near the Row, if converted, and function of the house, and over rent prices) would have a nice, homey atmosphere with no group in recent years has pursued this option. personalizable spaces just like the existing Row Arguments in favor of co-op union ownership houses. (or subleasing) If we built a house ourselves, with our own The larger houses located further away from the money, we could do it regardless of the Row would be quiet and more removed, providing University’s opinion about whether we needed access to nature, and a less urban environment, more co-ops. but it would be necessary to persuade the neighbors and the Planning Office that students We could personally select the people who live in would not be noisy or disruptive. the house, rather than subjecting people to the draw. (The University does not like this aspect of The biggest difficulty is that most of the larger fraternities, but perhaps they would be houses are not designed for a student residence. negotiable.) According to Norm Robinson, for moral and liability reasons, the University requires student We could paint the house whatever color we housing to meet stringent health and safety wanted, mow our own lawns, sleep on the roof, requirements (fire sprinklers, fire escapes, multi- stay open year-round, design the rooms in ple, wide stairways, industrial-size kitchens, etc.) whatever fashion we wanted; we could implement which often costs more than tearing them down our ideas of the architecture of an ideal co-op: and rebuilding. Norm told us that they had environmentally sound, large kitchen, etc. considered converting houses to residences We could do our utilities independently and before (such as Owen and Mariposa), but reduce energy consumption to lower rates. determined that it simply made more sense to convert them to program offices since this Also, if successful, the co-op union would required relatively little expense. eventually pay off the debt, after which time rent would be profit, and the union would gain money The University or Co-op Group Converts an and power. Existing Small Faculty House We could perhaps convert a smaller faculty house Arguments against co-op union ownership (or to a small co-op for only a few students (4-10). subleasing) This way, it would be easier to meet University It would be very difficult to build a house from health and safety requirements. A small house outside for less and keep it up to University like this would not have a Resident Assistant or Co-operative Living at Stanford 81 Recommendations and Alternatives housing standards; they estimate about $55,000/ lobbying group, keeping these various options in student for a row house. mind. If demand lagged, the University could take over and change the theme of the house (the Off-Campus Houses University would not allow a house to be built Potential idea: Establish an off-campus student with the proviso that it always remain a co-op or co-operative house. fraternity). Pros: The University wants to control the pricing House would be autonomous and not dependent structure and standards (the University distributes on University support. debt service and utilities, for example, equally across students — they do not want class A house such as this would be a wonderful differences determining where people live; the demonstration of the strength of the Stanford only reason houses may differ slightly is that the co-op system. services vary, e.g. maintenance, cleaning, Being exempt from University regulations, this cooking). The co-op group could have about as house could be kept open year-round, and could much control as Theta Chi does now, but could theoretically see less resident transiency and not expect much more independence than that. turnover (no guaranteed year rules), and could increase the diversity of ages and backgrounds of The University wants every student residence to residents of the house by allowing students and be run by the same set of University guidelines. non-students to live together. It is difficult to run a 25-person row house economically (especially if it has food service, Cons: RA, RF) and for the University the smallest Current student demand for co-op living is not economical size is now 60-person. The Univer- high enough to warrant another house. sity would be reluctant to have more smaller Funding difficulties (obviously) houses in existence that, if the co-op failed, they might eventually try to run like a Row house Few already existing houses are physically suited to our vision of an effective co-op (especially The University puts a high value on academic regarding size limitations) programming as led by a Resident Assistant (RA) and Resident Fellow (RF), so they would want Legal difficulties: It’s more expensive and this to be part of the deal. difficult to insure a house with such transiency among residents and no single owner. Arguments in favor of University ownership The University has money and power, so they Administrative difficulties: Purchasing and will guarantee the solvency of the co-op, provide running a house is a long term obligation and insurance, and do extensive repairs and major would require a strong organization or group of modifications that perhaps a student group could individuals committed to the long haul. not afford. When things go to hell, University can Any mistakes or failures on the part of the co-op clean it up. The co-op union avoids financial risk. or its backing could have serious consequences: If the house participates in the draw, it can be bankruptcy, lawsuits, and the like. assured of filling, with 006’s if necessary; if it is Possible solutions to these problems: not in the draw outreach would be much more Demand is not an unalterable constant. It is difficult (we would have to persuade people not to strongly affected by outreach, and is also affected participate in the draw). by the supply of houses. The fact that several off- Conclusion campus co-ops kept operating until their leases We have no particular recommendations. If, ran out indicates that there is still some demand however, students do want eventually to imple- for co-operative houses off campus. This is still a ment some of these options, it would be advisable formidable concern, however, and should be to have a strong co-op union and a strong considered carefully if ever the co-ops decide to outreach program. We might want to push the try buying their own houses. University into encouraging students to take There are a number of possible sources of responsibility for their own lives. If it ever funding the co-ops could pursue, and the two becomes the case that there are a good number of student co-operatives which have recently built students who want to live in co-ops but are student co-operative housing offer two models unsuccessful in the draw, they might form a for how we could proceed. The new co-ops at Co-operative Living at Stanford 82 Recommendations and Alternatives U.C. Davis were built buy a developer along with NASCO and the NCBA in sorting out their some other houses on campus. Presently the funding. The National Co-operative Bank pro- houses are rented from the developer with some vided a mortgage to Qumbya. Other possible portion of the rent ($10 per person per month the sources of funding may include philanthropic first year, increasing $11 the second year, $12 the organizations in the Stanford area. third year, and so forth for ten years) being collected in a co-op development fund to be used To give an idea of the sums of money that can be for the purchase of the houses. After six years the collected by students (neglecting alum donations co-ops will be bought outright, and the co-ops and other sources of money for the downpay- have a 60 year lease for the land on which the co- ment), if 250 people paid $10 per quarter for 10 ops are located, after which time the University years, the group would have over $100,000 may continue to allow the co-ops to live there or (including interest). It’s easy to invent other may choose to do something else with the land. scenarios for collecting money, but specifics are The main feature of this method of funding is that not very meaningful until a further plan is there is a long period during which funds are devised. collected so that the co-ops have some equity with The availability of houses for sale which fit our which to buy the houses. David Thompson, one criteria is impossible to predict five or ten years of the organizers of this funding, strongly before such a house might be bought. Fairly large recommended to me that we set up a similar such houses do exist in the vicinity of Stanford (and in development fund; $10 per month, he pointed out, fact one 7,700 square foot house was recently is about 3% of rent. offered by Foothill College for the cost of At the University of Chicago a group of students moving it from the site on which it sat), but the started Qumbya Cooperative “to provide selection of houses is somewhat of a problem. It co-operative living for students and others in a should be noted that co-ops at other colleges are friendly, democratic environment.” They bought often 10 to 15 people instead of Stanford’s 30 to a house that now houses 13 of the 22 members of 50 people. If the Stanford co-ops were to build a the co-op; it cost $206,300 including renovations, house there is no way we could afford to and the students had very little equity. The duplicate the architecture of the present Row National Cooperative Bank gave NASCO houses. Properties (which owns the co-op) a mortgage As far as administrative, legal, and insurance loan for $144,000; the Berkeley and Madison difficulties go, we would be well to join NASCO student cooperative associations loaned them and utilize their expertise dealing with these $27,500; the Kagawa Fund of the NCBA lent problems. The house could be owned indepen- them $20,000, and the remaining $14,800 came dently of the Co-op Union so as to avoid direct from Qumbya member loans and shares. liabilities to the remaining co-ops. These examples point out some of the resources Conclusion available for funding and expertise.1 Both of We don’t recommend the purchase of an off- these co-ops had a lot of expert assistance from campus co-operative unless demand seems to necessitate it, and unless a very strong, well- established, well-staffed, highly organized co-op 1Reference people include: union exists to administer such a house. Gohn Gauci Kagawa Co-op Development Fund We do suggest that consideration be given to NCBA starting a fund devoted exclusively to long-term (202) 638-6222 projects for the co-ops. This fund would be jointly administered by the Co-op Union and the Robert Cox Co-op Alum Network. Campus Co-op Development Corporation NASCO We also suggest that the co-ops consider joining (313) 663-0889 NASCO so that we have access to people with expertise in exactly the kinds of problems that we David Thompson (listed elsewhere in this document under are likely to face if we decide to undertake such a U.C. Davis) project. Ingrid Avots Loan Officer National Capital Bank Development Association 1630 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20009 Co-operative Living at Stanford 83 Recommendations and Alternatives • Unless you’re interested in paying for the damages, let the University repair the damaged Outreach to Other Co-opers buildings. In an attempt to solicit community input for the issues discussed by the SWOPSI class, flyers • Unless significant demand is proven, students were sent to all unhoused co-op community should not even consider requesting relocation of members and posted on large poster paper with faculty housing. pens attached in the four housed co-ops. Accom- • Off-campus co-ops are a good idea, but it is not panying them were draft copies of the first half of the University’s place to manage or finance them. this report. Unhoused members were asked to call, mail or drop off their comments to the • Find a more effective and attractive outreach members of the Class Outreach committee. program than a bunch of hippies hanging out in Another flyer was distributed to advertise the White Plaza. Community Meeting. Copies of these flyers are in Appendix ???. No responses were received * * * except on the poster at Kairos. Three in-depth I feel that a co-op council would be more comments were written. detrimental than constructive. Kairos (and the Kairos is noted for remaining independent from other co-ops) has its own character. I didn’t draw the other co-ops at Stanford. [For more detailed into Columbae or Synergy for a reason — I information about the character of Kairos House wouldn’t have been comfortable there. A co-op please see the Appendix] Kairos has repeatedly council would in all likelihood be controlled by been an exception in our class discussions about members of these houses, and I wouldn’t want the future of co-ops at Stanford. The majority of them making decisions for me. Support for the class members are from Columbae and Synergy displaced co-ops is important, but not to the point houses. In our discussions we often found it of establishing a structure (the council) that will difficult to know if our ideas represent the result in the demise of Kairos’ current makeup. interests of the co-op community at large. Kairos served as a constant reminder that cooperation * * * can take on diverse forms. • Outreach is imperative! From reading some of The three responses received from the poster at the comments regarding the co-ops, I think it is Kairos follow. Their tendency to disagree with obvious that a significant portion of the Stanford the class’s tentative suggestions became a focus residence community has a very blurred view of of class discussion. We deliberated about what what co-ops are and how they operate. Sugges- we should recommend and what we should not tion: each house selects representatives to go out because it might not represent the desires of the to the dorms (frosh especially) and discuss co- co-op community. Class members feel the operative living at their respective residence. following responses are important and valid White Plaza harassment and idiocy just don’t do opinions. We incorporated the expressed disfavor anything for the community. of a co-op union by formulating the union in • Infrastructure good for implementing above such a way that it would be totally voluntary by mentioned program, but very restrictive in most each house, and that its existence would not harm other areas. No $$. “All co-op” events are not either members or non-members. for me. It is important to note that Kairos, having very little involvement with the co-op community, was • Are any civil engineers qualified and the most responsive to the class’s outreach knowledgeable enough to evaluate plans? Are any efforts. of us professional engineers? • Off-campus houses? Stupid idea! We can’t * * * even fill the houses we have now on campus! • I don’t think we need a large co-op council and I certainly don’t want to finance one. Doesn’t Stanford have enough bureaucracy already. • There is no significant need to justify a co-op office. Co-operative Living at Stanford 84 For Further Reference

For Further Reference

Below are listed some places to go for more information and some of the most useful sources that we used in the class. There is a wealth of information on the Stanford Co-ops that has been accumulated in the archives and libraries of Synergy and Columbae. In addition, Columbae has an extensive library of books and periodicals on co-operatives and co-operation including almost every book published by the North American Students of Co-operation (NASCO). All of the materials from the class, including all of the readings can be found in the co-op archives at Synergy and Columbae. Professor Henry Levin, in the School of Education, is a good resource person on workers’ co-operatives. The Stanford University Libraries also contain many useful books on the subject of co-operation.

Altenberg, Lee, An End To Capitalism: Leland Stanford’s Forgotten Vision, 1989. In Sandstone and Tile, Journal of the Stanford Historical Society, February 1990. Documents Leland Stanford’s advocacy of co-operatives as a “leading feature lying at the foundation of the university”. [Printed

Synergy House, Living in Syn, 1978, 1988. An in-depth look at a specific co-op community, combining the history of the co-op with a manual for its operation. Blimling & Schuh, Editors, “Increasing the Educational Role of Residence Halls,” New Directions for Student Service, Number 13, 1981. Provides a philosophical base for evaluating the educational benefits of campus co-op living from the point of view of residential administrators. Levin, H., “Economic democracy, education, and social change”, in Prevention Through Political Action and Social Change, G. Albee and J. Joffe, eds. University Press of New England, 1981, pp. 164-185. Melnyk, G., The Search for Community: From Utopia to a Co-operative Society, Black Rose Books, 1985. Melnyk looks at a variety of co-operative traditions — liberal, marxist, socialist, and communalist — and presents a theory of “social co-operatives”. North American Students of Co-operation (NASCO), various publications. Ann Arbor, Michigan: NASCO. Co-operative Living at Stanford 85 Appendix B Co-operative Living at Stanford 86 Appendix

Appendix

In the following pages you will find a collection of articles and papers that contain information about the crisis, the class, individual co-ops and our attempts to come to terms with the constantly changing situation. “Movers and Shakers,” a brief summary of the meetings with the Administration after the earthquake, compiled by Robert Abrams. “The Co-oper,” November 1989. The first issue after the Quake. Syllabus, SWOPSI 146: Co-operative Living and the Current Crisis at Stanford. A Community Survey. This survey was distributed to a broad range of the Stanford Community. Co-op Alumni Survey. This survey was sent to more than 300 former Stanford co-op Residents using lists from the Co-op Alum Network. Two flyers produced by the Class Outreach Committee to inform the other co-opers of the doings of the class, and to provide updates on the negotiations with the administration. Community Meeting Agenda, February 28. Kairos: An Ethnography of an Unknown Stanford Co-op, describes in some detail the attitudes and practices of residents of one of Stanford’s co-ops which sees itself as different from the others. Off Campus Co-ops. Brief descriptions of several off-campus co-ops, many spin-offs of campus co- ops. Historical Values Index. University documents compiled after the earthquake that assess the historical values of the closed houses. The work was done by a committee in the Stanford planning office, including a student. The first two pages are the results of a quick compilation of material from University archives on the houses. The “Historic Values Index” sheet attached to the end gives an indication of how the University views houses such as Synergy, Phi Psi, and Columbae. Co-operative Living at Stanford 87 Appendix PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OF CO-OPS AT STANFORD

As you may know there is a SWOPSI course in progress (SWOPSI 146) that is studying “Co-operative living and the current crisis at Stanford”. In the first part of the class we have studied the history and theory of co-ops and the current status of all co-ops at Stanford. A report on this work will be available next Wednesday (14th Feb.). At that time we will distribute copies of the report to all co-op houses on campus and to the larger groups of unhoused co-op members off campus. Anybody else is welcome to pick one up at the class next Wednesday (7 pm, 4th floor Sweet-hall). If you want more copies please call Dave Nichols at 856- 8568 and I will try to get them to you. The second half of the course will study future options for co-ops at Stanford. This will include : • Rebuilding options for Columbae • Transition of Synergy and Phi-Psi into new houses • The relationship between Res-Ed. and the co-ops • Co-ops in the Draw • Co-op outreach programs • Innovative options for new co-ops • Development of the co-op council We would like all co-op community members to be able to participate in this process. There will a co- op community meeting on Feb. 28th at 7 pm, location to be determined. In the meantime there will be a newsletter which addresses specific issues distributed around the 16th Feb. Decisions are being made based on our class reports. This may affect your future. Any input you have will help us represent the community more effectively. If you have any general comments on the future of co-ops at Stanford please write them on this sheet. Co-operative Living at Stanford 88 Appendix

FUTURE OF CO-OPS AT STANFORD

SWOPSI 146 : NEWSLETTER 1

The SWOPSI course “Co-operative living and the current crisis at Stanford” is organizing a public meeting for all co-op community members and other interested parties. The meeting will be 7 pm on Feb. 28th at education 133 (Cubberly). The purposes of the meeting are : 1) To keep the community informed about decisions that the University has made about the future of co-ops at Stanford. 2) To get input on possible future directions for the co-op community. At this point we would like your views on topics that we will be covering in the second part of the course. The following task groups have been set up. We would like you to express your opinions on these topics. The results of this work will be included in the final report of the course. You can contact Dave Nichols : (856 8568) 3339 St. Michael Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 or Jim Welch : (329 1079) Kairos House, 586 Mayfield Ave., Stanford Columbae Structure To make idealistic and concrete suggestions for structural changes and improvements to Columbae when it is repaired. Synergy and Phi-Psi Transition Keep tabs on University decisions regarding the two programs next year. How to make the transitions easier based on the character, history and goals of the programs. Once new houses are chosen, make assessments of space usage, organize kitchens, gardens etc. Outreach Preparation for the 1990 draw. Organize new priority mechanisms, meetings for prospective co-op members. Prepare housing agreements. Dorm outreach, presence in White Plaza, articles in “Daily”.

Co-op Infrastructure This task group recommends: A newly organized co-op council to, Plan “All co-op” events Educate on co-operation Social events and programming Public service/political events Organize outreach Establish a financial base A $10 per person, per quarter charge to finance the above A strong unified co-op voice to communicate with Red-Ed and the administration. Co-op housing / Stanford Development of a co-op office as a separate establishment to coordinate students. A co-op representative to be present at all University closed door Co-operative Living at Stanford 89 Appendix meetings. This could be an RF or there could be RFs in addition to this post. Consider a housing contract for co-ops, a long term guarantee of housing. Affirmative action to increase ethnic diversity in co-ops. Possible changes in the draw procedures for co-ops, a separate co-op draw? Synergy and Phi-psi structures Obtain plans and document damage. Analyze plans, cost, budget, repair time line. Consider alternative repair options, e.g. student involvement. Investigate possibility of getting houses declared historic landmarks. Analyze the aesthetic values of the houses. Faculty houses and Stanford land Long range possibilities of increasing the number of co-ops by obtaining new housing on Stanford land. Convert large faculty houses to co-ops, construct new co-ops on Stanford land. Off campus houses Possibilities of increasing the number of co-ops by obtaining off campus houses. Research funding sources, loans, grants, alums. Investigate legal consequences. Co-op outreach Keep everybody informed about what is going on. Provide a mechanism for community input. ( That’s us ). Co-operative Living at Stanford 90 Appendix CO-OP COMMUNITY MEETING 7-9 PM WEDNESDAY FEB 28 CUBBERLY 133

All welcome

Agenda Introduction Report / Updates Housing for fall ’90 Report on process and discussions so far concerning locating Synergy and Phi Psi; discussion of any questions remaining open. Co-op / University relations How should co-ops interact with Res-Ed? Should there be an independent body, representing all co- ops, to present the co-op point of view? Would co-op relations with the University be improved if there was a written housing contract? Consider the possibility of a “co-op fee” to fund an independent all co-op group, support joint co-op activities and provide capital for co-op improvements. Should there be a separate co-op draw? Multiculturalism What can be done to foster multiculturalism in co-ops? Lack of ethnic diversity and multiculturalism is a problem facing the co-ops, particularly Columbae, Synergy and Phi Psi. We are in the process of talking with members of ethnic communities at Stanford about reasons for and ways to ameliorate this problem. Should we institute some form of affirmative action policy? Outreach How should we do outreach? Why we want to have unified co-op outreach this spring. Emphasize presentation of the diversity among co-ops. How can we improve the multiculturalism of the co-ops? What sort of outreach does this involve? Program suggestions? Co-operative Living at Stanford 91 Appendix

A Community Survey Participants in SWOPSI 146 will be writing a report about residential living at Stanford. By this survey, and personal interviews, we hope to understand Stanford community perceptions of residential living. Please help us by answering the following questions. Then return the survey to the person who gave it to you, or at the SWOPSI office in Sweet Hall. Thanks! 1. Circle your class: frosh sophomore junior senior graduate 2. A) What is the name of your current residence? B) In which other residences have you lived while at Stanford? 3. On a scale from one to six, rate the following in terms of importance to you and current satisfaction: (Six is the highest rating; one is the lowest.) Importance Current Satisfaction

A. Relationships to the people you live with: ______B. The building you live in: ______C. The location of your residence: ______D. Your studies: ______E. Your social life: ______F. Meals: ______G. Low room and board bills: ______H. Residence responsibilities: ______4. Circle your sex: female male 5. I’d rather live in a: (Rank your top two choices; circle your last choice.) ___trailer ___off campus ___theme house ___co-op ___apartment ___fraternity ___dorm ___other row house 6. Not including your own residence, how often do you visit: daily weekly quarterly yearly never A. other dorms: ______B. fraternities: ______C. co-ops: ______D. other row houses: ______Co-operative Living at Stanford 92 Appendix

7. For the following categories, please rate the average fraternity, co-op, and dorm resident on a scale from one to six. Choose a six if the category is highly applicable, and a one if it is not at all applicable. A. Tolerance for different viewpoints. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ B. Weekly drug/alcohol use. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ C. Arrogance. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ D. Quality of intellectual atmosphere. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ E. Sexual close-mindedness. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ F. Low level of community involvement within the residence. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ G. Political diversity. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ H. Emphasis on good health. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ I. Outward friendliness. Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ J. Cleanliness of their residence: Dorms: ___ Co-ops: ___ Other Row House: ___ Fraternities: ___ 8. Have you ever considered living in a co-op? If you have, which one and why? If you haven’t, why not?

9. Any Further Comments?

printed on recycled paper Co-operative Living at Stanford 93 Appendix Kairos: An Ethnography of An Unknown Stanford Co-op

When asked by non-resident students where they live, residents are often required to explain where by Jim Welch the house is located, and why they ever decided to live there. Some say the house has a reputation in Introduction wider student circles as the “house of love,” and Kairos House is a Stanford University co-opera- in the co-op community as apathetic and tive housing facility for thirty-five sophomore mainstream. The two reputations generally keep through senior undergraduates. As a community, people from wanting to live in Kairos. It is, it is ideal for anthropological study. It is a closed though, one of the easiest houses on the Row (the community, limited to registered students, and is a section of campus where fraternities and old focus of most residents’ social lives. Many fraternity houses are located) to draw into, and residents eat, sleep, study and socialize primarily has a room priority system that guarantees fifth- within the house. The community, as it is year seniors and returning residents singles. considered in this paper, is composed of a varied group of students inhabiting the house from the In addition, the house is run as a co-op, although end of September, 1989, through the present time, quite a bit differently than other co-ops on March, 1990. This time span includes two campus. Residents hire cooks from within the academic quarters, Fall and Winter. Between the house and have complete responsibility for two quarters two women and two men left and maintaining their house. There are four managers were replaced by new residents. I am a resident of elected at the end of each year for the following the house and am among the majority having year. These are Financial Manager, Operations never lived here previous to the 1989-90 academic manager and two Food Managers. They meet year. before the residents arrive each year to decide how the house will be run. They decide how food My research included interviews with a random will be ordered, how house jobs will be sample of fifteen percent of the residents (chosen distributed and enforced, and any other structural by who was available at the specific times I decisions necessary to make the house work. conducted the interviews), a two-page questionnaire distributed among the residents at Room draw is done on a priority system designed the end of the first quarter, a five page survey by Kairos residents in a previous year. All other distributed during the second quarter, and decisions that require resident input are made by observation and participation as a native of the majority vote. Managers and others often make community. The first survey was returned by smaller decisions on their own if they feel the ninety-one percent of the residents while the house will not object. Unlike other co-ops, Kairos second was returned by only fifty-four percent. has no official theme such as vegetarianism, or The first supplied all the statistical data, while the political or environmental activism, or alternative second is only used as an indicator of perceptual lifestyles. Traditionally most of these ranges and a source of specific opinions. The organizational structures are perpetuated year-to- lower return rate of the second survey may be year because residents have thought they work caused by numerous factors. The five-page length and the managers like them. The residents are was cause for a number of comments by people free to change any of these decisions, but they who thought it was too much to ask (although generally do not. others said it only took a few minutes and was a One main result of this structure is that Kairos reasonable thing for me to request). During draws an eclectic group of students each year. winter quarter I was also less involved in the The current makeup of the house is seven house on a social level. This may have caused returning residents who were guaranteed either a some people to feel less motivation or obligation single or were elected last year to management towards my survey. positions and receive both singles and waived or There are a number of permanent characteristics reduced board bills, four transfer students who about Kairos that contribute to the unique cultural for the most part requested co-ops but had no scene among its residents. Kairos is relatively specific knowledge of Kairos House, seventeen unknown to the Stanford community at large. students who were restricted in their choice by Co-operative Living at Stanford 94 Appendix bad draw numbers or unguaranteed status and that there is a ‘culture’ of Kairos active during had no previous conception of Kairos other than this academic school year, I am asserting that that it is a less ‘granola’ co-op than some of the there is a system of commonality and behavior others, two students who had not known much that a non-member does not participate in. about Kairos but were strictly attracted to the Furthermore, only as a member can one truly fifth-year student guarantee of a single, and two understand what it means to function within this students who wanted to be in one of the more system. “hard-core” co-ops but were excluded by the As a member of the culture, I can identify draw. I do not have data for the other three perceptions that other members hold and relate students. this to my own experience of non-Kairos culture. There are a few important trends here. The first is Kairos culture is unique in that it is a brief that residents had either bad draw numbers or improvisation by students from varied back- unguaranteed status. Second, they appreciated the grounds. Rather than being a fully entrenched fact that Kairos is a co-op, but did not want to live lifestyle, it is a series of year-long participations. in those with stronger reputations. Third, the It thus seems to me that Kairos is not so much a residents tended to draw in by themselves or in case of culture forming the individuals, but of small groups. Very few new residents seemed to individuals forming their culture. I cannot believe before living here that this would be an determine, therefore, how Kairos residents are optimal environment. As we shall see, after living tricked into behavior by their culture, but I can here for one quarter, the majority of residents analyze what Kairos culture is to its members and considered this the best dorm and the most how it got that way. exciting and supportive community they have lived in during college. During winter quarter History people’s perspectives changed somewhat. There The history of Kairos is important in its became a growing dissatisfaction with the Kairos surprising continuity with the present. The environment for many people. student makeup of Kairos is largely random, but It is appropriate to mention at the start that one of what seems to remain throughout time is a the most important things about Kairos fall tendency to be discreetly deviant. Kairos has not quarter was that it was closed for twelve days been a co-op for long, and as the present house after the 7.1 earthquake in October, 1989. The manager said, it doesn’t matter if it is a co-op or a social dynamics of the house were quite unique self-op, it has always been the same and always and profound before this incident, but were will. To a large extent this is probably true. hurled into a rare transition that set many Kairos does seem to have occupied a specific standards for the remainder of the year. The niche in the University for years. But the fact that earthquake provides a good contrast to the it is now a co-op is important to its character, and behavioral changes that have occurred in winter will probably be more important as time goes on. quarter. Kairos House was originally built and used by I would like to note briefly what my agenda is in the Delta Chi fraternity. The house was built in this paper. Recent anthropological theory has 1910. The construction and furnishing was often equated social analysis with identifying the supervised by student member Earle Leaf. In metasocial in culture. That is, finding the 1935, the house was rebuilt to roughly its modern underlying layers of significance that are at the condition in what was called at the time “French root of cultural behavior. This seems to me to Chateau” architecture. often be an anthropologist’s search for causes of The house became a self-op in 1968 because the behavior that even the participants themselves Delta Chi fraternity did not fill the house and would not recognize. It seems to be a search for could not pay its bills. As a self-op, the residents ways that people are tricked by their culture to act managed all house upkeep and hired a cook. This a certain way. Although I am not willing to is reputed to be the beginning of “the Kairos as completely toss this method out, I have identified we know it”. Its fundamental organizational some problems with it through the study of structure was set at this point, and according to Kairos. rumor so was the personality of the house. From As a member of the community I am studying, I the 1971-72 school year through 1977-78, Kairos can see that there may be levels of cultural was listed in the Draw Book as a special program significance that I cannot recognize because I am house with no special sign-ups that is co- embedded. I will maintain, though, that this does operatively run. Although house management, not make my analysis worthless. When I assume upkeep and cooking policies were not changed, in Co-operative Living at Stanford 95 Appendix 1978-79 Kairos ceased to be identified as co- in with him. Eventually the University discovered operatively run. This may indicate the presence of him and kicked him out. Afterwards, though, they an ambivalence about Kairos’ identity as a co- decided that the space could be made into a room. operative that has persisted to the present time. The wall was opened up and a window was In 1980 or ’81, Kairos began the kitchen policy it installed. now has. Reportedly, in the fall no one liked the In the early eighties, the first female house cook. The house took a vote and decided to fire manager was elected. There was a managers’ log her at the end of the quarter. They decided that book that was used by the managers and was everyone would cook each week until they found never seen by anyone else that caused severe a new cook. Over Christmas vacation, everyone difficulties this year. It contained many passages was to go home and find a recipe that could easily that those holding the book did not want a female be cooked for fifty people. During winter quarter to see, most likely because it contained people liked cooking, and it worked so well that chauvinistic statements. An attempt was made to they decided to continue it, only hiring cooks erase parts, but that didn’t work. The previous from within the house instead of everyone manager decided to hold the logbook until the cooking. At this point, as Diana Conklin, Director next male manager was elected, but it has never of the Row, put it, Kairos began its evolution into been seen since. a co-op. It remained a self-op until 1986-87 when The house was never particularly “co-opy.” It it was listed as a row house with a special never invested energy into participating with other priority. In 1988-89 it was first listed as a co-op co-ops. Reportedly it is more involved with the with special priority. The management of the other co-ops now than it has ever been. The house never changed, though. character of the house used to go in a three-year In 1981-82, Kairos received a large pool table that cycle. A new group of sophomores would draw now sits in the back common room. It had into the house, bringing with them new ideas and previously been in one of the Toyon eating clubs energy. Because at this time returning residents (student-run eating co-operatives). That club were guaranteed a place in the house, this group closed that year, and the University needed a would live there for the following three years. place for the table. At Toyon the table was used They would manage the house and determine the exclusively for the game “squash,” a rowdy social character of the house. When they game often involving twenty people where one graduated, a new group would draw in. rolls the cue ball with the hands to hit the active ball, the point being to never let the active ball The house has had consistently good relations stop or be sunk. The table was in very bad repair with the University. Around 1986 and 1987 it did as a result of this activity, so the University not do as well in the draw as usual, but other than offered to give Kairos the table if the residents that it has filled without any problems. This is in would refurbish it. For two hundred dollars paid contrast to some of the other co-ops which have by the residents, the table was removed from the had a difficult time filling in the Draw and have eating club, redone, and delivered to Kairos. It is had their status as co-op threatened by the an incredibly heavy table, with three large slates University. It seems that Kairos seems attractive of marble. After a very difficult struggle it was to a larger student population than some other moved into the house. The only problem was that co-ops. Although the house has never been hard its weight warped the floor. Pieces of wood stuck to get into, it has consistently been filled. under the legs on one side remain the solution. The character of the house has never been typical The pool table is an example of what has always of other Row houses or dorms. Kairos has been a been a trend at Kairos: the willingness to be mystery to Diana Conklin since 1978 when she extravagant if everyone agrees. began working at the Row office. She has never heard it referred to in conversation by students, In 1984-85, Facilities completely renovated the and she cannot pin it down in her mind. She house. According to a resident, relations between senses it is different than other houses and the house and Facilities were exceptionally good fraternities, but she does not know why. She at the time, so the process was friendly and done describes it as low-key, with an ethos of not being to everyone’s advantage. They redid the carpets, demanding or strict, kind of easy-going, walls, and most notably remodeled the kitchen. comfortable, and friendly. She says hers is a In 1983, the quad on the third floor was turned positive image, but with no detail. “It is the one into a quint. Apparently there was a person who house I shrug about,” she says. wanted to live in an attic space adjacent to the quad. He moved in, stretching an extension cord Co-operative Living at Stanford 96 Appendix stable, supportive houses. But the sentiment of Where We Come From virtually all Kairos residents, as mentioned earlier, In the first quarter survey, the residents is that most are too extreme, “isolated from consistently and repeatedly stated that Kairos is reality”, and exclusionistic to the mainstream incredibly diverse. Of course many different types most “Kairosians” consider themselves. things were meant by this comment. The diversity To most members, Kairos seemed the most was generally considered in relation to other comfortable, relaxed and accepting house residences on campus and to each person’s place available. of origin. Often what was being referred to was people’s viewpoints such as political orientation, This mutually shared expectancy of Kairos has their interests and personalities, or their shaped the community in many ways. One of the backgrounds. Asked again in the winter, many earliest manifestations of this is the attitude of residents have a different view of diversity at “our house”. Residents think of our ugly and Kairos. Although people remain content that there more-than-slightly run-down house as their is a higher level of diversity at Kairos than in home. Being a co-op, we are very independent in many other residences, especially the other co- how we maintain our house and how we use its ops, many feel the need for more. features. Intervention from the University is minimal, but when it occurs, residents are critical The members of the Kairos community come and resentful. This attitude is common with from an assortment of backgrounds. The majority college students, but in a large dorm the presence is of course mainstream white. Thirty percent of of the University is so strong it is impossible not the house is non-mainstream in culture or to yield to it. At Kairos on a number of occasions ancestry, but this sector is comprised of eighty residents attempt to do what they want anyway or percent women. The economic class break-up, as challenge the University’s decisions. At other defined by residents’ own definitions, is nearly times, they mostly forget that the house is owned half upper-middle class, a quarter middle class, by the University. with the rest roughly equally divided between lower, lower-middle and upper classes. Most It may seem a coincidence that while virtually all members of the non-mainstream ethnicities and residents attribute their arrival here in large part to economic classes have expressed an awareness of default or logistical advantage (a guaranteed their differences, but satisfaction that they are not single), there was a virtually unanimous set of significant because the house is itself so diverse. expectations of and hopes for the community. I No one has expressed a feeling that s/he has been believe the fact that people came here individually treated unfairly because of any such difference. or in small groups as a nearly last resort and had This is a trend that will be discussed in greater no idea who else would be in the house detail later, but is important to keep in mind determined to a large degree what their attitude throughout the analysis. would be. First of all, people who are not open to close association with random people would have I mentioned earlier the categories of residents’ opted for a less mysterious house even though motivation for living in Kairos. The two largest the options were very limited. Secondly, not groups were strangers to Kairos who chose the knowing at all who would be here made people house as the best environment given a disad- hope for the best and try to create a positive vantage in the housing draw, and the returning environment with whatever they were handed. residents. The ethnic and economic groups cut This hypothesis will be explored in greater depth through these motivational groups with no later. differentiation. Both motivational groups, though, expressed a unanimous desire for a “home” or Socialization “house” as opposed to a dorm. Due to the No one knew what Kairos would be like before Residential Education program, all residents they arrived in the house. Yet, the returning except transfer students have experienced dorm residents knew pretty much what they wanted it to life. Everyone, whether or not they enjoyed that be like. The returning residents for the most part life at the time, has come to want a place to feel at occupy management positions and are thus in a home or to avoid the “sterile, calculated life” of powerful position to form what they want. At the the dorms. A number of people have divorced beginning of the year, they made a concerted parents or unstable families and feel the need for effort to start things out right. They presented the support and consistency. Many others have home way the house is run as crucial to all of our well- lives they appreciate and would like to being, not really opening the structure of approximate as much as possible at college. The management to community formulation. They co-op communities at Stanford are well-known as had a clear idea, derived from their experience the Co-operative Living at Stanford 97 Appendix previous year, that things could be really bad if requires only an average of one hour per week of everyone didn’t work hard for the house as a work. The difference is that Kairos residents pay whole. roughly two to three hundred dollars more per In response, many people rapidly realized that quarter. Kairos requires a high level of participation from A couple of residents did not even know that each member. Although there have been numer- Kairos is a co-op before they moved in. One such ous problems, especially at first, with people person said that when she found out, she thought doing all their jobs and volunteering for work that she might have to grow tomatoes or something. was not officially required of them, the norm was The other residents are divided between those that set: it is not okay to neglect the house. This type say co-op status had an effect on their living here of participation in the house is one example of a and those that say it had no effect. Because most Kairos theme. That is, it is expected that residents people that live at Kairos did not place it as a first make Kairos a priority in their lives. choice, it must be remembered that their decision At Kairos there seems to be a priority to have fun was often based upon a shortage of choices. together, and the generous funds allocated to do Those that say co-op status had a large effect on so seem to demonstrate this. While most their choice mention the advantages of required residents dislike the fraternity lifestyle, Kairos involvement in the house, the small community, early-on developed (or perhaps perpetuated) the the value of working together and being distinctly non-co-op attitude that “we are Kairos, responsible for oneself. and we like to rage.” From some residents’ per- The advantages of a non-dorm atmosphere was spectives, this priority has subsided somewhat mentioned by one resident. He said that he was during winter quarter. To reflect upon the “psyched to deal with cooking and cleaning strength of the concept, though, the perception provided that it didn’t take too much time.” This that people have not participated as much in parallels the attitudes of other residents who said house social activities has created emotional they liked the idea of co-operation and leaving the conflict for those residents. ‘mainstream’, but did not want to join the co-ops Kairos residents are very aware that they are with reputations they considered disagreeable. different and that they have their own way of Those that say co-op status had no effect on their doing things, but in contrast to other co-ops, as choice to live here cited varied alternative reasons. one resident put it, they don’t have the attitude Some include the promise of a single, the open that “we are a co-op, and this is our aura”. kitchen, the lesser work commitment, and the Perhaps instead they think of themselves as a house-style structure. One person said that if pleasantly unique group of random people who anything, the co-op status was a negative feature. choose to do things their own way. As will be These people seem to have viewed co-op status as apparent later, this attitude is not unanimous, but unrelated to the character of the house, or as a forms a prevalent attitude from which some work agreement that was neither good nor bad. people deviate. Most residents did not draw into Kairos for the extended definitions of co-operation: environ- Perceptions of Co-operation mental awareness, political revolution, social Kairos’ status as co-op was not a singularly change, feminism, deviancy, or consensus, for important factor in people’s decision to live here example. They either did not care that Kairos is a as it may be in some other co-ops. Yet, it is a co-op, cared only that it is a small and interactive large contributor to the make-up of the house. It community, or that the cooking and cleaning is important to remember here that Kairos first organization was more appealing. Kairos resi- became a co-op in 1988, and never changed its dents, without exception, do not actively try to organizational structure in the process. As one create an alternative co-operative lifestyle in the member put it, it is a co-op “by a fine line.” It is house. There is no explicit concept of co- the only Stanford co-op to hire cooks from within operation as a process for social interaction and the house. The others require weekly cooking residents do not associate it with larger social or shifts from all residents. Because cooking is political goals in their expressed behavior. optional at Kairos there is a lower work commitment than at the other co-ops. For What Kairos as a co-op does mean to many example, even when Synergy, another Stanford residents now that they have lived there for six co-op, had University cleaning, weekly work months is that people depend upon one-another, commitments averaged two and one half hours. and are responsible for themselves independently Kairos does its own cleaning and cooking, but of the University. They feel they have the Co-operative Living at Stanford 98 Appendix freedom to make choices, and many feel that a virtually everyone still favors being a co-op. sense of ‘community’ has developed. Because Kairos was not a co-op before 1988 but The definitions residents have of co-operation in had the exact same structure, the effects of Kairos the context of Kairos tend to be limited to what being a co-op are to a significant degree a result one resident called the administrative level. It is a of the effect on its reputation. commitment to work together, and for some it is There seem to be three primary factors mentioned to want to be a community and to be independent by residents that they believe relate to the reputa- of the University. The meaning of co-op status, tion of Kairos. First is the association with the however, goes beyond this for many people. On other co-ops. The second is the idea that Kairos the positive side, many people feel that co-op is often considered the most “mainstream” of structure fosters a strong social bond. One the co-ops. The third is that Kairos is in general woman who did not care that Kairos is a co-op unheard-of in the Stanford community at large. noticed that the house is more unified and Diana Conklin’s comments mentioned in the requires co-operation, trust and honesty as a History section are indicative of a defiance Kairos result. Another resident said that there is a more has of classification. It is easily clumped with the conscientious crowd that draws in because they other co-ops or with row houses in general by are willing to work with everyone else. mainstream Stanford students. It is also easily Because many residents tend to appreciate that regarded as the un-co-op by members of other self-reliance and autonomy are important, they co-ops. In general, though, it seems to most also find that people who do not fulfill their residents that no one even knows it exists. responsibilities add a negative quality to co- As a co-op, Kairos seems to attract people who operation. One person who said the problem with are willing to contribute and are “mellow” or Kairos being a co-op is that he hates house jobs “laid-back.” Many residents consider this a is the subject of many others’ complaints about positive factor. They feel that if Kairos were not a the lack of co-operation. Those who don’t co-op, people who are unwilling to do their share contribute, they say, make the whole system of the work or who are unwilling to be involved in frustrating. At Kairos, this is a legitimate com- the house would draw in. It is also notable that plaint. There are those who are the constant foci Kairos is not as ‘hard-core’ as some of the other of complaints about irresponsibility. Statistical co-ops and does not have a theme. For those who data about who missed their house jobs support had more than a vague awareness of the co-ops at these complaints. As one resident who feels Stanford, Kairos seemed to present an option of strongly that people tend to contribute co-operative living to the more moderate inadequately said, “...some people decide that population. For those who had never heard of their own needs are more important [and] it puts a Kairos, it was an appealing structure with many strain on others.” benefits such as single rooms and an open There are some in the house who feel that being a kitchen. co-operative is negative in other ways. One Those who feel that being a co-op has a positive person said that the problem is that some people effect on the reputation of Kairos say that it do not want to be part of the community. Here he serves as a self-selection process in the Draw and identifies that co-ops are a more involved form of tends to attract a more unique mix of people. community. Another believes that being a co-op There is also an appreciation by many residents is associated with the placement of too much that Kairos does not attract the “hippy, granola pressure on people to participate socially in the types” that they perceive are attracted to some of house. This dilemma will be discussed in greater the other co-ops. The many people who draw into detail later. Another resident feels that the house Kairos as a low choice seem to pick it as a house is too “hyper-liberal” as a result of its co-op that offers a lot as a co-op, but a more attractive status. As a result he feels afraid to voice his solution to them than the other co-ops. moral views. Perhaps the importance to Kairos of being either Most of the people mentioned above define co- easily clumped together with the ‘hard-core’ co- operation in a very limited sense, but associate ops or seen as the non-co-op is its role in the more involved social processes with it. They do process of prospective residents who do a limited not, however take the ideal as far as it can go. amount of research for their decision about where This will appear as a trend in a later analysis of to live. Many of the people that draw in are residents’ perceptions of themselves in compari- willing to participate and like the idea of co- son to other co-ops. Despite the negative charac- operation, but are not looking for a high work teristics expressed about Kairos being a co-op, commitment. Co-operative Living at Stanford 99 Appendix As a co-op, Kairos has a very authoritarian people are willing to put in the effort to make the management structure. As mentioned in the changes. As one resident stated, those that make introduction, large decisions are made by majority the decisions are the few that care. For example, a vote, while smaller decisions are made by resident complained to a manager that the kitchen managers on their own and presented to the resi- should be reorganized. The manager suggested dents as made. Part of this is due to the person- that it would be a good idea if he were to alities of the specific managers in office this year. reorganize it himself. The resident responded, It is also due to the job descriptions themselves. “Never mind.” The managers receive exempt spots in the draw (automatically are assigned to Kairos), first room The general dissatisfaction with the co-operative pick, and either a full or seventy-five percent structure is explicitly due to people not contribut- board bill reduction. In exchange for this, and in ing enough, or not communicating enough. The order to decrease the amount of work the other contradiction is that the same people say, as will residents are required to do, the managers are be seen later, that they moved into Kairos or like expected to completely manage their specific Kairos because it is not as fully co-operative as areas. Thus, for example, all kitchen needs some of the other co-ops. including food ordering, shopping, menu plan- ning, and organizing cooks are done by two Kairos Defines Itself people. Kairos is most easily defined in comparison to other living options at Stanford. There is a By choosing this organization, Kairos is fulfilling prevalent attitude among residents that Kairos is its full responsibilities as a Stanford co-op: self- different than everywhere else. Residents cite organization and student cooking. The choice is, autonomy, a home-like feeling, a laid-back char- though, to maintain a minimum level of acter, diversity and a sense of ‘community’ as in commitment with the maximum benefits. contrast to dormitories. Most residents say the Co-operation is a priority, but happens within a advantage over a dorm is great. The contrast with hierarchical structure of managers and residents. other co-ops is perhaps more telling about the The managers are in practice often given license community, though. to make smaller decisions because the residents figure they know more about the issue (only the In a general sense, Kairos residents identify the shoppers know what the prices are) or because other co-ops as “too granola, spaced out, not in they care more (because they are more involved touch with reality,” “earth-loving feeling,” with many of the processes of the house). Yet, “dogmatic, impractical,” “granola and hippy,” residents are not all satisfied. “more co-opy than us,” and “more homoge- neous.” There were many comments that resi- Although some residents respond with complete dents like the other co-ops but wouldn’t want to approval of the management system, the majority live there, or like lots of the people in the other say that the managers make too many decisions co-ops but think the scene is too much. One on their own. Both managers and residents say person emphasized that the other co-ops are a there is too little communication between man- good idea, but simply do not work. He feels that agers and residents. People express the desire to Kairos is more realistic. Impressions and percep- have more input in what food is bought. As it tions Kairos residents have of the other co-ops stands, there is a wish list for food. The food can illustrate how they perceive themselves. managers use their own discretion to decide what they will buy. This is not an objective process. The perceptions of Terra were split between those For example, a reason cited for not buying a that think of it in a negative sense and those who certain food was that “it tastes like dog food.” think of it positively, and a couple of people who Similarly, one day a box of corn dogs appeared in said they know nothing about it. One person who the freezer. When asked why it was bought, a considers Kairos more laid back than the other food manager said that one of the people that co-ops also feels that Terra is a bit more laid back went shopping saw it and liked it. “Besides,” she than the ‘hard-core’ co-ops. One other identifies said, “anyone who takes the time to shop has the it as “cool, but mainstream.” Those who right to buy whatever he wants.” conceive of it as a negative place call it “large, not much community, boring,” “too dark,” “lame,” Some residents emphasize the efficiency of such “and as consisting of “video games types.” In a system. It takes a minimum effort by the these comments there is apparent both a rejection majority of the people. The trade-off, though, is of normalcy and an appreciation for that people feel decisions are being made for moderateness. them. The problem is that it does not seem that Co-operative Living at Stanford 100 Appendix Columbae was seen in a more generally negative “mellow” people. The co-op status thus is seen light. Only thee people expressed an appreciation by many people at Kairos as a positive thing that for or approval of how they perceive the character creates an appealing atmosphere, but also as an of Columbae. These three called it interactive, ideal that can be taken too far or can be mistak- politically involved and funky. The others enly associated in a general sense with counter- expressed dislike based on concepts that it is culture. “too emotional,” “overly ‘earthy,’” “very This same viewpoint is apparent in the opinions counter-culture, concerned with process,” “a Kairos residents had about joining an all co-op good idea taken too far by nearsighted zealots,” council. The majority said they were not in favor and “dirty.” of joining such a council. Most of these residents Hammarskjöld did not receive comment by many cited Kairos as too different from the other co- people. There were no negative comments about ops for it to gain anything, or that joining could it. Most people that said anything noted that it is threaten the individuality of Kairos. References the international theme house and has a lot of were made to how ‘granola’ the others are, and to graduate students. Most people who knew about the political nature of the other co-ops. Two it felt there were interesting people there. people believed that Synergy and Columbae Phi Psi was unknown to two people. Those who would probably dominate such a council, and said commented on it for the most part had positive they perpetuate “an acceptable co-op mold” and things to say: “cool,” “nice people,” are dogmatic. These people did not want to “awareness, activism,” “mellow.” Four people participate in such a council. Two people pointed commented that they perceive it as a drug haven, out that the University is not apprehensive, and and one person said that the co-ed showers there thus we do not need to organize against an are strange. It was equated by one person to imaginary common enemy. Theta Chi. Those who believe Kairos should join felt there are things that all the co-ops have in common to Theta Chi received largely good comments. A few gain, but emphasized that the individuality of people considered it closest to Kairos in Kairos must be maintained. Some felt a larger co- character. Comments included, “interesting op community feeling would be good, but they people,” “less co-opy than Synergy or Colum- doubt if many Kairos residents would want to bae,” “artsy,” and “gorgeous.” Theta Chi also participate. Two people felt that it would be was identified by one person as strange because it advantageous only for cost sharing or to improve has co-ed showers. Another feels that it is living conditions, but that there was no substantial cliquish. need. Synergy was considered equal to Columbae in its “counter-culture, anti-mainstream” quality. Peo- Another standard for self-identification by Kairos ple called it “weird,” “off the wall, real partici- is diversity. As mentioned earlier, in the first patory,” the “most extreme,” and the “ultimate survey residents almost unanimously felt that stereotype co-op.” It is interesting that the Kairos is very diverse. I asked this question again general comments people made about other co- in the winter and received a very different answer. ops were roughly the same as those made about Only a few people feel that Kairos is not at all Synergy and Columbae. Similarly, the comments diverse. One such person referred to cultural about co-ops in general often included Synergy diversity, the other to diversity in social relations. and Columbae as examples. The fact is, The latter feels that friends in the house tend to be Columbae and Synergy were the only two that alike. The others were split between those who received many comments about counter-culture think Kairos is very diverse and those who think and extremeness. The only co-ops that came it is more diverse than many other places on close were Phi Psi for its supposed drugs and co- campus, but not diverse in all respects. ed showers and Theta Chi for its co-ed showers. The shared view of all these people is that there is a wide variety of interests and personalities in the It is clear that Kairos defines itself as mainstream house. One person mentioned that shy people are and moderate in comparison to the other co-ops, included and encouraged. Another said there are although there are two co-ops that people felt are many different political views represented. One similar to Kairos: Terra and Theta Chi. Although other said that although there are not many there is a sentiment that the co-ops “like Synergy extremists in the house, many different views are or Columbae” are too extreme and alternative, accepted and represented. The only person who there were a large number of comments referring felt uncomfortable in the house because of a to the other co-ops as having interesting and political orientation or interest is one who is very Co-operative Living at Stanford 101 Appendix religious and conservatively oriented. This person for ‘community’ in a residence, and would like says that people in the house assume that there is there to be ‘community’ at Kairos. The degree to no higher being and probably do not pray. His which they are satisfied may perhaps indicate feeling is caused by what he considers the how they perceive the concept of ‘community.’ moderate-liberal make up of the house. In The responses were varied. A few people con- contrast to Kairos residents’ perceptions of the sider Kairos to have a very good level of other co-ops, though, they feel that more diversity, ‘community.’ One such resident attributed it to especially on the moderate or conservative side the amount of co-operation required by the work are respected and tolerated. residents do. Others called the community sup- While many of those who feel Kairos is diverse portive, caring, trusting, reliable, and full of people state that there are many minority groups repre- who get along well. These people seem to value sented, those who feel Kairos is not diverse in all the emotional interaction and stability of the respects specifically state cultural or racial community environment. Others felt that Kairos diversity as lacking. A few people said that there has an average or fair level of ‘community.’ may be more minorities represented in Kairos These residents felt that there is not a lot of than in Stanford in general, but that it is not mutual co-operation, consideration and that enough. Regardless of the actual diversity of people seem to be too concerned with themselves. Kairos (this can hardly be determined in an If it is taken as fact that a significant number of objective way), the standard is set: people at people do perform their house work below the Kairos want diversity. Those who say that Kairos community’s standard, the split level of satisfac- is not diverse enough are saying that they desire tion may be due to different ideals. Those that are more. Those that say it is diverse unanimously satisfied focus on the emotional support they find say that they they like that factor and consider it here, considered by all these residents to be much an important part of the Kairos environment. greater than in their past experiences at Stanford. Kairos’ identity as diverse, mainstream, realistic, Those that are dissatisfied may look for laid-back and independent characterize the senti- ‘community’ in mutual obligation and participa- ment that Kairos is a unique living environment. tion, which they feel are lacking. One important trend here is that many Kairos residents see themselves as too unique to have a There were a few who say they do not look for commonality with the other co-ops. As we saw ‘community’ in a residence. They say either that above, though, the contrast is with two specific they simply cannot expect it from a house this co-ops, Synergy and Columbae. The antagonistic large or that they find it elsewhere. For those that attitude against perceived control by co-ops is do seek ‘community,’ especially a direct level of similar to that of management of dorms by the involvement with the house, these people who do University. Kairos is seen as autonomous from not look for ‘community’ are a source of the University to the necessary degree, and dissatisfaction. This attitude is paralleled by similarly autonomous from other residences. This comments on the ‘social scene’ in the house. trend will resurface in the section on social life There are those who feel very content and where people feel that as a unit Kairos needs no fulfilled by the specific scene here. One such participation from outsiders. It is important to person says she does not expect much from a keep in mind at this point that residents do not residence, but finds that Kairos has a good consider Kairos’ status as co-op all that impor- balance between being supportive and people not tant. Most people do favor the designation, but it being invested one hundred percent. Others find is not a primary criterion for self-definition. that there is always enough appealing social People believe in the organizational structure of events going on to meet their desires. These Kairos, but do not identify with the other co-ops people also do not have high social expectations. to any significant degree, and do not think of the One resident in this category said, “my wild is designation as a determining factor in the charac- pretty mild.” Another does not enjoy large ter of the house. crowds, but rather individuals that are willing to talk and interact. Social Life and Personal Interactions At the other end are those that are not content Kairos can be described as a community in the with the social life. A few complain about the sense that people live together. To what degree people who do their own thing. As one other said, can this definition be expanded for Kairos? his one regret about living in Kairos is indicated ‘Community’ can be seen as a form of unity by the question, “why would people rather study based either upon location or upon common on a Saturday night than come to their own interest. Most all residents say that they do look Co-operative Living at Stanford 102 Appendix house’s party?” Others comment that there not feel any particular gravitation towards their should be more in-house activities. The problem, nearest neighbors may associate themselves with though, is that people do not show up when there the rest of the house in a broader way rather than is a party. Especially during fall quarter, but also forming strong bonds with particular people. during winter, many people have commented that Another is familiarity. Those who are returning the best fun they have had in the house is at small residents for the most part knew each other in-house gatherings or parties. For an all-campus before this academic year started, and naturally party during the winter, people were supposed to felt a bond. Those who did not spend much time distribute flyers to advertise it throughout in the house all say they have significant lives campus. By the time the party started, only a few elsewhere and think of Kairos as a place to sleep had been taken from the stack. People or eat more than anything else. commented later that they just didn’t care if other These groups were not characterized by any people came. They had invited their friends, and major personality, economic status or ethnicity other than that, they just wanted to party with trends. Seeking an alternative trend might be Kairos people. These are the people that look for appropriate. At the time I figured that Kairos involvement from other people in the house. To residents may have grouped themselves by the their disappointment, the party was almost empty types of interaction they desired from each other. of Kairos residents as well as outsiders. It seemed that those who needed a responsive The other source of dissatisfaction with the affiliation with a group and were ready for such a Kairos social scene is a perception of disjointed- commitment tended to participate in the tighter ness and cliquishness. In the fall quarter survey, groups. Those who did not need the affiliation many residents express the opinion that Kairos is within the house, were not ready for a close web uniquely lacking in exclusive cliques within the of dependency, or were satisfied with a broader house. Because the house is small and there is a sense of community participation did not strong tone of acceptance of diversity, the social associate themselves specifically within the two associations that did exist within the house strongest groups. Quite admittedly there were presented a problem for some people. The norm deeper psychological motivations present in the as I analyzed it was togetherness, and when groups. Those mentioned, though, were directly certain people perceived any level of exclusion, related to the more significant trend of acceptance they explicitly considered it an obstacle. I took and inclusion of diversity. seating charts of who sat next to each other at It seemed that none of the groups were dinners for a three-week period. Although the considered less “okay” or less a part of the data sample was small, a number of personal house. For many, they were rather different ways preferences were revealed. These preferences that many people felt a part of the house. For related directly to an explicit and often discussed example, the two more cohesive groups, the quint second-third floor dichotomy. cluster and the returning residents contributed the The third floor was socially dominated by the most to the second-third floor dichotomy. This quint, a five male room. With several strongly dichotomy was simply a perceived difference associated people on the third floor, their room between the make-up of each floor, reflecting the served as a gathering place for many third floor mutual exclusion of the social groups that people and a few second floor people who were dominated the floors. The dichotomy took on a close friends. The second floor housed all of the pseudo-territorial nature. The fact is the two second year residents who formed a cohesive groups liked and respected each other very much. social group. There were also a few smaller They liked working together and had very similar clusters of friends that lived on the second floor, desires for the house as a whole. This is what but who did not interact to any significant degree made the two groups an explicit and talked-about with the third floor group. The second and third dichotomy. The members wished the distinction floors both had a number of people that did not between them could be broken down. interact with any group in specific or did not In the winter quarter, as a few residents noted, spend much time in the house at all. many friendships have shifted. Some people have There are innumerable reasons why the members become more interactive with people they had of each group participated as they did. An never been close to before, and some old obvious one was room locations. People tended associations became less involved. Although one to associate with those who lived close-by even resident mentioned that the third floor still when they might have gotten along just as well seemed isolated, most others felt that there are with many other people. Similarly, those who did many smaller cliques and groups that now act Co-operative Living at Stanford 103 Appendix independently. One notable change serves as an house expressed the feeling that they were not example for the general trend that people are not accepted in the community. interacting in the house in winter as much as they Another trend is the wish that the house were were in the fall. The quint which served as a closer and more intimate than it is. This seemed social center for a large group no longer hosts curious during the fall when most residents were many gatherings. The quint residents tried having also very pleased and surprised by the unusual two room parties during the quarter in a specific degree of unity that did exist. Likewise, as the attempt to rekindle the spirit that they felt had level of participation decreases by many members disappeared since the first quarter. The first party of the house, the wish grows even stronger. It enjoyed a reasonable attendance, but everyone left seems that the one follows from the other in that soon after midnight. The second party was very if there were not such an obvious potential for poorly attended. unity and support people would not consider it This change is due to people being busier than possible in University housing. In other words, they were in the fall, to their dedicating more time people only want it more because they have to friends outside of the house, and I will argue to already had so much of it. the passage of time after the earthquake crisis. In The returning residents seem to have instilled in the surveys in the fall, many people stated the the rest of the members a common Kairos importance of the earthquake experience. People identity that includes a self-awareness that they relied on each other and found a community of are different than most other campus dorms and people that cared. Many trends began at this time co-ops. Residents believe that they are realistic in that were important factors for the first quarter, how they approach the house, and that the very but have dissipated somewhat through the winter. fact that they aren’t idealistic makes it work even Behavioral trends may have changed, but better. For example, during one house meeting dominant expectancies of behavioral trends have during the earthquake crisis we were discussing not. how we could help other co-ops who would not be returning to their houses. A number of House-Wide Trends comments were made such as “I’m an ass-hole, One of the most important trends is the social but an honest one,” and “let’s face it, we’re anal pressure to be in the house a lot. As mentioned compared to the other co-ops.” Residents talk earlier, many people expect and hope that others about how they are relatively apathetic to campus will make Kairos a priority in their lives. and political issues, more materially-oriented, and Although this was a stronger factor during the eat lots of meat. These attitudes are not universal, first quarter, the standard remains in the form of but most everyone believes it is perfectly okay to disappointment in those who do not involve be that way, and that there is no reason anyone themselves and the feeling by those who don’t should be willing to change. These attitudes participate a lot that they are disliked because of contribute to Kairos’ marginal role on campus it. This point is best demonstrated by a peripheral and its internal cohesion. member of the community who spends very little time in the house. Other residents have expressed The Kairos community is also especially that she seems like a very “cool” person and conducive to trying things this set of people they wish she were around more. From her wouldn’t normally venture into in a more perspective, though, Kairos is saying something “normal” environment. This happens within very different to her. relatively conservative limits. Different people have said that they chewed tobacco, smoked a Her most memorable experiences at Kairos are cigarette, smoked pot, did alcohol drinking rituals, when she has been persecuted for not being more drunk to an excess, or went to a bar for the first a part of the house. Strikingly, this woman drew time. Others have neglected school work like into Kairos for similar reasons to everyone else. never before, tried to surf, have expressed a Knowing that she wouldn’t be around much, she willingness to take the drug XTC if others would, wanted a house with a “relaxed, open-minded and have expressed deep feelings and problems atmosphere”. She hoped it would be okay to be a to people they would normally never open-up to. less-than-fully-integrated member of the commu- These residents find this a unique situation, most nity. These are standards that the fully-integrated specifically because most of these practices are members continue to expect and uphold. But the not common within the house. There is no social acceptance of diversity seems to stipulate that you pressure to do these specific things, and yet there participate fully in the community. Of those that is a sense of support for such experimentation. returned the winter survey, the two people who spend a significant part of the time out of the Co-operative Living at Stanford 104 Appendix A nearly universal trend is an awareness that you changing their behavior, but they perceive the have to get drunk with everyone before you really difference and wish it could be improved. bond with them. Kairos residents drink often and most everybody included at least one drinking The Earthquake event in their most memorable experiences with The residents were scattered throughout campus the house. There are residents who do not drink, when the earthquake hit, but soon afterwards but even they have said that some of their most everyone convened on the lawn in front of strongest bonding experiences with other the house. Our Resident Assistant told us the residences were when the others were drunk. A house was officially closed until further notice. primary cause of the drunk bonding experience is The experience at this point was primarily happy the nature of the drug. But another has to do with and exciting due to strong community support, residents’ attitudes towards the community. It although we all had the typical emotional seems apparent that many people in the house difficulties. When it became apparent that we feel dependent on the house and are extremely would most likely not be allowed in the house for grateful for what it offers them. Alcohol allows the night, people ran inside against the RA’s them to express this. It is quite characteristic of wishes and grabbed a few possessions, some the house to be talking informally with people in food and all the alcohol in the house. a small group of drunk residents and have someone with whom you have little affiliation to That night we were the only house on the upper come up and say they love everyone, or hug you Row to remain congregated in front of our house, and say they just wanted to say how much s/he and we had a “blow-out” drinking party with a appreciates you. bonfire. The next day and a half were fairly confusing. We were told the house would be This standard is reiterated as the house grows closed for a week or two at the minimum, and we more fragmented. In order to initiate social were not immediately given any place to stay. bonding experiences, people tend to buy alcohol. This period was very difficult for Kairos The quint, as mentioned before, bought kegs for residents because we received progressively its two second quarter parties, advertising that it worse news about the status of our house. At one was time once again to get drunk together like the point we were told the house would almost surely quarter before. Similarly, at the traditional quarter be closed for the year. end party, the house always elects to buy a large quantity of alcohol in anticipation of the The residents of Kairos were very devastated. uninhibited interaction that will result. People talked at length about how important the community had already become to them and that The nickname the “house of love” is generally they wanted more than anything to live with the referred to as a regrettable stereotype we have same community for the remainder of the year. inherited from the past. Residents in general On the third day we were given the Casa Zapata dislike the hippy connotations it carries but find it lounge to stay in, and a majority of the house humorous that it persists despite the stubbornly decided to forgo other more comfortable mainstream make-up of the house. As a few temporary housing options in order to stay residents expressed, the great thing about the together in the lounge. The lounge became a name is that they all continue to be themselves, as center for the house including many of the people mainstream as they care to be, but they feel they who opted to live elsewhere. Prejudice against have experienced the freedom to feel emotions as these others was blatant, though. They were a community that are stereotyped to the extremist unreservedly called traitors and deserters. Many “crunchy, vegetarian thing”. of the “traitors” felt this was an expression of In the next section I will explore a case that is their desire for them to be a part of the group, but identified by every resident as one of the most others found this alienating and were very memorable experiences of the first quarter at uncomfortable even walking into the lounge. Kairos. The earthquake crisis and its aftermath The house displayed a surprising involvement was probably the single-most influential factor in with the other co-ops during this crisis. The the development of Kairos culture. It involved Stanford co-op community made a huge effort to most every positive community standard I have plan for its joint future. Kairos joined the mentioned. Although some of the trends begun discussions, attended all the meetings and actively during the earthquake have begun to reverse shared information. At the same time, though, themselves in the opinions of many residents, the Kairos had a unique attitude that it would not wait standards were set. The residents may be for the University or the other co-ops to decide its fate. A number of residents did everything in their Co-operative Living at Stanford 105 Appendix power to locate off-campus housing to supported by the statements of other residents or accommodate most of the Kairos residents. We what I believe is self-conscious observation. I were ready at any moment to lay thirty thousand regret if I have construed my own view of the dollars down on a house. This period of time is community or that of a few people as the view of quite memorable to all residents. Those who lived the whole. in the lounge feel they formed the strongest Kairos is a unique place if for no other reason bonds with other residents then. Many others saw than that its members consider it to be. The the positive experience those in the lounge were potential that the members feel they have to create having and expressed the desire to be able to join a supportive and fulfilling community continues in it (extreme work loads or other social despite the apparent decrease in behaviors that commitments were cited as preventing them). foster such a feeling. They have experienced At the end of the first week out of the house, we involvement in the type of community that many were told that Kairos would reopen the following desire, and know what they wish would return. week. The ecstasy everyone felt is indescribable. The obstacles are that, as one resident mentioned, That night we threw a party in the Zapata lounge the residents are flaky about contributing to the that remains many residents’ most memorable house, and that there are many residents who party. Some Kairos residents continued to have simply do not desire to make Kairos the main strong involvement with the other co-ops that focus of their social lives. would not be let back in the house. We made The residents this year consider themselves very decisions to change a common room in the house different than any previous year’s group. Yet, in a into a new room for a displaced student and to sense, the strong sense of affiliation most people open up fifteen eating associate spots for feel from the house ties them to what is displaced co-op residents who wanted an analogous to a fraternal tradition. There are alternative community affiliation. These decisions numerous traditions at Kairos that are expensive, were consciously not as generous as they could require work or are a troublesome inconvenience have been. Residents were aware that they didn’t that have not been opposed by a single resident. want to change the character of the house by For example, a huge effort is made on a variety of admitting too many ‘hard-core’ co-opers, and occasions to welcome previous residents back to that they would be unwilling to forfeit many of the house in a very costly way, even though only the comforts of the house that would be required a handful of residents ever met them before. by opening up more living spaces. Similarly, people at Kairos tend to accept When we returned to the house, the mood was decisions that are handed to them because they very different. There were new friendships, were made by previous residents. According to a stronger group affiliation, and significantly number of older residents of Kairos, the deteriorated clique barriers. At the same time, importance of ‘community’ has always been a schoolwork that had been neglected during the tradition, and likewise, the dedication of period of displacement forced most residents to ‘mainstream’ types to the community has always work harder than ever. This was a difficult thing set Kairos apart. for many because they had come to depend on the community for social and emotional support. As a result, schoolwork continued to be ignored throughout fall quarter, and yet people say that they suffered because they were not spending nearly enough time together. It is hard to convey just what I felt and what many other residents explain what they felt during this experience. The most significant factor is that it remains such an important memory for everyone, and was the single-most important time in the formation of Kairos culture. Conclusion Because I am a resident of Kairos, it is impossible for me to effectively distinguish between my view of the community and any other. Everything I have written here has been

Co-operative Living at Stanford 107 Appendix

Off-Campus Co-ops 6. Try to notice and avoid typical pitfalls of group Magic houses 381 Oxford, Palo Alto 325-2786 • Sexual intrigue 1979 - Present • Ideas held beyond question Currently 6 members • Knowledge domination Magic, Incorporated was founded in 1979 by David Schrom, Corinne Powell, Erica Prince, and Recommendations to Stanford Co-op Houses Santiago Escruceria to research and teach human 1. Write a social contract which includes ecology. They use the term human ecology in a commitments and expectations of each member to literal sense, to mean scientific study of the house. This contract might be updated when interaction (1) among individual humans, (2) housemembers decide to change it. between humans and other life, and (3) between humans and the abiotic elements of the 2. Students might receive academic credit for environment. They focus upon human ecology living in the house. In a co-op, students learn because they consider it to be without equal for valuable management and decision-making skills, illuminating questions of purpose, value, and practical skills (food preparation, housecleaning, good, and as a method for predicting the maintenance, carpentry), and interpersonal skills. consequences of human behavior, and thus By giving academic credit, it might validate the enabling the meaningful choice upon which experience in the eyes of both University people freedom depends. The four Magic programs are and students, and also encourage students to take ecological philosophy, personal awareness, co- their responsibilities more seriously. operation, and environmental protection. Magic Social Contract (in brief) David Schrom, Daniel Bartsch, Robin Bayer, 1. Be positive Dave Muffly, Andrew Halparin, and Ben Lipman currently live in the Magic household. They are 2. Develop one’s self, intellectually and the core of a group of people who see themselves physically as providing a service to the larger community. 3. Be scientific Part of this service involves oak tree regeneration on Stanford lands and contributing to more and 4. Be directed healthier trees in the region by organizing 5. Communicate Peninsula Releaf. Service is a reason people are drawn to the house, and if they change and want 6. Be regular in animal functions (eating, exercise, something else, they tend to move on. David sex, sleep) Schrom has been living at Magic for ten years, 7. Love unconditionally while Daniel has been there eight years and the others have lived there less than two years. 8. Maximize service These suggestions were brought up during an 9. Minimize demands evening discussion at Magic: 10. Build this community Ways to Eliminate Conflicts within the — Randy Schutt House 1. Social service to the community and each other Guinda House 2. Emphasize right livelihood (allows each person 365 Guinda, Palo Alto (by the creek) enough time in their life to focus on conflicts and Guinda House was a vegetarian co-op from resolve them) sometime until about 1982. When I moved in in 1978 it had been occupied mostly by Stanford 3. Encourage a scientific, ecological world-view dancers, but I was not, and other more political 4. Be sensitive to the needs of others people lived there around that time. Stacey Greenberg lived there the same time I did (and I 5. Regard self as a model for others and attempt think she still lives in Palo Alto). She had lived in to live an exemplary lifestyle Columbae in 76-77 when I did, and may have for Co-operative Living at Stanford 108 Appendix a few years after. Lynn de Paar also lived there, and I think she had lived in the co-ops. Peter Nye, Camp Channing Bill Scott, Susan Friedland, and Jeff Oxley were 627 Channing Ave, Palo Alto not co-opers (I think)., but were politically Camp Channing existed from June 77 to June 78. minded and travelled in similar circles. Guinda Many of us had lived in Stanford co-ops. Tom House still exists, but it is no longer a co-op. Wainwright had lived in Columbae for 3 years and spent summers at Theta Chi (now in The Food Chain Seattle?). Jim Lutz was there the summer of ’77; Jim Lutz set up the Food Chain, a network of he lived in Columbae 76-77 and helped set up mostly Stanford spin-off co-ops, while he was at Androgyny house and lived there ’77-78. Phyllis Fulton House about 1978. Houses in the Food Brown may have lived in a Stanford Co-op; she Chain bought food together wholesale and then lives in Oakland and is the PR person for divvied it up. We also had regular potlucks and Highland (?) Hospital. Paul Framson and Bert parties. The houses I remember were Guinda Bauer had lived in Columbae several years earlier. House, Bryant’s Bend, 2001 House, Ananufa We finally had to move out when an architect House (A Non Nuclear Family), Anarres House with five children bought the house and built four (named after the anarchist utopia in Ursula condos in the backyard. LeGuin’s The Dispossessed), and Oxford House. There were other houses too. The Food Others: Chain lasted till about 1981, I think. All of these Tish Kuljian, Lee Shoop (from Columbae) and houses except the first two were Stanford spin- others lived in a house on Bryant St. around offs (I think). 1980. Tish now lives in Palo Alto, Lee is in Red Bluff (see alum list). Oxford House Several Stanford co-opers lived in Urban 570 Oxford, Apt. E (ground floor) Stonehenge in San Francisco. Contact Steven Oxford house was set up around 1975 by a Mentor (now a prof at SFSU). group of politicos. People who lived there originally were Larry Litvak, June Cooperman Maddux (“Mad Ducks”) House and Chris Coleman. Chis worked at SWOPSI 3112 Maddux Dr., Palo Alto and now lives in San Leandro Later residents included Chris Gray, Kaki McTigue, maybe September 1986 (?) - December 1988 Laura Wagner (all from Columbae) and Steven Residents included Randy Schutt, Madeline Mentor (Synergy). Still later Robin Severns, Kim Larsen, Susan Sandler, Jen Grant., all from McCall and I (all from Columbae) all moved in; I various Stanford co-ops. lived there from June 1980 till Sept. 1981. Many people working in the anti-nuclear movement — Randy Schutt crashed at Oxford, including Bob Thawley and Marian Doub (Synergy), Matt Nicodemus and Ponderosa House Ron (Breakfast) Boyer (Columbae). Mary College Park (Stanford and Birch?) Alexander now lives there with one other woman. Ponderosa House lasted from at least 1982 till try contacting Chris Coleman, 726 Fountainhead 1984 or ’85. It may have been part of the food Dr., 94578, 891-8301 chain. Residents included Seth Zuckerman and Sushma Govindarajulu (Columbae), Cynthia and Dragon House Clark Vitt-Jarvis (Synergy) and others. The (Middlefield near Loma Verde) dining table from Ponderosa is now at Acorn. The house is still a student house (as of Spring Dragon House existed from roughly 1979 to 1989), but not a co-op. 1981. I think Chris Gray, Kaki McTigue, Laura Wagner, and Steven Mentor all lived there. It was Acorn House the center for an anarchist group associated with Acorn was started in the summer of 1985 by a Stanford and Synergy called the Black Rose group of nine people, largely former Columbae Collective. They formed a group called Roses residents. It was located originally in a 5 bedroom Against a Nuclear Environment (RANE) which house on Oak Hill Dr., near Foothill Expressway became very active in the Abalone Alliance. Jeff and Arastradero Rd; it moved from there to Hook of Synergy was in RANE and later lived in Hanover St. in College Terrace in 1986, and then Magic House. to Arastradero Rd. in July of 1989. More than 25 Co-operative Living at Stanford 109 Appendix persons have lived in Acorn at one time or another. The house currently has seven residents including several co-op alums and current Stanford staff members and graduate students. — Paul Baer Co-operative Living at Stanford 110 Appendix F

A Little Ditty

A little ditty ’bout Jack and Diana Caught between bureaucracy and the wrath of Joanna Jackie’s gonna be a big administrator Diana thinks with his skills he should just be a waiter.

Oh yeah, life goes on After Columbae, Synergy and Phi Psi are gone (x2)

Sippin’ on diet cokes, a-walkin’ by the Quad They’re talkin’ with Michael Jackson, but the man thinks he’s God Jackie says, “Hey Diane, let’s invade Building 10 And substitute Don for Presidents Conklin and Chin.”

Oh yeah, life goes on After Columbae, Synergy and Phi Psi are gone (x2)

Jackie sits back, collects his thoughts for the moment, Scratches his head and does his best Matt Price — “You know, co-operative living really subverts the institutionalized hierarchical power structures that fragment our society, don’t you think?” Diana says, “Uh, Jackie, isn’t that ....‘nice’?”

Oh yeah, Life’s a bitch When three of the Co-ops are sleepin’ in a ditch (x2)

Feel the aftershocks, down the Row, Leave Grove-Mayfield, get your mail at the Knoll Until next year, you can do what you please Then start it all up again at the Groves and AD’s!

Little ditty ’bout Jack and Diana Two administrators doing the best that they can...

Lyrics by Ethan Pride; Music stolen from John Cougar Mellancamp