St Anford University Stanford, California 94305
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ST ANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBUC AFFAIRS BUIlDING 170 August 29, 1986 Mark Morris 250 Donohoe Street East Palo Alto, California 94303 Dear Mark: Thank you for your welcome letter of August 5th. It is an accurate summary of my meeting the week before with representatives of the local buildering community, and I am happy now to confirm the conditions under which buildering at Stanford may resume on a trial basis. As we all agreed, there are a number of reasons for limiting future buildering to just two campus sites -- the back walls of the Art Gallery and certain areas at the front of the old Chemistry building (a map is being prepared and forwarded). While providing our builderers with ample surface to tackle nproblems· and develop skills, this limitation will also accommodate those who feel strongly that climbing in the more heavily trafficked Quad and central campus area is unsafe or unsuitable. The other conditions we agreed to are: 1) the use of chalk is absolutely prohibited; 2) climbing will not exceed one's own height; 3) the climbing community will assume responsibility for informing its members of these new regulations and for self regulation thereafter; 4) an individual will be designated to act as the buildering community's contact with the University (you and I will initially fill those respective roles). The University shares your eagerness to have this new arrangement work. At least at the start, however, buildering will have to be resanctioned on a trial basis. To help in monitoring its success, our Operations and Maintenance staff will remove all existing chalk from campus buildings, starting with the Art Gallery and the old Chemistry area. Once those two sites are cleaned (the Gallery will be first), buildering there may officially resume. August 28, 1986 Page Two We expect this work to be done by Monday, September 15, and we will treat the remainder of this calendar year as the first trial interval. During that period, we will rely on you and your colleagues to watch for and use peer influence on climbers who appear outside the approved areas. To help you in that regard, the University will place informational signs at the two sites, along with some more temporary signage in the Quad. The resanctioning of buildering --and its terms -- will also be publicized in campus publications l and readers will be asked to inform this office if any violations are witnessed. I must reemphasize, however, that University staff will not be responsible for enforcing these regulations; that job rests entirely with the climbing community. I will, of course, alert you right away if problems are drawn to my attention. All of us at Stanford have been impressed by the persuasive yet sensitive approach your group has taken. That accounts for our confidence in your ability to make the new policy work. Like you, we are optimistic that there will be every reason to extend the privilege when we gather to take stock in December. Sincerely, Stephen~ Peeps Director of University Relations cc: Sergeant Del Bandy Brett Barnhardt ~David Coward Gretchen Dennison Tom Heinrichs Thomas Higgins Donald Kennedy Armando Menocal, III Steven Pollock Michael Ramsey Frank Sarnquist Jennifer Westerlind Bill Zaumen ST ANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD. CALIFORNIA 94305 July 18, 1986 OFACE OF THE PRESIDENT Ms. Gretchen Dennison P.O. Box 8888 Stanford, CA 94305 Mr. William T. Zaumen 912 Clara Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Ms. Dennison and Mr. Zaumen: Thank you for your July 8 -Proposal for Allowing Buildering at Stanford.- I wanted to assure you that it had reached me, and that its quality of thought and preparation were very much appreciated. Your arguments have persuaded a number of us to reconsider the blanket prohibition against buildering, so long as some reasonable -- and genuinely manageable -- middle ground can be established. All other factors aside, I must ask you to understand that your passion for this sport is countered in many cases by those who just as strongly dislike it. Their sentiments have my respect as well. A solution will require that we re-identify a single, unobtrusive place where buildering can be practiced within guidelines upon which we all agree. I am willing to reexplore that possibility on a trial basis, so long as our builderers understand that conti nuation of this privilege will depend on effective self-regulation. As a next step, I will ask Stephen Peeps, Director of University Relations, to get a few of you together with three or four of our key staff to spell out expectations. 11m hoping we can come up with a buildering policy that satisfies just about everyone. Thanks again for presenting your case so thoughtfully. Sincerely, V~~ Donald Kennedy cc: Stephen Peeps Brett Bernhardt v David Coward Tom Heinrichs Thomas Higgins Armando Menocal, III Steven Pollock Frank Sarnquist 1 Introduction .As part of a proposal to allow buildering at Stanford, we believe it is useful to present a perspective on buildering. The following gives an historical overview of buildering, and then procedes to discuss safety and liability is sues, followed by some thoughts on how to deal with builderers. Finally, miscellaneous issues that we believe may be of concern to the administra tion are discussed. A concrete proposal for buildering is given in a related document-<Bret's writeup >. Buidering at Stanford has contributed sig nificantly to an improvement in climbing standards because of the unique nature of the roughly-cut sandstone walls, and as a result, continued access is important to climbers. Many students and alumnae (e.g., Jim Collins, Greg Donaldson; Chuck Kroeger) have become outstanding climbers. 2 The Evolution of Buildering In order to maintain a high level of skill, many climbers pactice on small rock outcroppings. This has been an on-going activity in the Bay Area since about 1930 [6], and has spread to most areas that attract climbers. Originally, these outcrops were used merely as a poor-man's substitute for the "real thing", which historically was climbing peaks [1, page 69]. .As climbers became more proficient, however, short but technically demanding climbs became of interest in their own right [1, pages 69-74]. Eventually, a small number of climbers became interested in doing very short climbing "problems" that compensated for their lack of length by being extemely difficult. Many of these problemsl were found on boulders, and hence the activity became known as 6ouldering. Bouldering standards were pushed to extreme levels by several individuals, the most notable being John Gill [4].2 When faced with a lack of boulders, much less peaks or rock walls, climbers sometimes make do with buildings-practice is essential to main taining a high level of ability. By analogy with 6ouldering, climbers coined the term 6uildering to describe similar climbs done on buildings instead of naturally occuring rock. Climbers have buildered at St~ since be fore 1960 [2]. Because of the type of sandstone, the build~ Stanford lThia terminology follows by analogy with the distiction between chess problems and chess games-chese problems consist of artificial positions that are contrieved to be difficult to analyze. 2 A copy of Gill's article, The Art 0/ Bouldering, has been enclosed. 1 yield a realistic simulation of actual climbing. Given the quality of climb ing at Stanford and the lack of alternatives within a reasonable distance, climbers naturally are attracted. Around 1970, the Stanford Alpine Club published a guide book to climbing at Stanford [8], thereby implying tacit approval of the activity. In the late 19708 Jim Collins, a talented climber who was an undergrad uate at Stanford at that time, spent a truly amazing number of hours per day working on climbs-especially door or window problems in the Quad. Mr. Collins gave a series of slide shows about climbing at Stanford and claimed that the first free ascents of some extremely difficult climbs in Col orado would not have been possible without continual practice at Stanford. Previously, many climbers took the "out of sight, out of mind" approach to buildering-the sensible notion that if you are not hurting anything and if no one in a position of of authority knows what you are doing,S then no one is likely to interfere. Unfortunately (in retrospect), Mr. Collins's example suggested that such an approach was not necessary (i.e., one could builder on a large part of the Stanford campus at any time of the day without at tracting undue attention), and that you could traverse past windows and doors without attracting undue attention. 3 Safety Bouldering and buildering are actually far safer than it would appear to be to the casual observer. The basic points, which will be followed with justifications, are as follows: • Bouldering or buildering at the level of difficulty typical of Stanford is not possible without considerable practice, thereby elliminating the problem of the inexperienced getting into trouble. • It is possible to jump off safely from heights well beyond what the uninitiated would consider safe. • Bouldering injuries are rarely serious. We should note that, unlike gymnastics, climbers are rarely inverted, thereby minimizing the risk of head injuries. 8The concern is that someone in a poeition of authority may not object to the activity itself, but rather to extraneous concems such as liability. 2 Based on experience, climbers generally subscribe to the idea that the technically hardest climbs are usually the safest: at the limits of ability, one expects to fall and therefore ensures that the consequences of a fall will not be serious. The recent interest of a few climbers in doing "up" problems" is a consequence of the considerable advancement of climbing standards over the last ten years: the safety margin is higher than one would naively expect.