Talk:Jane Stanford

Edward Ross

Edward A. Ross was a racist and an economic collectivist. He was not a "liberal" man.

In the section on Jane Stanford's pressure to remove Edward A. Ross from Stanford university, the article totally ignored one of the major grounds for her complaints. Namely the exterme racism of Ross and his speeches around Califoria trying to stir up violent hatred of Chinese people and other ethnic groups he considered inferior. Not only did Ross use highly offensive language in his public speeches (full of ethnic slurs), but he advocated eugenics policies specifically directed against ethnic groups.

Of course it is perfectly possible to argue that Ross should have been kept on at Stanford (in spite of his extreme racism and his public speeches directed at creating racial hatred and inciting action against people of ethnic groups he did like), but the article leaves out the racism of Ross - and that is not acceptable.

Also to describe an economic collectivist like Edward A. Ross as a "liberal" does violence (extreme violence) to what the word "liberal" meant in the period - surely the word "liberal" can not have changed so much that it now means the exact opposite of what it originally meant (i.e. instead of meaning "pro liberty" for Ross to be liberal the word would have now to be mean "anti liberty").

If violent racism and economic collectivism are "liberal" - then the German dictator of 1933 to 1945 (Adolf Hitler), must also be described as a "liberal" and that just does not make sense. Even in the 1920s and 1930's(decades after the events this section of the article descibes)the Italian Fascist dicator Benito Mussolini defined the economic collectivism of Fascism as the OPPOSITE of liberalism (not as liberalism by another name). So I repeat to call a man like Edward A. Ross a "liberal" is absurd.91.107.75.110 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Was she opposed to his racism or to his opposition to Chinese immigration (both were closely tied together though many were racist without necessarily opposing immigration) and other economic views? Supporting eugenics unfortunately was all too common in those times and crossed political boundaries, for many people the only question was what measures should be taken (e.g., forcibly prevent the 'unfit' from reproducing as well as encouraging the 'fit' to reproduce or only support the latter). The reference in his article describes him as 'progressive' which had a specific meaning for that time period and is probably better than either 'liberal' or 'collective' (unless you can point to a good reference describing him as holding collective economic views). --Erp (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He was considered progressive within the meaning the term had at the time; supporting the rights of the emerging labor movement and supporting regulations to reign in the abuses of the corporate robber barons of that Gilded Age era, whom Ross publicly and recklessly denounced Leland Stanford as being. Sadly, animus against Chinese people as emobodying cheap labor to keep wages down was widespread among the white working class at that time. Moreover, Ross’ adversary, Stanford president David Jordan, was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of eugenics during this era. But you are correct, to the extent “liberal” in the era meant support for laussez faire capitalism, Ross was not one. There is an excellent article in the 6/22/23 New York Review of Books by Jessica Riskin that goes into more detail on this. In short, racism and support for eugenics had nothing to do with Ross being fired as his adversaries were more possessed of this reactionary poisin than he was. 2604:2D80:ED08:A00:54D0:2560:44AD:7D49 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

He was a progressive. That covers his race beliefs - racism is not reactionary, it is yesterday’s progressivism, based on the latest science (now exploded). Not all progressives thought the same, however. Note that eugenics is a program for improving humanity - it all depends on what you think is an improvement. Many were opposed to it as just too intrusive, whatever the criteria - see the 1930’s roadshow movie “ Tomorrow’s Children”. Some discussion of all this could be good background for that section of the article. 2601:647:5800:7D80:119D:2328:DB58:5450 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jane Stanford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160521025646/http://janestanford.stanford.edu/biography.html to http://janestanford.stanford.edu/biography.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141004020713/http://janestanford.stanford.edu/timeline.html to http://janestanford.stanford.edu/timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113070554/https://lib.stanford.edu/files/Jewel%20Society%20Brochure.pdf to https://lib.stanford.edu/files/Jewel%20Society%20Brochure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Assessed for WikiProject

5 December 2019: Assessed for WP:WikiProject Stanford University: B class (formerly C), Top importance (formerly high)

1. Suitably referenced with reliable sources (although it could probably be improved with support from a few of the most credible Jane Stanford biographies)
2. Reasonably covers the topic; does not contain omissions or inaccuracies (although I believe the section on Stanford University could be expanded, and it's possible another section could be added to the article to address her views and actions in the context of themes rather than chronology)
3. Well-defined structure
4. Reasonably well-written; flows sensibly, looks like it follows WP:MOS although there might be a bit of undue weight to her poisoning simply for lack of merited detail in earlier sections
5. Contains appropriate supporting materials: portraits
6. Appropriately understandable to a lay audience

Assessed as top importance because:

• She founded the university and her edicts and vision shape the university to this day.

—Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Lathrop citation

The linked article about Lathrop, California has a citation for the fact that the town was named after Jane and her brother Charles (a Google Books scan of a newspaper article about the event). I'm not in a place where I can comfortably add a proper reference, but I hope somebody will. 77.234.115.28 (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have added the reference to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)