Co-operative Living at Stanford: A Report of SWOPSI 146

Overview

As a result of the October 17, 1989 earthquake, three Stanford residential co-ops were closed indefinitely due to structural damage. A group of co-op community members formed to monitor the administrative process as it made crucial decisions regarding the future of the displaced communities and to rally for their successful continuation. Several of them designed a SWOPSI (Stanford Workshop on Political and Social Issues) class called “Co-operative Living and the Current Crisis at Stanford” and taught it during Winter Quarter, 1990.

The uncertainty of the aftermath of the earthquake made it imperative that the co-op community take an active role in the University decision-making process. It is only through the joint efforts of the administration and concerned students that mutually satisfactory decisions are made. The “Co-operative Living and the Current Crisis at Stanford” class filled this role by providing a forum for co-op community members to actively participate and by researching co-operation and how it relates to Stanford University.

The changes forced by the crisis of the earthquake made it necessary to analyze the Stanford University residential co-ops. It also provided an opportunity to re-evaluate them. Although Stanford co-op community members tend to be very satisfied with their residence experiences, the members of the Co-operative Living at Stanford class felt that an in-depth look at further potentials was appropriate. The class produced the following report based on their research. The report includes background research regarding co-operation and the Stanford community. It then treats the nature of the current crisis. Finally, it recommends specific developments for the future and presents other possibilities for the future that the class did not come to consensus on.

Since the commencement of the class, the Stanford Administration has committed to repair one house, Columbae, and allow its displaced co-op community to return there in the 1990-91 academic year. The Administration has also committed to temporarily rehousing the other two displaced co-op communities (putting Phi Psi in the Alpha Delt House and Synergy in the Grove Houses), and to repairing their damaged houses by an unspecified time no earlier than 1991-92. The students of SWOPSI 146 believe that they have had an important role in the process that led to these decisions and hope the University administration will continue to value their concerns and input.

Co-operation

The concept of co-operative living is hardly new. Indeed, most people across the world live in some type of co-operative housing (for instance, in a nuclear- or extended-family home). At Stanford, however, the very word ‘co-op’ conjures up images of extremism and deviance. This occurs in spite of the fact that Leland Stanford himself was a strong advocate of co-operative associations and considered the co-operation of labor to be, in general, a leading feature lying at the foundations of the University. The present co-operative movement is not directly connected with Stanford’s vision, but with the student movements of the 1960’s. While this period was a formative one for co-operation at Stanford, the Stanford co-operatives must transcend this pigeonhole and affirm those characteristics of co‑operative living from which all students can learn and which further the goals of Residential Education.

The co-operative community at Stanford is remarkable in its diversity, and there exists no unified manifesto of purpose for members of the community. There do, however, seem to be some ideals shared by many of the co-operatives. These co-ops strive to blur the distinction between school and home, between mental and physical labor, between the personal and the political. Consonant with this ideal is the emphasis placed on limiting environmental impact and rejecting the opposition between “nature” and human society. Co-ops also act to encourage co-operation as a viable and fulfilling alternative to competition, and serve as a forum where methods of co-operation can be explored.

Lastly, co-operatives take many of the goals of Residential Education and apply them within the framework of the house itself. Thus, goals like social awareness and involvement, individual responsibility, and tolerance are not imposed by Res Ed, but are intrinsic to the ideals of co-operation itself. Co-operation can be a way of life which, while aware of its own history and origins, looks forward and works to create tangible change. It forms, we believe, an indispensable part of a Stanford education.

Background

Seven residential co-ops operated at Stanford prior to the earthquake in 1989. Through extensive research, we explored their unique characters and spirits. Each house has special features that make it unique structurally, and to some extent this affects the student population.

Columbae House still maintains its original theme of Social Change Through Nonviolence — a theme that has included ideas such as vegetarianism, consensus decision-making, and recycling. Columbae comes from a tradition of political activity, which varies from year to year, and the house generally focuses on building a tightly-knit community. The house has an extensive co-op library and archives.

Phi Psi House has a long tradition of “good living” which encompasses the large house and yard, and has in the past included traditions of house bands and wild parties. The house is considered less political than other co-ops on campus.

Hammarskjöld House was created to foster “International Understanding”, and in order to further this goal has a separate draw which is more self-selective (to insure a geographically and culturally diverse group). The small house has many Eating Associates.

Kairos House draws a more “mainstream” group. Decisions are made by majority vote rather than consensus and it is the only co-op that hires students from the house to cook. Kairos has maintained independence from the other co‑ops in the past, and only recently was officially listed as a co-op in the draw book.

Terra, once Ecology House, has become a more “mainstream” co-op in the 1980’s. It was nearly closed by the administration after relatively unsuccessful Draw seasons, but has survived and thrived since then. It is located in a large Cowell-cluster house. Terra has several interesting murals.

Synergy House, originally created with the theme “Exploring Alternatives”, which included alternative energy, organization (non-hierarchical), and sometimes vegetarianism. The house has a large garden and keeps chickens in the back yard for eggs. Also, the house boasts a large “Alternative Periodicals Rack” as well as many murals. Synergy residents tend to feel relatively detached from mainstream Stanford University life.

Theta Chi is organized around the idea of self-control — the house is owned by the co-op (technically its fraternity alumni group), and repairs, improvements, and all aspects of house managing are done by students. The house is known for having many singles and is close to campus (as well as being cheaper both for rent and food), a characteristic that usually brings in a diverse crowd. Theta Chi stays open all year round, and in the past has been a haven for groups seeking escape from University red tape.

Synergy and Columbae tend to stay away from processed foods and run non-hierarchically. Many students mistakenly associate these traits with all co-ops, an attitude that residents have attempted to change through outreach. In fact, the survey conducted as a part of the class discovered that some students thought a co-op (Synergy, I suppose) had a goat!

Several co-ops previously existed at Stanford, but are now defunct. Jordan House (now Haus Mitt) was started in 1970. Little is known about the house other that the fact that it had a few murals (some from Alice in Wonderland, and a Rolling Stones tongue on the door). Apparently the food was bad, and the house was unclean. In 1977 it was terminated, and became Androgyny (or Simone de Beauvoir) House, a “theme” house focussing on feminism and gender issues. The house was not fully equipped until three weeks into the school year, and was mysteriously terminated after Winter Quarter of its first year, leading many people to suspect a conspiracy (Haus Mitt, which had been approved to become a theme house at the same time as Androgyny, was placed in Jordan the following year). Ecology House, an environmental theme house, started in 1971, it became Terra in 1973. The reason for the name-change and loss of academic theme is not known.

Stanford has many other co-ops on campus besides the seven residential co-ops. The Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) is a co‑op of all Stanford students. The Stanford Bookstore is owned co-operatively by the faculty. Breakers Eating Club is also a co‑operative and recently Jewish students created a Kosher Eating Club in the Elliot Program Center.

In addition to University co-ops, there have been a number of co-op houses in the local community in which many current students or recent graduates live. These are usually transient (with a few exceptions). The Food Chain, a network of these houses, was started in 1978 so that food buying could be combined. Five or six houses would buy bulk food and have parties or potlucks together. The Food Chain lasted until about 1981. Magic was started in 1979, in order to explore “human ecology”. Members of Magic work to organize community projects (such as planting trees) and develop a larger community of people associated with Magic interested in service. A number of other spin-off co-ops once existed, but no longer do.

One of the most instructive aspects of the course has been the exploration of co-ops and co-op systems at other universities. For example, the co-operative association at UC Berkeley is a full corporation with 1500 members, owns and even builds its own co-ops. Most other co-op systems are smaller — University of Wisconsin (at Madison), Brown, and Harvard all have small-scale co-ops, usually two or three houses. Probably the most diverse co-op system is at UC Davis, which includes off-campus co-ops and newer houses constructed on campus (which are parts of different co-op organizations), as well as Baggins End, known as the “Domes”. There is a lot to learn from the ways students have set up co-op systems at other universities. This report includes names of people who know in-depth about co-op construction and funding.

The campus survey conducted as a part of the class sought to identify common ideas held about co-ops by different student populations. Many students believed the houses to be dirty, or felt that co-ops were too large a time commitment, or held extreme political views. Clearly there is a need for education about co-ops, especially among freshpeople.

The survey of Stanford co-op alumni was responded to by members of many co-ops, but especially Synergy and Columbae. The vast majority considered living in a co-op a positive experience. Many alumni explained the benefits they see in co-operative living. Their co-op experiences at Stanford influenced many alumni in their lives and professions after graduation.

The Current Crisis

A chronology beginning with the quake on October 17, 1989 points out those events which were particularly strengthening or disempowering, with the hope of reinforcing the former. Five of the co-ops were among a group of University residences temporarily closed by the quake. Co-op residents along with other displaced students met on the lawn in front of Columbae on October 19 to meet with the University administration. This meeting began the community’s involvement with the long-range planning of their future. By October 20, three of the co-ops knew they would not be able to return to their houses for at least the remainder of the academic year.

A difficult but often gratifying dialogue between co-op community members and the University administration has continued till the present. Two functioning student/administrator groups that formed in the aftermath of the quake were the “task group” and the “work group.” The former helped give student input, while the second was a decision-making body. These groups fit the consensus process of the students into the complex bureaucracy of the University.

In January, it was announced that Columbae was scheduled to reopen the following fall, providing a boost to the co-op community. Soon thereafter, the University administration determined that they would fix the remaining houses within a few years, and that the displaced communities would be rehoused temporarily. In March it was finally announced that Synergy would occupy the Grove houses and Phi Psi would occupy the Alpha Delt house in the coming year.

Recommendations and Alternatives

A major focus of this class from the beginning was to consider and recommend alternatives for the short, medium, and long term futures of the co-ops at Stanford. This included both those closed by the earthquake and the co-op community as a whole. This section presents the class’s recommendations and other alternatives for the future. These sections should be read in full by those interested in possible future action on behalf of the co-ops.

Some of the actions of the class have already been completed, some are continuing, and some are still in the form of recommendations or options for further consideration. Actions that are completed need little discussion. The future houses of Phi Psi and Synergy, after much debate in the class and wrangling with administrators and cooks, have been decided: the old Alpha Delt house for Phi Psi and the Grove houses for Synergy. Suggestions for the repair of Columbae have been proposed but were rejected (although further suggestions might still be appropriate).

What specifically have we done and do we recommend?

Modifications to Columbae House

We recommend bringing Columbae closer to environmental sustainability by means of insulation, passive and active solar energies, grey water, and a more flexible heating system. We recommend returning temporary first floor rooms to lounges, the removal of two walls, new sinks, a new floor in the kitchen, and wheelchair accessibility. We request that the individual character of the rooms in Columbae be retained, that the murals be saved, and that the size of the kitchen not be diminished.

Phi Psi and Synergy Structures

We point out the importance of the quasi-rural setting of these two houses, unique on the Stanford campus, and the importance of students’ living in a place with beauty and character. Their homes must be personal and personalizable. The murals, the chicken coop, pool table, wood floors, chimneys, and the items that contribute to the individuality of the houses must be preserved. The second-floor bathrooms might be made co-ed. Perhaps the Phi Psi attic and the Synergy roof can be adapted in such a way that people may safely make use of them as common spaces.

Synergy and Phi Psi Transition

Now that Synergy and Phi Psi have houses (the Groves and the Alpha Delts) for next year, some concrete actions need to be taken. We suggest that a “transitional manager” for each of the houses be named to ensure the process goes smoothly. The Alpha Delt kitchen should be equipped with burners and additional cutting-board space. ASSU funds may perhaps be used. Summer storage needs to be found, the kitchens must be assessed, managers and exempt spots must be assigned for next year, the house belongings must be gathered from the offshoot residences, and so on.

Co-op Outreach

We feel that a strong and united outreach effort would help more students see co-ops as an attractive living situation and show the diversity that actually exists among the co-ops. We would especially like to concentrate on making the currently unhoused co-ops (Columbae, Phi Psi, and Synergy) more visible, providing them with extra support to compensate for their lack of operational facilities. Among the specific plans suggested are study breaks and dorm outreach meetings, tabling in White Plaza and contacting people who signed petitions of support after the earthquake, updating and distributing the all-co‑op booklet Co-operative Living at Stanford, and holding a co-op week with various activities in White Plaza.

A Co-op Union

We recommend the formation of a co-op union. House participation in this union should be voluntary. Each participating house would have 1 – 2 representatives; the Union would be funded. The co-op union could serve as a spokesorganization for the co-op community and a liaison to the administration. It could arrange both educational and hedonistic programs. It could help co-ordinate outreach for the draw. Possibly in the long term it could save money, perhaps for an emergency or to hire a staffperson.

Ethnic and Cultural Diversity

Why do few of the co-ops attract a substantial minority population, when generally these communities value cultural diversity? We must strive to understand why racial and ethnic minorities do not come to the co-ops. We should reach out to ethnic communities in the form of joint programs and discussions, and by offering information. We could engage in workshops involving minority issues, invite professors to dinner, and bring ethnic bands to the houses.

Alternatives for Further Consideration

We suggest a number of other possibilities for changes in co-ops in the coming years. For example, we could have a co-op office, in a university space or in a co-op, staffed with paid employees or with volunteers. Such an office would presumably increase the clout and programming of co-ops, but it would cost money and perhaps introduce undesirable bureaucracy.

The co-ops could set up a contract with the University, clarifying mutual rights and duties on a variety of issues (maintenance, the draw, leasing, unofficial practices, etc.). Such a contract would be both liberating and constraining, as the current ambiguity works sometimes against, sometimes in favor of the existing co-ops. An additional problem is that one generation of co-op dwellers might, in violating or unwisely signing a contract, cause unnecessary problems for future generations.

Would we like to have “Resident Fellows” or perhaps “visiting scholars/activists” in our co‑ops? The relation need not be hierarchical. The term of stay need not be two years. Perhaps the house could select one themselves. They would cost money but could bring in valuable resources.

Do we need a separate co-op housing draw? Co‑ops (like Hammarskjöld) could be selective and use their own criteria of student placement, but perhaps it would be exclusionary, and it might eliminate people interested both in U-op and co-op housing and who put a mix of selections on their draw cards.

We discussed the possibilities for building co‑ops on Stanford land, but at present this seems, if not unfeasible, at least far off in the future. We could build behind the foothills, in old faculty areas close to campus, or between the Alpha Delts and the frat cluster, for example. The University right now, however, is sinking its money in Kymball Hall, and afterwards will probably focus on graduate housing or other kinds of building. Faculty houses are expensive to convert to full-scale co-ops, but they could be rented to students and operated pretty much as they are. A co-op or outside group could build on Stanford land with its own money, but it would have to meet strict safety codes and the University could take over and convert the house under certain conditions (much as they now take over frats). If such a group did build a house, it would be about as autonomous as Theta Chi, but its architecture could be as funky and appropriate to 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.

At any time, a group of students could take over an off-campus house. The primary problems 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 existing co-ops (to limit liability). We don’t recommend purchasing houses, though, unless the demand is sufficient and good management could be assured. We do recommend the co‑ops consider starting a fund that would be devoted exclusively to long-term projects, and that the co‑ops consider joining NASCO as part of our co-operation among co-operatives.

Outreach Beyond the Class

The class made an effort to communicate the ideas and actions of the class to the co-op community at large, both formally and informally. Although formal participation by people outside the class was not great, discussion with friends and acquaintances helped us in our decision-making process. Some concerns expressed by residents of Kairos are included.

Appendix

An appendix includes numerous original documents from the period of the earthquake and from the research and activities.

A Late Note

As we went to press we learned the results of the housing draw:

Columbae House

Physical Structure

Columbae, built in 1896 and moved to its present location in 1973, is now centrally located, 2 houses away from the Post Office at 549 Lasuen. There are 20 student rooms (5 singles, 10 doubles, 4 triples, 1 quad, officially, although different configurations were common, e.g. a 10 person, 3 room, “commune”, etc.). Columbae has a large kitchen, pantries, many fire escapes, a large common room, a dining room (used to serve dinner, not really eat it there— dinner was usually eaten on the front porch or, in bad weather, in the common room), a good roof for sleeping, a large front hall, and a library with books and archives. Two first floor common rooms were converted into doubles for Roble Refugees in 1987-88 and have remained as student living spaces since. Outside are an organic vegetable garden, a compost pile, rose bushes and some lemon trees.

Financial Status

Before the quake, Columbae had a savings of about $1300. Dues to the house and payment for supplies were $57.50 for residents, $32.50 for Eating Associates. The Board plan was extremely flexible, with house members paying from $367.50 for a full meal plan (6 dinners a week, open kitchen for all lunches and breakfasts) to $0 if they wouldn’t eat there at all. People could talk to the Financial Managers about how often they would be eating at the house and figure out how much to pay. Rebates varied for the different meal plans, but for people on the full meal plans rebates usually amounted to about $50 per quarter. Board bills were paid directly to the House, but rent was paid to the University.

Food Policy

At the time of the Earthquake, Columbae had not yet reached consensus on its food policy for the year. In two house meetings totalling 4 1/2 hours, food policy had been discussed without conclusion, and another meeting was scheduled for October 18, 1989. In the meantime, food was being ordered according to the ’88-89 policy, in which Columbae was completely vegetarian. Vegan alternatives were served at all common meals. The house avoided buying any types of drugs (caffeine, sugar) and most processed foods (we had no name brands, except for Enrico’s salsa). Table grapes, sugar, and General Electric products (I know it’s not a food, but I thought I’d mention it anyway) were being boycotted. Dry goods were ordered from Sierra or Fowler Brothers. Milk was delivered in returnable glass bottles.

Governance Policy

All decisions were made by consensus, and had been since the house’s founding.

Rooming assignments were also made by consensus at the beginning of each quarter (rooms changed each quarter). Typically the largest groups had priority over smaller groups, i.e. first the four people living in a quad picked a room, then the people in triples picked rooms, then doubles, and lastly, singles. A separate meeting was held with all people desiring singles to decide who would get singles that quarter.

House Work Division

Columbae began a new system in fall ’89 on a one-quarter trial basis. There have been different systems in the past.

Food-making jobs — 5 times/quarter — This 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/ quarter — vacuuming, gardening and whatever else people thought needed to be done.

Managers—Columbae had 5 exempt spots—a theme associate, 2 other manager positions were volunteered for and included Compost, Library, Garden, Dairy and Egg, Dry Goods, Produce, Menu managers.

Other systems had been used in the past, including an unstructured system in which people cleaned whenever they were inclined to do so and thought things were too dirty (used in the early 1970’s).

Relations with the University

The University assigns residents through the draw. Row Facilities does some maintenance work (asbestos removal, fixing windows, groundskeeping, etc.) and provides furnishings. Columbae is University owned but does its own cooking and cleaning. The house is usually closed over Winter break and over the summer.

Theme

Columbae’s theme is “Social Change through Nonviolence.” “Nonviolence” translates into all aspects of house life, the philosophy being that people can unthinkingly do violence to others through overconsumption. To lessen their negative impact, Columbaens have a compost pile, recycle, conserve energy and water, try to reduce consumption, etc.

Columbae has an exempt spot for a theme associate, and this year as part of house jobs there was talk of house members doing theme projects. The theme project was not a part of priority assignments or signed house agreements.

Special Features

Columbae is the only completely vegetarian house on campus, and one of the very few in which rooms are changed each quarter. A library holds Co-op Archives and the archives from Project Synergy, as well as books and textbooks about politics, the environment, economics, and other subjects and a collection of periodicals.

History

In April, 1970, a group of students met in Mem Chu to discuss nonviolence as a way of life, a commitment to achieving social change through peaceful activism, as opposed to the violent means that characterized many student movements alleging to work for peaceful ends. To heighten awareness of the nonviolent option and to protest the presence of ROTC on campus, they decided to fast for three days. Thirty people moved into White Plaza with blankets and bongos and together planned to start a nonviolent group on campus and hopefully obtain an on-campus residence. In the Autumn of that year, academic year 1970-1971, the group moved into a University house in the Cowell Cluster to build their community.

The Columbae Community was housed in what had been the Chi Psi fraternity house at 517 Cowell Lane (in what is now Whitman House). The 50 members of Columbae chose the house’s name from several sources, including the Latin name for (peace) doves, Columbidae family, and the Woody Guthrie song “Columbia” describing his thoughts about America as it should be. Nonviolence meant many things to the house’s founders, encompassing all levels of nonviolent action, including respect for other people and the natural environment, political action, a communal life, a non-manipulating, non-consumer, and non-materially oriented world view. The idea was to change society in the larger sense while at the same time building an alternative, nonviolent community. To this end, the group ate only about $1.00 worth of food per person per day, reused products, gave up other unnecessary products (like paper napkins), recycled, had an organic vegetable garden in Escondido Village, tried to buy the least processed food (including grinding their own flour to bake bread), had a compost pile, and did all their own cooking and cleaning. The house abided by the Quaker idea of consensus instead of voting because voting was thought to affirm one point of view while denying others. For many years Columbaens baked dozens of loaves of bread at the beginning of each quarter and gave away slices to students at Registration.

Members of the house organized both political and non-political actions throughout the years. Some Columbaens refused military induction and were arrested in March, 1971 for blocking entry to the San Francisco Draft Board and were given five day suspended jail sentences. Others researched and published accounts of U.S war crimes in Indochina, worked in ecology and conservative projects, investigated Stanford finances, and studied legislation to repeal the draft. The next year, 1971-72, Columbae organized the Peace Fund, which (among other things) encouraged the Stanford Community not to pay the 10% Federal phone tax on their phone bills (legislated in 1966 specifically to pay for the war), sending a note to the phone company explaining the action, and donating the saved money to the Peace Fund to support organizations working towards a peaceful world. In 1972-1973 Columbae collected more than 2500 pounds of clothing and raised money to fund its transportation to Mud Creek, a large area of small towns in the Appalachian Mountains.

It was decided to move the Columbae Community to Stillman House, with residents moving in Autumn 1973-1974. To complicate matters, Stillman House (built in 1896, formerly Kappa Alpha Theta sorority house) itself was to be physically moved to its present location at 549 Lasuen to make room for Campus Drive. The house was uprooted from its foundations in summer, 1973, moved in two pieces down the road to its new foundation, then pieced back together with new wiring and appliances. This was all supposed to be completed in time for the 37 Columbae residents to move in in the beginning of Autumn Quarter. It wasn’t.

The Columbae residents were temporarily relocated to the Delt House, originally told that they would be able to move into Stillman “October 15 at the latest”. The Delta Tau Delta fraternity was on suspension and was forced out of their house for at least one year following many complaints of misconduct from neighboring houses. The house was to be filled that year with 43 men and women who were unassigned in the housing draw. Those 43 individuals stayed with friends or found other housing until they were finally allowed to move into the Delt House. The reason Columbae was there, and therefore 80 people instead of 37 were displaced, was that Columbae persuaded the housing office that if their group were to have a chance to succeed, they needed a house and an independent kitchen, and the housing office understood this and acted accordingly. Finally, in mid-November, Stillman House was ready for Columbae to move into it, so Columbae members moved out of the Delt House and into Stillman House (which became Columbae) and the Delt residents were finally able to move into the Delt House.

Columbae continued to be a community resource for nonviolence. They maintained a good library of books, newspapers, and magazines concerned with alternative psychological, spiritual, and political themes. They harbored and fostered many groups interested in various aspects of social change by providing volunteers to work with them, making rooms available for meeting and giving them direct monetary support. Columbae was the base for the Stanford Coalition Against the B-1 Bomber, the Trident Concern group, and the Stanford Community Coordinating Center for the David Harris Campaign, the Alliance for Radical Change (ARC), Against the Grain (the alternative publication of the Black Rose Anarchist Collective), and the Radical Film Series Group. Classes met at Columbae to discuss political organizing, sexism, communal living, and holistic health.

In the Fall of 1976, the Stanford Committee for a Responsible Investment Policy (SCRIP), with many Columbae residents, challenged Stanford to divest itself of its stock in J.P. Stevens company (a textile manufacturer with a record of horrible labor relations — portrayed later in the Sally Field movie, Norma Rae). Members of SCRIP put on a Winter Quarter SWOPSI course at Columbae focused on South Africa and U.S. companies that did work there. In the spring, this class grew into a campaign to have Stanford divest itself of stock in companies that did work in South Africa. This was an extensive campaign involving leafletting every dorm on campus three times, dozens of showings of a film about South Africa in dormitory lounges, a dozen rallies, an overnight vigil in White Plaza, a day-long fast in which hundreds of students participated, and a week-long fast by 8 students.

The campaign climaxed in a sit-in in Old Union in which 294 students were arrested. Just about all members of the Columbae community were involved in some capacity (as were many residents of Synergy and other co-ops). Many of the students involved in these campaigns went on to live together in households in Palo Alto and San Francisco for many years. Many also worked with the South Africa Catalyst Project (to organize on the issue of South Africa at California universities). About 10 Columbaens from 1976-77 met every New Year’s Day for about 8 years.

In the fall of 1976 year Randy Schutt built a solar oven that could bake 3 loaves of bread. The oven has resided at Columbae or Synergy for about half the years since then. This was also the year that Bryan Coleman designed the Columbae T‑shirt and cut a silk-screen stencil. Most Columbae residents since then have made themselves a shirt with this stencil or its duplicates.

Columbaens were also very involved in the proposal to start Androgyny house, which opened its doors in Autumn 1977. In early 1977 the Subcommittee on Residences of the Committee on Services to Students (COSS/R) considered housing the approved Androgyny House in Columbae, suspecting that Androgyny House would cut into Columbae’s constituency. Jordan House, Whitman House, ATO, and ZAP were also considered as possible locations. At a house meeting’s poll only 4 of the 37 Columbae residents said they would leave Columbae for Androgyny, and after much action and many letters to the Stanford Daily from Columbae residents, Jordan was picked as the location for Androgyny House.

Political activity and community building continued in Columbae, and in Autumn, 1985 representatives from the different co-op houses met at Columbae to look into ways that they could provide meals for students affected by the then possible United Stanford Workers (USW) strike. They hoped to educate people about a possible strike and, at the very least, perform a service for other students, estimating that they could serve up to 150 extra students.

In April, 1986, Columbae consensed to declare itself a sanctuary for Central American refugees, possibly in violation of federal and Stanford regulations. They did this to call attention to the U.S. policy of returning El Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees to their native countries where, according to Amnesty International reports, at least one third of those individuals are kidnapped, tortured, or murdered. Herman, a 40 year old refugee from El Salvador, came to stay in Columbae and to speak of how oppression and death squads are forcing people to leave their homes. Throughout all of the abundant media coverage that this received, Herman wore dark glasses and a red bandana covering the lower half of his face to prevent identification so that his family (who were still living in El Salvador) would not be murdered in reprisal.

Columbae asked that the University recognize Columbae as a Sanctuary and waive some normal housing rules, but the University chose to respond to the matter as though it were a normal housing policy issue, saying that University regulations allow guests to stay for only three days. If Columbae hosted refugees for longer than that time, Dean of Students James Lyons said they could lose their housing privileges. Columbae remained active in various aspects of the Sanctuary movement, and Herman himself stayed in various Row Houses after leaving Columbae.

May of 1989 brought an occupation of President Kennedy’s office and the arrest of 58 students (including 4 Columbae residents), and then on October 14, 1989, SWOPSI held a party at Columbae to celebrate its 20th birthday. Three days later, there was an earthquake...

Hammarskjöld House

Physical Structure

Hammarskjöld is a large house at 592 Alvarado Row. It is is the smallest of the co-ops, with 17 student rooms (9 singles, 8 doubles). Hammarskjöld has a large lounge, a smaller TV room and a large dining room. The kitchen is small but has a large pantry and dish-room. Behind the house there are a study room (poorly heated) and a guest room with a bathroom (currently housing 3 Columbae refugees).

Hammarskjöld has a large front porch with tall columns many fire escapes, and a large fireplace whose chimney was destroyed in the earthquake. Exterior amenities include a large lawn, basketball hoop and a volleyball court.

Financial Status

At the beginning of the year 1989-90 Hammarskjöld had an operating budget of $18,300/ quarter, somewhat higher after the earthquake. Board for residents and eating associates is $375/quarter. Rent (approximately $950) is paid to the University. Hammarskjöld has approximately $12,000 on reserve in various savings accounts.

Student Composition

As of October 17th Hammarskjöld had 26 residents including 2 female grad students and 4 male grads. There were 10 female undergraduates and 9 male undergraduates. 3 female undergraduates were added after the earthquake. As part of its theme of “International Understanding” Hammarskjöld seeks to create a community of diverse national, religious and ethnic backgrounds. This is accomplished through a special draw. International diversity is also reflected in the house’s 30 eating associates.

Draw Statistics

Hammarskjöld operates its own draw (see Special Features, below). The house always fills through this system.

Food Policy

Dinner is prepared every night of the week. Meals are always vegetarian with a vegan alternative, and a carnivorous option every other night. Meat is also stocked for individual use. Food is purchased from S.E. Ryckoff and Sierra foods. House food boycotts are rare, but have been proposed (e.g. tuna). The rules in food selection seem to be convenience (foods that require minimal preparation) and cost (the least expensive option is usually preferred.

Governance Policy

House decisions are usually made at weekly house meetings. Issues are discussed, then a decision is made on a one-person/one-vote hand vote. Some decisions are made by the managers.

House Work Division

The current system has been in effect for several years with a few modifications.

Food preparation: 1/ cook crew cycle (3-4 weeks) — 3 people on cook crew, “head cook” plans meal, makes sure menu is posted so managers can order food

Kitchen cleanup: 1/week— 2 Saturday dish crews/ quarter

Bathroom clean: 3/ quarter (residents only)

Special jobs: 1 large job (usually clean-up) at the beginning of each quarter, then 2 weekend clean crews/ quarter

House members are also expected to participate in Cook and Clean crews for Hammarskjöld’s two traditional large dinners.

Managers; There are exempt spots for 2 house managers, 1 financial manager, and 2 theme associates

Volunteer manager positions include produce and dairy, dry goods and meat, bread and tea, and soda fridge. Managers are exempt from some house jobs, such as the weekly dish crew.

Theme

The theme of “International Understanding” is very important at Hammarskjöld. All residents agree to present a theme project at some point during the year, and applicants are asked to submit possible ideas for theme projects. Theme projects have included preparing a meal from one’s native country, to slide presentations of different countries, to story-telling. The desire to create a truly diverse house is the reasoning behind the separate draw.

Relations with the University

The University has final say in the draw, although the University usually follows the recommendations of Hammarskjöld in assigning students. Hammarskjöld does its own cooking and cleaning and some minor repairs, but Row Facilities does major work (repairing the Hobart, fixing flooding toilets, mowing lawns). The University also chooses and assigns a Resident Assistant to Hammarskjöld.

Special Features

One of Hammarskjöld’s attractions is its residential setting—the house feels like a part of the neighborhood. There is a volleyball court and a TV with a VCR (both very popular with “Hammies”). There is a nice piano in the living room, and the large wooden table in the kitchen becomes the center for late night socializing. The second floor has a co-ed restroom and shower room. Before the earthquake, residents could have a week’s worth of guest housing (in 3 day increments) in the guest room at minimal cost.

The Hammarskjöld draw is a unique feature — students apply in the spring to live in Hammarskjöld. The applications asks about the student’s international background and international experiences (travel, or otherwise), what it means to live in a co-op. Applicants are also asked to submit possible theme projects. Many applicants come and eat a meal at Hammarskjöld and help prepare food or do a dish crew. The applications are then reviewed by the Resident Assistant, the House managers and any interested residents who then submit their collective recommendations to the Row office. The University then reviews the applications and assigns one half of the residents to reflect geographic diversity, for instance, at least one resident is from each of the major continents. The other half of the residents are U.S. citizens with international experience or interests.

History

Hammarskjöld opened as the International co-op in the academic year 1973-1974, and is named after Dag Hammarskjöld, a Secretary General of the United Nations. The house was formerly the home of the Phi Kappa Sigma fraternity. The plan for the house was initiated by several foreign students who were actively involved in the Bechtel International Center. Clifford Clarke, the foreign student advisor said of Hammarskjöld, “This new concept of a living group (will be) composed of people from other cultures who want to participate in educational and social programs to 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 at Thanksgiving and Chinese New Year. For these parties, house members decorate the house and prepare food for 200 people, including past members of Hammarskjöld who are invited, and assorted other guests. Hammarskjöld’s personality has changed from year to year. One current eating associate mentioned that the house used to be more “co-opy.” Resident satisfaction with and pride in Hammarskjöld reached an all-time high in March 1990. After many challenges bravely fought and hurdles valiantly overcome, the Ping Pong table arrived, and the joyous sound of rubber connecting with white plastic echoed throughout the halls of Hammarskjöld.

Kairos House

[Note: A detailed study of the current residents of Kairos is included in the appendix]

Physical Structure

Kairos is an old fraternity house located on Mayfield a block south of Campus Drive. It is on “The Row”, close to the center of campus, but removed from the larger dormitories. It stands between the DKE house and Grove-Mayfield.

There are thirty-five residents in Kairos in twenty-two rooms. This includes twelve singles, nine doubles and one quint. The house has three stories. The first has one single bedroom, a piano room that was temporarily converted into a bedroom after the October 1989 earthquake, a pool/bar room, a TV room, a laundry room, a co-ed bathroom, a dining room, and a large kitchen. The second floor has men’s and women’s bathrooms, four doubles, ten singles, and a sun deck accessed through bedroom windows. The third floor has men’s and women’s bathrooms, five doubles, a quint, and a sun deck.

The first floor is unusually well-endowed with community space. This is especially appropriate for the community atmosphere important to Kairos, and makes the temporary conversion of the piano room into a bedroom an uncomfortable arrangement. The kitchen is spacious, although it has the same appliance features as most residences: two industrial refrigerators, a freezer, a drink fridge, ice machine, gas range, grill, two ovens, five large sinks, a sterilizer, cabinet and pantry space.

Financial Status

The House spends roughly $54,000 annually, about $1,550 per person (This excludes a rebate that averages $250 per year. Eating Associates are charged $1.50 per lunch and $5.00 per dinner. The house balance averages between seven to ten thousand dollars at any given time. The board bill is calculated with a 12-15% overhead fee to allow the house the freedom to make choices such as extravagant food, social activities or increased rebates at the end of the year. The house has never had any financial troubles according to University and student sources.

Student Composition

Kairos has not admitted graduate students. There is no information indicating that this has ever been considered. During the ’89-90 academic year, there are eighteen females and seventeen males. It is a three-class residence.

Food Policy

There are two food managers who order all food. Kairos has twenty eating associates. There is a wish list for residents and E.A.’s to request food they would like to eat. The food managers try to satisfy residents’ desires, but make final decisions about what the house can afford, when to buy it, what “tastes like dog food” or any other factors. Some food choice decisions are brought to vote if it involves a costly item that people cannot agree upon.

For dinner, meat is served quite often, and vegetarian residents’ needs are taken into account. There is normally a vegetarian alternative available if there are people in the house who want it, and generally any special requests are directed to the cooks. Historically, Kairos buys processed and junk food if enough residents want it. There is not an emphasis on food boycotts, although when residents decide, alternative foods are bought.

Governance Policy

The managers meet before the residents arrive to decide how the house will be run. They decide how food will be ordered, how house jobs will be distributed and enforced, and any other structural decisions necessary to make the house work. Traditionally most things remain the same year-to-year because they work and the managers like them. The residents are free to change any of these decisions, but they generally do not.

Room draw is done on a priority system designed by Kairos residents in a previous year. All other decisions that require resident input are voted upon on a majority basis. All decisions are contestable and can be reconsidered if the residents so decide. Managers and others often make smaller decisions on their own if they feel the house will not object. This works because the house has a general disposition to put up with the desires of others, and if someone objects afterwards, the situation can be reevaluated.

House Work Division

The Kairos managers take a strong role. Not only do they make many decisions independently of the residents, but they are required to do a considerable amount of work. They receive an exempt spot in the draw for that year, and receive a full or two-thirds reduction in the board bill. They also are given priority in room choice. The managerial jobs are outlined as follows:

House Manager — does all finances, deals with the University upon occasion, legally responsible along with the R.A. for the house, does some shopping, and is a backup for the Operations Manager.

Operations Manager — Coordinates house jobs and enforces their execution, handles all work orders and orders cleaning and bathroom supplies.

Food Managers (2) — Order and shop for all food.

All residents do one dinner hashing job per week (about 45 minutes), one house job per week (1/2-1 hour), one house work day per quarter (about three or four hours), one weekend hashing per quarter, and one job for every party. Cooks are hired from within the house. Generally two people cook each night and are paid $25 each.

Relations with the University

The University owns the house, runs and pays for central heating, electricity and gas, pays all repair bills except for student-caused ones, owns all furniture, ovens, industrial refrigerators, and chooses the Resident Assistant. The residents own the kitchen utensils, plates, pots and pans, etc, all small kitchen appliances, the TV, VCR, and small refrigerators. They run the kitchen themselves, and do all cleaning in the house.

Special Features

The dining room has two murals. One has an Egyptian theme and was painted before 1981. The other, a Doonesbury cartoon, was painted during the Autumn quarter of the ’89-90 school year. In the front of the house is a porch that was boarded up after the earthquake. In the past this was a center for eating dinner. The second and third floors each have a sun deck that is widely used for social purposes. There is a one-ton pool table on the first floor.

History

Kairos House was originally built and used by the Delta Chi fraternity. The house was built in 1910. The construction and furnishing was supervised by student member Earle Leaf. In 1935, the house was rebuilt to roughly its modern condition in what was called at the time “French Chateau” architecture.

The house became a self-op in 1968 because the Delta Chi fraternity did not fill the house and could not pay its bills. As a self-op, the residents managed all house upkeep and hired a cook. From the 1971-72 school year through 1977-78, Kairos was listed in the Draw Book as a special program house that is co-operatively run, but with no special sign-ups. Although house management, upkeep and cooking policies were not changed, in 1978-79, Kairos ceased to be identified as co-operatively run.

In 1980 or ’81, Kairos began the kitchen policy it now has. Reportedly, in the fall no one liked the cook. The house took a vote and decided to fire her at the end of the quarter. They decided that everyone would cook each week until they found a new cook. Over Christmas vacation, everyone was to go home and find a recipe that could easily be cooked for fifty people. During winter quarter people liked cooking, and it worked so well that they decided to continue it, only hiring cooks from within the house instead of everyone cooking. At this point, as Diana Conklin, Director of the Row, put it, Kairos began its evolution into a co-op. It remained a self-op until 1986-87 when it was listed as a row house with a special priority. In 1988-89 it was first listed as a co-op with special priority. The management of the house never changed, though.

A co-op is a haven for people who want to make decisions for themselves as an autonomous group. In a co-op we have a special ability to create our own futures to suit us as a group. A co-op community/atmosphere allows us to interact in an unusual way: somehow to value others as people for what they contribute. — Classmember

In 1981-82, Kairos received the large pool table that now sits in the back common room. It had previously been in one of the Toyon eating clubs. That club closed that year, and the University needed a place for the table. At Toyon the table was used exclusively for the game “squash,” a rowdy game often involving twenty people where one rolls the cue ball with the hands to hit the active ball, the point being to never let the active ball stop or be sunk. The table was in very bad repair as a result, and so the University offered to give Kairos the table if the residents would refurbish it. For two hundred dollars, the table was removed from the eating club, redone, and delivered to Kairos. It is an incredibly heavy table, with three large slates of marble. After a very difficult time, it was moved into the house. The only problem was that it warped the floor. Pieces of wood stuck under the legs on one side remain the solution.

In 1983, the quad on the third floor was turned into a quint. Apparently there was a person who wanted to live in an attic space adjacent to the quad. He moved in, stretching an extension cord in with him. Eventually the University discovered him and kicked him out. Afterwards, though, they decided that the space could be made into a room. The wall was opened up and a window was installed.

In 1984-85, Facilities completely renovated the house. According to a resident, relations between the house and facilities were very good at the time, so the process was friendly and done to everyone’s advantage. They redid the carpets, walls, and most notably remodeled the kitchen.

According to a resident, the house used to have a strong tradition of athletics. In the early eighties, almost the whole women’s crew team lived there. Around 1984 and ’85, most of the women’s volleyball team lived there.

In the early eighties, the first female house manager was elected. There was a managers’ log book that caused severe difficulties this year. It contained many secret passages that those holding the book did not want a female to see, most likely because they were chauvinistic statements. An attempt was made to erase parts, but that didn’t work. The previous manager decided to hold the logbook until the next male manager was elected, but it has never been seen since.

The house was never particularly “co-opy.” It never co-operated with other co-ops. Reportedly it is more involved with the other co-ops now than it has ever been. The character of the house used to go in a three-year cycle. A new group of sophomores would draw into the house, bringing with them new ideas and energy. Because of the now abolished returning resident priority, they would live there for the next three years and become the house officers. When they graduated, a new group would draw in.

The house has had consistently good relations with the University. Around 1986 and 1987 it did not do as well in the draw as usual, but other than that it has filled without any problems. Kairos has been a mystery to Diana Conklin as long as she has been in the Row office, since 1978. She has never heard it referred to by students, and she cannot pin it down in her mind. She senses it is different from other houses and fraternities, but she does not know why. She describes it as low-key, with an ethos of not being demanding or strict, kind of easy-going, comfortably and friendly. It is a positive image, but with no detail. “It is the one house I shrug about,” she says.

Phi Psi House

Physical Structure

Phi Psi is a large house at 550 San Juan Road. It is nestled among the trees on a hill overlooking the campus. The house was built by Mr. and Mrs. Cooksey and is one of the oldest residential buildings on the Stanford campus. We believe the house was acquired by the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity in 1897. A floorplan exists dated 1900.

Phi Psi has 24 student rooms (7 singles, 16 doubles, and 1 triple), two lounges, a study room, a dining area and a large kitchen. The house has several fireplaces, and two large porches, which were popular with students. Phi Psi’s attic was off-limits to residents, while 2/3 of the basement was used for University storage.

Financial Status

In 1989-1990 Phi Psi had an operating budget of approximately $24,000 and board was $400. The house had a safety fund of $1,000.

Student Composition

Phi Psi had 44 residents, including 3 male grads, 1 female grad, 19 male undergraduates, and 20 female undergraduates. In fall 1989 Phi Psi had 8 eating associates, but the number of eating associates varied from year to year.

Food Policy

Phi Psi served dinner 5 nights a week. The meals were mainly vegetarian, although meat with a vegetarian alternative is served 1-2 times a week. Residents were composting their biodegradable refuse, and there were some food boycotts, grapes in particular. Food was purchased from Ryckoff, Sierra Natural Foods, and Cal Fresh Produce.

Governance Policy

All decisions are made by consensus, with the exception of room selection. Room assignments were decided at a consensus meeting, with the knowledge that seniors and then juniors would be given priority in choosing rooms.

House Work Division

Residents had one major house job each week. These jobs included cleaning the bathroom, vacuuming the living room, breaking down cardboard, and were usually done in teams of two. Residents and eating associates did one food preparation/clean-up job each week. House members signed up either to cook or do dishcrew for a given day, with three or four students cooking and two or three cleaning each day.

Theme

Phi Psi has no official theme, but it is known as a co-op whose personality is truly defined by each year’s residents. When asked what was the unifying force for the Phi Psi residents of 1989-90, one resident responded, “Location.”

Relations with the University

Students do their own cooking and cleaning, but the University performs major repairs and groundskeeping. The University also assigns a Resident Assistant to Phi Psi. Several years ago University storage took over the basement, much to the dismay and anger of Phi Psi residents.

Special Features

When asked what was Phi Psi’s best feature, nearly all residents named its location and sense of seclusion. Phi Psi is on a hill, away from most of the campus, and residents really felt like they were out in the woods. The large porches and lawn were residents’ next favorite features of the house. Phi Psi has a darkroom, a piano and a 1911 pool table that was known around the campus. Phi Psi’s murals, painted over the years by different residents, also helped define the house’s personality. Among other special features mentioned by residents were the co-ed bathroom on the second floor and the sense of mystery surrounding the house (e.g. what’s in the attic?).

History

In the late 1960’s, the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity had troubles filling its house. At the time, the fraternity owned the house. By 1969, there were only eight or ten members living there. They had a cook and a local fraternity advisor. To solve their problem, and in keeping with the character of the current members, beginning in 1972 they allowed women to live in the house. The fraternity advisor and student members applied to the national chapter for women to be allowed in the fraternity. In a desperation move to keep the house open, they were officially made a co-ed fraternity, possibly the first in the country. In 1972-73, Phi Psi was run completely co-operatively. The next year, though, a cook was hired because people were tired of doing it themselves. In 1975-76, the house once again became a complete co-op with student cooking.

According to Peter Fox, president of Phi Psi in 1976-77, they remained a fraternity for the benefit of the national chapter and to have control over the selection of residents until the 1977-78 school year. Although they did participate in the draw prior to this, they still had control because priority was given to fraternity members. In 1976, the national chapter sent a representative out. He saw that Phi Psi was not behaving like a fraternity, precipitating a letter of reprimand. According to Fox, the national chapter never revoked its charter, but rather Stanford ceased to recognize the house as a fraternity. At some point in the late 70’s, ownership of the house was transferred to Stanford. The only notable structural change that occurred with the change in ownership was the removal by the National of two large stained glass windows sporting the fraternity’s emblem above the front door.

From 1976-81, Phi Psi is reported to have had a very laissez-faire co-op mentality. There were few imposed attitudes such as environmental awareness or nonviolence; instead, there was a real variety of people with contrasting lifestyles. They moved into Phi Psi seeking more autonomy from the University, escape from dormitory food and University-hired laborers, a quiet yard for frisbee, and a good view from the roof. Also, Phi Psi was famous for its mellow friendliness, its drugs, and its wild (and often illegal) parties.

During this period, the house was heavily involved in music. Many of the residents from this period reported that the house had a strong rock tradition, and was one of the contemporary music centers on campus. In the beginning, a bunch of friends in the house all happened to play complementary instruments. They rehearsed together in the living room. After awhile, they built three practice rooms in the basement. This was a major project for those involved. The rooms would flood in the wet winters of the period (Lyle Zimmerman, ’81, once caught a salamander in the basement). The musicians did cement repairs, wall patching, and got wooden pallets to cover the floor, raising the equipment above water level. They covered the pallets with carpeting, and lined the ceilings with carpeting and egg cartons for sound insulation. There was only one bedroom in the house that was affected by the noise, so a band member usually tried to occupy it. University permission to have the practice rooms was eventually secured.

The first band from the house was The Phi Psi Band which first played in Spring of ’79. It evolved into Rooftop Magic and Claude Monet. These two lasted for two years. They merged again in ’81 as the Druids. They played until ’83. The band then went through the following progression: Missy and the Boogieman, The Heptiles, The Blenders, and finally Zsa Zsa House (still playing, one album released). The early band members and the current ones are still good friends and all keep in close contact.

Traditions from this time period include a Tom Jones Party (named after a scene in the movie based on the Henry Fielding novel) where people dressed in old English costumes and messily fed each other large amounts of food (called a “glorious tradition” by a resident of the time). The Halloween Parties were mentioned by participants as consistently the best parties they ever attended at Stanford or since (“legendary”). Haunted houses were held in the Phi Psi attic. Frost Amphitheater was opened for all co-op parties. Every night at 6:00 was a community viewing of Star Trek. At one point, Phi Psi had a sauna, but a Marilyn Monroe poster in it caught on fire and burned it down. In ’79 Phi Psi had six people starring in Hair.

The residents of this early period are described as easy-going, “artsy mega-pre-professional” (most have since gone on to get advanced degrees or high-paying positions), aristocratic, not particularly political or organic, non-hierarchical, diverse, and as a silent majority dominated by a vocal minority who wanted meat and cold cuts around. (The people belonging to this “vocal minority,” however, described Phi Psi as primarily vegetarian.) The house was also described as inconsistent in its dedication to house work. For example the house was relatively dirty compared to many other houses, and especially in Spring, dinners were often not cooked at all. House management was done by a few residents while the majority was uninvolved due to lack of interest. For example, Nicki Roy, ’79, says he hardly remembers how the house was organized. At the time, it seemed to him that no one specifically managed the house. Nevertheless, the house did well in the draw and consistently filled.

One resident described the role of RA as important to the general success of the house. Around 1976-77, RA’s were assigned from outside of the house, whereas later around 1979, RA’s were selected from the community. When the community was able to get along well with the RA, their ability to organize and do extra projects increased dramatically.

During this general period, a number of high quality murals were painted in public areas by residents. Mimi Wyche painted a 20’ by 30’ mural of the Last Supper with residents of Phi 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 parties, Halloween parties, and the Druids as highlights during her time at Stanford. At this time, house managing was done by all residents. There were a long list of management positions that residents volunteered for, such as dairy, produce, bread, and dry goods. This contrasts with earlier times when there were a few managers who did all the work. At this time, there was still meat in the house with vegetarian alternatives.

Phi Psi was hit particularly hard by the closure of Roble in 1987-88. Seven spaces were added to the house. The large Phi Psi doubles were converted into triples, and the residents of these doubles forced to accommodate new, unfamiliar roommates.

From the earliest times through the late eighties, Phi Psi has reportedly had good relations with the University. The house tended to be isolated and independent, making the residents feel like the University largely let them do as they wished. Previous residents report that Phi Psi was always more mainstream than others such as Synergy or Columbae. It has been called the “beautiful people’s co-op” because it has tended not to be dedicated to co-operatives at Stanford or conscious viewpoints. The experience has been described as pleasure-oriented and decadent.

Synergy House

Physical Structure

Synergy House, built in 1910, is a large 25-room house at 664 San Juan. The house has three floors and a semi-basement, which had windows facing out the back. Usually, there is one triple and five singles, and the rest are doubles, but these figures can vary depending on how the house decides to break up rooms. The house has a large dining room and two spacious common rooms on the first floor, as well as a smaller common or guest room to one side. The kitchen is fairly small compared to most co-ops. Originally, the house had a sleeping porch, since removed. The back yard is large enough to contain a garden and space for chickens.

The house is not registered with any historical associations. It was built in 1910 or 1911 as a house for the Sigma Nu fraternity (Beta Chi chapter). The kitchen was enlarged in 1953. The three singles and double on the second floor used to all be part a sleeping porch, but this was converted into rooms in 1971 before the house opened as a co-op. A large chapter room for the fraternity in the basement was also divided into rooms (numbers 001 and 002). The second floor bathroom, currently divided into two very thin bathrooms, used to have a stairway leading up to it, presumably removed in the conversion process. The house, which is currently painted red, is clearly visible from the foothills and some parts of campus.

Financial Status

The house funds now amount to about $700. Before the quake, about $12-15,000 were in the bank from resident’s board bills. Bills for this year and last were about $250 per quarter for a full plan. House members contributed another $100 per quarter for social fees and a deposit, making a total house member’s contribution $350. Last year most of the deposit (about $48/per quarter) was returned. After the quake, residents who had paid their board bills were refunded $300. Rent, at a fee set by the University, was $1114,$1018, and $991 for Autumn, Winter and Spring quarters.

Student Composition

Generally Synergy has 42-45 spaces, 10 of which are reserved for graduate students. This year, the house had 6 grad students (4 men, 2 women), and 39 undergraduates (19 men, 20 women). Racially the house is mostly Caucasian.

Food Policy

This year Synergy decided to serve fish or chicken at meals once a week. Lunch meat would also be available in the refrigerator. Synergy principally orders food from Sierra or Fowler brothers, and occasionally from S.E. Rykoff (produce from Palo Alto produce, dairy from Peninsula Creamery). The house tries to order organic produce when cheaper than non-organic, and also attempts to buy from local growers or distributors. The house ordered virtually no name-brand processed foods, and no red meat. Milk was delivered in returnable glass bottles. As of this year, the house has not decided to boycott any specific foods, but last year the house refrained from buying canned tuna, table grapes, Coors, GE, and Nestle products.

Governance Policy

All major decisions in the house are made by consensus. Sometimes committees will be created to handle the organization of house parties. Managers make most of the day-to-day decisions. Rooms this year were decided on a lottery system (draw a number, pick a room), with house members re-drawing each quarter.

House Work Division

Synergy is well-known for multitudes of manager positions. Everything from keeping the bees to ordering food is done by a “manager”. Five manager positions had exempt spots this year: dry goods, outreach, kitchen, house, and financial managers. Others, such as produce, dairy, garden, compost, and condom managers were filled from house volunteers. Manager positions can change every quarter, and often are taken by more than one person at a time. Members of the house are expected to do the following jobs: one kitchen job per week (cooking, cleaning, bread-baking), one Saturday kitchen-cleanup per quarter (group of four), and one work-crew per quarter (group of 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 be more academic (a change that occurred sometime after 1977), Synergy continues to explore alternatives. The house has organized alternative career speaker series, an organic gardening class, built solar collectors, and done other projects that help residents explore alternative ways of living.

Relations with the University

Synergy used to be a full co-op, but since its near-termination in 1987 Synergy has been cleaned by the University. The past two years (including this one) the house has attempted to resume full co-op status, but to no avail. This year, however, the house had succeeded in returning to full co-op status prior to the earthquake. The University owns the house and collects rent money, and also does repairs. The University keeps the house closed over Christmas break and usually over summer.

Special Features

The house has many spectacular murals painted by former co-op members. Also, Synergy is unique because of its 20-30 chickens from which the house collects eggs for cooking. Synergy has a very large roof with flat areas where people would often congregate or sleep (although this is not sanctioned by the University). An “Alternative Periodicals” magazine rack and ecology library was started by Glenn Smith several years ago. It contains many hard-to-find and back-issues of radical, anarchist, gay/lesbian, ecologist, feminist, and spiritual magazines. A smaller right-wing rack was started in 1988 by Chris Balz to provide an alternative.

History

Synergy House began as a SWOPSI action project in 1972 and embodied new directions that the cultural movement for social change took as the Civil Rights and anti-war movements became exhausted in the early ’70s. Ten years of psychic shocks to the country, the main one being the Vietnam War, and ever growing visions of better ways that life and the society could be left students extremely ambitious about effecting change, about the possibilities for how their lives could be.

The years 1968 to 1971 saw the energy of student activists going toward ever-increasing violence, mirroring the increasing use of violence by authorities and in the war itself. A countervailing spirit, that of nonviolence and constructive action, began taking root at Stanford in 1970 and coalesced in the creation of Columbae House that year. The miserableness of the war, the miserableness of throwing rocks at police in protest, and miserableness of giving up one’s personal freedom to become a cog in a corporation called out for redemptive, positive, action. To escape from dependence on the life choices offered by the status quo, students were determined to create their own choices — in careers, ways of living, goods and services, and ways of running business — and this became known as the “alternatives movement”.

Alan Strain, a draft counselor at Stanford and a long time pacifist and Quaker, had helped place many conscientious objectors to the war into the required alternative service, and many of them started to wonder how they could live their whole lives “conscientiously”. So Alan organized a SWOPSI course “New Vocations and New Life Styles” in Winter 1972. The action project of that course was Project Synergy, whose goal was to create a counseling and resource center on new ways to live and work.

The concept of “synergy” was one of the hot new ideas floating around at that time. Synergy means “together energy” (syn-ergy), i.e., the energy released by bringing things into relationship, creating something new which is not predictable from the original things which were combined. Bringing ideas, people, and resources into new relationships was then recognized as a basic strategy for achieving innovation, for creating alternatives, and for restoring ones own spirit, which is why “synergy” was chosen as the name of the action project.

Meanwhile, the alumni of the Beta Chi fraternity had become fed up with the “Beta Chi Community for the Performing Arts” that the fraternity had evolved into, and sold the house to the University for $11,000. Larry Horton, Dean of Residential Education, told Alan of the available house. So Project Synergy decided to create Synergy House, a community where students could explore new ways to live and work for real. The organizers described their vision thus:

“Our attempt is to create here and now at the Stanford community a society we envision where co-operative relationships and collective actions are encouraged, where all the aspects of out lives can be integrated. ...[Synergy House] has been organized around the theme of alternatives. ...Here people will live and work together to create a community integrating work, study and interpersonal relationships and maintaining close contact with other alternatives.”

Beginnings

What exactly would be the new ways to live and work that everyone would be exploring? The open-endedness of Synergy’s theme made for some initial vagueness but ultimately for vitality. Choices and diversity were the root of the theme, so it functioned basically to give individuals permission to share and pursue their own visions. And it gave the community the ability to respond over the years to the current issues of the day.

Synergy started right out with many of the practices pioneered at Columbae, including being a co-operative, consensus decision-making, bread baking, vegetarian cooking, avoidance of processed foods, co-ed bathrooms, and organic gardening. In addition, Synergy started a “Guest in Residence” program, in which people working in alternatives could stay at the house for one or more weeks. One of the first real debates in the house was whether to continue the Beta Chi tradition of having a bowl of acid punch at the Halloween party. After long discussion the consensus was yes — but it would be kept upstairs so as to be more responsible about it.

Along with Synergy House, the Synergy Center opened up in Old Union with a library and a counseling program. The big project for the first year was the Synergy conference on Alternatives, which Project Synergy and Synergy house organized. Five hundred participants from the Rockies west assembled under big tents in the Cowell Cluster during May 9-13, 1973, to share their experiences in such areas as: new ways to work and alternative vocations; communes and alternative living groups; access to resources and information; third World peoples; the activist and social change; approaches to personal and interpersonal relations; co-ops, food conspiracies and land trusts; new options in the professions; women’s concerns; new technology and alternative world futures; and alternative media.

Synergy was one of the most popular houses on campus until the culture began to move in the late ‘70s toward the “Reagan era”, and until 1981 experienced an uninterrupted period of development.

Growth

Many Synergy members were interested in solar energy and studied it with Professor Gil Masters. In Spring 1976 (?), they built a solar water heating system and installed it on the roof, making Synergy one of the first solar dorms in the country. A group called “Ecology Action” had been working to get people into growing their own food as they had during the two World Wars, and was teaching people “biodynamic/ French intensive” horticultural techniques from their experimental garden at Syntex. Synergy incorporated these techniques into its gardening (described in “How to Grow More Vegetables” by John Jeavons). In 1976 and 1977 the drought hit California, and water conservation became a new imperative. Synergy built a “gray water system” that allowed used laundry water to be used to water the trees. In the Spring of 1977 a local resident donated a glass greenhouse to Synergy which greatly improved the gardening system.

Campus political activity was centered at Columbae, but a large number of Synergy members were involved in political actions. The 1974 union strike spawned the Alliance for Radical Change, which in turn gave birth to the Black Rose Anarchist Collective, which published “Against the Grain” to which several Synergy people contributed. The 1976 South Africa divestment movement, the forerunner of the 1980s movement, grew out of a SWOPSI course at Columbae and climaxed in a sit-in in Old Union in which 294 people were arrested. Cook crew at Synergy didn’t happen that day, since 27 members of the house had been arrested at the sit-in. A number of the Synergy and Columbae residents would go on to help organize the anti-nuclear Abalone Alliance the next year, taking with them the principles of consensus and nonviolence they had learned in these houses.

In 1977 the Synergy Journal was started, which added a whole new dimension of discourse to the house. The Recycling Center started that year, another SWOPSI action project, and recycling became an avidly pursued activity at Synergy. Though not the original organizer, Synergy member Bob Wenzlau became the Recycling Manager the next year, and went on to create Palo Alto’s Curbside Recycling Program. Throughout the 80s Synergy would be the source for all the Recycling Managers and a good deal of the workers at the center.

Co-ops had established the concept of theme housing at Stanford, first with Columbae (nonviolence) in 1970, then Ecology House in 1971, then Synergy and Hammarskjöld (international understanding) in 1972. Whitman (intellectual culture) followed, and when the French House proposal was being considered in 1975, Larry Horton (Dean of Residential Education) had said to the Daily, “Above all, we want to maintain a spirit of vitality and innovation. If we did not have a policy of innovation, we would not have some of the successful houses we do now,” pointing to Whitman, Columbae, Synergy, and Hammarskjöld as examples.

Clouds on the Horizon

In 1977 Larry Horton went on to become the University Lobbyist, and Norm Robinson became the Dean of Residential Education. That time also marked a change in campus climate. A few vacancies started showing up in some of the co-ops. Alan Strain closed the Synergy Center. In the 1978 Stanford Informational Bulletin, Synergy had been mysteriously deleted from the list of theme houses, along with Terra (ecology) and Whitman. A new co-op theme house, Androgyny (transcending sex roles) had been terminated by Residential Education in Winter 1978 just a few months after it had opened, to be replaced by Haus Mitteleuropa. When Norm Robinson, explained his decision he said, “I don’t believe a strong theme house and a co-op are compatible. Each requires a great deal of time. Its hard to focus on important things to be done for each.” Synergy’s theme was embodied in how people lived in the house, which fell outside the newly emerging definition of what constituted an “academic theme house”.

Attitudes on campus were changing as well. Sororities were permitted back on campus again. Animal House energized interest in the Greek system. A vignette: when flow-reducers were installed in the dorm showers to conserve water during the drought, a group of students protested by leaving their showers on all night. In the 1978 draw, Synergy had 3 vacancies for the first time. Because of this, the house was placed on probation and a review was made of the program. If Synergy did not fill in the 1979 draw, it was told it could face termination. Faced for the first time with this threat, the house mounted an “outreach” effort to interest students in the house, and it worked; the house filled.

Synergy was very active that year. Some members wrote the original version of “Living in Syn: A Handbook for Residents”, which introduced members to all the things that were going on in the house. The house helped produce the video “Working against Rape”. Martha Watson heard that the Biology Department was giving away a bunch of chickens, so the house built a coop and she brought them to Synergy. The house now had fresh eggs every morning. An unusually strong bond formed between residents that year, and they still continue to go in large numbers to each other’s parties, picnics, weddings, and so forth, and have been Synergy’s strongest alumni allies.

1980-81 was a flagship year. Many people who had been away from Stanford and who had lived in Synergy two, three or even four years ago returned to the house. They had a strong sense of where Synergy had been and knew they wanted to go further. New ideas were incorporated into the consensus process. A biology graduate from Cornell who had come to stay at Synergy created a circular “medicine wheel” herb garden in the back yard. A second “bread box” style solar collector was built. Nineteen members of the house went to Santa Barbara for the wedding of a couple in the house. The house artists had a “bag event”. Synergy made its first T-shirt, “If it moves, hug it. If it doesn’t, compost it.” One member who had lived in Berkeley’s co-op system organized the other co-ops into producing a promotional pamphlet on the co-ops, and added an introduction to the co-ops in the draw book. The co-ops were among the most popular houses in the draw that Spring, and Synergy applied and was able to stay open in the Summer.

One Synergy member organized the co-op council in the Fall 1981-82. The co-ops helped host the annual California Co-operative Conference that was held at Stanford that year. Synergy also requested that graduate students be integrated into the house as part of its theme of “Exploring Alternatives”. The house requested to be open again during the summer and this was granted.

Meanwhile, cultural changes were taking place on campus. The results of the Spring 1982 draw left Synergy with 19 vacancies, Terra with 12, and Columbae with 12. It was an unprecedented result. Fortunately, Residential Education chose not to terminate any of the co-ops. Synergy was occupied with 19 “006” students: those who as put down “assignment anywhere” on their draw card. They demanded that meat be served at least three time a week, and the pro-vegetarian members realized that they had to give in or else there would be mutiny. Most of the “006” people moved out after Fall, but Synergy filled due to an outreach program done in anticipation of this. In the midst of this crisis, Synergy celebrated its tenth anniversary at the Halloween Party. The return of the people who had lived in the house five and ten years before helped bolster the sense among the current members that Synergy meant something and was worth preserving for another generation of students.

Synergy, Columbae, and Terra pulled together and put on a “Co-op Week” in the Spring as a joint outreach effort, and it worked. They all filled by the second round of the draw. Residential Education finally agreed to allow graduate students to live in co-ops.

The summer of 1983 dealt a hard blow to Synergy, though. The house was denied its request to stay open that summer, and a former eating associate volunteered to take care of the chickens, but was negligent. Row Facilities decided to “clean up” Synergy’s back yard. It gave the chickens to Hidden Villa Ranch, tore down the green house, bulldozed the Herb Garden, knocked out some fruit trees, threw away the oil drum barbecue used by the carnivore club, and then piled dirt dug from street repairs in the back yard. When students returned in the fall, the back yard was a “moonscape”. Plastic had been laid down all around the base of the house with red volcanic rocks over it, much to the dismay of the people who liked to walk barefoot in the back yard. Workers cleaning out the house had also taken some of Synergy’s house items, including a pair of stereo speakers in the kitchen, cast iron pots, and the house job board. The director of Row Facilities was replaced a month later, and the new director offered to make amends to Synergy by removing the red rocks and dirt, and by paying for a new chicken coop and greenhouse. The red rocks were taken away, but the piles of dirt remained and were finally just spread out over the back yard. Gardeners still find chunks of asphalt when digging.

Renewal

1983-84 was a year of renaissance. The new grad students added a new dimension to the house (e.g. Jose Giner’s 3-D slide shows). A big cohort from Branner got the sense of community started right away, and one member donated her family’s portable chicken coop. Eight new chickens were bought. One member built an Indian Hogan hut where the Herb Garden had been. Synergy even held a benefit party for Nicaragua, and was accused in the Daily of helping to arm the Sandinistas. Even a Hoover Fellow joined in the accusation!

Even though Synergy was renewed in vitality, it had lost many of the concepts that founded it. People carried on many of the house traditions such as consensus, the garden, and recycling, but without knowing that they grew out of a conscious exploration of new ways of life. Ironically, just as the American Medical Association was starting to say that the hippies had been right about eating legumes, whole grains, less meat, and less sugar, Synergy began baking white bread, using sugar, and eating meat.

The house failed to mount an effective outreach campaign that year, and the realities of the rest of campus came penetrating the warmth of the house: Synergy had 12 vacancies after the first round of the Draw, which shrank to 6 after the second round. Terra was left with 19 vacancies. Throughout the 1984-85 year Synergy and Terra lived under the sword of Damocles, otherwise known as COSS-R, the committee that would review them. COSS-R wanted to terminate one co-op, and they chose Terra. Norm Robinson took the Synergy RA’s alternative proposal, that Synergy and Terra would both be allowed to continue if they filled 90% by round two of the Draw. Both houses mounted intense outreach campaigns and managed to squeak by.

There were some notable innovations that year. The house had a retreat to Hidden Villa before Winter Quarter, with various sorts of recreation — a group painting, “Mind Vomit”, milking the cows, and so forth. In the Spring a group of 10 people decided to create “the commune” and divided the third floor into one room for partying, one room for studying, and one room where all 10 people slept. It had its advantages and 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 science movies such as “Donald Duck in Mathemagicland” and “Our Friend Mr. Sun”. The house decided to build a new, permanent chicken coop. Due to a successful outreach campaign, Synergy squeaked by with only 3 vacancies.

Lee Altenberg stuck around that summer to build the coop, and Row Facilities contributed $300. The chicks were ordered by mail and Louis, Lee, and several other residents raised the chicks in storage rooms at Hammarskjöld and Phi Sig. A chicken collective was organized in the Fall to care for the chickens. Lee led a SWOPSI course with a person from Columbae which many Synergy residents took. Henry Bankhead and several other members formed a band “Henry and the Vegetables”.

Unfortunately, Synergy again had a disastrous draw in the Spring of 1987. Round one left Synergy with 23 vacancies, which dropped to 14 after round two. The axe finally fell. Synergy was terminated. Quickly house members such as Glenn Smith and Louis Emery organized a “Save Synergy” campaign. A petition drive collected 700 signatures. Alumni across the country wrote in letters of support. A full-page add appeared in the Daily, asking why Residential Education would terminate a house with such an outstanding academic reputation that seemed to embody its principles. Finally, in the summer, the house was saved, but with several program alterations. Henry Levin became the faculty advisor, and the house was forced to accept University cleaning service (Residential Education believed that the house drew badly because it was not kept clean enough).

Over the summer, some members recruited Peter Donelan of Ecology Action to teach a SWOPSI course on sustainable agriculture in the Fall, and they took to work on the garden with miraculous effort. That Winter Laura Bonk and Greg Cumberford also taught a SWOPSI course on environmentalism To celebrate Synergy’s fifteenth anniversary Lee organized a reunion, and Glenn Smith organized an “Alternative Career Speaker Series”. The house had its best draw in seven years, a trend that has continued since. The house that year had only three Sophomores, and there were many extra spaces (which made for more singles). Several people did not even eat at Synergy, and the tradition of having “stuffers” died out to only one person. Spring of that year saw the arrival of the “Alternative Periodicals Rack” set up by Glenn Smith. Glenn noticed a large wooden magazine rack in near White Plaza and, after discovering that the Jewish Center did not want it, he took it back to Synergy (despite the scoffs of Jose) and stocked it with an incredible array of alternative magazines he had collected over the years working at the Recycling Center. Since then the rack has grown (including a right wing/military rack added by Chris Balz in 1988), and several smaller rotating book-racks have been added.

The 1988-89 house had many new Sophomores, leaving only a few house members to preserve the old traditions. Nonetheless, the house continues to be active in the Stanford community: members of SCAAN, STAND, and REP were in the house and brought in a good political contingent. The house followed the 1988 election, with activities including the throwing of a “George Bush” pumpkin from the roof. The house attempted to get off University cleaning, only to get a letter back from Diana Conklin stating essentially that the University needed the extra money generated by charging for cleaning. Dominique Snyers, a graduate student, posted a letter calling for a new Synergy, emphasizing a search for new alternatives to consensus and living, and calling for an active program to change the “drug counterculture” stereotype of Synergy. The house erupted into conflict over personal issues, and held a large emergency house meeting to discuss how people relate to diversity and difference of opinion. Spring quarter outreach went smoothly as the house organized garden parities, and a giant paper-mache chicken was constructed and left in White Plaza to advertise a party. (The chicken was damaged by a storm that came the next couple of days, and was moved to Columbae where it stayed for three weeks. Residents moved it back to Synergy). The house RA organized a dinner with the Delta Tau Delta fraternity (Synergy’s closest neighbor), but it fell through due to a scheduling problem. Outreach was so successful that a few residents who had lived in Synergy could not get back in the house.

1989 Started as a good year. The house had an early retreat to Point Reyes. The new members were enthusiastic and willing to learn how to bake bread and participate in consensus. The house almost decided to have vegetarian meals. A few residents began to work in the garden and organize the composting. Then the earthquake happened...

Terra House

Physical Structure

Terra is located in the Cowell Cluster on Campus Drive, across the street from Wilbur Hall. Fifty-five people live in Terra in 28 rooms, mostly doubles. The house is divided into two parts, one of which is composed almost entirely of student rooms, the other of which is almost entirely common area. Students seem to feel that having the common area separated from the student rooms reduces house interaction. The kitchen is large. Two years ago the house was renovated for earthquake safety. In ’87 - ’88, after the closure of Roble, the guest room off the lounge was converted into a double, and again after the earthquake of October ’89. Some Terrans have argued that part of the reason Terra has tended to draw a more mainstream group of people than the other co-ops is because it is built like a dorm and located on the main drag of campus.

Financial Status

Terra was group charged (the University sent a composite bill to the house, and it was the financial manager’s duty to collect the rent from the residents) until the ’88 - ’89 school year, at which time the University began to charge each resident independently. Terra currently collects $390 from its residents, of which $335 goes to food and $55 goes to house and social. Typically the students hope for a $50 rebate per quarter, at the end of the year. Terra currently has about $8000 in the bank. In ’86 - ’87 Terra’s finances were computerized.

Student Composition

Terra has fifty-five residents, 30 males, 25 females, of which sixteen are returning residents. Terra has an additional thirty eating associates. The house has no African-Americans, a few Chicanos, a few Asian-Americans, two students from India, and one from Pakistan.

Food Policy

Terra serves dinner six days a week, and serves meat at each of these meals (but offers an alternative, for the few vegetarians in the house). The Terrans proudly purchase many more processed foods than such co-ops as Synergy and Columbae. They do not have long food policy discussions at the beginning of the year. Food policy is decided by the head cooks (one for each day, called clowns) and by the food managers who do the purchasing, and by wish lists. Eating associates must be full time, and, like the other residents, are charged $390 each quarter.

Governance Policy

Until ’82 - ’83, the house made decisions by consensus. In ’83 - ’84, Terra switched to voting, with a twist. Three-fourths of those present at the meeting must vote, and they must be able to obtain a two-thirds majority, or the status quo prevails. Currently the house manager (“beast master”) leads discussion. Generally, issues are decided by majority vote, or, in some cases, a two-thirds majority (if it is a big issue). In extreme situations, a person may call for consensus. At the end of the year after the draw, returning residents have a rooming meeting, which is “more or less consensus.” These students select roomed based roughly on an informal priority system. The incoming residents go to a happy hour and fill out a questionnaire. The house manager assigns them to the remaining rooms on the basis of their answers to this questionnaire.

House Work Division

Currently, everyone must serve on one kitchen crew each week. Kitchen crews consist of a head cook, five assistant cooks, four cleaners, one lunch cleaner, and two bread bakers. Also, Terrans must perform one job every weekend. These jobs rotate between people, and mostly consist of cleaning duties. House officers are exempt from weekend jobs. House officer positions are: financial manager, house manager, social manager, two food managers, eating associate co-ordinator, and a beverage manager. Every Tuesday and Saturday, two people go to Safeway and two people go to the Price Club. This excuses them from one job. Terra also orders food from Palo Alto produce and the Peninsula Creamery.

Theme

Terra does not have a theme. Between 1971 and 1973, it was Ecology theme house, hence the name “Terra,” meaning “earth” in Latin.

Relations with the University

The University owns Terra, and collects rent from its members. Terrans are permitted to cook and clean for themselves, and do a few exterior jobs on the house, but all repairs and outdoor maintenance must be done by the University. Most of the furniture also belongs to the University. Several Terrans have complained that Row Facilities neglects them, and gives the other Cowell Cluster houses better treatment.

Special Features

Guests at Terra must tell a joke at dinner.

Terra has a mural entitled “Let’s Eat!” that dates back to sometime after the Ford campaign (one of the characters wears a “WIN” button). The mural has been the source of much Terran lore, and seems perpetually in danger of being painted over. It is a frame from Zap Comix #2 by Robert Crumb, but (contrary to the rumor of some years) was not actually painted by Mr. Crumb. The character “Chet” is the hero/villain of the house, and the house receives mail (such as “Mellow Mail” and the Weekly World News in the name of Chet Terra). In ’88 - ’89 Susan Starritt painted two murals, one of a sunset in the dining room, and one of the Starship Enterprise in the TV room.

History

In 1971 the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity moved out of the Cowell Cluster back to the row (its brother fraternities in the Cluster died, so this was probably a wise move). From 1971 until 1973 the house was used for the Ecology co-operative. Ecology house had a five unit theme requirement, satisfied by a class taught in the house. They began the practice of baking bread, still an important tradition at Terra, and at first even ground their own grain. They protested the University’s preventive use of pesticides outside the houses, and they gave a big push to organized recycling at Stanford, beginning with the collection of cans at football games. They shared a garden with Columbae.

In ’73 - ’74 Ecology House was de-themed and Terra began. Little is known about the Terra of the seventies, except that the mural “Let’s Eat” was drawn. Terra is absent from the Daily. The house journals they kept are lost, and alumni contacts are sparse. It is, however, known that Terra kept up good relations with other co-ops in these years, and held all co-op coffee houses.

In the ’81 - ’82 year Terra went through a period of crisis. Although the journal of this year begins optimistically, it ends fragmented and hostile, and many of the pages are torn out. Throughout, but especially in the beginning, there is much open talk about drugs and political issues. At this time, and in the year previous, Terrans debated over, and decided against allowing red meat in the house, although people typically sneaked private supplies in. A Terran from previous years comments on finding tuna, hamburger, and Cheetos in the kitchen, and of hearing “offhand sexist remarks.” The agenda for the only house meeting in this journal includes such topics as consensus, drugs, food philosophy, and factionalism at Terra. One Terran commented that the year was a sequence of bad events, culminating in the suicide of a “roofer” (someone who sleeps on the roof).

Conflict centered around the RA, who Terra felt was imposed on the house against their will, and around the division of the old Terrans from the new Terrans (many sophomores drew in that year). The old Terrans felt that Terra was losing its older ideals and mood. The new Terrans felt that they should be able to change the house however they liked, regardless of the tradition they felt the old Terrans were imposing on them. Throughout the eighties, such conflict existed in Terra, each generation of Terrans accusing the previous generation of being too much like the people in Synergy and Columbae. (Each generation also places Terra in the center of the spectrum between the dorms and the more radical co-ops.)

The ’81 - ’82 year took its toll. For the first time in its history, Terra did not fill, but still had eleven empty spaces in the second round of the draw (which resulted in people ending up in Terra who ordinarily would not have chosen to live in a co-op). Most of the older Terrans were gone, and a new group of Terrans, more in the mainstream, dominated the house. These new Terrans were determined to make the house more “fun,” and less crisis- and conflict-ridden. The journal for that year is almost empty. There were many beach trips and house activities. There is talk of getting a barbecue and of increasing the number of “meat nights” each week from two. The new Terrans also worked on restructuring the work division and manager systems, and switched the house from consensus to voting. Terra begins to see itself as the co-op that can appeal to students more in the mainstream than Synergy or Columbae. Relations were good with Theta Chi, which was a co-op of the same ilk. ’83 - ’84 was much the same way, and house enthusiasm continued to rise. One Terran described it as “happy and hyper, like the freshman dorm I never had.” The Terrans managed to fill two and a half journals that year, primarily with gossip, sexual innuendoes, and private jokes. At the end of this year, however, most of the Terrans moved out. The sophomores of ’81 - ’82 had become seniors, and the house did horribly in the draw, with nineteen spaces still remaining to be filled by the end of the second round.

As a result, the University threatened in ’84 - ’85 to shut Terra down. Stanford seemed to be at the peak of its conservatism, the co-ops were doing poorly in the draw, and Terra was the largest and most readily convertible into standard University housing. Through the diligent efforts of the Terrans and Jack Chin (former Terran and R.A. at Synergy), Terra was able to postpone its fate for a year, arguing that the University should see what happened in the next year’s draw, and close Synergy or Terra if they filled less than 90%. Outreach was stepped up and the two houses survived. Terra has filled adequately since then, and unlike Synergy, has received no further threats of closure. Nevertheless, few of the alumni from this period have kept in contact with the co-op alum network, and the entries in the the journal seem impersonal and distant. Only six Terrans wrote final entries to the house.

In ’85 - ’86 a new period in Terran history began. The journal records open war. Jeff Philiber’s Monday Crüe (loud, and all male, enduring with changes of personnel over a span of several years) was cooking traditional middle-American dishes and meating with popular success, but the vegetarian contingent complained. The house, already owning a TV, now had a VCR and a microwave. Mike Hahn threw cardboard away, expressing his distaste for the attitudes of the environmentalists.

The years following brought further success to the efforts of those trying to bring Terra more toward the mainstream, and the house has stabilized somewhat. Ballroom dancing has become popular, volleyball, and keg jousting (trying to push each other off empty beer kegs). Still, Terra is frequented by old Terrans who feel a sentimental attachment to the house.

Theta Chi

Physical Structure

Theta Chi is a large white building on Alvarado Row. The core of the house (kitchen, dining room, library and several rooms) was built in the late 1910s by the Alpha Epsilon chapter of the Theta Chi fraternity, and in 1935 the house was enlarged and took on more of its characteristic Spanish architecture. In 1949 the living room, with its columns and fraternity embellishments, was expanded, and the entrance area with the arched front door was added. The house normally has room for 29, with 19 singles and 5 doubles. Eleven spaces were added to accommodate students left unhoused by the quake. The house has a prominent Spanish architectural theme, with a large front lawn and a secluded courtyard behind the house. The large living room and a row of singles facing the alley were added in the ’40s or ’50s. Common rooms include a fraternity chapter room (formerly for fraternity rituals, later the TV room, and now a double), a pool room which houses the infamous “Speed 1 hit $5” (constructed from a “Speed Limit 35” sign), and a small Library. The pool room was originally a porch/patio. There are two sleeping porches, where fraternity members would sleep as a group (using their rooms for study) in order to promote bonding. The two large showers are co-ed. The fraternity seal remains above the fireplace, along with letters “Theta Chi” embedded in the concrete walks near the house.

Financial Status

Theta Chi is unique because it owns its own house, and is able to determine how much money to charge for housing. The house currently sets its rent payments as 90% of Terra’s rent (Autumn: $894, Winter: $817, Spring: $794). Rather than itemizing all the items that the rent goes to, the financial managers consider the cost of Terra to be a good approximation to what the actual costs of Theta Chi are, less 10% because Theta Chi is student-run (in the past, though, Theta Chi used to be by far the cheapest place to live on campus, with bills up to $200 less than they are now). Board is $350/quarter. The Theta Chi Alumni association actually owns the house, and pays the taxes and insurance every year, as well as funds major capitol improvements. Of the money collected for rent from members, 45% is paid to the Alumni association. The rest is spent on power, gas, water, land rent ($5133/month to the University), and supplies and maintenance. The house tries to maintain a $10,000 reserve for emergencies, and the Alumni association keeps money in reserve for long-term improvements.

Student Composition

The house is split almost equally between males and females. There were four graduate spots before Roble closed, but none were filled.

Food Policy

Unlike co-ops such as Synergy or Columbae, Theta Chi has a history of not having a “Politically Correct” food policy. They serve meat regularly and buy bread and groceries from Safeway or the Price Club (and occasionally from S.E. Rykoff). Vegetables are purchased from Cal Fresh. Theta Chi has a large number of eating associates (approx. 30) and has a reputation for good food (although this hasn’t always been true in the past). Alternatives for vegetarians and people with allergies are served along with meals.

Governance Policy

A 3/4 majority voting system was decided on before the quake. The house decision-making policy varies from year-to-year, but most often end up being some sort of voting system. Rooms are selected with a priority point and lottery system. Three points are granted per quarter for residents (including summer residents), and one for EAs per quarter. A lottery resolves any conflicts once priorities have been determined.

House Work Division

The house is primarily run by people in three manager positions: financial manager, kitchen manager, and house manager. Each of these positions gets free rent. If more than one person takes a manager spot (which happens quite frequently), the rent is split between those people. Kitchen managers co-ordinate food buying (making shopping runs) and make sure that people plan meals, as well as draw up a food budget. The financial manager deals with collecting house rent and pays bills. House managers take care of the house (including repairs and general maintenance). Regular house jobs include house cleaning (about 1 hour/week), kitchen jobs (about 2 hours/week) and a quarterly work-weekend (a work-week at the beginning of the school year). Meals are planned by head cooks, who rotate through house members.

Theme

The house has no official theme. Past members have enjoyed the diversity of the people who live at Theta Chi. The house has always had a very independent mood, and attracts people who like self-management and self-control.

Relations with the University

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 repairs. The University leases the land to Theta Chi, and charges a land-use fee ($5133/month after the quake) that the house pays. Periodically the University will request that the house comply with safety regulations, which the house has to fund (such as a smoke-detector system installed several years ago at $38,000, the money for which the University loaned to the Alumni association). The University fills the house through the draw.

A co-op is a house where interaction among members is essential to the set of goals it sets for itself. These may include living in balance with the environment, exploring alternative personal relationships, gender dynamics, incorporating educational ideals with lifestyles, operating entirely by consensus. Co-ops are essential support communities in a world of power imbalances and alienation. — Classmember

Special Features

Theta Chi has many special features. Because they own the house, it stays open all year round, and in the past has become a haven for groups seeking to avoid University red tape. The Viennese Ball floorboards are stored at Theta Chi (entitling the house to some free tickets), and two years ago the house let the Stanford Orchestra stay several nights after University residences closed. Theta Chi has also given office or storage space to other campus organizations in the past. An old coke machine sits in the dining area, and students can purchase beer and soda by inserting the correct number of quarters (in 50 cent increments).

History

Theta Chi house was originally a fraternity, but, in the early 1970s with the decline in popularity of fraternities, the house had few actual members and many boarders. The boarders decided to take control of the house by pledging as a group, and once successful made a deal with the University to be co-ed and filled from the draw. The national chapter, while not happy with this, agreed to go 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, because of this, used to assure that incoming groups are interested in the co-op and not in taking over the house. The house continued to live under the shadow of the national chapter (which was still donating money for repairs and pressuring the house to convert back), until members discovered that the Alumni association really owned the title of the house. With this information, in the ’82-83 year the house called an alumni meeting (mostly co-opers came) and a set of old co-op alums were voted into the Alumni Association. In 1984-85 the fraternity president Eric Williams, who had been pledging a token number of men to the fraternity, joked about pledging a female (whose name was Manley, nicknamed Lee, making it even more of joke) to the National Chapter. That summer a Theta Chi fraternity member from Davis stayed at the house (needless to say, he and his girlfriend especially didn’t get along well with the co-op crowd), and either served as a spy for the national or informed them about this “joke” to be played. Eventually a regional representative came to the house and interrogated the president specifically about Lee (of course Eric denied any knowledge of such a 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 changed its name to “Chi Theta Chi” (X-Theta Chi).

Old members have told interesting stories about Theta Chi’s basement rooms — one in particular called the Black Hole, a small room in the basement. From the time it became a co-op it was occupied for seven years by Keith Nelson, a graduate student. After he left it became a haven for stuffers, until Diana Conklin cracked down on them in 1982 or 1983 (one reason was that the basement flooded and University workers discovered the extra occupants). One summer a group of 6 or 7 from Columbae needed a place to stay, but the only room left was the Black Hole, so they all “stuffed” in there and paid the house with leftover food from Columbae. After the squatters were kicked out it became a party room, or a band room, and before it was converted to storage (which Theta Chi badly needed) the very back part of it gained the nickname “Fornicatorium” from the activities that used to take place there. Theta Chi has also had what was known as an “Opium Den”, a crawlspace below the living room where people apparently used to hang out.

Defunct Residential Stanford Co-operatives

The seven co-operative residences described above are not the only ones to have ever existed at Stanford. Described below are four other Stanford co-ops, including one that began in the 1941.

Walter Thompson Co-operative

Spring 1941-Summer 1945

536 Alvarado Row

17 (men only)

Walter Thompson co-op was formed with an explicit recognition of the value of co-ops held by Leland Stanford. It was named after Walter Thompson, a professor of Political Science who had been a supporter of the co-operative movement. It was financed originally by 18 Stanford faculty.

According to an editorial in the Daily of August 23, 1945 (written at the time the house closed), Walter Thompson was international and multi-racial in composition, and attracted students of the highest moral and academic character. It also had good meals and low board bills.

The reason for the closing of the house is not clear, but it apparently coincided with the institution of direct University supervision of the fraternities and other residences.

Jordan House

Fall 1970-Spring 1977

620 Mayfield (current Haus Mitt)

No records of the founding of Jordan have been uncovered yet, nor founding members located for interview. Draw book listings are generally short and vague: “we enjoy working together, and we’re cheap.”

According to an interview with a resident of the last two years, Jordan had a somewhat deserved reputation as a drug house — he said it was sometimes known as “drugs, dogs and dirt.” He described the house as being closest in spirit to Synergy, being strongly left of center yet also “apolitical”. He also described it as “poly-sexual”, with many gay and lesbian residents.

A co-op is a non-competitive living agreement between people. “Living agreement” can take the form of anything from a beer fridge to an entire social and economic system, and can be based on written, spoken, or intuitive agreement. In general, the more forms of competition that are excluded and the more harmony that is included, the more the co-op is a co-op.
— Classmember

Androgyny House (aka Simone de Beauvoir)

Fall 1977 - Spring 1978

620 Mayfield (current Haus Mitt)

34 residents

Androgyny house was founded by students desiring to live a lifestyle consistent with the principles of feminism. A SWOPSI course in the Spring of 1977 helped provide structure for the founding group. The house was placed in what had been Jordan House the previous year.

Residents participated in consciousness raising groups; an undergraduate special on “Feminism and Androgyny” was also taught in the house. The house operated by consensus, and sponsored or supported a variety of feminist activities. There was some conflict between proponents of 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 adoption of the name Simone de Beauvoir.

One resident reflected on her experiences in the house as “an amazing mental experience,” and that being a woman she was considered “by definition a competent leader.” She noted, however, that at the time there was no feminist studies program to provide academic and intellectual support; the house depended on a few sympathetic faculty spread through the University and on the RF.

The house apparently was known for having great murals, including one of “Alice in Wonderland” (probably remaining from Jordan), but for having lousy parties. Androgyny also had co-ed rooms, but, according to a former resident, the house was “completely asexual — the only PC sex was gay or lesbian.”

Androgyny was terminated at the end of Winter quarter of its first year, before it had a chance to participate in the draw. The fact that it was replaced by Haus Mitt, a house which had been approved but not housed the previous fall, led many residents and supporters to think that there was a deliberate plan when it opened to close it within the year.

Ecology House

539 Cowell (now Terra)

Fall 1971 - Spring 1973

Ecology house was founded as a co-operative dedicated both to living an ecological lifestyle and to fostering related academic interests. It was started the year after Columbae, and included residents who had lived there. The house attempted to recycle everything and shopped at a co-operative store that sold organic produce. Residents were required to take five units of related coursework.

They began the practice of baking bread, still an important tradition at Terra, and at first even ground their own grain. They protested the University’s preventive use of pesticides outside the houses, and they gave a big push to organized recycling at Stanford, beginning with the collection of cans at football games. They had a garden in Escondido Village that they shared with Columbae.

Ecology operated primarily by consensus, but held votes a few times as a last resort. There were many long discussions of food policy, with the result being a policy of vegetarian/non-vegetarian alternatives. The house also decided room assignments by consensus and had co-ed rooms.

Ecology lasted only two years before the theme was eliminated and the house renamed Terra. The cause of the transition is not clear.

Other Co-operative Institutions at Stanford

The Co-op Council

From at least the early ’80s onward, there has been a Co-op Council that has tried with varying degrees of success to coordinate activities between the different campus co-op residences. In its active periods, the Co-op Council has helped co-ordinate outreach, organized inter-co-op social and educational activities, and at times attempted to lobby the University on the behalf of the co-op system or a particular concern of one or more of the houses.

The Co-op Council has always been a strictly voluntary body, with no compensation of any kind for the representatives of the different houses, and has thus competed for the energies of the same individuals most dedicated to their own houses. Furthermore, participation has tended to be limited to the more “hard-core” co-operative houses (Columbae and Synergy), although in recent rears Hammarskjöld has also been strongly represented.

Prior to the 1989 earthquake, a group of current co-op residents were working together on an inter-co-op newsletter called The Co-oper. Two issues were published before the earthquake and one afterward, before the energies of the participants disbursed into the quest for more basic academic and community survival.

The Co-op Alumni Network

In the Summer of 1988, a group of co-op alums (primarily Columbae and Synergy residents) came together for a potluck dinner to consider the formation of an ongoing co-op alum network. The group brainstormed a list of possible projects, and for its first project chose to raise money to send current co-op residents to the annual NASCO (North American Students of Co-operation) conference in Ann Arbor in October 1988. Enough money was raised to send two students; the fund-raising mailing also generated the beginnings of an updated co-op alum directory.

Later in the year the alum network held two “Oldsters Cook for Youngsters” dinners, one at Columbae and one at Synergy. Work continued on compiling an alum directory. In the summer of 1989, members of the alum network in Palo Alto worked with current students to help start a co-op newsletter.

By the fall of 1989, more than 250 alum addresses had been gathered. After the earthquake, a mailing to the list generated a substantial amount of mail to the University in support of rehousing the closed co-ops. The list was also used for mailing the alumni survey described below. There are currently more than 400 names and addresses in the directory, and more being added constantly. Contacts for the alum network are Paul Baer, 4062 Second St., Palo Alto, 94306 (415-494-3006), Randy Schutt, 390 Matadero, Palo Alto 94306 (415-424-8559), and Martha Watson, 1209 Villa St., Mountain View, CA 94041 (415-964-1468).

Non-residential Stanford Co-ops

Stanford has many other co-ops on campus besides the seven residential co-ops. The Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) is a co‑op of all Stanford students. The Stanford Bookstore is owned co-operatively by the faculty. Breakers Eating Club is also a co‑operative, and Jewish students recently created a Kosher Eating Club in the Governor’s Corner Suites.

In addition to these “official” co-ops, there are also many other institutions that are run quite co‑operatively. Fraternities and sororities are run co-operatively and are responsible for having built all the current Frat houses and many Row houses. KZSU radio station and most of the other student clubs and organizations on campus are also run co-operatively.

The Kosher Eating Co-op

Spring 1988 — Present

The kosher kitchen has had about 10 members since its inception in the spring of 1988. They cook dinner every weekday evening and have open kitchen the rest of the time. Two people cook and clean each day, and there is a kitchen manager who orders food and supplies. Board is $560 per quarter. On Fridays they have a somewhat special meal with wine when people have a little more time to sit down and relax. About 35 extra people join the co-op for the duration of Passover.

The kosher kitchen was started in the spring of 1988 by Daniella Evans and two other students. When they were looking for kitchens they were told that there were only three available in the entire University, two Elliot Program Center kitchens and one in the suite of rooms above the Wilbur offices; they ended up with the smaller Elliot kitchen. Daniella Evans said that Jean Fetter and Donald Kennedy both took a personal interest in the project and that may have eliminated some bureaucratic hurdles to setting up the kitchen. Norm Robinson and Alice Supton in Res Ed approved the project and got the space for them.

They were informed that they got the kitchen during Dead Week winter quarter and so had a couple of weeks to set it up. After some time and 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 lack of continuity. Only two people have been there three years and a few have stayed for two. Part of the problem is outreach; most people on campus don’t know about the co-op. In fact they could probably serve 20 people if that many wanted to sign up. The people who join, therefore, tend to be juniors and seniors who have heard about it through word of mouth. A second problem is that Elliot Program Center is located a ways from the center of campus and people don’t want to go that far to eat.

The kosher eating co-op welcomes new members; anyone interested in joining next year should contact Michael Tylman, who will be next year’s kitchen manager.

Stanford Federal Credit Union

Late 1959 — Present

The Credit Union was formed in late 1959 by 6 faculty and staff members who deposited $268. It was seen as an alternative for faculty and staff to regular banks. It pays dividends to depositors and uses its assets to make home and auto loans to other shareholders. John Littleboy, a personnel director, was apparently the guiding light. Originally housed in Encina Commons Room 221, then 210, then 130, the Credit Union moved several more times until it built its own building at the current location in 1970. In the early days it was only open Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday for a few hours. Dale Hannen was hired as the first full-time director. After one year the Credit Union had assets of $46,000, after 2 years $92,000, and after three years $186,000. By 1965 it had assets of $1 million. The Credit Union now has assets of $100 million and is in the top 2% in size of all credit unions. It has 66 employees.

In the early days, membership was limited to Stanford employees and faculty, but it has now expanded to include students, alumni, and people who work on Stanford lands (the Industrial Park and the Shopping Center).

The Credit Union still sees itself as a co-operative dedicated to serving its depositors/customers/ shareholders rather than the needs of bankers or corporate shareholders, and the employees “do 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 Union generally offers lower loan rates and higher dividends, since it is a non-profit organization, its board of directors are volunteers, and its depositors and loan recipients are relatively stable (and hence default less frequently).

The Stanford Federal Credit Union might be a source of funds for purchasing student co-op houses. The Credit Union recently gave a low interest loan of $5,000 to the Washington Square Credit Union that was recently organized by San Jose State University students.

Sources: Interview with Sam Tuohey, Marketing Manager, (694-1020), January 1990 (very helpful)

Co-ops in the Community

In addition to the on-campus co-ops, many Stanford students or recent graduates live or have lived in co-operative houses in the surrounding area. These houses, often started by former residents of the on-campus houses, typically house 4-7 people, and have a life of from 1-2 years to as much as 10 or more.

These off campus houses have varying degrees of ties with the on-campus houses. In many cases they identify themselves as part of the larger co-operative community, in other cases less so or not at all. A brief description of some of the houses is contained in the Appendix.

One house worth special consideration is Magic House, located at 381 Oxford Street in Palo Alto. In addition to a house, there is a non-profit Magic Incorporated, and a larger community all dedicated to the principles of human ecology. One major focus of the group has been replanting trees in the local area. The group recently published a report called “Stanford University: the Second Hundred Years” that addresses the University’s future from a human-ecology perspective. See the Appendix for further information.

Residential Co-ops at Other Universities

Introduction

The Stanford co-ops are only one example of the variety of co-operative housing systems on campuses all over North America. Different types of co-operative living options include houses, dorms, and apartments, in sizes ranging from ten to two hundred. The management structure can also take many different forms, beginning with the basic difference in university or co-operative ownership of the properties. There is also an umbrella organization of student co-operatives called the North American Students of Co-operation (NASCO).

Although there is a great deal of flexibility in the co-operative model, most structures contain two types of participation. First, short term member participation in management is essential. Members provide much or all of the routine custodial and maintenance labor, along with dividing up leadership responsibilities through assignment of managerial positions. This process is important because it not only empowers students with responsibility and control over their own lives, but also ensures the low-cost, high-quality services of co-operative living.

Second, the continuity of long term management must be provided either through professional management or direct affiliation with the university. The expertise and experience of these people is helpful especially in the areas of long term maintenance and finance. The balance between and teaming of these two aspects is essential in maintaining student co-operatives within the given constraints: transience, inexperience, and limited finances.

UC Berkeley

The University Students Co-operative Association at UC Berkeley is a nonprofit, equal opportunity corporation fully owned and operated by its 1500 member residents. The students own their fifteen houses and are heavily centralized and organized at the Central Office (CO). A system of points indicating how long an individual has lived in university co-ops determines who has house and room priority; an elaborate system of workshift credit determines how much work each individual must do; members elect representatives to the Board of Directors and different committees which make decisions about various aspects of co-operative living.

The student-run bureaucracy and hierarchy seems to be the price of having not only such a massive number of participants but also autonomy from the bureaucracy and control of the university. Their system of “capital improvements” provides incentive for house members to invest in house improvements like refurbishing, repainting, or remodeling. The result is a marked difference from Stanford’s university-owned co-ops in the quality of the facilities.

Within the constraints of this unified system, each co-op has a character of its own. Lothlorien, the only vegetarian and consensus-run co-op, shares two beautiful houses, one kitchen, and a hot tub between fifty-seven people. Le Chateau contains nearly a hundred men and women, elects a council to make decisions, uses fines to enforce house jobs, and sits in front of a pool and carriage house. The thirty-four inhabitants of Davis House take great pride in the historic nature and conventional beauty of their house. Each member is required to spend five hours a quarter on capital improvements. Barrington Hall (now closed), an experiment in radical existence, housed over 150 people within its mural- and graffiti-coated walls and served as a living affront to basic tenets of U.S. society. These are merely four examples; Berkeley holds many other options for co-operative living, including two all women’s houses.

A co-op is a place inhabited by a group of people who realize that “education” is more than “academics.” Refusing to accept a dichotomy between school and residence, co-opers strive to create an environment wherein people can explore alternatives in lifestyle (as well as “normal” lifestyles). Indeed the idea of a co-op, to me, is a place where many different dualities are recognized as illusory (school/home, normal/ abnormal, techie/fuzzy, etc.).

— Classmember

Harvard

There are currently two University-owned co-operative houses at Harvard: Jordan (about 15 people) and Dudley (about 50). The Jordan Houses (once three co-ops) were originally built as Radcliffe housing so that young women could learn to cook and clean. They were converted into co-operatives in the late ’60s. They were originally very competitive to get into, and the people living there had some say over who got in. More recently, however, there has been less demand, resulting in the conversion into regular housing for all but one.

The Dudley community is based in two neighboring semi-Victorian houses with stained glass windows, cats, and a garden. Management is led by a president or co-presidents who are compensated with reduced rent/board bills. Interests within the house vary widely: from Marxism to bridge, gay and lesbian rights to dancing, recycling to baseball. Rent is very low (e.g. $300 for the summer).

Cornell

Cornell University, located in Ithaca, New York, has about 15,000 undergraduate students and 300 graduate students. There is relatively little on-campus housing available; about 7000 live on campus. Forty-four percent of the student body are in Greek organizations. As part of the dorm system, there are several program houses, including Ujamaa, Ecology house, the international living house, and the theater, art, and music house.

It is in this context that the 8 University-owned and 7 off-campus co-ops operate. There are a total of 168 students living in the University owned co-ops and about 90 off campus.[2] The co-ops are small living units in which no custodial services are provided; the residents cook and clean for themselves. The residents sign contracts with the co-ops, not with the University, and the University used to collect a single rent bill from each co-op, although now rent collection is done through the University. They do call on the University to do repairs on the buildings. In addition the University conducts health inspection, including food, sanitation, fire, and safety inspections. A story is told by a former resident that a treasurer of one of the co-ops embezzled five or six thousand dollars, so the University now bills the students directly for rent.

Rents in the co-ops are very cheap[3]: They ran $110-140 per month a couple of years ago, plus $50-70 for food; this year most singles range from $170 to $250 (including utilities), as opposed to over $300 per month in the dorms. For years the co-ops kept only a small cash reserve on hand; they kept no money for long term expansion. Starting in 1985 Cornell insisted that the co-ops accumulate some funds to pay for improvements to the houses. In the last two years this money has gone to pay for a new roof and a new porch (the latter of which cost $18,000), which were built buy University hired workers.

The big draws to the co-ops appear to be the cheap rent, the relaxed and integrated lifestyle, and co-op living. None of the houses has particular themes, and the politics were described as vaguely left of center and as a response to the Greek system. Admission is done by lottery, so that there would be no biases in preferential admissions policies. Recruiting is done by word of mouth and a recruiting fair every spring. Because there are so few co-ops on campus, most students have no impression of the co-ops whatsoever — students simply don’t know about them — and this may be the co-ops biggest problem at present. There have occasionally been problems filling the houses, as in 1984, when they resulted in the closing of one house. If they don’t fill, the houses just keep advertising.

The different houses are managed using two basic systems: one in which there is a series of elected officers — a president, vice president, house manager, food steward, and treasurer — who run day-to-day operations, and another in which there are only a house manager and a treasurer who do almost all managerial tasks and are compensated by room and board in return. Decisions are made in the houses in meetings which are held at least once a month. People talk until there is more or less consensus and then a vote is held. Consensus is not implemented as a formal policy, however.

There is little formal interaction among the co-ops; they all act pretty independently. There has occasionally been an organization called the Cornell United Co-ops, but it seems to have produced few memorable results. Two years ago, the co-ops organized to fight the threatened closing of two co-ops. As a result of this, only one of the co-ops was closed, and a list of off-campus co-ops was compiled. This organization has faded from the scene.

The co-ops all started in the last 20 or 25 years, many as sorority or fraternity houses that wanted freedom from their national organizations. Prospect of Whitby began as a sorority and quit in 1965 or ’66 which quit the national and let men in. There are no formal written histories of 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 considered to be an issue, but when I brought it up, a couple students said that co-opers were predominantly white.

Of the eight on-campus co-ops, four houses with about 50 students are all women and one of these is an eight person house with only women of color. The rest balance men and women fairly equally.

Madison

There are roughly a dozen co-operative houses in Madison, largely comprised of students of the University of Wisconsin, but independent of the University. Many of the houses were old frat houses, turned into co-ops in the ’60s and ’70s. The houses are owned by the MCC (Madison Community Co-op?). Bulk food items for the different houses are purchased together. The co-ops house both students and non-students, which is sometimes a source of tension. The houses all have their own personalities, but by and large represent the progressive/counter-cultural end of the spectrum (they’re called Granolas by the locals, whom they call Cheeseheads).

Brown University

There is an association of co-operative houses at Brown Univ. (in Providence, Rhode Island) called BACH (Brown Association of Cooperative Housing) which grew out of an independent study project in 1971. It is made up of three houses — Carberry, Milhaus, and Waterman. Each house is a former family home, and holds 15-20 people. The houses are fairly independent of one another except for admissions and certain financial matters.

BACH owns Waterman, and the rent from all three houses goes towards the mortgage. Brown University owns Carberry and Milhaus and leases them to BACH for some low sum. Rent has gone up recently, but is less than University housing and less than most apartments in the area. Some houses have extra food co-opers, people who don’t live there but share meals. Waterman has been vegetarian in the past, and each house will provide a vegetarian alternative to any meat-containing dinner. There are other co-ops which spring up around Brown which are often associated with BACH — usually because they’ll order bulk foods together and split the costs. These last as long as there are people to live in them and keep them going.

UC Davis

There are three sets of on-campus student co-operative houses at Davis, and at least two off-campus student co-ops (which are associated with non-student houses). Altogether they house about [56+25+28+18] 130 students, about 110 of whom live on campus.[4]

CAHC

The co-ops have recently formed a coalition called the Campus Alternative Housing Coalition (CAHC) to facilitate inter-co-op co-operation and socializing and to lobby the University for the co-op cause. CAHC will have to respond to threats to the continuation of both the Domes and the Old Co-ops (see below). At present CAHC collects 25 cents per month from each co-op member to be used to publish meeting minutes and a newsletter. CAHC is talking about incorporating and perhaps accumulating financial resources (for an as yet unspecified use), but they are as yet “still building the structure” under which they will operate.

One student from the Davis Campus Cooperatives told us that they had originally been really interested in working with CAHC, but that they had been warned that they might be perceived as trying to take over or dictate the direction of the organization since they have so much more money than the rest of the co-ops. A student at the domes said that she was disappointed by the lack of involvement in CAHC events by DCC members; she thought that a bar to further inter-co-op development.

Old Co-ops

There are three “old co-ops” at Davis, the Davis Student Co-op, Pierce, and Agrarian Effort. The Old Co-ops started around twenty years ago with twelve men who wanted a cheaper place to live; at present they each house between eight and twelve people of both sexes.

The houses are three old Victorian houses located in a group that were originally built as temporary 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 three co-ops makes it so they tend to have few ties.

New members are selected by consensus of the current co-op residents at that particular co-op. The reason for this is to ensure that the new resident will fit into the community and be committed to the co-op. Prospective residents come around to meet the present members and may help cook a dinner, but there is no formal application process set up. The residents that I talked to liked this system for the most part, preferring it to the lack of screening in the first come, first serve system of the DCC. The fact that there are only nine people makes continuity and history very difficult to preserve, and this has presented problems on at least one occasion.

The rent and board bills tend to be quite low: in January 1990 they were $170 at Davis student co-op and $190 for a single or $220 for a double at Agrarian effort. The co-ops have accumulated some money in a University account. In addition, they have loaned some money for the off-campus J Street Co-op to buy its house.

Davis Campus Co-operatives

The newest of the Davis co-ops are the Davis Campus Co-operatives, a cluster of four houses that opened in 1988. Each house holds 14 persons; they are located on University land, and are part of a cluster of which the remainder are primarily frat houses. The houses are managed by a co-op board which just took over formally on the first of February; prior to that, the houses were overseen by a trustee group which arranged financing for the houses and still functions as an advisory board.

The houses were actually built buy a developer along with some other houses on campus, and are presently rented from the developer with some portion of the rent ($10 per person per month the first year, increasing $11 the second year, $12 the third year, and so forth for ten years) being collected in a co-op development fund to be used for the purchase of the houses. After six years the co-ops will be bought outright, and the co-ops have a 60 year lease for the land on which the co-ops are located, after which time the University may continue to allow the co-ops to live there or may choose to do something else with the land.

Efforts to build the new co-ops took at least 8 years, and were led by two individuals who are part of the Campus Alternative Housing Coalition. Financing came from a variety of sources, including NASCO and the UC Student Association, and a Japanese co-op association. They are all two story houses, with a fairly conventional style. They are named Pioneer, Kahweah, Kagawa, and Rainbow, names that were given by the builders/trustees.

Admission to the co-ops is on a first come, first served basis, for students only. The houses have varying character, but no specific themes. The rooms are singles and doubles; singles are mores expensive, at $270/month. Leasing is on a twelve month basis; residents may sublet their rooms for the summer. The houses run their food buying relatively independently, but are all affiliated with the Davis Food Co-op. The houses collaborate on social activities such as parties and picnics. The houses also all contribute work to the two gardens associated with the community.

The new board includes 7 members, one elected by each house and three elected at large, and operates by consensus. Any resident may speak at the board meetings. The houses have hired a manager responsible for finances and operations, who receives free room and board and $500/month. Included in the rent is a $10/month tax on each room which goes into a development fund; any spending proposal must be approved by both the Board and the Trustees.

The houses engage in no special outreach activities. A resident attested that they seem to be relatively ethnically diverse without any special effort. Relationships with the other co-ops seem weak, though there were some joint social activities; other co-opers referred to them as “the yuppie co-ops” or “concrete court”.

Baggins End, aka “The Domes”

Baggins End is a community of 14 prefabricated fiberglass domes, each of which holds two people, located on an acre of land at the edge of campus. The group calls itself a collective, not a co-operative; the housing units are independent, but there are central work requirements, and the community as a whole must approve new applicants. There is a fairly long written application.

The residents are primarily undergraduates, and include the stereotypical eco/deadhead types. They all think their community is great, but spend most of their time involved in non-community activities (such as the annual Whole Earth Festival) and wish they had more time to give to community projects. Community dinners are organized most nights of the week on a fairly ad hoc basis.

The domes themselves are very interesting. Each dome is unique on the inside, with lofts of various shapes and sizes. They are all painted an ugly beige, and the University will not let residents paint the interior or exterior walls (they were once all painted in different colors). The setting is very attractive, sort of a small orchard, hidden from the streets.

The community does not expect to survive long, as the land is zoned for higher density housing in the University’s plan. In fact, one of the residents at another co-op is working on a plan to replace them with a type of cluster housing, with 8-10 person units clustered around a single common building. The residents of the domes didn’t seem to be informed of this plan.

Off-Campus Co-ops

There are at least two off-campus co-ops which house mostly students, the J Street Co-op and Sunwise Co-op in Village Homes. J Street may house organizers of a Davis area co-op umbrella organization. Sunwise is part of a complex of alternative housing; the rest of Village Homes does not house students.

Conclusion: Implications for the Stanford Co-ops

The experiences of these widely varying co‑operative systems can be helpful in considering the specific problems Stanford co-ops face and the ways in which alternative structures could address those problems. These considerations seem to focus particularly on the questions of autonomy from the University.

The Berkeley Co-op system is the opposite extreme from the Stanford system. It is large and fully autonomous from the University. It is a mainstream housing option in the crowded Berkeley housing market, and many of the houses are considered highly desirable places to live. The system pays the price for its autonomy, however, with its own centralized bureaucracy. This centralization has allowed the system to fund its own expansion, but residents may question whether this goal meets their needs

Since the Cornell co-ops are not tremendously more successful than the Stanford co-ops, there is perhaps little to emulate in their system; there may, however, be a few lessons to learn. The first is one that we are already learning at Stanford: without the organization, energy, and resources to improve the co-op system, it is likely to fade away. The Cornell co-ops have decreased in number over the last few years, and have organized only in short bursts in response to threats from the University. Their organizational structure and lack of themes and purpose have prevented them from seeing the larger world in which their co-ops operate, the lack of energy has prevented them from organizing to change this structure, and their lack of resources has prevented them from being particularly effective in those moments when they do organize.

A second interesting note is that at Cornell, co-op rents are about half that of the dorms, as was the case with the Davis co-ops, but they have to do their own major repairs. Perhaps we should look at the rent structure of the Stanford co-ops to determine what we are paying for: how much is rent on the kitchen, how much is room rent and utilities, how much are we saving by doing our own cleaning?

The biggest implication of the Davis system is that it is possible to fund and build new houses. Luke Watkins and David Thompson are great sources of information on building new student co-op housing. They know about all aspects of the process: funding sources, dealing with the University, getting the buildings built, etc. However, the top-down process by which the DCC were built may stand as a warning to other co-ops: without student input from the very beginning, it may be quite difficult to make the actual operating of the co-ops successful.

The Domes present an interesting, if difficult to emulate, model of student built housing. The difficulties the Old Co-ops have had because of their small size, high turnover, and lack of historical memory represent a problem we might face if we get small houses. Perhaps we should make an effort to ensure that small houses will interact with other houses and will have a smaller turnover rate than larger houses.

Finally, the Davis co-ops embody the conflict between selective and random admission which we will have to deal with. We must ensure that new members are committed to the co-ops, but may not want the exclusivity that member selection represents.

The first human communities on this planet could be defined as co-ops. The problem is, society, as it were, still sees co-ops and community living lifestyles as tribal, which carries a host of misleading connotations.
— Classmember

The independent natures of each of the Stanford co-ops seem to propagate a myth of individualism, difference from each other, and self-control. In fact, centralization could produce much greater autonomy from the University and thus the ability to develop truly unique living options. If Stanford co-ops, as a group, differentiate ourselves from other living options by creating a separate draw, strengthening the co-op council as our mediator with the University administration, and gaining control of maintenance and administration by developing our own, co-operative, student-run system, we could empower ourselves, improve our facilities, and be the ultimate authority about decisions that effect our lives and living conditions. Centralization and organization are definitely options worth considering. Possibly, when we are eventually given permanent housing for each of our programs, we could negotiate with the University over developing our own administration.

Survey of the Stanford Community on Residential Living

To enhance our understanding of community views on residential living, we created a questionnaire 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:

The rest of the questionnaire asked recipients for their opinions on the benefits and drawbacks of co-operative living, and how things could be improved. We also asked what people have been doing since they left Stanford, and whether or not their co-op experience had affected them beyond Stanford. Their comments have been compiled in the following pages.

In your opinion, what are the most important benefits of co-operative living?

• A supportive community of friends…

• Teaching people a sense of responsibility for how they live.

• Students live more like real life — they aren’t babied by having things magically cooked and cleaned for them.

• Taking a stand, with a group of people, on how we want to live and interact with the world, and then putting that vision into reality by living together in the co-op.

• The strong sense of community and the support system it provides during a difficult and rapidly changing time in one’s life. In short, it really felt like “home.” Not to mention fresh, homemade bread.

• Learning how to deal well with other human beings, while addressing important areas of conflict.

[Co-ops sponsored a] sense of community, learning to live with other people and how to work together. Also, it was cheap — saved money.
— Co-op Alum

• Learning to share work and ideas, solve problems collectively, spirit of play between equal male and female members, cooking and eating together, feeling of openness with some members to share problems, and seeing your problems in perspective with larger community and world issues.

• Learning how to co-operate with people, learning how to resolve conflicts honestly, buying in bulk to reduce consumption, learning about alternative lifestyles.

• Meaningful interaction with a lot of people. Close, stimulating relationships. Excellent atmosphere for self-reflection and personal growth.

• Sense of self-sufficiency, self-directedness. I learned my life and community could be as good as I was willing to make it.

• Allows for a more balanced maturation process during college… fostering a sense of social responsibility, both to one’s immediate environment and to the world at large.

• Finding other people like me.

• Getting to exercise more responsibility and choice about living: food, cleaning, gardening, etc. Changing room/roommate situation more often. Living (hopefully) with aware and interesting people.

• Channeling group energy to achieve more than individual goals.

• An awareness of a world outside of the university — which is very important in Stanford’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 process.

• Interesting people.

• I think the consciousness-raising quality or intent of co-ops is very important, with respect to gender issues, environmental issues, and other political issues.

• Eating healthily and learning about nutrition and food preparation, organizing ad hoc political groups and actions, becoming more aware, making friends, having fun.

• An alternative, experimental living/social structure from the rest of campus.

[Co-ops were a place for] learning tolerance and responsibility toward others; learning to consider the good of the group; breaking down isolation and confronting new and different ideas.
— Co‑op Alum

• In a word, awareness. Many of the thought processes tended to extremes, but this was the time for it and all such digging changed my life.

• Dialogue between house members.

• Living in a group enables its members to act according to shared values more efficiently and with more fun.

• Environmentally conscious purchasing.

• Living like a family with people who are not your biological family.

• Flexibility and understanding of alternative views, beliefs, and lifestyles. Also, the space to be creative in a supportive community.

• I wasn’t a naturally gregarious person. In the co-op, cook crew and meetings gave us something structured to do together, which helped break the ice.

• To improve the quality of life by providing a supportive environment to think about and improve human communication.

• For me, the best part of student life was time spent hanging out. Because co-ops have open kitchens, they have an automatic, homey place to gather. I always felt that I was living in a home for which I had responsibility.

What are the biggest drawbacks?

• Any situation where people live with one another is fraught with conflict and tension as people have different needs, expectations, motivations.

• None that I’ve thought of. Hindrances come to mind: student transience, inordinate length of decision-making meetings.

• None. It takes time to fulfill your group responsibilities, but lots of worthwhile things take time.

• Independent people aren’t very good at coming to agreement — too many strong personalities.

• The quality of the meals and the cleanliness of the house is dependent upon the willingness of each house member to do his or her assigned task on time, which frequently did not happen.

• Decreased privacy. Increased incidence of social/political dogmatism.

• Getting to sleep.

• Probably smugness, a certain separation, and holier-than-thou attitude.

• Consensus. Frustrating, time-consuming, irritating, but a valuable learning process.

• Botched meals by inexperienced cooks.

• Some people never learn responsibility, and others must pick up their slack.

• Messy house.

• Unco-operative members, especially people who were assigned to the house by the draw but didn’t want to live there.

• Persecution by outsiders.

• Generally higher level of domestic chaos (but then, that can be fun, too).

• Starting from scratch every year.

• Political homogeneity.

• Isolation can be bred even in the midst of co‑operative living, with some co-op extremists rejecting anything “conventional.”

• Academically, co-opers are expected to “compete” with students who take no responsibility for anything except their studies.

• Some complained of too much closeness — “incestuousness.”

• It was difficult to focus on academics, but of course the most important learning occurred at the co-ops!

How do you think things could have been improved?

• More emphasis on ethnic/cultural diversity. More discussion of world issues in addition to house issues.

• More emphasis on practical running of things and setting sights on quality of daily life in the houses. Meals and cleaning should take up the energy, not house meetings.

• Smaller houses, clear consensus on standards before people move into the house.

• More experienced people to provide direction and stability.

• More moral support from the University.

• Greater emphasis on individual accountability. This can still be incorporated into co-op living.

• Focus on outreach to get people thinking about co-ops and interested in them — appeal to a wider group.

• No 006s [people who choose “any on-campus housing” in the housing draw].

• Putting a lot of front-end energy into including and orienting newcomers.

• Ideally, a higher degree of co-ordination among co-ops to exploit collective strength.

• Meetings with some time frame so that the concept of consensus doesn’t become absurd.

• More support from, and co-operation with the University administration.

• More connections to alumni and more interaction with other co-ops in the area… Keeping houses open and going during summer and winter breaks.

[Co-ops could be improved by placing] more emphasis on ethnic/cultural diversity. More discussion of world issues in addition to house issues.
— Co-op Alum

• We often had a “fuck ’em if they can’t deal with it” attitude — not a great method of spreading peace in the world. We need campus support.

• Most of the problems I had were with certain personalities and not the system.

• A Pied Piper to lead away the Mind Rats?

• More hours in the day.

• Changing human nature.

What are you doing now, and/or what have you done since leaving Stanford? (Occupation, volunteer activities, etc.)

• I’m in med school and live in a 4-5 person co-op.

• Freelance writing. Environmental consulting. Teaching.

• Computer programmer for research labs (non-military, of course).

• Postdoc in astrophysics.

• Counselor at Men Overcoming Violence, accountant for non-profits.

• Waiting tables, working on getting more into my career.

• I work for the Environmental Protection Agency.

• I’m working toward an MBA at Stanford, focusing on non-profit management.

• I am a grad student in physics at the U. of Chicago. I also helped start the university recycling program, and am currently half-time recycling coordinator for the U. of C. I also live in a new student co-op — we just bought our house after one and a half years of trying.

• Teacher of English as a second language for adults. I lived on a kibbutz in Israel.

• I build wooden boats with a boatyard in Martha’s Vineyard, MA.

• Coordinate Stanford’s recycling program.

• MBA candidate at Harvard.

• I run a vegetarian cafe in a co-op food store in Taos, New Mexico.

• Grad student now, volunteered with APSNICA building houses in Nicaragua, and volunteered on a reforestation project in Costa Rica. Am starting in a volunteer middle school tutoring program now.

• Film — Editing documentaries, now filmmaker at Columbia.

• Environmental health scientist — I work at the US EPA.

• Union organizer/representative.

• Information specialist, government energy office.

• Teach high school.

• M.D.— surviving internship.

• Grad student in social psychology at Princeton.

• Grad student, water resources program, Princeton.

• I’ve worked as an English and Spanish tutor in the Stanford Literacy Project, been a composition editor for McGraw Hill Educational Testing, and I’m now freelance and going to have a baby. Also, I work for vegetables in an organic garden.

• Presently a grad student in molecular biology, previously technical writer, recycling center infantryman.

• Physician. Volunteer with local midwives, board of local food co-op.

• Served in U.S. Military. Computer programmer.

• Attorney, mother of two children.

• Social worker, and have lived in several co‑ops in various cities.

• Med student, U. of Arizona, high school teacher, bum in S. America.

• I’ve been in graduate school at Columbia, doing research on global climate change. My most significant (to me) volunteer activity has been working for the Rape Crisis Center.

• I’ve been a nursery school teacher, gardener, mother, housewife— now I’m getting ready to go to law school.

• Rock and roll record producer.

• Associate Media Director — Center for Population Options — work to prevent too-early child-bearing among teens and the spread of HIV among teens.

• Business Council for the United Nations.

• Computer scientist, active with the environmental movement.

• 2nd decade — Photojournalist, 3rd decade — carpenter, realtor, wife, mother of two.

• Work for non-profit citizen diplomacy organization producing international television “Spacebridges” on East-West, North-South, and environmental issues. Run own recycled paper business.

• Physician, medical researcher, father, husband.

• Attorney — CA public employment relations board; checkbook liberal.

• Taught dance, danced professionally, wrote grants for performing artists, done graphic design, presently own a restaurant.

• Worked in ski industry for four years, presently a grad student in hydrology.

• Running a special effects film studio, acting, healing work, philosophical questioning, community volunteer work.

• I’m getting a Ph.D. in the Dept. of Forestry and Resource Management at Berkeley. Studying forest hydrology in AK.

• 1980-86 (roughly) primarily as a political activist organizing direct action against nuclear weapons, Central American interventionism, and corporate evil. Held jobs as a bike messenger, recycler, carpenter. Mural painting in the Mission, performance art… tried to enjoy the hell out of myself and foment revolution.

• Founder of two social investment funds, PhD in Public Policy; board member of Tides Foundation, League of Conservation Voters, Good Samaritan Community Center.

• Substitute teaching at Boston inner-city school, teaching English in China at a Teacher’s College, teaching math at a private all-girls school.

• Worked as a legal assistant, then went to graduate school to obtain a masters in Public Policy Studies. Now work at a not-for-profit organization studying public housing and urban development issues.

• Worked on non-profit co-op housing development in Seattle. Studied alternative housing projects in Berlin for one year and worked for a S.F. non-profit housing developer.

• Program Manager, Middle East Region, Save the Children. Was a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco, and worked with a Palestinian grassroots health organization.

• Engineer giving science technology advice to U.S. Congress.

• Now PhD candidate in Energy Policy as applied to developing countries. Was a Peace Corps volunteer.

• I am a public interest lawyer, currently teaching at a community-based law school — have worked in women’s movement for last ten years.

• Administrator at non-profit book publisher and international grassroots development organization. Living in a co-op.

• Currently medical student interested in public health, international medicine.

• Dancer/admin. asst. with a children’s dance company. Now an administrative assistant at Citizen’s Commission on AIDS and Lesbian & Gay Community Services Center.

Do you think your co-op experience had any effect on what you chose to pursue after college?

• Supported the humanistic values which underlie most of what I’ve done.

• It’s difficult to say, but my basic world view was forged during my co-op years, so it must have had an influence; perhaps it’s more accurate to say it influenced what I refuse to do with my life (who or what I’ll work for, etc.).

• I’d say I chose living in co-ops because of who I am, more than that co-ops made me this way.

• Not my vocation; however my lifestyle was profoundly affected — vegetarianism, gardening, recycling, feminism, etc.

• It helped me be myself at Stanford… which helped me be myself in the workforce.

• No, but it definitely helped me persist at Stanford. Without the co-op experience, I probably would have transferred.

• I would say the inverse — what I wanted to do after college influenced my desire to live in a co-op.

• Yes. I think co-op life at Stanford exposed me to alternative lifestyles and career interests.

• Definitely. I’m hooked on co-op living. I’ve done it ever since… And I’ve had the examples of other co-opers doing jobs that are in line with their values and “good for the world” — and I’ve gone “out into the world” with a clearer belief that I can so the same.

• Yes. It helped strengthen and focus my objectives in the field of conservation and environmental issues.

• Yes! The experience taught me the power of collective action.

• Yes. I’m now studying architecture and brushing up on engineering and hoping to get technical and continue work on non-profit and alternative housing projects.

[My co-op experience] very much affected my values and sense of self and responsibility in the world. — Co-op Alum

• My experience helped confirm that one’s life should truly integrate ethical & political ideals, creativity, and work. Although I haven’t achieved this balance yet and am still learning what it means, I feel the co-op gave me ideas about some possible ways of doing so.

• Not really — I was already interested in environmental issues — but I enjoyed living in a co-op and living those values.

• Yes. I have gravitated to co-op situations as a participant and consumer.

• Working with my peers in creating a community has been invaluable in terms of experience and wisdom. The most important education that I got at Stanford, especially when viewed in practical “real world” terms.

• Some effect in the form of favorable light on helping run the government.

• The alternative lifestyle in the co-op assisted in legitimizing my alternative life as an artist in our society. Overall my attitudes on the mundane sharing of housework with my wife and family reflects the equality experienced at the co-op.

• Yes, more aware of inter-relatedness of systems and much more environmentally aware.

• Yes — made me more inclined to look for a non-profit co-operative organization dedicated to genuine community service.

• It helped me see options other than “You must get a job right after school that is very successful.”

• Certainly the truly amazing people I lived with influenced me, but in subtle ways. I was inspired and supported by them to travel afar and explore.

• As far as lifestyle goes, it had an immense impact. I have lived in co-operative or “semi” co‑operative houses ever since college.

• Definitely. Though already politicized, it provided avenues and inspiration for me to pursue direct-action and creative living. Gave me tools to continue to live and work collectively and provided some of the seeds of my current community.

• Solidified my willingness to go out on a limb and… create a life and line of work for myself.

• That was decided in advance, but yes, the ideals within my dream career got grounded in reality in the co-ops. Also, I met my husband through the co-op network and our co-op experience helps bind us.

Are there any ideas or values that you learned or explored through the co-ops that you have applied to your life beyond Stanford?

• Many. Consensus has come up over and over again in my political work. My cooking skills flowered at the co-op. Also, the notion of working in tight-knit affinity groups, not necessarily called that. And finally, nonviolence.

• The way I treat money. Instead of thinking “This is my money and I can spend it however I want,” I try to think “Is this a business or product I’d like to support?” Seeing money disappear into a worthy business is like putting a fruit rind into the compost instead of the trash. —The way I treat food. I avoided Columbae and Synergy at first because I thought I could never live on a vegetarian diet. Once in Synergy, I was careful to eat lots of hot dogs when away from the house. But after I learned about protein complementarization, and after I realized I’d forgotten to eat meat for a week and didn’t miss it, I decided to see how long I could keep it up. I’ve been vegetarian for eight and a half years now.

• Living in a group is a great way to get stimulation and interaction with people, and the world needs more people working and living together, talking, thinking, and doing together — I’ve continued to apply the co-op style to my living style.

• I learned the importance of community and co-operative enterprise. For the first time I realized how much stronger a group of people working together is than a single individual. I was also introduced to the worlds of politics and low-consumption living. It gave me ideals I’ve been trying to live up to ever since.

• Still a vegetarian. Still recycle. Still bike as much as possible for transportation. Still believe in consensus decision-making. Still live in a co‑op. It’s more fun! Still psyched about sustainable agriculture.

I have lived in co-op type houses ever since [my Stanford co‑op experience], still vegetarian, environmentally-oriented career, and I’ll never look at chickens the same way again.
— Co‑op Alum

• Most importantly, co-ops taught me to sublimate ego, listen, compromise, and facilitate solutions for the benefit of the group instead of the individual.

• Yes. Tendency to non-authoritarian decision-making within my Union and awareness of ecology which influences my consumer decisions.

• Socially responsible employment and investment, issues of individual needs/rights versus community needs/rights.

• Patience and respect for others.

• Co-operation — necessary in all organizations. Commitment — feeling it and developing it in others. Ingenuity — searching for a better way.

• The importance of homemaking — making a home. Listening to my needs for my home as well as the needs of my housemates.

• The co-op experience reinforced my innate sense of trusting myself and not getting caught up in life’s compulsions.

• I learned to appreciate reggae music.

• The importance of community and the knowledge that community has to be nurtured, not taken for granted.

• Consensus, playfulness, the necessity of providing 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 materialistic lifestyle.

• Yes, in terms of “lifestyle can make a difference (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 purpose 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 useful information.

George Melnyk said that change and even catastrophe is beneficial for a co-operative, for from this can come rebirth and growth. Well... perhaps an earthquake was overkill, yet our co-operative communities have not died and are not going to, because people from these communities have come together to ensure the future of Stanford co-operatives. It isn’t a complete exaggeration to say that this report stems from a crisis and may be the first step in the growth of our communities. So let us now take a look at the effects of the earthquake.

A Chronology of the Post‑Quake Events

By Sally Otto, Columbaen (with Joanna Davidson, Synergite)

In this section, I chronicle the events which have affected the Stanford co-operative community since the earthquake at 5:04 PM on October 17, 1989. My purpose is two-fold: to record events which rapidly fade from memory, and to point out those events which were particularly strengthening or disempowering with the hope that we may reinforce the former. I draw my information mainly from notes taken by Joanna Davidson and myself.

October 1989

Tuesday 10/17 — QUAKE. Nobody in the Stanford community was seriously injured. We heard by word of mouth (Row Office -> RAs -> residents) that Columbae, Hammarskjöld, Kairos, Phi Psi, Synergy, Theta Chi (all the co-ops but Terra) as well as other residences may be severely damaged and should not be entered. Many students, having no place to sleep, camped in their front yards.

Wednesday 10/18 — Classes were canceled. Students were allowed into the houses for ten minutes to retrieve bare essentials. At around 5 PM, President Donald Kennedy announced that classes would be held Thursday and mentioned that some of his china had broken. We then found out our temporary housing assignments. Several co-opers felt dehumanized when they learned that classes would be held before learning where they could sleep or when they could retrieve necessities (including books) from their homes. Out of this frustration came the student‑organized meeting on Thursday.

Thursday 10/19 — A couple of hundred displaced students gathered at 2 PM on the Columbae front lawn to discuss our situation and to set an agenda for 4 PM, at which time several members of the administration were to join us. “Movers and Shakers”, written by Robert Abrams, was a summary of these meetings (See Appendix). The mood was very positive and non-confrontational considering the circumstances. Generally, both the students and the staff expressed a desire and willingness to work together. A task force was created to assist in this process. Notable presences: Jim Lyons, Diana Conklin (who promised and later delivered an extension of the pass/no credit option and temporary meal cards for EAs as well as residents), Jack Chin. Notable absences: Don Kennedy, Alice Supton.

The contrast between the lawn of Columbae and the podium, between discussing and being told, between working together and being excluded struck me so strongly and painfully...

Friday 10/20 — The first task force met at 11:30 AM. A damage estimate for Stanford was placed at 150-160 million dollars. No kitchen was made available to the displaced students despite students’ concerns. However, the Elliott Program Center and Bechtel kitchens could, as always, be used by making prior arrangements. It was our understanding at this point that “Students will be involved in long-range planning” as Joanna noted. At 5 PM, an informational meeting was held at Kresge at the invitation of staff. Donald Kennedy started by reading a five minute speech (and then promptly leaving)...

Please allow a short digression here so that I may explain why this meeting is imprinted on my mind so heavily. The contrast between the lawn of Columbae and the podium, between discussing and being told, between working together and being excluded struck me so strongly and painfully...

Understand that most of my pain during this meeting was caused not when I learned that Columbae would be closed for the year but when I realized that the power and strength of co-operation had been cast away and a hierarchy reimposed.

Houses Closed for the Year:

Columbae, Delta Tau Delta, Phi Psi, Synergy

Houses Closed for the Quarter* :

Durand, Roth, Theta Xi (The Taxi)

Houses Opening on Saturday 10/29:

French, Grove-Lasuen, Hammarskjöld, Kairos, Phi Sig.

Thus leaving around 260 students without housing. Moving arrangements were essentially made for all houses (30 minutes allotted per person) except Columbae, which was considered too dangerous to enter. Students were released from their housing contracts, while if they wanted to remain in on-campus housing, a draw was scheduled for the upcoming week. An all co-op dinner was hosted at Terra. For me, the unity among the Stanford co-ops was at an all time high.

Saturday 10/21 — A morning task force meeting took place with Michael Jackson (M.J.), Jack Chin, and representatives of the displaced residences. On-campus housing options were discussed. Students proposed increasing the size of the draw group from eight to twenty to accommodate a community. M.J. voiced a concern about “taking over” the community into which we entered. Co-op representatives proposed that the Draw be held among the students by consensus. M.J. is concerned that some students would be railroaded by this process. Members of other displaced houses voiced concern about the time involved. Co-op members meet to discuss off-campus housing at 2 PM. The group agrees to work together rather than to edge each other out of possible options. [This meeting was later criticized by M.J. for not having included the other closed houses.]

Monday 10/23 — Yet another meeting...The Draw was to take place as always (not by consensus). Moving vans would be supplied only for those students remaining on-campus. Madeline Larsen (SWOPSI staff, Theta Chi and Phi Psi alum) began the organizing group for this Co-op SWOPSI class.

Tuesday 10/24 — The draw is explained to all students interested. Eventually, about half of the displaced co‑opers remain on-campus while several co-op communities were started off-campus, including Casa Hermosa, Eudaemonia, and Iris Corner. I can’t begin to describe the headaches involved in the off-campus housing hunt. We were hung-up on, laughed at, and pitied, but generally not offered housing. Alice Supton, Diana Conklin, and Michael Jackson helped by writing letters of recommendation. Donald Kennedy said he would write and could be contacted by phone.

Wednesday 10/25 — A meeting about academic concerns for students affected by the earthquake took place (jointly organized by co-op students, Jim Lyons, and members of the Academic Standing Office) [repeated on Thursday].

Thursday 10/26 — The Draw took place. All those students who had requested exemptions from University Food Service were allowed to do so. Students had requested this exception so that they could become Eating Associates at the open co-ops. Surprisingly, it had been a struggle to get this exception.

November 1989

Sunday 11/5 — Weekly Co-op Coffee House: About 40 co-opers gathered in the evening at Elliott Program Center to study, to drum and play guitar, and to consume caffeine and sugar (or honey).

Wednesday 11/8 — Well, I’ll lift coverage of this task force meeting straight from the Co‑oper:

Displaced Co-ops: A “Task Force” Update

Phi Psi, Synergy, Columbae and Taxi representatives met with Jack Chin on Wednesday (11/8) to chat about the current state of affairs in displacement-ville. For brevity’s sake I’ll just list items of interest:

*Keys should be returned to the Row Office.

*Cyclone fencing will be put up around the closed houses.

*There have been no new structural reports since we went in to remove our belongings... No decision has yet been made as to whether our houses will be torn down... No commitment has been made to reinstate the closed co-ops.

*The Row will stop collecting mail on November 17th. At that point, all mail will delivered to the houses will be returned to sender [emphasis in original] unless alternative arrangements can be made with the Postmaster. You can try to forward your mail though the Post Office by noting your house’s name (e.g. 549 Lasuen rather than Columbae). The Post Office generally doesn’t forward mail from student residences on-campus.

*The window on the inside of S.O.S. [Student Organization Services] on the second floor in Tresidder is the new message board for displaced students.

*Displaced Communities have the second highest priority (out of eight) for reserving Elliott Program Center (first priority goes to Res Ed and Governor’s corner).

* Call Row Facilities for info on how to get any remaining personal stuff out of the co-ops or out of Durand (where the boxes finally went). There is still no news as to whether we can get our personal furniture out.

* Have a Nice Day.

Jack Chin also mentions that the Draw book goes out in mid-Winter Quarter, by which time the 1990-1991 housing options should have been decided.

December 1989

Monday 12/4 — By our request at the last meeting, Keith Guy (Director of Facilities) joined this task force meeting (arranged by Jack Chin). He explained that in the latest estimates, Synergy, Phi Psi, and the Delt house (on San Juan hill) would each cost about three million dollars to repair while Columbae was on the order of one million dollars. The cost to rebuild is about two-and-a-half million for the type of houses involved. Since the Federal Emergency Management Association only supplies aid for repairs if repair costs are under half of the rebuilding costs, it was doubtful that all the closed houses would be repaired. If these houses were to be fixed, they would probably not be ready by fall 1990, while if they were to be rebuilt they would probably not be ready by fall 1991. Durand, Roth, and Taxi are still slated to re-open by fall 1990. Blueprints for all the houses had to be re-drawn, which was causing a big delay.

As far as decision-making goes, according to Jack Chin, 1990-1991 housing options on the Row would probably be decided by Jack Chin, Diana Conklin, and Roger Whitney, while long-term decisions would be made by a host of people including the above mentioned, Norm Robinson, Keith Guy, the Housing Operations Advisory Committee (HOAC), the Housing Office, the Programs Office, and the Administrative Council. By this time it had become crystal clear that while the task force may offer suggestions, it is not a decision-making group. One rather depressing message was that University officials had chosen to give the fraternities a higher priority for rehousing because of a past agreement made between fraternity alums and Stanford.

Monday 12/11 — Co-op representatives take home-baked bread to the Board of Trustees’ luncheon.

January 1990

Tuesday 1/9 — “Reliable rumor” had it that none of the houses can be fixed by the fall of 1990, leaving seven houses competing for re-housing.

Tuesday 1/16 — Task force meeting with Jack Chin and Roger Whitney (Director of Housing). Roger was hopeful at that point that at least some of the houses would be re-opened in the fall. He talked of each of the co-ops as distinct programs saying that the Housing Office would “try to keep a program going in some form...to some degree and somehow.” Yet he added that the U‑op and self-op options would also have to be retained. We were told to plan on being included in the draw book.

Thursday 1/25 — A back-page article in the Daily claims: “Columbae to reopen next year”. Keith Guy confirms the possibility, although building would not start until May.

Friday 1/26 — About 150 co-opers attend a fantastic co-op dinner sponsored by Hammarskjöld (esp. Bob Abrams).

Sunday 1/28 — The poor Co-op Coffee House takes its final gasp after weeks of attendance by only those few die-hard bohemians.

Monday 1/29 — Calls to Jack Chin reveal that displaced students who were guaranteed this year would be given another guaranteed year (believe it or not, this had actually been a bone of contention) and that all displaced residents would be given an alumni priority essentially guaranteeing that they would have a spot in their house.

February 1990

Tuesday 2/6 — The task-force reconvened with Diana Conklin and Roger Whitney as guests. R.W. confirmed that Columbae, The Taxi, Roth and Durand were scheduled to re-open in the fall. D.C. mentioned that, to her surprise, nobody within the administration had recommended eliminating any of the closed “programs” during the various meetings which had taken place since the earthquake. D.C. also said that there was hope that Synergy and the Delt house could be rebuilt, although this process would take at least a couple of years. They recommend that the co-opers write a proposal in order to have student input into structural improvements in the houses, especially environmentally sound improvements.

The Rest of February

Around this time, classmembers started discussing which Row houses were preferable homes for Synergy and Phi Psi next year. We talked about the relationship between architecture and community, and came up with a list of suggested houses for the Row Office to consider. Somewhere along the way, Dave Boat (the cook at Phi Sig) heard that the class was deciding to move into Phi Sig, removing him from his job. He came to class the following week and made a statement expressing his concerns.

Dave awakened our collective consciousness and made us acutely aware of our negative impact on the Row. This started an involved and intense three week debate about our housing suggestions for next year. The discussion was often heated; some people thought we should put off housing the co-ops for another year until all of the houses were fixed, while others insisted that we were going to have an impact somewhere and somehow and that it was futile to try to decide who we were going to put out of a job.

Everyone agreed that more information was crucial, so people went to visit the cook at 553 Mayfield, talk to the Delts (who were also in need of a temporary home), and find out about current student manager positions in the potentially affected houses. After gathering this data, we reminded ourselves of our position in this decision - we could merely make suggestions to the row, while the administrators still had all decision making power. This was the most frustrating aspect of the process - we were being held accountable for a decision in which we had limited influence.

We decided that the best course of action would be to include everyone in the decision making process. We scheduled an open meeting, and invited all potentially displaced cooks, cleaners, residents, the Delts and the relevant administrators. The purpose of the meeting was to create a forum where everyone could discuss their concerns with those “in power,” in order to minimize the negative impacts of the relocations.

Unfortunately the administrators from the Row that we invited vetoed the idea and refused to participate. Realizing that it would be an ineffective meeting without them, we drafted a letter which described our attempted meeting and explained our role in the decision making process, and distributed among the people we had invited. (See Appendix).

Finally, on the 28th of February, the class held a meeting open to all members of the co-op community in order to discuss our research and get feedback on our recommendations. In addition to class participants, a few members of the Phi Psi and Columbae communities attended. The main topics were ethnic and cultural diversity and the relocation of houses for the following year. After extensive discussion, the group agreed to put 553 Mayfield, Durand and Phi Sig on our list of preferred houses to be given to the Row. (See Appendix for meeting agenda.)

Overall, the issue of rehousing Synergy and Phi Psi next year was extremely time consuming and often frustrating. However, the discussions were valuable in that we learned a great deal about consensus and once again affirmed our much our process differs from University decision making. Ultimately, our input had little impact on the Row’s final decision.

March 1990

Tuesday 3/6 — Present along with the task force representatives were Jack Chin, Norm Robinson and Keith Guy. We are told that the communities of Columbae, Phi Psi, and Synergy will be rehoused the following fall in the Alpha Delt House, Columbae, and the Grove houses in an order to be chosen by the co-op community. It was stipulated that the Grove houses had to be University cleaned, although it was unclear whether or not a compromise could be struck. Construction for Columbae, as well as Durand, Roth, and The Taxi, was scheduled to begin in May and end by the first of September. Information about Open Houses and outreach was also provided at this meeting.

Wednesday 3/7 — During the class following this task force meeting, we decided that Synergy would move into the Grove houses, Phi Psi into the AD house, and Columbae back home.

Special Note 1: Although not specifically mentioned, the displaced students were given free meal cards and Oak Lounge in Tresidder for two weeks as promised on 10/20. These amenities made the period much more tolerable and deserve a word of thanks.

Special Note 2: The task force did in fact consist of actual human beings: among the co-op students who attended were Chip Bartlett, Jon Birnbaum, Joanna Davidson, Michelle Duran, Sally Otto, Matt Price, Ken Sakaie.

Special Note 3: Perhaps because of all the bureaucratic hoops we were jumping through, the Co‑oper newsletter and the Inter Co-op Council failed to become avenues of expression and action.

Conclusions: The Stanford co-operative world manages to avoid hierarchy in part by ignoring that structure in which it is imbedded. Although I have been very quick above to point out acts which led to frustration on the part of co-opers, I must point to our own culpability. Since we didn’t interact with people in the administration on an individual basis before the earthquake, it became close to impossible to establish mutually respectful, co-operative relationships after the crisis. Hence, I move forward from this point believing that outreach efforts must extend to all members of Stanford and that open and all-encompassing discussions should take place about the role and the power of a co-op within Res Ed and of the role and the power of Res Ed “over” a co-op.

Effects of and Concerns about Closing Synergy, Columbae, 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 communities were overlooked by some and our needs misunderstood as insubstantial by some. The significance of these communities’ absence — not only to their members, but to the larger campus — must be adequately explored. The reasons residents value these three co-ops correspond directly with the value of the co-operative system to the Stanford community. This presentation reveals the serious concerns surrounding the closing of these co-ops and the closing’s effect on former co-op residents and the entire campus community as a whole.

Instead of presenting the interviews as commentaries on predefined categories, we have chosen to let each community speak for itself, each interview in its own unity.

Columbae Co-op

Our interviewee from Columbae is now relocated on campus in a dormitory setting. She begins the interview saying, “It’s not as simple as just choosing housing on campus, or even co‑operative housing on campus. It’s the idea of choosing specifically where you want to live.” “All co-ops are by far not the same... Co-ops are just another kind of theme house (Columbae is the non-violence theme house). Each co-op has its own character and each serves as a specific support group for those who become part of that community.”

What makes co-op life important for her is that “it’s a real community, not just an isolated existence.” Which compared to a dorm is very different, she explains: “It’s [living in a co-op] like putting out a conscious effort to create a communication between those of a mutual understanding, to walk outside your security without having to walk into someone else’s four walls, to find a common space, a communal together space.” “More often than not,” she says, “the kitchen is such a central meeting place.” The way work is managed in the co-ops is important to her too because “when you make your own food, or when your friends make your own food, it puts you in touch with what you put inside your body.” She expressed that a common denominator among the co-op communities is that they are all groups of people who practice ways of life distinct from the mainstream dormitory atmosphere.

Our interviewee points out that what she describes as a basic similarity between the co-op systems serves a dual purpose, the same dual purpose that Residential Education wishes to establish in creating theme houses. She notes, “The co-ops are a support group for the members
of that community and also inherently complement the diversity of the larger community.” That is, the co-operative work system adds diversity to the array of campus housing options, and each specific co-op, each community of people-who-know-each-other, functions as a support group which has adapted over time and through co-operative interaction to the particular needs of its members.

Phi Psi Co-op

“Fragmentation” was the word used by our interviewee from Phi Psi to describe the effect of the closing of his co-op. Post-earthquake, “The members of the community don’t see each other anymore.” Relocated off-campus, he says, “I don’t see anyone from the house (besides drawmates from the house) except by coincidence, but it is really nice when I see them.” He notes what may be seen by some as more serious impacts: “My grades went down, I drank more alcohol than usual, and I had trouble sleeping, because I was . . . ill at ease.” He qualifies, saying, “You can never attribute general problems to one cause, but not being part of a community definitely was a factor.”

How has he adapted? “To try to keep the co-op atmosphere, I am an E.A. [eating associate] at Theta Chi, but if you don’t live with the people, it is really hard to be a part of the community.” He noted that “Some people can fit in anywhere, but some people thrive in specific situations. And not being a member of a co-op really affected me academically and in my 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 community.

Synergy Co-op

One of our interviewees, a Synergy resident at the time of the earthquake, has relocated in Chi Theta Chi, another campus student co-operative. He relates having “recaptured much of what was lost,” adding, “that I have been accepted so warmly reinforces the ideals of a kind of community we wish to create, and its significance.” “Hearing the stories of my fellow co‑opers who miss that community brings me to lament for its scarcity.” Asked what in particular those fellow co-opers might be experiencing, he characterizes it as “a sense of place and belongingness that’s lacking.” He explained that being part of a community, he has an easier time communicating because people know where he is coming from, and that he “has something to look forward to” when he is “down.” Explaining further, he says, “In a co-op, there is centrality and identity. The kitchen is the centrality; the food, the social patterns surrounding food. These responsibilities give a locus of interaction, a sense of identity.”

Comparing the co-operative food plan and cleaning system to the corresponding systems in a dorm setting, he noted that he felt the co‑operative system to be “more natural — it’s the dorm that’s nonconventional, that’s artificial. But I haven’t lived in a dorm in years.” Echoing similar feelings, another displaced Synergy resident, now relocated in Terra, described her decision to live in a student co-operative after two years living in a dormitory setting. Initially 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.

She looked at several co-ops, and chose Synergy because she liked the house, thought it was “pretty random,” [it is a rambling old house filled with brilliant murals on the inside] and was situated in a “nice location.” The physical environment at Synergy, rare on campus, was an important ingredient of house life.

Because Synergy wasn’t “hard-core ‘hippie,’” as she put it, she found it appealing at this initial stage of investigation, whereas Columbae was initially “too intimidating.” She liked Synergy because it was less political than Columbae but still promoted ideas concerning rape education and resource conservation. Her statements reflect the University’s loss in sum-total diversity not only due to the cumulative closure of three co-ops but also due to the (one hopes, temporary) disappearance of these co-ops’ particular spirits, their historical character as distinct communities.

Now relocated in a campus student co-op with a very different character and history, she summarizes by saying that she is still in a community which does the cooking and cleaning for itself (her original motivation for living in a co-op) but that now she realizes that what she liked most about co-ops was living with those who shared your ideas and commitments — commitments of putting those ideas into practice everyday. “Co-ops are thought of as places where you cook and live and work together but the spirit is much more of a prevalent aspect of a co-op.” Without the special combination of co‑operative cooking, cleaning, and decision-making systems and the ‘spirit,’ different for each co-op, that went with Synergy, Phi Psi, and Columbae, the campus will be lacking an outlet for students who themselves share this kind of Synergy spirit, Columbae spirit, or Phi Psi spirit.

Summary

The interviews here represent a portrait of former co-op residents’ attempt to cope with the current crisis. The detailing and explanation that make up the interviews are representative of the questions and evaluations that one thinks about once one has lost something. What exactly was it? Why 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 former Columbae resident interviewed, now living in a dormitory setting, explains the importance of the self-contained support ethos and personal friendship in a co-op. She stresses that this support function fulfills the dual purpose for theme houses set out by Residential Education, especially because each co-op has its own character. Our Phi Psi interviewee also emphasizes the importance of the “specific situation” provided by the co-op setting that he lived in, and explains the significance of the absence of community interaction by way of what may be recognized by some readers as more “serious,” concrete crisis symptoms: decline in academic performance, increase in alcohol consumption, sleeplessness.

Co-ops are places where people work together and take responsibility for the mechanics of daily life — they live together in a very real sense, thinking about cooking and cleaning and making their house a home. — Classmember

Our two interviewees from Synergy (to keep gender balance in the interviews we made four interviews for three co-op communities) struck a slightly different tone. Both relocated in co-ops and fairly well re-adjusted, they focussed more on the operative aspects of co-ops as they have them now. The interviewee relocated in Theta Chi lamented for the scarcity of communication other residents not rehoused in co-ops undergo, linking the positive communication which co-ops foster to the shared responsibility which characterizes the co-op work system.

Similarly, the other Synergy interviewee noted that this work system meant to her an alternative to what she had experienced as “pampering in the dorms,” and the opportunity for “closeness between people” in a residence. But relocated in 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 community, its “specific situation,” in the words of our Phi Psi interviewee. In her words, a significant part of the current crisis is the absence of the “spirit” unique to each co-op — Synergy, Phi Psi, and Columbae — that, at least for the time being, prevails over all former residents of these three communities.

The Structure of Decision Making

By Alan Hayne, Columbaen

This report is an evaluation of the decision-making process both after the Earthquake and in general. It is primarily based upon five interviews, conducted with the following administrators:

• Jack Chin, Assistant Director of the Row

• Michael Jackson, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs

• Jim Lyons, Dean of Student Affairs

• Alice Supton, Director of Residential Education

• Bob Hamrdla, Assistant to President Kennedy

The comments of these folks will be incorporated into an analysis of the basic issues that affect our participation in the Stanford environment. Understanding the relationship between the interests of the University and the interests of the co-op community seems to be vital both in defining the relationship that we have with the University, and in planning for the future of our community.

Work Group and Task Force

After the earthquake, there were two groups functioning: the “workgroup”, which consisted of Alice, Jack, Michael, Jim, Diana Conklin, Roger Whitney, and several other administrators with whom we had little contact, and a second group formed later, the “Taskforce”, which consisted of Michael Jackson, Jack Chin and one or more representatives of each displaced House. Michael and Jack would listen to the comments of the students in the Taskforce, then take these comments as suggestions to the Workgroup, where he would “attempt to present them in the manner they had been presented.”

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 Workgroup felt that they had adjusted to student input, by “allowing” students to live in dorms without buying a board plan and in allowing groups of up to eight to draw together. Thus, there were changes made due to student input. This is not democracy, however, which everyone I spoke with readily conceded. Jack notes that “The University is not a corporation,” but as Jim puts it, there were “choices that needed a fair amount of student input, but really weren’t up for vote.” Jack also added that “administrators make decisions.”

If students weren’t making the decisions, who was? This is an issue that was very unclear during the period of dislocation, and seems to be enigmatic to most of the people in the Stanford community. Jack said that his “most memorable moment” in this experience was reading in the Daily that Columbae would reopen. He explains that we are “working across divisions... therefore it gets confusing — Can’t point at any one person.”

Upon learning that I was with the co-ops, Bob asked if I was part of “the blitz”. Apparently, our letter writing to the President’s Office was one of the more substantial collections of fan and junk mail that they have received in some time. He said, however, that it was perhaps somewhat misdirected. “The decision whether there will or will not be co-ops is not made by the Board of Trustees, and it is not made by the President.” Who is making decisions, Bob? “The Dean of Student Affairs.”

He points to Dean Jim Lyons, who feels that he makes decisions by weighing the needs of the different parties involved. His first impulse after the earthquake was to “set up structures,” such as the phone network at Tresidder. Because this was a crisis, the first priority of most of the administrators was health and safety, and therefore expediency. For this reason, democracy and consensus were sacrificed for a need or perceived need to immediately rehouse students. Did this sacrifice really act as a catalyst towards realizing the goal of “business as usual?”

Hierarchy and Consensus

Alice’s most memorable moments were “the two meetings,” which were the Friday (10/20) meeting in Kresge and one of the meetings in Tresidder. In evaluating what works in decision-making, she is without the benefit of the Thursday (10/19) meeting at Columbae, which seems unfortunate. This gives a hint of the problems with communication that have occurred. Our only existing model of what a meeting should be was the Thursday meeting on the lawn of Columbae. E

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

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	Androgyny	Columbae	Terra	Synergy	Hammarskjöld	Theta Chi	Phi Psi
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

Preface

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Table of Contents

Summary

Overview

Co-operation

Background

The Current Crisis

Recommendations and Alternatives

Modifications to Columbae House

Phi Psi and Synergy Structures

Synergy and Phi Psi Transition

Co-op Outreach

A Co-op Union

Ethnic and Cultural Diversity

Alternatives for Further Consideration

Outreach Beyond the Class

Appendix

A Late Note

I. Overview

II. Co-operation

Theories, Models and Issues Concerning Co‑operation

What is Co-operation?

Five Kinds of Companies Co‑opera­tive in the Narrow Sense

Liberal Democratic

Marxist

Socialist

Communalist

Informal

Principles of Co-operation

1. Voluntary Membership.

2. One Person/One vote.

3. Open Membership.

4. Limited Capital Return.

5. Education About Co-operation.

6. Co-operation Between Co-ops.

7. Egalitarianism.

8. Nationalism.

9. Class-Consciousness.

10. Evolutionary Development.

11. Decentralization.

12. Multifunctionalism.

13. Work Outside the Co-op.

14. Self-Reliance.

15. Open Principle.

Notes on Community, Co‑oper­ation, and Sustainable Living

Leland Stanford’s Ideas on Co‑operation

Residential Education and Co‑operative Ideals

THE CO-OPERATIVE HOMES AT STANFORD

Goals of Residential Education Embodied in Co-ops

The Co-op / Res-Ed Relationship

III. Background

Current Campus Residential Co-ops

The Stanford Residential Co-op Timeline

Co-op Vacancy Statistics: 1980-89

Columbae House

Physical Structure

Financial Status

Food Policy

Governance Policy

House Work Division

Relations with the University

Theme

Special Features

History

Hammarskjöld House

Physical Structure

Financial Status

Student Composition

Draw Statistics

Food Policy

Governance Policy

House Work Division

Theme

Relations with the University

Special Features

History

Kairos House

Physical Structure

Financial Status

Five Kinds of Companies Co‑operative in the Narrow Sense

Notes on Community, Co‑operation, and Sustainable Living