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

Summary.......................................................................................................................... i

I. Overview....................................................................................................................... 1

II. Co-operation................................................................................................................ 3

Theories, Models and Issues Concerning Co‑operation 3

What is Co-operation?............................................................................. 3

Five Kinds of Companies Co‑operative in the Narrow Sense 4

Principles of Co-operation....................................................................... 5

Notes on Community, Co‑operation, and Sustainable Living 7

Leland Stanford’s Ideas on Co‑operation 7

Residential Education and Co‑operative Ideals 8

The Co-operative Houses at Stanford....................................................... 11

Goals of Residential Education Embodied in Co-ops............................... 11

The Co-op / Res-Ed Relationship............................................................. 12

III. Background................................................................................................................ 13

Current Campus Residential Co-ops.................................................................... 13

The Stanford Residential Co-op Timeline................................................ 13

Co-op Vacancy Statistics: 1980-89.......................................................... 14

Columbae House...................................................................................... 14

Hammarskjöld House.............................................................................. 18

Kairos House........................................................................................... 20

Phi Psi House.......................................................................................... 22

Synergy House........................................................................................ 25

Terra House............................................................................................. 31

Theta Chi.................................................................................................. 33

Defunct Residential Stanford Co-operatives......................................................... 35

Walter Thompson Co-operative............................................................... 35

Jordan House........................................................................................... 35

Androgyny House (aka Simone de Beauvoir).......................................... 36

Ecology House......................................................................................... 36

Other Co-operative Institutions at Stanford.......................................................... 37

The Co-op Council............................................................................................... 37

The Co-op Alumni Network................................................................................. 37

Non-residential Stanford Co-ops......................................................................... 37

The Kosher Eating Co-op........................................................................ 38

Stanford Federal Credit Union................................................................. 38

Co-ops in the Community.................................................................................... 39

Residential Co-ops at Other Universities.............................................................. 39

Introduction.............................................................................................. 39

UC Berkeley............................................................................................ 40

Harvard.................................................................................................... 40

Cornell..................................................................................................... 40

Madison................................................................................................... 42

Brown University..................................................................................... 42

UC Davis................................................................................................. 42

Conclusion: Implications for the Stanford Co-ops................................... 44

Survey of Stanford Co-op Alumni....................................................................... 49

IV. The Current Crisis...................................................................................................... 57

Chronology of the Post‑Quake Events 57

Effects of and Concerns about Closing Synergy, Columbae

, and Phi Psi Co‑ops 61

The Structure of Decision Making....................................................................... 64

V. Recommendations and Alternatives............................................................................. 66

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 66

Recommendations of the Class............................................................................ 66

Repair of Buildings.................................................................................. 66

Changes in Co-op Programs This Year.................................................... 71

The Co-op Union..................................................................................... 73

Ethnic and Cultural Diversity................................................................... 75

Options for the Future.......................................................................................... 77

Co-op Office............................................................................................ 77

Co-op Contract with the University.......................................................... 78

Resident Fellows...................................................................................... 80

A Separate Co-op Housing Draw............................................................. 81

Future Co‑op Buildings 81

Outreach to Other Co-opers .................................................................... 86

For Further Reference...................................................................................................... 88

Appendix ......................................................................................................................... 90

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:

Late on a cool clear Tuesday afternoon in October 1989, a major earthquake shook northern California. From Santa Cruz and Watsonville to Oakland and San Francisco, the quake inflicted serious damage, leaving more than 60 dead, many more injured, and hundreds of homes and businesses destroyed. The image of a collapsed double-deck freeway in Oakland transfixed a stunned population, and it took weeks before almost anything else could be thought of or discussed in the media.

At Stanford, where only by luck were major injuries avoided, hundreds of students were displaced from their housing for a day, a week, or more. Seven student residences were closed for the year, some perhaps never to be reopened. Among them were three of Stanford’s seven student-run co-operative houses. Along with two fraternities and two other row houses, the residents of Synergy, Columbae, and Phi Psi all had to scramble for new quarters — tucked into converted rooms or guest spaces in dorms, or off-campus.

Many of the residents of the co-ops felt strongly that the continued existence of their communities could not be taken for granted. Deprived of the shared living that is the substance of a co‑operative community, students feared that the ties and traditions that sustained the houses would erode to nothingness. The idealism that motivates students to co-operate thus was directed towards ensuring the future of co-operative living after the quake.

With the larger tragedy of the quake as an everpresent background, students reconstructed their lives. Dealing with the University Administration became suddenly an everyday issue. Competing demands, lack of communication and an unavoidable uncertainty left student/administration relations tense.

Madeline Larsen, a former resident of Phi Psi and Theta Chi who now works in the SWOPSI office, first suggested organizing a SWOPSI class as part of a campaign to keep the co-ops open. Her contacts with students and other co-op “alums” soon produced a core group that conceived and won approval for what became SWOPSI 146: Co-operative Living and the Current Crisis at Stanford.

Some people felt that such a class stretched the boundaries of even SWOPSI’s broad definition of academic subject matter. The class was seen as inevitably becoming an interest group, advocating for the co-ops. But, at an October 1989 conference marking the 20th anniversary of SWOPSI at Stanford, a group of current and former SWOPSI participants were enthusiastic about reviving an old SWOPSI idea: focusing SWOPSI classes on developing and implementing solutions to real, local problems. This class would be a perfect re-incarnation of that spirit. Together with reading and research on co-op history and theory, the group would prepare a report outlining alternatives for the three closed co-ops and the Stanford co-op system in general, and would also put forward recommendations among those alternatives.

Several alums provided resources for the course planning; the student co-instructors worked on the planning while struggling to find new houses and patching together their academic lives. The result was a detailed 10-week plan outlining background reading, research questions and methods, and a process and framework for exploring and evaluating alternatives.

Twenty five people came to the first class, and twenty remained all quarter. The first five weeks were devoted to providing a common framework for discussion through reading different types of materials, learning about co-ops at other universities, and compiling and sharing histories of the co-operatives at Stanford. Four task groups were identified to organize different aspects of the work; these groups focused on compiling a history of the Stanford housing co-ops, researching other co-ops at Stanford and elsewhere, surveying students campus-wide and co‑op alums, and monitoring the development of University policies affecting the future of the co‑ops.

In the second half of the course, a larger number of groups was formed to pursue different areas and develop recommendations. From short-term questions such as “how do we communicate to students not in the class?” to long term issues regarding autonomy and alternative funding for the co-ops, groups of 2 to 4 drew on what they’d learned to form concrete proposals.

Controversial proposals were brought before a meeting open to all co-opers not in the class, or discussed by the whole class. Those on which the class did not agree consensually were left as options for the future. Where there was substantial agreement, proposals were advanced as recommendations. It is the collected results of this process that comprise Part V of this report, and which are the fruits of the seeds planted at the SWOPSI reunion conference.

As we publish this report, we know vastly more about the future of the co-ops than we did just three months ago. On the one hand, we know where the three displaced communities will be physically located next year, and this provides a foundation on which to rebuild the communities. On the other hand, through the class we have studied a wide range of possibilities for the development of the co-ops and highlighted those we think feasible and desirable. We hope that this examination of the past, present, and future of co-ops at Stanford will provide an inspiration to the students and others who will take responsibility for their direction.

Theories, Models and Issues Concerning Co‑operation

What is Co-operation?

Broadly defined, co-operation is interaction harmonized for mutual benefit. Co-operation in this sense may be contrasted with competition.

Co-operating organisms struggle together toward mutual goals.

Competing organisms struggle against each other toward mutually exclusive goals.

Clearly, both kinds of interaction are essential to the proper functioning of society. For example, a corporation must have internal co-operation if it is going to succeed in external competition. Co‑operation and competition are suited for different goals. Any motion that is co-operative is necessarily not competitive. Co-operative and competitive companies must both co-operate and compete with each other.

More narrowly defined, co-operation is quite literally, “co-operation” — that is, the collective operation of a company. In a company collectively operated, (1) every person served by the company is a member of the company, and (2) every member has (at least potentially) equal influence on the behavior of the company. The goals of the company are thus guaranteed to be equivalent to the goals of its members, taken collectively.

The word “company” is taken from the Latin “co(m)-” (together) and “pan-is” (bread), in origin identical to the word “companion.” A company is thus a group of people who take their bread together, a group of companions. Our definition of “company” shall encompass the narrow use of the word in business, but shall also go beyond it. By “company” henceforth we mean any group of people keeping company for a mutual purpose, such as making bread, or any group of companions.

Property may be held by a company. In a purely competitive system, each individual (or each individual company) has total control over a certain, generally small, bit of property. In a purely co-operative system, each individual (or each individual company) has partial and equal control over a large amount of property. These two basic forms of property may be combined variously to yield the other forms of property, such corporations, state-controlled property, or co-operative property over which certain people have disproportionate control. Holding property co-operatively requires the individual to submit to the group will, but by so doing allows large resources to be effectively harmonized and directed toward goals unattainable by the individual.

All companies are co-operative, at least in the broad sense. That is, they are animated by a common aim. This common aim may be artificial or natural. A farm, for example, may be animated by two purposes: first, to generate income for the owner; second, to meet a need. In general, the first reason will dominate. If the owner employs wage labor toward fulfilling the first purpose, owner and employees are animated by different (and to some extent competitive) goals: the owner to maximize his or her profit, the employees to maximize their wages. The company will only exist as a company so long as employee wages are sufficient to motivate the employees to pursue the secondary interest that links them to the owner: providing food. Since this interest is not the first interest, it is sustained artificially by the motivation of profit (for the owner) or wages (for the employees).

A collectively operated company, on the other hand, is sustained naturally by the mutual interest of its members. Profit and wages are identical and need not be reconciled. A collectively operated company arises to satisfy the needs of all its members, and will be stable so long as the members share their mutual goal and find the company an effective means toward their ends.

Students keep company. Every student residence is a company, animated by companions. Residents are united in the task of residential living and share the goal of making their surroundings pleasant and livable. Thus, they form associations of friends, floors, and halls, and act co‑operatively to create social events or to adjudicate differences. They even hold co-operative property in the form of house funds. However, not every residence is co-operative in the sense of being collectively operated by the students. Residences go various degrees in this direction, but none at Stanford is entirely outside University control (nor, if one was, would we call it a University residence).

Residences tend toward co-operation as students gain control of their environment. When students band together to cook or clean, they act co-operatively toward a mutual goal. When students purchase their own food supplies, they maintain and direct co-operative property. Hired labor is anathema to co-operation because it provides for the mutuality of goals only through the artificial incentive of wages. Self-determination, on the other hand, is essential: co-operation is a means of directing resources and thus requires resources to direct.

In a competitive university environment, the benefits of co-operation and mutual support may unfortunately be given slender attention. Co‑operation is a skill that must be learned and practiced, and it is essential to the proper operation of society. If a student learns only competition and never co-operation, he or she is not well prepared for a constructive role in society.

Five Kinds of Companies Co‑operative in the Narrow Sense

Drawing on and extending the work of George Melnyk[1], we may distinguish five general types of co-operatives in the narrow sense: the liberal democratic, the marxist, the socialist, the communalist, and the informal. Each of these types has a degree of bearing on the residential co‑operative companies at Stanford.

Liberal Democratic

Liberal Democratic co-operatives are generally businesses within a capitalist system, created primarily to reduce consumer cost, and competing directly with more traditional businesses. They play a very limited role in the members’ lives (unless the members happen to be employees), and serve a narrowly defined function. One joins by paying a small fee, or even simply by entering the place of business, and generally receives in turn either reduced prices or periodic rebates. The managers of liberal democratic co-operatives limit profit and return on investment, and return this money, instead, to the consumer. The Stanford Bookstore and the Stanford Federal Credit Union are both co-ops in this sense.

The student housing co-operatives, most narrowly defined, are co-operatives of this sort. To be a co-operative house at Stanford, one need only be a house operated in a liberal democratic manner: where students cook and clean so that they might save money.

Marxist

Marxist co-operatives are co-operatives initiated by communist governments. Membership is not voluntary, and control is so remote from the individual members that all but a few of the members have, in effect, no control over the system. Without voluntary membership, it is difficult to assure the singularity of the member’s aims without artificial means.

Student housing may learn from Marxist examples the advantages and disadvantages of enforced membership (a result of not filling in the draw), of enforced ideology, and of outside control by those who “know better.”

A co-op can be:
• a group of people coming together to produce something that benefits all and that couldn’t have been produced otherwise
• an exploration of methods by which people can work together to improve their lives or others’ lives
• a method of saving $ by sharing resources
• a method of empowerment, people banding together to work towards a collective goal and to gain strength as a unit — Classmember

Socialist

Socialist co-operatives, like Marxist co-operatives, are multi-functional, serving more than one need (such as employment, education and community). Unlike Marxist co-operatives, however, they exist within mainstream society, and their membership is voluntary. The Basque Mondragon and the Israeli Kibbutz are examples of socialist co-ops. They form full communities, and range over almost every aspect of their member’s lives. They minimize private property. The members of socialist co-ops are often united in their concern for each other by a separate ideology, such as Basque Nationalism or Zionism. This unification helps overcome the stresses put on the system by the competing goals of the members.

As co-operation increases in the student housing co-operatives, they tend in some respects toward socialist co-operation, because (unlike, for example, the Stanford Bookstore), the company or companionship is pervasive in the student’s life and serves multiple functions.

Communalist

Communalist co-operatives are small, utopian communes. The members are generally united by common political or religious beliefs. The “hippie” communes of the early seventies belong to the political communalist tradition. Monasteries and Hutterite societies belong to the religious communalist tradition. Communalist co‑ops are small, and generally stress total egalitarianism. They seek to dominate every aspect of their member’s lives, and are often the product of a single charismatic leader. They criticize and isolate themselves from the mainstream of society. They control every aspect of ownership, production, and consumption. They allow little or no private property.

When the Stanford student housing co-operatives initially arose, they were associated with the communalist tradition, although they are less so now as communalism has waned in popularity. Still, the co-ops are small and sometimes tightly-knit communities, and Synergy and Columbae in particular have tended to promote idealism and political involvement.

Informal

Informal co-operatives are companies of people banded together for a specific, informal purpose, such as to go on a ski trip, or for a formal purpose with largely informal attendant demands, such as marriage or membership in a club. Informal co-operatives are generally grounded in the trust of friendship, and last so long as the trust and the mutual goals remain. Informal co-ops may control one or many aspects of the member’s lives. They are generally the smallest co-operatives and the co-operatives most responsive to the demands of individual members.

Informal co-operation appears constantly in student housing in general, although it is an open question whether it appears more or less frequently in the co-ops. Much of the positive experience of co-operation may be attributed to informal co-operation. It is often the prop without which more formal co-operative companies would fail.

Principles of Co-operation

What makes a good co-op? Melnyk in The Search for Community lists fifteen basic principles, which can serve as a good beginning for reflection.The purpose of presenting them here, along with descriptions of different kinds of co‑operation and a discussion of co-operation is general, is to acquaint the reader with what co‑operation is in its ideal and to set the Stanford housing co-ops in the larger context of the co‑operative movement.

1. Voluntary Membership.

Because formal co-operation often also depends upon informal co-operation (and thus trust and goodwill) and because all members are taken into account in decision-making, destructive influences in co-operative companies can be particularly damaging. For this reason, it is imperative that the Stanford housing co-ops not have empty spaces that may be filled with people not interested in contributing positively to the community.

2. One Person/One vote.

This principle is implied in the definition of co‑operation. Every person must have the opportunity to exert influence upon the decisions of a co-operative company, and this influence should be equalized as much as possible. Voting per se is not essential. Most informal co-operatives are run by consensus as opposed to voting, as are several of the Stanford housing co-ops, and this is generally not seen as incompatible with co-operation.

3. Open Membership.

That anyone who agrees with the object of a co-operative company be admitted is in general a good rule of thumb. However, cases may arise where exclusion (or selection, which amounts to the same thing) based upon an objective principle such as ethnic diversity (Hammarskjöld) or based upon subjective criteria may be justifiable.

4. Limited Capital Return.

Companions working co-operatively may of course save or make money by doing so. What this principle suggests is that investment, which is a competitive principle, not be the guiding motive for co-operation.

5. Education About Co-operation.

If a co-op is to be successful the members must of course learn how to work co-operatively. If one agrees with the ideals of co-operation one might be inclined to persuade others of these ideals, and so long as such persuasion is done considerately, it is utterly appropriate.

6. Co-operation Between Co-ops.

Once co-operation is learned on a smaller scale, it may be attempted on a larger scale. The results will generally be beneficial.

7. Egalitarianism.

This principle is tied to the second principle, but is considerably broader. The sentiment here is that social and political inequalities are largely the product of competition, and are anathema to co‑operation. Co-operative groups are in a position to address these inequalities and should strive to do so.

8. Nationalism.

Co-ops should adapt as best they can to their (national and other) environment. This does not mean that they should go against their moral conscience or that they cannot strive to change their environments, but rather that co-operatives should not be hostile or revolutionary, but rather sympathetic and evolutionary — that is, they should exist in a co-operative relationship as much as possible with those around them.

9. Class-Consciousness.

Co-operatives should be aware of social problems (and not simply those of class) and do what they can to alleviate them. This should be the case for people in general. The argument that co-operatives should maintain political neutrality so as not to alienate members, however, also has some weight.

10. Evolutionary Development.

Co‑operatives should engage in peaceful social change.

11. Decentralization.

Central control and central administration provide the advantages of experienced decision-makers and continuity and consistency in decision-making, but these advantages must be balanced against the co-operative virtues of self-control and self-determination. The closer authority is to home, the more responsive it is to the needs of its members. This applies even if the members themselves are “in control” (e.g. as in the case of the voters being “in control” of the United States). Yet, co-operation itself is a means of centralizing action and guaranteeing that it will be harmonious, that individuals will not work at cross purposes. At Stanford, tension will always exist between those who want more independence and those who want more centralization (either in the form of a co-op council or in the form of control by the Stanford administration).

12. Multifunctionalism.

If one agrees with the principles of co-operation, one would like to see these principles operative on more than one plane of one’s life. Students in the Stanford housing co-operatives should seek not only to co-operate about cooking and cleaning, but also in other aspects of their interaction.

13. Work Outside the Co-op.

Members should not only co-operate within their communities, but should seek to promote positive change in the larger community.

14. Self-Reliance.

Self-reliance generates an atmosphere of mutual commitment and responsibility. Self-reliance separates one from involvement with and dependence on non-co-operative companies. Also, it ties in with the eleventh principle. Stanford students should learn to take care of themselves, because soon they may find themselves taking responsibility, not only for their own lives, but for the lives of others.

15. Open Principle.

The co-operative communities should be allowed to develop other principles as they wish. For example, one co-operative might develop a specific principle of environmentalism, another might wish to be an all women’s co-operative. The ideology of a community should reflect the interest of its members, and should always be open to change and input from its members.

These principles are meant to guide, not to dictate absolutely (nor could they dictate absolutely, even if we wanted them to). In general, they are already present in some form in the Stanford co‑operatives.

Notes on Community, Co‑operation, and Sustainable Living

People living in a community share, learn, teach, and grow in understanding as they cultivate an appreciation of the unique contribution which each person has to offer. People who work to build community share common interests, values, and purposes and also exhibit diversity in expressing these. A community fosters support for and from others, and encourages acceptance and toleration.

Co-operation is an essential element of community. The essence of co-operation lies in the idea that people benefit more from sharing and working together than from competing against one another. Collectively, we can more fully realize our purposes than we can working alone. Co-operation is an ongoing process which requires communication and understanding between members of the community. When we co-operate, we acknowledge and celebrate the interdependence of all the inhabitants of the planet.

People create a residential community when they share housing and the responsibilities of daily living such as cooking and cleaning. By engaging in these activities, people feel closer to each other as they develop appreciation and understanding of the other members of the community.

The behavior of life, and increasingly the behavior of human life, affects the environment. Each time we act on ideas we carry inside of us, the environment becomes a more accurate mirror of human thinking. In turn, changes in the environment impose demands for changes in human behavior.

Lifeforms interact with their environment like lock and key. Lacking a close fit, they cease to complement each other. When a sufficiently large gap opens between the pattern of a lifeform and that of the environment, death of the individual or extinction of the species ensues. Humans are currently changing the environment in ways unprecedented in both type and magnitude. We will benefit by reducing the rate at which we change the environment.

People living in University-operated, self-operated, and co-operated houses all have the ability to limit environmental impact. In practice, students who cook and clean for themselves are often in a better position to reduce conversion of resources. Choices made concerning type of foods (plant, animal; fresh, processed), utensils, dishware, and handtowels (reusable, disposable), waste (composting, recycling, throwing away), and soap (biodegradable, non-biodegradable) all make a difference in the total environmental impact of the people living in a house.

Leland Stanford’s Ideas on Co‑operation

It is one of Stanford’s best kept secrets that Leland Stanford Sr. was himself a powerful booster of co-operation in his later years. In an article written in 1989 and published in the Winter 1990 edition of the Stanford Historical Society’s quarterly journal Sandstone and Tile, former Stanford co-oper Lee Altenberg documents in detail the Senator’s beliefs about the values of co-operation.

Evidence of Stanford’s beliefs can be found right in the Grant of Endowment of the University, which lists among the leading objects of the University “...the independence of capital and the self-employment of non-capitalist classes, by such system of instruction as will tend to the establishment of co-operative effort in the industrial systems of the future.” Additional sources Altenberg cites in his article include Stanford’s address at the University’s Opening Exercises in 1891, a letter of Stanford’s to the first University President David Starr Jordan from 1893, and an address from Stanford to the University Trustees. From the Opening Address comes the following quote:

“We have also provided that the benefits resulting from co-operation shall be freely taught. ... Co-operative societies bring forth the best capacities, the best influences of the individual for the benefit of the whole, while the good influences of the many aid the individual.”

Stanford also sought to advance the practices of co-operation through his role as a U.S. Senator. Stanford introduced a bill that would lend money to farmers on the basis of their land value, which Stanford saw as supporting farm co-operatives and other small industrial ventures. Stanford’s speeches to the Senate on behalf of the bill further document his belief in co-operation and the desirability of the independence of labor from capital.

Stanford’s beliefs had an influence on some early students of the University, including those who founded the Stanford Co-operative Association in 1891 (which later evolved into the Stanford Bookstore, which is still legally a co-operative). A class on “Co-operation: It’s History and Influence” appears in the first year’s course catalogue. But Stanford died just two years after the University opened, and neither his wife Jane nor President Jordan appeared to share Stanford’s concerns. Moreover, the larger co-operative movement dwindled in the 1890s, and Stanford made no provision to actually organize the University as a co-operative, giving it instead a standard hierarchical Board of Trustees and an executive President.

Over time nearly all knowledge of his commitment to co-operation disappeared. Mention of Stanford’s vision appears in a Daily article concerning the closing of Walter Thompson Co‑operative in 1945 (see p. ???), and was resurfaced by a founder of the Palo Alto Co-op in 1950, but when the student co‑operatives we know today were founded in the early ’70s, there is no mention of Stanford’s ideals. Perhaps with the publication of Altenberg's article, this little known side of the famed “robber baron” might once again find its way into the lore and life of the University.

Residential Education and Co‑operative Ideals

A full residential education could encompass such things as individual responsibility, social involvement, openness to difference, co‑operation, and creativity. The Office of Residential Education has been successful in promoting a myriad of speakers, workshops, and programs which encourage these values. Student residences, however, have the potential to provide an even greater and more complete educational experience.

Students at Stanford might more fully explore the ideals of responsibility, co-operation, and creativity if they are able to cook and clean for themselves. The policies concerning the day-to-day operation of student residences at Stanford reflect a wider cultural belief that students, especially at Stanford, have certain rights which the rest of the population lacks. One of these “rights” is the right to avoid such day-to-day inconveniences as cooking for themselves and cleaning their own house. The fact that the University supplies cleaning and meal service to the majority of student residences inadvertently condones irresponsibility and unco-operativeness among students. Asking students to cook and clean for themselves (and each other) is a fundamental way to develop characteristics of responsibility, involvement, co-operation, and the like — values which the Office of Residential Education hopes to promote.

At an institution like Stanford today, we run the risk of buying into the myth of the high-status student who should be exempted from the “grubbery” which those in the real world must face. Many members of the Stanford community (including many of the students themselves) have the attitude that students are here to do “mind work” and not “physical work.” This attitude establishes inequality between students and the physical laborers we hire. Yet physical activity is not a lesser form of labor than the mental activity that goes on in classes, discussion groups, and workshops. What we do (and do not do) physically is a very real basis for how we think about the world. If we, as students, attend Stanford for several years with a squadron of cleaners and cooks catering to our every need, how can we expect to develop the skills of responsibility, working with others, or building a true community?

A co-op house should be a house or place where people can live together and become good friends and community by sharing the tasks of living. I’ve found that a tightly knit co-op can foster healthy discussion and can raise the consciousness of the people living together.

— Classmember

In the University’s founding grant, Leland Stanford himself stated a commitment to establishing and maintaining co-operative institutions at Stanford. While it is true that several student-run housing co-operatives have been in operation on the campus for decades, they are still the exception rather than the rule. The rule is that unless students express a strong desire to live co-operatively, they will be provided with cleaners and cooks who will take care of their “dirty work” for them. Unfortunately for the co-ops, student housing is currently approached from a market analysis standpoint. If student demand for co-operative housing exists, then so does University support for this type of residence. But if demand seems to wane, then so does University enthusiasm. Regardless of student demand, certain things might be regarded as fundamental to a worthwhile education. Is co‑operation fundamental?

Co-op houses face an obstacle in recruiting new members and promoting the ideals of co‑operation as long as co-operative living is viewed as a strange exception rather than the norm. Though unusual, co-operatives are a valuable interactive and truly educational housing option. Through co-operation, students create a real community, learning to take pride in their own contributions, and learning to respect and appreciate the contributions of others. By promoting co-operative residences, the University has the opportunity to continue to take education beyond academics, teaching students self-sufficiency and community responsibility through co-operation. Despite the rise and fall of interest in co-operative ideals, the benefits of co-operative living are too important to ignore.

On the next pages we present a comparison of the official goals of Stanford University’s Residential Education program and the the goals and practices of co-operative living at Stanford.

Preface

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Table of Contents

Summary