[Mick]

Responding to several posts advocating Condoleezza Rice for President: I've never understood the affection for Professor Rice within the Stanford community. She lacks the moral standing to serve the university in any capacity. As National Security Advisor to George Bush she approved the torture of Abu Zubaydah. Even with the benefit of hindsight and time to reflect, she defended both the legality and efficacy of torture. She propounded and maintained the fiction that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and played a major role in launching a war of aggression against the people of Iraq. She even denied that U.S. actions in Abu Ghraib were torture, though anyone with a functioning brain and conscience could see otherwise. What she richly deserves is prosecution for war crimes, not a position of trust in any university.

The faculty I knew at Stanford in the 1990s were not fond of the job she did as Provost, but I never probed their reasons.  That was before her controversial time in the NSC and as Secretary of State.  I wonder if anyone on the board who was on the faculty then would care to comment on Condi as Provost?

My guess is that the BOT will in fact look carefully to see if they can find Stanford's first female President or our first non-white President.  But Condi is 68, and Stanford likes Presidents to serve for many years.  Her time would have been when they hired MTL.

I was on staff during Condi’s tenure as provost. Met her only in a few meetings, and though I heard rumors that she enjoyed public dismantling of staff who’d ticked her off, I never saw it in person. But I never could escape the feeling that for Condi (and Gerhard), the faculty were all-important, and staff were a necessary evil, and neither of them was quite sure about the “necessary” part. (Never got that feeling from Kennedy or Hennessy/Etch.)

Given the bloat in staff over the last decade plus, a cost-cutting approach might be warranted. Even needed.

The faculty literally are the product.  The staff are overhead and quite literally a necessary evil.  And leadership should absolutely question just how necessary all elements of overhead are.  That is their job.  Hire Condi immediately!

I don't disagree, and no doubt there's an element of bloat. I suppose it depends on how much evil one is willing to countenance... ;)

I keep in mind that the staff was typically hired for a reason, often an important reason, particularly as the mission grows. A friend of mine works with a midsized Midwestern consulting firm. A common acquaintance of ours was in charge of sales. There was a CEO transition, she wasn't favored by the incoming CEO and they let her go. In the first twelve months after she left, their growth rate was cut in half, then in the next twelve months it was cut in half again. My friend told me that the decision to cut that particular staffer probably cost the firm between $20 mms. and $25 mms. in revenue, most of which would have fallen to the bottom line.

[Mick]

Responding to several posts advocating Condoleezza Rice for President: I've never understood the affection for Professor Rice within the Stanford community. She lacks the moral standing to serve the university in any capacity. As National Security Advisor to George Bush she approved the torture of Abu Zubaydah. Even with the benefit of hindsight and time to reflect, she defended both the legality and efficacy of torture. She propounded and maintained the fiction that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and played a major role in launching a war of aggression against the people of Iraq. She even denied that U.S. actions in Abu Ghraib were torture, though anyone with a functioning brain and conscience could see otherwise. What she richly deserves is prosecution for war crimes, not a position of trust in any university.

The faculty I knew at Stanford in the 1990s were not fond of the job she did as Provost, but I never probed their reasons.  That was before her controversial time in the NSC and as Secretary of State.  I wonder if anyone on the board who was on the faculty then would care to comment on Condi as Provost?

My guess is that the BOT will in fact look carefully to see if they can find Stanford's first female President or our first non-white President.  But Condi is 68, and Stanford likes Presidents to serve for many years.  Her time would have been when they hired MTL.

I was on staff during Condi’s tenure as provost. Met her only in a few meetings, and though I heard rumors that she enjoyed public dismantling of staff who’d ticked her off, I never saw it in person. But I never could escape the feeling that for Condi (and Gerhard), the faculty were all-important, and staff were a necessary evil, and neither of them was quite sure about the “necessary” part. (Never got that feeling from Kennedy or Hennessy/Etch.)

Given the bloat in staff over the last decade plus, a cost-cutting approach might be warranted. Even needed.

The faculty literally are the product.  The staff are overhead and quite literally a necessary evil.  And leadership should absolutely question just how necessary all elements of overhead are.  That is their job.  Hire Condi immediately!

I don't disagree, and no doubt there's an element of bloat. I suppose it depends on how much evil one is willing to countenance... ;)

I keep in mind that the staff was typically hired for a reason, often an important reason, particularly as the mission grows. A friend of mine works with a midsized Midwestern consulting firm. A common acquaintance of ours was in charge of sales. There was a CEO transition, she wasn't favored by the incoming CEO and they let her go. In the first twelve months after she left, their growth rate was cut in half, then in the next twelve months it was cut in half again. My friend told me that the decision to cut that particular staffer probably cost the firm between $20 mms. and $25 mms. in revenue, most of which would have fallen to the bottom line.