[ADPinWDC]

As a Stanford graduate, I care that the university is a force for good in society. When Tessier-Lavigne was hired, he spoke of Stanford as benefactor to humanity. It certainly can be, and I hope that it will be.

Stanford receives over a billion dollars per year in direct federal funding. Most of its students receive federal financial aid. Its dependence upon taxpayer dollars makes it a political creature. The university played a deliberate, prominent role in shaping public perceptions of the integrity of the 2020 election and validity of COVID fears and measures.

Not everyone agrees that private universities should receive taxpayer funds. A small number of such universities believes that taxpayer dollars have a corrupting influence and refuse them. Stanford chooses to receive federal funds in exchange for a healthy measure of federal control over its policies, through Title IX and other legislation and regulation.

Whomever Stanford chooses as its next president will be a political actor. Tessier-Lavigne testified before Congress, arguing for increases in federal funding of research universities. That the Board of Trustees would choose, for example, a president who is opposed on moral or political grounds to taxpayer funding of universities or their students is inconceivable. The board will instead choose someone who can foster a continuation, if not an increase, in that flow of funds.

Thus, like it or not, political considerations will infuse the selection process. The moral character and judgement of candidates will matter. Their past actions will be under scrutiny. If they have in the past exercised political power in an official capacity, how they exercised that power is certainly a subject of interest to all who care about Stanford.

This post is right on the money. No matter what else is true, if you take federal money you have to accept the terms that accompany it. I would prefer that the terms were less intrusive than they are at present, but if Stanford accepts the funding it cedes the corresponding control. That involves the University in politics, like it or not.
I would however argue that even if the government were not involved, the donors who in the past gave money to Stanford, and those who do in the future, also have a moral expectation of the University leadership, perhaps even more so than the one imposed by the government. The "moral character and judgement" would matter even if "national" politics was not involved at all. The alumni and students also have an opinion about their leadership. The BoT would always have to deal with the Presidents moral character and judgement even absent federal funds.

AGREE!  Branner shows an acute grasp of the harsh political reality in which we swim.  $Billions worth, not cheetos. 
And the Hoover Institution provides a platform for a number of former Cabinet members, from either party, not one party.  
And, those fellows argue policy -- up to their hips in it.

[ADPinWDC]

As a Stanford graduate, I care that the university is a force for good in society. When Tessier-Lavigne was hired, he spoke of Stanford as benefactor to humanity. It certainly can be, and I hope that it will be.

Stanford receives over a billion dollars per year in direct federal funding. Most of its students receive federal financial aid. Its dependence upon taxpayer dollars makes it a political creature. The university played a deliberate, prominent role in shaping public perceptions of the integrity of the 2020 election and validity of COVID fears and measures.

Not everyone agrees that private universities should receive taxpayer funds. A small number of such universities believes that taxpayer dollars have a corrupting influence and refuse them. Stanford chooses to receive federal funds in exchange for a healthy measure of federal control over its policies, through Title IX and other legislation and regulation.

Whomever Stanford chooses as its next president will be a political actor. Tessier-Lavigne testified before Congress, arguing for increases in federal funding of research universities. That the Board of Trustees would choose, for example, a president who is opposed on moral or political grounds to taxpayer funding of universities or their students is inconceivable. The board will instead choose someone who can foster a continuation, if not an increase, in that flow of funds.

Thus, like it or not, political considerations will infuse the selection process. The moral character and judgement of candidates will matter. Their past actions will be under scrutiny. If they have in the past exercised political power in an official capacity, how they exercised that power is certainly a subject of interest to all who care about Stanford.

This post is right on the money. No matter what else is true, if you take federal money you have to accept the terms that accompany it. I would prefer that the terms were less intrusive than they are at present, but if Stanford accepts the funding it cedes the corresponding control. That involves the University in politics, like it or not.
I would however argue that even if the government were not involved, the donors who in the past gave money to Stanford, and those who do in the future, also have a moral expectation of the University leadership, perhaps even more so than the one imposed by the government. The "moral character and judgement" would matter even if "national" politics was not involved at all. The alumni and students also have an opinion about their leadership. The BoT would always have to deal with the Presidents moral character and judgement even absent federal funds.

AGREE!  Branner shows an acute grasp of the harsh political reality in which we swim.  $Billions worth, not cheetos. 
And the Hoover Institution provides a platform for a number of former Cabinet members, from either party, not one party.  
And, those fellows argue policy -- up to their hips in it.