[terry]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

[terry]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

[81alum]

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.

[81alum]

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.

[TreesAndBirds]

Im not expert in medical research but Im increasingly reading about the lack of reproducibility of research results and the questionable validity of a lot of research. I was thinking that the MTL situation might be a “me-too” moment in the area and it would bring to light other problems, and perhaps catalyze ways to improve the situation (eg, better review of articles, better training of researchers on expectations of how research is to be conducted, ways to report inappropriate lab environments, etc), but I haven’t seen it, although maybe I’m not aware.

A very recent article in Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02299-w

[TreesAndBirds]

Im not expert in medical research but Im increasingly reading about the lack of reproducibility of research results and the questionable validity of a lot of research. I was thinking that the MTL situation might be a “me-too” moment in the area and it would bring to light other problems, and perhaps catalyze ways to improve the situation (eg, better review of articles, better training of researchers on expectations of how research is to be conducted, ways to report inappropriate lab environments, etc), but I haven’t seen it, although maybe I’m not aware.

A very recent article in Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02299-w

[McKenwood]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

I was wondering about this too. Why keep him on as a professor when he is so compromised? Who would want him as their faculty advisor for their PhD thesis?

[McKenwood]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

I was wondering about this too. Why keep him on as a professor when he is so compromised? Who would want him as their faculty advisor for their PhD thesis?

[82lsju]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

I was wondering about this too. Why keep him on as a professor when he is so compromised? Who would want him as their faculty advisor for their PhD thesis?

probably all part of the negotiations around his employment contract and severance package, will be interesting to see the form 990 in probably 2025 with some details on his payout....

[82lsju]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

I was wondering about this too. Why keep him on as a professor when he is so compromised? Who would want him as their faculty advisor for their PhD thesis?

probably all part of the negotiations around his employment contract and severance package, will be interesting to see the form 990 in probably 2025 with some details on his payout....

[McKenwood]

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.

Not a faculty member from that period but related to one who was around then. My sense was that Condi had to implement sweeping budget changes (reductions) to many academic departments. For example, she ultimately phased out the Food Research Institute and the professors who were affiliated with this group are bitter to this day.

Stanford had some real money concerns then and decided upon substantial cuts as one way to address the issues. The Faculty did not take kindly to this approach. Condi took the fall. Imagine if Provost Drell took the approach she did with AD in 2020 to all the faculty departments.  Her tenure would have been even shorter.

If Condi were considered for the Presidency her tenure at Hoover would also be scrutinized. Given the limtations on political speech on this board let's just say the academic standards at Hoover are not what they are elsewhere in the University. I say this knowing full well my relative was a Hoover fellow.

[McKenwood]

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.

Not a faculty member from that period but related to one who was around then. My sense was that Condi had to implement sweeping budget changes (reductions) to many academic departments. For example, she ultimately phased out the Food Research Institute and the professors who were affiliated with this group are bitter to this day.

Stanford had some real money concerns then and decided upon substantial cuts as one way to address the issues. The Faculty did not take kindly to this approach. Condi took the fall. Imagine if Provost Drell took the approach she did with AD in 2020 to all the faculty departments.  Her tenure would have been even shorter.

If Condi were considered for the Presidency her tenure at Hoover would also be scrutinized. Given the limtations on political speech on this board let's just say the academic standards at Hoover are not what they are elsewhere in the University. I say this knowing full well my relative was a Hoover fellow.

[old spanish trail]

Thanks for the reminder re budget issues. I'd forgotten.

[old spanish trail]

Thanks for the reminder re budget issues. I'd forgotten.

[Nan3cy]

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.)

[Nan3cy]

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.)

[Mick]

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.)

I don't know about academia, but speaking as a career staff employee in accounting, law, tax and consulting, I would say that attitude is far more the norm than the exception. My first law firm was one of the notable exceptions, and happened to have very strong Stanford ties (Chair at the time had three Stanford degrees). They were a Silicon Valley mainstay, with superb staff relations, and kept their top-level staff through thick and thin. The COO at my current firm (less than 0.5% Stanford grads) informed me that staff were a dime-a-dozen, and there really wasn't much difference between any of us, and if we lost some stars, we'll just pick one up at the Dollar Store (or words to that effect).

---

y

Stanford had some real money concerns then and decided upon substantial cuts as one way to address the issues. The Faculty did not take kindly to this approach. Condi took the fall. Imagine if Provost Drell took the approach she did with AD in 2020 to all the faculty departments.  Her tenure would have been even shorter.

#3 overall endowment among American Universities at $36.3 billion....

[Mick]

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.)

I don't know about academia, but speaking as a career staff employee in accounting, law, tax and consulting, I would say that attitude is far more the norm than the exception. My first law firm was one of the notable exceptions, and happened to have very strong Stanford ties (Chair at the time had three Stanford degrees). They were a Silicon Valley mainstay, with superb staff relations, and kept their top-level staff through thick and thin. The COO at my current firm (less than 0.5% Stanford grads) informed me that staff were a dime-a-dozen, and there really wasn't much difference between any of us, and if we lost some stars, we'll just pick one up at the Dollar Store (or words to that effect).

---

y

Stanford had some real money concerns then and decided upon substantial cuts as one way to address the issues. The Faculty did not take kindly to this approach. Condi took the fall. Imagine if Provost Drell took the approach she did with AD in 2020 to all the faculty departments.  Her tenure would have been even shorter.

#3 overall endowment among American Universities at $36.3 billion....

[Mick]

Unlike some speculation here, it did not come out on a Friday afternoon in July and it was not a whitewash.

That was my speculation. And no, it didn't come out on a Friday, and it wasn't a whitewash. But it was terse, and there was no contact person (which discourages further interaction by the press). I doubt Ms. Lam will be made available for interviews or e-mailed questions. And given her background, one wouldn't expect it.

One other thing I didn't mention...when more than one less-than-positive news items are imminent, it's not a bad idea to put them on top of each other. The recently-disclosed news from the SLS (which doesn't need to be repeated here) can have the effect of blunting the earlier less-than-positive news.

[Mick]

Unlike some speculation here, it did not come out on a Friday afternoon in July and it was not a whitewash.

That was my speculation. And no, it didn't come out on a Friday, and it wasn't a whitewash. But it was terse, and there was no contact person (which discourages further interaction by the press). I doubt Ms. Lam will be made available for interviews or e-mailed questions. And given her background, one wouldn't expect it.

One other thing I didn't mention...when more than one less-than-positive news items are imminent, it's not a bad idea to put them on top of each other. The recently-disclosed news from the SLS (which doesn't need to be repeated here) can have the effect of blunting the earlier less-than-positive news.

[2006alum]

Unlike some speculation here, it did not come out on a Friday afternoon in July and it was not a whitewash.

That was my speculation. And no, it didn't come out on a Friday, and it wasn't a whitewash. But it was terse, and there was no contact person (which discourages further interaction by the press). I doubt Ms. Lam will be made available for interviews or e-mailed questions. And given her background, one wouldn't expect it.

One other thing I didn't mention...when more than one less-than-positive news items are imminent, it's not a bad idea to put them on top of each other. The recently-disclosed news from the SLS (which doesn't need to be repeated here) can have the effect of blunting the earlier less-than-positive news.

True, though I almost wonder if it's the other way around - whatever the outcome at SLS was going to be, it brings that back into the news cycle when I know the Dean would love to never think about it again. MTL is probably suckling up the oxygen left to focus on some assistant dean of one of the grad schools...

[2006alum]

Unlike some speculation here, it did not come out on a Friday afternoon in July and it was not a whitewash.

That was my speculation. And no, it didn't come out on a Friday, and it wasn't a whitewash. But it was terse, and there was no contact person (which discourages further interaction by the press). I doubt Ms. Lam will be made available for interviews or e-mailed questions. And given her background, one wouldn't expect it.

One other thing I didn't mention...when more than one less-than-positive news items are imminent, it's not a bad idea to put them on top of each other. The recently-disclosed news from the SLS (which doesn't need to be repeated here) can have the effect of blunting the earlier less-than-positive news.

True, though I almost wonder if it's the other way around - whatever the outcome at SLS was going to be, it brings that back into the news cycle when I know the Dean would love to never think about it again. MTL is probably suckling up the oxygen left to focus on some assistant dean of one of the grad schools...

[82lsju]

an ~15 minute interview of Theo Baker here

https://www.kpcc.org/podcast/airtalk/the...er-lavigne

[82lsju]

an ~15 minute interview of Theo Baker here

https://www.kpcc.org/podcast/airtalk/the...er-lavigne

[winflop]

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.

[winflop]

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.

[BigJohn043]

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!

[BigJohn043]

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!

[needle]

The Stanford "enterprise" has grown from having a $4.4 billion budget in 2012-13 to now having an $8.2 billion budget.

Should any university be so large?

Speaking generally, people in charge of major universities tend to view their legacy as tied to growth, expansion and new initiatives. They want to continue to add programs and "infrastructure." 

But I think the modern major research university is simply too large and unwieldy to be run effectively using the same governance structure as in decades past. The governance of a president, provost and faculty (and certainly a trustees board composed of non-experts) works best when it has a focus on the "enterprise" of educating students and properly supporting research tied to the strengths of faculty.

[needle]

The Stanford "enterprise" has grown from having a $4.4 billion budget in 2012-13 to now having an $8.2 billion budget.

Should any university be so large?

Speaking generally, people in charge of major universities tend to view their legacy as tied to growth, expansion and new initiatives. They want to continue to add programs and "infrastructure." 

But I think the modern major research university is simply too large and unwieldy to be run effectively using the same governance structure as in decades past. The governance of a president, provost and faculty (and certainly a trustees board composed of non-experts) works best when it has a focus on the "enterprise" of educating students and properly supporting research tied to the strengths of faculty.

[MV72018]

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!

Thanks, but no thanks. "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Sadaam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Condoleezza Rice to Wolf Blitzer, January 10, 2003. Thus did having zero evidence of a "smoking gun" become an argument for a massively destructive  invasion with an immense human toll that benefitted only Iran. Accountability matters.  D"r.Rithceth Thus

[MV72018]

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!

Thanks, but no thanks. "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Sadaam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Condoleezza Rice to Wolf Blitzer, January 10, 2003. Thus did having zero evidence of a "smoking gun" become an argument for a massively destructive  invasion with an immense human toll that benefitted only Iran. Accountability matters.  D"r.Rithceth Thus

[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.

[jacket3ree]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

It is interesting. Perhaps a soft landing on his part. I didn't read if there would be a sabbatical first. That sabbatical might become quietly permanent. Back in the '80s the civil engineering department had "professors" on the roster that might as well have been ghosts. From the University side, would his acts be considered reasons for terminating (I assume) a tenured professor?  The acts were committed before his arrival and (again assumed) tenure. I don't know enough about the neurological science industry to know if he is damaged goods.  He's not old, but he probably has millions socked away and is old enough to retire.

[jacket3ree]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

It is interesting. Perhaps a soft landing on his part. I didn't read if there would be a sabbatical first. That sabbatical might become quietly permanent. Back in the '80s the civil engineering department had "professors" on the roster that might as well have been ghosts. From the University side, would his acts be considered reasons for terminating (I assume) a tenured professor?  The acts were committed before his arrival and (again assumed) tenure. I don't know enough about the neurological science industry to know if he is damaged goods.  He's not old, but he probably has millions socked away and is old enough to retire.

[82lsju]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

It is interesting. Perhaps a soft landing on his part. I didn't read if there would be a sabbatical first. That sabbatical might become quietly permanent. Back in the '80s the civil engineering department had "professors" on the roster that might as well have been ghosts. From the University side, would his acts be considered reasons for terminating (I assume) a tenured professor?  The acts were committed before his arrival and (again assumed) tenure. I don't know enough about the neurological science industry to know if he is damaged goods.  He's not old, but he probably has millions socked away and is old enough to retire.

the only tenured professor I'm aware of who in "recent" history was fired is Bruce Franklin in 1972 for "inciting student disruptions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Bruce_Franklin

[82lsju]

It's interesting that Tessier-Levigne will still be a professor in the Biology department. He is carrying some baggage. I wonder if he's going to resume teaching? Or maybe he will leave Stanford when he can find another position?

It is interesting. Perhaps a soft landing on his part. I didn't read if there would be a sabbatical first. That sabbatical might become quietly permanent. Back in the '80s the civil engineering department had "professors" on the roster that might as well have been ghosts. From the University side, would his acts be considered reasons for terminating (I assume) a tenured professor?  The acts were committed before his arrival and (again assumed) tenure. I don't know enough about the neurological science industry to know if he is damaged goods.  He's not old, but he probably has millions socked away and is old enough to retire.

the only tenured professor I'm aware of who in "recent" history was fired is Bruce Franklin in 1972 for "inciting student disruptions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Bruce_Franklin

[PalmTree]

A more recent example might be Jose Montoya, from the Medical School who was fired in 2019 for alleged sexual misconduct, though I'm not 100% sure he was tenured

[PalmTree]

A more recent example might be Jose Montoya, from the Medical School who was fired in 2019 for alleged sexual misconduct, though I'm not 100% sure he was tenured