[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.