Stanford Politics

Earlier today, Stanford announced that Marc Tessier-Lavigne would be the university’s next president. Tessier-Lavigne is a safe choice; he has an impressive record as an academic, and he has made valuable contributions to Alzheimer’s research. Recently, he was President of Rockefeller University, a prestigious postgraduate school in New York. He was reportedly selected unanimously by Stanford’s Board of Trustees, and he will likely be an effective president. However, that said, Tessier-Lavigne is Stanford’s eleventh consecutive straight, white, male president.

Over the past few years, our campus and our country seem to have become more aware of the systemic discrimination against women and minorities that impacts both politics and life. Since the Ferguson protests in the summer of 2014, more and more citizens have come to realize that unarmed African Americans are disproportionately the victims of police violence. More recently, the media are beginning to acknowledge the sexism that surrounds Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The political inequality that pervades our country is not exactly a secret. There are only 20 women, 2 African Americans, and 3 Hispanics in the Senate (25 percent of all members), even though 65 percent of Americans belong to one or more of these groups.

Stanford administrators claim to be conscious of these disparities; recently the university launched OpenXChange, program explicitly aimed at promoting discussions about national issues, such as race. Moreover, the university has been embarrassed by a series of reports in which the administration appears to have been unresponsive or indifferent to claims of sexual assault. Last spring, identity politics were a divisive issue during ASSU (the student body government) elections, and their impact was especially apparent during a raucous confrontation between a sitting ASSU Senator and the University’s Vice Provost. Issues of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexism have had a consistent and prominent presence on campus over the past year, and the Presidential Search Committee could not have possibly been oblivious to this.

It would have been fitting for Stanford to select a president that deviates from the traditional white, straight, male mode. There was certainly no dearth of qualified candidates representing women, ethnic minorities, or LGBTQ backgrounds. Indeed, outside of the search committee, rumors spread that Persis Drell, the current Dean of the School of Engineering and former head of SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, was a strong candidate. Like any number of individuals from underrepresented groups, Drell had qualifications that rival if not exceed those of Tessier-Lavigne. Drell also represented an opportunity to elevate woman who has excelled in STEM, a set of fields that are notoriously hostile to women.

Some have argued that the Search Committee was intent on finding a president from outside of Stanford. However, if that were the case, they would have had an even larger pool of females and minorities from which to choose. Talented as Tessier-Lavigne is, it would be presumptuous to assume that there were no non-white or non-male individuals who would have been at least as qualified and willing to lead the university. The Stanford Presidency is largely an administrative position, and there are myriad women and minorities in government, industry, and academia with ample administrative experience. Tessier-Lavigne may be qualified, but he is not uniquely so.

The appointment of Tessier-Lavigne reveals that Stanford continues to lag behind its peer institutions when it comes to hiring historically disadvantaged individuals for the top job. Every Ivy League school (with the exception of Columbia) has managed to hire at least one woman or person of color as president. Duke, the University of Chicago, and even the especially male-dominated MIT have had female presidents. Given the lengthy tenure of Stanford presidents, the university will likely not have a chance to improve its presidential hiring record in the near future.

None of what we have written is meant to be a criticism of our new president, as he is not guilty of anything. We have no reason to assume that Tessier-Lavigne will be an ineffective leader, and he should be applauded for his many contributions to society. We believe the Search Committee intended to select the best possible candidate, and, of course, white men should not have automatically been precluded from the search. However, we remain disappointed that Stanford, a school that touts diversity in its admissions brochures, failed to take advantage of a crucial opportunity to bring underrepresented groups into its highest level of leadership.

---

*Update: Due to the response received from this editorial, Stanford Political Journal editor-in-chief Truman Chen has written a note about the new president and the state of our politics. Read the editor’s note here.

---

The Editorial Board consists of Truman Chen, Brett Parker, Ruairí Arrieta-Kenna, Malachi Dray, and Sarah Sadlier.