Rumsfeld Debate Heats Up At Stanford
Disgruntled Stanford faculty will meet with Hoover Institution Director John Raisian to question the criteria used in the controversial appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as a “distinguished visiting fellow” - a title they say gives undeserved eminence to the former defense secretary.
After a heated meeting Thursday, the university’s academic senate - a select group of faculty - voted to meet with Raisian to discuss the Rumsfeld appointment, which was not endorsed by the larger university community and has brought unwelcome publicity to Stanford.
But the faculty’s challenge is unlikely to rescind the appointment of the 75-year-old Rumsfeld, who directed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then resigned in late 2006 after months of mounting pressure to step aside.
The faculty has no authority over the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that uses the Stanford name and is centrally located on the liberal-leaning campus - but operates independently of the university.
The meeting shone a light on the unusual relationship between Stanford and Hoover - and the question of whether the university’s top leadership should pass judgment on minor appointments.
At its simplest, the debate centered on the use of one word: distinguished.
For Hoover, the title “distinguished visiting fellow” is a title it gives to U.S. and foreign scholars, diplomats and government officials who visit Hoover with expertise and ideas.
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is one. So is retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, former commander of the Central Command.
Rumsfeld will meet four to five times a year with a new Hoover Task Force on the Middle East and terrorism, and provide input and possibly policy recommendations. He will not live on campus, and he will not lecture, teach or host seminars.
A public policy research center founded in 1919 by Herbert Hoover, “the Hoover Institution has always been independent, with its own budget, director and staff,” said Michele Horaney, a Hoover spokeswoman.
For Stanford, and for much of the outside world, “distinguished” means something different, argued Debra Satz, professor of philosophy. Satz and others say the Iraq war has been a disaster, with poor planning. Critics say there is a wide consensus that Rumsfeld was an unsuccessful secretary of defense.
More than 3,800 members of the Stanford community signed a petition to protest the appointment.
“The title is what bothers me,” said Jeffrey Koseff, a professor in the School of Engineering.
“It implies Stanford’s endorsement,” said David Spiegel of the Department of Psychiatry in the School of Medicine.
“I worry about the use of Stanford’s name,” he said. “This is a serious problem for us. . . . It is hard to understand the reasoning behind the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld.”
The high-profile announcement by Hoover - without conferring with Stanford administrators, as a student group would have done - showed an insensitivity to what the news would mean to the larger university, faculty members said.
“Donald Rumsfeld does not meet the standards of a distinguished visiting fellow,” said Jonathan Bendor, a professor in the Graduate School of Business.
But Russell Berman, professor of comparative literature, called the effort “an implicit threat” to Hoover and “a kind of McCarthyism.”
Added Berman: “This is a political statement hiding behind a procedural issue.”
Stanford President John Hennessy cautioned that faculty protests over Hoover appointments might be seen as an infringement on academic freedom of speech.
“We’ll open ourselves up to scrutiny for any visiting appointment,” he said. “Do we want to take that step to an open door?”
Provost John Etchemendy agreed, defending Hoover’s right to bring in visitors - and to call them whatever they want.
“We have thousands of visitors,” he said.
Any damage to the university’s reputation by Rumsfeld’s appointment “is far less than the damage done if we centrally try to regulate visitors to the campus,” Etchemendy said.
“And just as we don’t regulate visitors to campus, we also don’t oversee the titles that can be used by units within the university for various visitors and employees,” he said.
Although unhappy with Rumsfeld’s appointment, Satz and other faculty urged a closer relationship with Hoover - following the model of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs - to improve communication and understanding.
“This is an anomaly,” she said. “No other university has an independent think tank sitting within the university.”
© 2007 The San Jose Mercury News
Stanford University:
DO NOT HIRE THE SENILE PRICK!!! He would be a disaster for your university. He should be behind bars for war crimes!!
“It is hard to understand the reasoning behind the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld.”
Actually, it’s easy to understand. The Hoover Institution is financed primarily by arch fascist Richard Mellon Scaife. The real question is why Stanford allows an overtly fascist organization on its campus.
Typical academic hypocricy. Graduate of Princeton, Eagle scout,fighter pilot and instructor, member of congress, twice Secretary of Defense - and he isn’t distinguished enough. Why don’t they just admit they don’t like his politics. At least it would be more honest.
Instead of infringing on Hoover’s academic freedom, the rest of Stanford U can exercise their academic freedom by holding a mock war crimes tribunal with Rummy as a co-defendant. They can grant him a mock defense attorney who is the best they can find (for free of course).
How much fun would that be for aspiring law school students as well as any other politically aware students.
>Why don’t they just admit they don’t like his politics.
Sure, if you consider lying, deception and mass murder to be partisan…
graduate of princeton, he has the company of thousands of others so that’s not ‘distinguised’…eagle scout, fighter pilot, instructor, member of congress–all negative points in my moral opinion…it should be ’secretary of offense’ (in this case to protect his oil and power interests) the title under which many hundreds of thousands have been murdered with his approval….there are many knowns and one of these known knowns is that the man won’t grow any colder once he is dead….he will go down in history as an evil demon–why would stanford want any kind of relationship/connection with him?
Rumsfeld is a mass murderer. He should be standing trial for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. He, his president, and his party are an absolute disgrace to America.
Purvis is right. Rummy will feel right at home at the Hoover Institution. He can keep his irons in the ongoing fires of empire building. There’s still lots of money to be made. You think those think tanks sit around and think all day? Hell no, they are wheeling and dealing in the arms industry. These guys are the Masters of War that Dylan sings about.
Hoa binh
Waiiit a minute Jade, Whats your beef with Eagle Scouts and fighter pilots? As far as I know the rank of Eagle can not be bought and takes a hell of a lot of hard work to achieve. I was never a fighter pilot but I assume the same can be said for that. It is not the fighter pilot’s fault that he or she is sent to war by an evil empire-in my moral opinion.
Yes, I think Rumsfeld should be tried for crimes against humanity but this is Stanford’s problem and they will probably deal with it, maybe not to our liking but this is a blip on the screen of problems that confront the U.S.
This man should be like Kissinger in other ways than being a mass murderer. He should get to the point where he cannot travel in parts of the world for fear he will be placed on trial for war crimes. He should be hounded everywhere he goes by demonstrators. “Not Welcome Here” should be the mantra of anyone coming into contact with him. Kissinger and Rumsfeld–two criminals on the loose. Add Condileeza Rice. Gonzales, and other Neo-cons who have attacked our Constitution. All of these criminals now being protected by their “diplomatic immunity” as it were, need to be brought to justice. Instead, they will all be given cushey jobs at universities. And so it goes.
Everyone is correct about putting this monster with his cronies on the end of a rope. Remember he/she has a 22%rating among the brain fried repugs and enablers. Ha ha lets hang them also.
I’m still interested, call me stubborn, in Rumsfeld’s extensive holdings in Roche (through Gilead and Tamiflu patent) and that company’s profits from the bird flu virus vaccine. Who were the largest buyers of that vaccine? The Defense Department? And how much did Rumsfeld make from the deal? Could his abandonned Department of Misinformation had anything to do with that campaign of fear? I believe Rumsfeld is distinguished—by his cynical and corrupt behavior while holding high public office. Maybe we didn’t notice because he’s surrounded by an administration distinguished by even greater corruption, ineptitude, and malfeasance. As a one time Stanford teacher, I would like to see the lot of them further distinguished by being tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and all those quaint, old-fashioned parameters. Of course, Hoover Institution has been glorifying weak-minded fascists for many years. So it goes.
This is what it means to be “distinguished” at Stanford:
“”Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do no know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know”
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” –on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
“I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.”
“Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”
“[Osama Bin Laden is] either alive and well or alive and not too well or not alive.”
“I am not going to give you a number for it because it’s not my business to do intelligent work.” -asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress
“I believe what I said yesterday. I don’t know what I said, but I know what I said, and…well, I assume it’s what I said.”
As a Stanford staff member and alumna, I signed the petition, at about number 1450. It has generated a lot of discussion among our work group. Some support anyone coming to Stanford, as part of a free exchange of ideas. I have thought a lot more deeply about this issue since signing the petition. I am opposed for a number of reasons: 1) I think that anyone who advocates practices that are considered to be torture by the standards of the Geneva Convention (and does anyone want to seriously argue that waterboarding is not torture?) should be shunned. How is torture going to stop if the citizens of countries that practice it don’t take a stand against it? 2) I haven’t noticed that Rumsfeld practices a free and open exchange of ideas (and this isn’t confined to the right side of the ideological spectrum). 3) I have done my share of stupid things, but I’ve learned from them and can talk about what I would do differently. I don’t see any evidence that Rumsfeld has learned from the fiasco that is Iraq. (Although Naomi Klein would argue that many of the goals of the invasion, which did not include reconstructing Iraq and supporting democracy, are being achieved.) 4) His stated charge is to share his expertise on ideology and terrorism (presumably the “other side”’s ideology leading to terrorism). If I knew that he read Arabic and was as well informed about primary documents or speeches in the original as Condoleeza Rice is about Russia, I might move a tad closer to not objecting, although the torture issue really looms large for me.
the last statement of the article makes the most cogent point,“This is an anomaly,” she said. “No other university has an independent think tank sitting within the university.” This is the rub, it’s not political to be concerned about ones reputation. The fact that a person that many people in the world consider to be a war criminal, is at ones university even if not actually affiliated, is disturbing. This is not a free speech issue, no one is trying to censor Rumsfeld, this is about qualified or approved speech. Being on the Stanford Campus gives the man a platform that he doesn’t deserve, and lends a quality or legitimacy to his beliefs, ideas, and statements that many on the Stanford campus feel is undeserved.
Of course the Hoover Institution has the right to hire Rumsfeld as a visiting scholar, fellow or anything else that its charter allows. However, the fact that it would do so in the case of this man is a very clear testament to its mission. One can only assume that lying, torture, abuse of the constitution, abuse of human rights, imperialism and protection of the rich and well-positioned are on its mission statement. His appointment is an outrage to common decency and intelligence and Stanford professors are correct to protest.
It would appear to me that all the “distinguished” Mr. Rumsfeld would be able to contribute are his “ideas” and “expertise” on wounding, killing, torturing and maiming.
What will Stanford Faculty think when Condisleezy Rice returns to Stanford? Two “war criminals” associated with Stanford.
The Americanized 2007 version of Nazi Germany [circa 1930’s]. The good Germans can be relied upon to do the bidding of the state and cover the tracks of war criminals. It amazes me, that there is even a debate amongst the Academics at Stanford at all. The hypocracy of even entertaining the thought of appointing such a immoral, malefic and repugnant individual is frightening. This is a dreadful indictment against the character of America. Conjunctively, only demonstrating how far down the scale America has descended, in the degrees of ethics, morality and common bloody decency.
PS: Oh nearly forgot, it is well known how German academics also colluded with the Nazi’s to do the bidding of the ‘Party’. Playing an instrumental role in furthering the cause of the ‘Third Reich’.
where i come from, you don’t get elevated for being a fxxkup. unless it’s to the top step of the gallows.
The Hoover Institution has been a stain on Stanford’s reputation since its inception. It has leaned toward appointing right wingers and conservatives, people who would not be considered by the elite (and more liberal) institutions such as Harvard and Princeton - - in fact, by most leading educational institutions in the world. Stanford’s faculty and students should long ago have risen up and demanded that Stanford not lend its name and reputation to such a biased institution.
>Why don’t they just admit they don’t like his politics.
Sure, if you consider lying, deception and mass murder to be partisan…
nuff said…
and that goes for the rest of them as well.
i, for one, love a good war-crime trial.
The Hoover Institute IS Stanford University, or at least owns it. Leland Stanford was a Robber Baron who amassed his millions by murdering huge sectors of the Native American Indian population and grabbing up government railroad land-grants. He was a co-founder of the California Republican Party (of Nixon and Reagan).
Stanford University, with support by the Hoover Institute, has been made in to the biggest corporate double-speak ‘Friendly Fascist’ propaganda machine in the USA today…. espousing liberal social issues on the surface while planning some of the most ruthless fascist politico-economic policies of American history.
Herbert Hoover, brother in spirit, masqueraded as a ‘humanitarian’ handing out food while engaged in covert military intelligence operations in Russia… and later had US military veterans ushered off the Capitol lawn by force, and left millions of Americans to starve in order to remain true to Republican/corporate policy…. his reputation is ‘Hoovervilles’, clumps of homeless people disfranchised from greed-driven corporate politics.
To pretend otherwise is to ignore the facts of history, and naively believe trendy New Friendly Fascist set, also trying to reach its ideological tentacles out today to warp the University of California system through financial and political influence.
Private Education itself, which is what Stanford promoted when Leland set up his own campus separate from the University of California, is essential to the survival of elitist corporate fascism, and blatant arrogant disrespect for the democratic principles of public education, where degrees are earned, not bought.
For some facts, read:
Norman Tutorow: Leland Stanford, Man of Many Careers; Pacific Coast Publishers, 1971.
Keith Wheeler: The Railroaders; Time-Life Books, New York, 1973.
Hey, he fought long and hard to get his cushy little appointment! The lies, the complicity in mass murder, the raping of the American sheeple,…ROFLMAO…only in this pathetic Evil Empire are treasonous swine lauded for their nefarious deeds. While too few are ranting, “Bush et al should be PROSECUTED IN THE WORLD COURT and at the very LEAST lose their personal fortunes and sit in prison for decades!”,…the BULK of you sorry drones are thinking “wow, cool….he must be a hero like our boys and firemen and police, and mailmen!” Ironic that a nation riddled with heroes has murdered more millions than ALL MUSLIM nations COMBINED. For christ’s sake, I can hardly make it through the news without gagging.
Clearly “distinguished visiting fellow” = fascist at the Hoover Institution.
Does this institution celebrate the former president or the suction of the appliance?
RestoreDemocracy
Excellent thought provoking commentary…
eewww! The senile old smart ass should be behind bars for war crimes, not affiliated with a university like Stanford and continuing to spread his evil propaganda and lies. He looks like an old demon if you ask me.
The staff at Stanford was sagacious to raise any perceived endorsement of Donald Rumsfield as an issue. By the administrations own edict, any harboring or giving of comfort or support to a known worldwide terrorist is to be guilty of the same offense.
No one could argue that fabricating an incomplete intel story for the sole purpose of terrorizing a population into surrendering their oil revenues after corporate attempts failed to do this the preceding decade, does not fit the definition of terrorism.
terrorism: terəˌrizəm noun. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
perpetuating a premeditated holocaust for profit and regional domination has always been the political aim of the large petrochemical CEO’s who have a death grip on congress and the white house right now. Since the dollar is pegged to oil and nothing else right now is holding it up we can not count on any political solution from either party in Washington.
I salute the staff of Stanford for their uncommon courage, principles and honor.
pacplyer
After the photos from Abu Ghraib were released in 2004, Rumsfeld appeared on tv. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. This ill-prepared idiot rambled on justifying certain forms of torture some of which by the next week were publicly renounced. But the ramble that shocked me almost as much was his repeated plaint about all the soldiers having cameras. We soon learned that an order had gone out to deprive our troops of their cameras, mostly camera phones. From that point on, I lost any notion that Rumsfeld was sane. What’s he supposed to be doing at Hoover anyway? Lecturing? Good grief!
I hear Rummy is is opening the “Stanford School of Torture and Deniability”
Too bad Pinochet and Idi Amin are dead; otherwise they could also be Distinguished Fellows. And soon enough Condyloma Rice will be back as Provost.
And who says crime doesn’t pay??? It creates huge fortunes.
Is it known that Rumsfeld knows about the appointment?
Or could it be known that it is unknown to him?
Or even unknown, that it is unknown to him?
Send the sorry son of a bitch to Iraq to do good deeds as a nurse for the kids he caused to be maimed.
There will be a extra special “hot” part of Hell reserved for this “sorry son of a bitch”…
Hoover was a closet cross-dresser who probably had Martin Luther King assassinated.
Maybe his memoirs will give future generations a blow by blow account of how he directed the action at Abu Ghraib !
A war criminal like Rummy will fit right in and may actually improve the moral and intellectual integrity of Stanford.
Opps, that sequence of thoughts was ambiguous and inappropriate:
Hoover was a closet cross-dresser who probably had Martin Luther King assassinated.
A war criminal like Rummy will fit right in and may actually improve the moral and intellectual character of Stanford.
Maybe his memoirs will give future generations a blow by blow account of how he directed the action at Abu Ghraib !
It is simple. He is a war criminal and should be arrested by the International criminal Court.
of course he has no ethics how could there be a debate on the matter Hoover Institute cannot have any ethics if they appointed him
Goebbels would have been an equally distinguished fellow!
Hail Mary!
Wasn’t that Hoover’s party name?