Town Square

Post a New Topic

Hoover director to meet with faculty Nov. 8

Original post made on Oct 22, 2007

John Raisian, the director of the Hoover Institution at Stanford, will attend the university's Faculty Senate meeting Nov. 8 to answer questions about the controversial appointment of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to a one-year position at Hoover.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, October 22, 2007, 4:29 PM

Comments (31)

Posted by peter, a resident of Professorville
on Oct 22, 2007 at 5:00 pm

End of story.

what is it they say about academia --

-- the fights are so vicious and ugly because the stakes are so low ---




Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 22, 2007 at 5:37 pm

This is a real laugher. Fewer than 4,000 out of 180,000 eligible voters signed the petition. It is a real failure. Dan Kazak is obviously pushing the thing, but he, like Zimbardo, just cannot admit failure. In fact, the first thing John Raisian should point out is that the petition is evidence of the failure of the left to squash free expression. The vast majority of potential Stanford community signers saw through the ruse of 'We're not against free speech...just against the ethics of an appointment by Hoover'. The Faculty Senate at Stanford is a joke, when political issues come before it. How many of them voted for Bush?

Don Rumsfeld is a real asset to Stanford, even if the lefties, including Kazak, cry in their own milk about it. Actually, I hope that they do NOT back off. I enjoy the debate too much!


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 22, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Gary,

Your math assumes that there was an attempt to get the petition by all Stanford alumnae.

There's no indication that the petition went outside the community currently at Stanford. (That would be an extremely expensive undertaking.)

In which case, 4,000 is a reasonable percentage of those currently studying and teaching at Stanford.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 22, 2007 at 6:25 pm

OhlonePar,

You've got me in hysterics, now. That petition had enormous media and Internet exposure. Zimbardo predicted an explosion of interest, once the students got back on campus. It never materialized. This turkey was dead before it got decpaitated.


Posted by Free-Speech-For-Rumsfeld, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 6:39 pm


> 4,000 is a reasonable percentage of those
> currently studying and teaching at Stanford.

There are a goodly number of foreign students on the Stanford Campus. It would be a good idea to factor out the signatures of non-Americans before making too much of the numbers of people opposing Rumsfeld. (Not easily done, for sure.)

One can only wonder how many of Stanford's "finest" would be opposed to a teaching position for Fidel Castro, Che Guevera, or Osama Bin Laden?


Posted by War-criminal-Rumsfeld, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 22, 2007 at 8:59 pm

The right wing wraps itself in the flag to cover its crimes. The invitation has nothing to do with free speech. He could be invited to speak at any time. And his access to the airwaves is unhindered.
The objection is to his being given an honorary post, "distinguished scholar"? What a joke.
Distinguished for the incompetent conduct of a war that is killing thousands of innocent people, and no end in sight.
Free speech? get real. The man is a criminal of the worst kind.
Says alot about the Hoover Institution that they want to honor him. But he'll be in cosy company, like George Shultz, who now makes big money off of war. Maybe they can get Dick Cheney and Halliburton to visit too.


Posted by Day Of The Rope, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 22, 2007 at 9:05 pm


Many in the Stanford community chose not to sign because they feared reprisal.

The criminals whom they oppose have proven themselves to be ruthless, murdering psychopaths.

Those who love and admire these criminals are also psychopaths and should never be trusted.


Posted by Free-Speech-For-Rumsfeld, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 9:27 pm

----
Someone wrote --
---
The criminals whom they oppose have proven themselves
to be ruthless, murdering psychopaths
---

Weekly, if not daily, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda operatives and "insurgents" fighting over difficult-to-understand Islamic dogma drive vehicles full of explosives into markets, mosques and police stations killing hundreds at a time--yet the so-called "left" wants to blame Rumsfeld, and/or the others who are at the helm of the US war against this terrorism for this carnage. It would be very difficult to find very many on the "left" calling a suicide-bomber-murder a psychopath. Just this week in Pakistan, over one hundred and forty people were killed and almost four hundred wounded when former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto returned home after eight years of self-imposed exile. Not a peep about this senseless murder from those calling scandalous names.

Sad .. so very sad ..
---


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Free-Speech-For-Rumsfeld,

And how many suicide bombings were there in Iraq before we invaded, with a war plan invented by Rumsfeld, based on lies and deceit? get real...


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 22, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Gary,

Publicity does not equal distribution. By your definition, myself and several people I know are part of the community. I never saw a petition, neither did my friends. Nor do I consider myself part of the Stanford Community for this sort of thing. (or most sorts of things, frankly) And I'm in the area. To me, it's up to Stanford and Hoover to deal with it. I've got other things to do.

Free-speech,

So now Stanford's a bastion of foreign terrorist supporters?

Point of fact, Rumsfeld can say whatever he wants. But should he be paid and honored for it? I think there's a legitimate dispute--no point in demonizing those with whom you disagree. Well, no rational point.


Posted by Day Of The Rope, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 22, 2007 at 9:54 pm


We really don't know for sure who is responsible for bombing mosques and markets in Iraq, do we?

After all, the same media that lied about WMDs are the same media who are eager to blame Iraqis for the chaos and misery that we know was unleashed by the likes of Rummy, Perle, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Bill Kristol, Irving Kristol, Bob Kagan, Fred Kagan, Donald Kagan, Kimberly Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Normon Podhoretz, Michael Ledeen, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser, Judy Miller, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, Martin Kramer, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Charles Hill, Natan Sharansky, Bibi Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, and others.


Posted by Free-Speech-For-Rumsfeld, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Someone wrote--
---
> And how many suicide bombings were there in Iraq before we invaded,
----

Not too many, since Iraq was under the control of the dictator Hussein. The same dictator who killed tens of thousands of Kurds and other Iraqis, as well as invading Kuwait in order to repudiate his debt with Kuwait and to acquire their oil fields. Remember that?

But please answer the question -- what right does anyone have to bomb innocent civilians -- as we have seen with so many Islamic radicals and fanatics in Lebanon, Kenya, Israel, England, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, the US and many other places too? These bombings have been going on for decades -- long before Rumsfeld (et cie) came onto the scene.


Posted by Stanford's Shame, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:13 pm

Could Rumsfeld be defined as a sociopath?
Web Link

A good argument could be made foro that case. Certainly, he is a liar.


Posted by Free-Speech-For-Rumsfeld, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:01 pm

----
Someone wrote --
---
We really don't know for sure who is responsible for bombing
mosques and markets in Iraq, do we?
---

Well, yes. The following link points to a Wikipedia article that

Web Link

The CSM article details some of the Iraqi women who have been involved in bombings:

And this Wikipedia article provides information about the 2005 Amman Jordan bobing that Al Qaeda took responsibility for:

Web Link

The 2005 Amman bombings were a series of coordinated bomb attacks on three hotels in Amman, Jordan on November 9, 2005. Al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attacks which killed 60 people and injured 115 others. The explosions, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, the Radisson SAS Hotel, and the Days Inn, started at around 20:50 local time (18:50 UTC) at the Grand Hyatt. [1][2]
----

It is very clear that American/British/Coalition troops are not killing "innocent Iraqis" with car bombs. The forensic analysis of the bomb scenes seems to be fairly good at identifying bombers, although how many bombings go unanalyzed is not clear/


Posted by You've Got To Be Joking, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 23, 2007 at 6:14 am

ALL BOW DOWN: Wikipedia.com


Posted by D, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2007 at 7:10 am

Go back and check -- Zimbardo didn't say that the petition effort would "explode." If he referred to the general situation, he's right on the money. Now that students have returned and the academic year has begun, there has been quite a bit of activity, including a debate upcoming, to say nothing of a Faculty Senate hearing.
Wouldn't be the first time a journalist has used short-hand.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 23, 2007 at 8:13 am

"Since many students and faculty are just arriving back on campus for the beginning of fall quarter classes this week, the petition effort may pick up steam. "It's going to explode," said Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology and one of the organizers of the petition effort."

(from Kazak's original article)

D.,

Clearly, this petition did not "explode" as Zimbardo predicted. He was completely wrong. I always find it interesting to watch leftists get tripped up by reality.


OP,

My mother lives in a nursing home in Fresno. There are a couple of elderly Stanford grads that live there with her. They eat breakfast together. Both of those old grads knew about the petition. One of them signed it, and one refused. The word got out, and it is easy to sign the petition vis the Internet. Those who were motivated to sign, did sign. The simple fact is that there is just not much support for the thing.

I hope Rumsfeld will give some interviews, perhaps even debate Zimbardo or Bersnstein (with no audience to play to)while he is at Hoover. Clearly, the vast majority of the Stanford community welcome Rumsfeld.


Posted by Observer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2007 at 8:33 am

Gary,
Are you any closer to organizing the Rumsfeld-Zimbardo debate?
Can I get tickets for it??? I'm really looking forward to it.


Posted by Hey, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2007 at 8:52 am

Gary,
There is no evidence whatsoever for your last sentence "Clearly, the vast majority of the Stanford community welcome Rumsfeld".

It's reasonable to assume that someone who signs the petition agrees with it.

However, there are lots of reasons that a person might not sign the petition: he might not support the petition, sure, but it's just as likely that he never heard about it or that he doesn't sign online petitions or he mis-typed his email address or he accidentally deleted the email or or or....

The long and short of it is that you can't ascribe motive to the people who haven't signed it. Unless you ask them, you don't know how many people chose not to sign, and you sure don't know their motives. There's simply no data to support any conclusion about them.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 23, 2007 at 8:57 am

Observer,

I can only hope it happens. However, my idea is that there will be no tickets, since there will be no audience. Zimbardo or Bernstein (or some other Stanford leftist prof) would need to rely on their own wits...without a raucous crowd of fellow lefties. It would be shown on TV, though, so you and yours can get together and howl to the moon...I would buy a ticket to watch that!

This is fun!


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 23, 2007 at 9:09 am

Hey,

You remind me of Mary McGrory, the Washington Post reporter who exclaimed, after the landslide win by Reagan, "How did that man get elected? I don't know a single person who voted for him!".

Clearly, there was a vast majority out there that she had never heard from. I think that is the situation here. The petition was known to many, many Stanford alumni, yet they chose not to sign it. Even the majority of current students/staff/professors did not sign it. If they felt strongly about it, I presume that they would take the time to voice their protest, by signing the thing. They did not, clearly.


Posted by Probably Not, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 23, 2007 at 10:29 am

Gary:

GWB is enjoying an approval rating of 24%.

Are you suggesting that Rummy's approval rating within the Stanford far exceeds that?


Posted by Resident, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 23, 2007 at 10:48 am

Congress's approval is 11%. So, Bush is double that..so, your point?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 23, 2007 at 11:53 am

Welcoming Rumsfeld, and agreeing with him are not, necessarily, the same thing. I would welcome Bill clinton to Stanford, even though I don't with him on many things. I have a welcome mat on my front porch. I welcome many people into my home, with whom I completely disagree, politically. I employ some people that are very leftish. I could care less...they are welcome to work for me.

Rumnsfeld IS welcomed by the vast majority of the Stanford community. They may not agree with him, but they do agree that Hoover has the right to employ anybody they wish to employ.

I think Rumsfeld is a very smart guy, and clearly a resource to understand about recent events. He should be welcomed by the Stanford community. In fact, he is.

Approval ratings are irrelevant.


Posted by peter, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 23, 2007 at 1:19 pm


This a done deal, all that is left is senseless bickering.

Which some posters seem to like----get a life---

Again the disputes are so bitter because the stakes are so low in academia


Posted by Rummy is Hitler, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 23, 2007 at 4:08 pm


Bush has a 24% approval rating and you believe the MAJORITY of Stanford welcomes Rummy.

You're not being serious.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 23, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Rummy...

Yes.


Posted by Warfighter, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 23, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Like him or not, Rummy mad great strides in streamlining the way our military conducts asymetrical warfare. You have to respect a man that forces military generals and professionals with decades of experience to work outside of their comfort zone. I have seen firsthand improvements in Iraq, particularly in Al-Anbar. I spent 13 months in western Iraq conducting operations. The truth is, regardless of the current or previous policies, time is the biggest factor in creating a stable Iraq.


Posted by Gratitude., a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 23, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Words can not express my gratitude to you for all you did. I wish I knew who you were, I would love to know if you know my brother.

Well, deepest thanks to you and all the military for the long-term vision you are working for, and for all the sacrifices made by you and your family.

We aren't very loud around here, but we are many.


Posted by Free-Speech-For-Rumsfeld, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2007 at 9:06 pm

> Like him or not, Rummy mad great strides in streamlining
> the way our military conducts asymetrical warfare

This is true. The big problem with Rumsfeld was that he pushed the belief that the US could fight a two-front war with the military which we have today. This does not seem to be the case, and the generals were right to oppose him just because he believed it was true.

One of the fundamental doctrines of war is that you win with overwhelming force. Rumsfeld seemed to want to lower the threshold of "overwhelming", but did not seem to demonstrate that the lower thresholds worked. Yes, the Iraq invasion was incredible, as was the Kuwait invasion. Still, the problem of post-combat stabilization also requires troops. Rumsfeld did not seem to want to give these troop requirements as much thought as the combat requirements.


Posted by reflections, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 24, 2007 at 7:43 am

Well, I can't second guess anyone on this one, that is for sure.

I understood the intent..leave as small of a footprint as possible, listen to the Iraqis, etc. Standing down from Fallujah the first time comes to mind as one of the times I worried that the long term consequences were going to be severe from not simply wiping out the town after all the women, children, and really old men left.

But, that is what we did, and many other low footprint options. And, now in hindsight, maybe it would have been better to be much more aggressive, knowing that kindness such as ours is seen as "weakness" and merely encourages certain mentalities. As we have seen, our "kindness" and "listening to the Iraqis" let entire rebel armies grow, like Al-Sadr's.

ON the other hand, without our "small footprint", which the elected and tribal leaders of Iraq have seen "from above", noting the difference between the way we are fighting and their historical methods of fighting..and noting that we have and still are listening to THEIR elected leaders..well, maybe without this "small footprint" and listening they would not be coming around and seeing that there is a better way..maybe they would not be banding together against the brutality of those trying to overthrow the democracy and return to tryanny.

So, second guessing is not an option for me any longer.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Veggie Grill coming soon to Mountain View's San Antonio Center
By Elena Kadvany | 21 comments | 3,382 views

Is HBO's Silicon Valley Any Good?
By Anita Felicelli | 23 comments | 2,220 views

Finding mentors in would-be bosses
By Jessica T | 0 comments | 1,926 views

PAUSD Leadership Challenges
By Paul Losch | 23 comments | 1,723 views

A memorable Paly prom
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 1,111 views