Widgets Magazine

OPINIONS

A new president for an expired status quo

By now most of us have heard the news: Stanford’s 11th president, selected by the Presidential Search Committee after “six months and thousands of hours reviewing prospective candidates in a comprehensive, inclusive global search,” will be Canadian neuroscientist and former faculty member Marc Tessier-Lavigne.

On Facebook, the uproar in response to his selection was immediate. In the hours after Stanford’s announcement of its next president, I watched the storm of comments and reactions, some indignant, some resigned, some sarcastic. In a surprisingly short amount of time, articles cropped up in response: Stanford Political Journal’s disappointment in a “lost presidential opportunity,”  and The Stanford Review’s criticism of students’ “knee jerk reactions” and “tirades.”

The reason for the outrage? Like every other President selected in Stanford’s 125 year history, Marc Tessier-Lavigne is a white man.

I’m not interested in this column about speculating about candidates, about which candidate is/was better, should have been chosen, etc. Rather, I want to unpack that “knee jerk reaction” the Review so dryly commented on, and explore just why so many students are unimpressed with the Presidential Search Committee’s decision.

Over the last two years, injustices and inequities on this campus have grown in salience for most people here. Now, more than ever, we are aware of the lack of gender-neutral bathrooms, the prevalence of microaggressions in classrooms and houses, the vitriol of Yik Yak and our lack of mental health resources. Movements like Who’s Teaching Us? bring to light systemic inequities in the racial and gender makeup of our university, the difficulties of underrepresentation that marginalized communities at Stanford face, and an explosive year of activism, protests, advocacy, trauma and conflict brought massive issues of systemic racism, police brutality, occupation, violence and oppression onto campus.

And our next president is a white man.

We know that Stanford values its academics, its liberal arts program and scientific excellence, and those other characteristics it boasts about so frequently on admissions brochures. Tessier-Lavigne, like President John Hennessy before him, is undoubtedly able to maintain Stanford’s empire in these ways. But in picking a white man, competent as he may be, the Presidential Search Committee sends a clear message that it values that kind of status quo, and that they have no major plans for change on this campus. As society’s issues bleed unstoppably onto campus, many of us see Tessier-Lavigne as representative of Stanford’s desire to reinforce the bubble with plexiglass, hunker down and hope that after the dust settles, it’ll all be business as usual again.

Of course, this interpretation could be wrong. Tessier-Lavigne could turn out to be a strong advocate for queer and trans people on campus, galvanize faculty and institutional structure towards racial justice and decolonization and champion accessibility for first-generation students, low income students, disabled and neurodivergent students and the like. Tessier-Lavigne could interact critically and intentionally with social justice movements and the world outside Stanford, take a stance, steer our massive endowment towards bettering disadvantaged communities, push for divestment from fossil fuels, private prisons and companies complicit in occupation.

But even typing that out I find myself doubting that any of it could happen, and I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that. For students who desperately need change on this campus, we have grown to distrust the red-tape, bureaucratic machinations of a university that has been slow in supporting our communities and quick in dismissing our needs.

So what now, moving forward?

The Daily reports that during his announcement conference, Tessier-Lavigne “touched upon fostering an inclusive campus community, the health of the campus environment and diversity; addressing sexual assault; and making the University accessible to all students regardless of financial need.” In the official announcement made by Stanford, Tessier-Lavigne’s stated that, “In coming months, I plan to listen and learn from faculty, students, staff, trustees and alumni, to understand more fully the many opportunities and challenges facing the university, and to hear their aspirations for this great institution.”

We as students need to hold him accountable to that. People are frustrated now, and rightfully so –  but it’s even more important now not to let our desire for something different fizzle out into apathy. When fall quarter 2016 begins, it’s our job to remember the 125 years of white men Stanford has made its presidents and hold Tessier-Lavigne accountable to the change we want to see, to the change that, with any luck, he wants to see as well. We need to set a high bar for our next president, one that challenges him and our community to transform as an institution, one that pushes him and all of us to reconsider Stanford’s role in the changing times ahead.

Contact Lily at lilyz8 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

About Lily Zheng

Lily Zheng '17, is a weekly columnist for The Stanford Daily, a Social Psychology major and co-president of the student group Kardinal Kink. Her weekly column revolves around consent culture, queer and trans identity, social justice and activism. In her spare time, she enjoys wearing too much black clothing, accidentally sleeping in her makeup and spending quality time with her partners. Contact her at lilyz8 'at' stanford.edu – she loves messages!
  • Proud of Stanford

    No. Stanford sent a message that it will unabashedly pick someone based on their qualifications and experience and not on their chromosomes or DNA, not based on the country where they were born, and not based on the race they were born into. You don’t think they knew they would get this backlash? And they selected him ANYWAY because they have the wisdom to select leaders based on merit and not based on your, or anyone else’s, racist and sexist desire to fill a quota because “diversity”. I am proud of this university for standing up against hypocritical activists who fight for “tolerance” and “acceptance” using approaches that are nothing but.

  • Typo

    *everything but

  • Lily Zheng

    Dispelling the Meritocracy Myth: Lessons for Higher Education and Student Affairs Educators
    http://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/v31/Alvarado.pdf

    Dismantling the Meritocracy Myth:
    http://mediadiversified.org/2015/04/13/dismantling-the-meritocracy-myth/

    The Meritocracy Myth
    http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm

  • Alum

    Wow, an outcry because the selected candidate is a white man! How is that better than racists who immediately judge a candidate of color or another gender?! You should look in the mirror sometimes before accusing someone of racism and/or sexism.

  • http://www.igottagetmeawebsite.com NoseForNews

    I am an Stanford alum, and have a child starting there this fall. He is a gay person of color, not to mention the center of my world (along with his siblings).

    I read of Tessier-Lavigne’s appointment and was delighted. None of the issues noted above crossed my mind, in part because reverse discrimination is still discrimination. All that concerned me was credentials, merit, suitability, and fit.

    in 2008 and 2012 I voted for a black man for U.S. president. I based my decision on many factors, but color wasn’t one of them. (Though it pleases me no end to have a black man in the White House.) This November, seeing no one suitable on the GOP slate, and seeing two suitable Dems, I may end up voting for a woman –again on merit, but a woman in the WH would please me greatly.

    Some of this anti-WASP talk sounds like a hammer seeing nothing but nails.

  • http://www.igottagetmeawebsite.com NoseForNews

    Dear PeterCaoCentral , With respect: Shut Up!

  • http://www.igottagetmeawebsite.com NoseForNews

    No, you don’t have my name, and your name is anonymous, too (and matches no Stanford records). Why would I give my name to someone who, once in possession of a name, launches into a psychotic frenzy directed at that name –as you have done on this thread against several respected people?

    You mistake delusional, foaming-at-the-mouth ranting with useful discourse and clearly have an axe to grind, obsessively so.

    Freedom of speech include the right to make yourself look ridiculous and unbalanced, so knock yourself out.

  • Puma_01

    By the way, everyone realizes that the highest paid Stanford employee is African American, right?

  • GoTrump

    Freedom of speech at its finest! Elect Trump and he’ll help you out to understand who is a big papa in the house