In his first interview with The Daily since taking office as Stanford’s 13th president on Aug. 1, Jonathan Levin ’94 shared his top priorities and perspective on major issues facing the University, from policies regarding protests and free speech to labor negotiations.

Levin, an economist who previously served as dean of the Graduate School of Business (GSB), succeeds Interim President Richard Saller following a tumultuous year of widespread protests and disagreements over the Israel-Gaza war on college campuses. In the interview, Levin described the four-month transition period that took place after the Presidential Search Committee announced his appointment on April 4. He signaled a commitment to institutional neutrality while acknowledging the intense scrutiny that university presidents face.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and concision.

TSD: What changes do you hope to bring to Stanford? What do you see as the University’s major strengths and challenges?

JL: The University has a noble purpose of discovery and learning, and Stanford has ways in which it pursues that mission that are unique and distinctive among universities. The way that we pursue excellence across research and education, across such a broad array of different fields, is extraordinary. 

The way that we’re an engine of innovation and really set an example for other universities, and how we get ideas out of the University into the world in ways that benefit humanity. And then our culture. Stanford has a culture of openness and exploration and optimism that, I think, is really the reason that so many people want to come and stay for a long time. It’s certainly the reason that I came and I stayed for so many years.

Provost Jenny Martinez and I really have three things that we want to focus on for the fall. 

The first is trying to promote a stronger culture of inquiry and curiosity and constructive dialogue at the University across a whole range of issues. I think that’s fundamental to who we are and what we need to be as a university.

The second is that there’s so many changes going on, particularly across all of our research fields, because of the rise of data and artificial intelligence and computation. We really want to make sure that the University is at the forefront of all of those changes. They are going to be transformative for many fields of knowledge and probably eventually for education as well.

The third is, we’d really like the University to work better for the students, the faculty and the staff. I heard that from almost everyone that I talked to over the last four months that they want to see the University be an enabling force and not impose constraints. And I think that’s right. 

I often say the strategy for great universities, ultimately, is very simple. You try to attract the best students and faculty. You make sure they have the resources and the support and the freedom to be at their best, and you get out of the way.

TSD: Last year, Stanford and campuses across the country saw widespread protests and counter protests over the war in Gaza, some of which involved confrontations with police or opposing groups. At Stanford, a group of pro-Palestine protesters was arrested after barricading themselves inside the president’s office. How does the University plan to address demonstrations in the coming year, if they occur?

JL: There are two broad principles when it comes to campus speech that are really important. The first is that an important part of pursuing our mission as a university is that we give students and faculty such broad freedom to study the topics that they’re interested in, to write, to speak freely.

The second is that there are rules to protect the freedoms of everyone else on the campus, and those rules have to do with ensuring that everyone can study and learn in a way that’s uninterrupted. So you can’t disrupt classes. You can’t disrupt events. You can’t disrupt the function of the University. It’s against the rules to occupy buildings. And it’s important also that we enforce those rules, so that we can have a great experience for all of the students and faculty on the campus.

There were a lot of questions [about rules] last year. We have rules about so-called time, manner and place restrictions, and exactly what the rules are around protests. We’re going to put out an updated and clarified set of policies before the current year starts.

TSD: Beyond clarifying those guidelines, what concretely has been done to prepare for those potential protests?

JL: One of the goals that Provost Martinez and I have for the entire campus this year is that we focus on creating a stronger culture of inquiry and discussion and curiosity, and really try to facilitate and enable a lot of constructive discussion on the campus.

You may have seen there were two reports that came out at the end of last year, one focused on the MAP [Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Communities Committee] report and a report [from] an anti-semitism committee that President Saller had commissioned. They are worth reading. I thought one of the common themes, maybe the most important common theme, in those reports, was the desire from every side of the debates last year to have more opportunities to really engage in a discussion where people felt that they could be heard and listened to and have their perspectives appreciated.

Our first proactive priority has to be to try to make sure that happens this year. I’m certainly going to do everything I can to support that. I know Provost Martinez will do the same, and I hope everyone at Stanford pitches in to make sure that happens.

TSD: Has there been any engagement with law enforcement in advance of this academic year to prepare for protests?

JL: I’m going to stick with what I said before. We’re going to circulate rules around the policies regarding protest and time, manner, place in a couple of weeks. That’ll be a better time to talk about those kinds of questions.

TSD: Some protesters have called for the University to divest from weapons manufacturers and businesses connected to the state of Israel. What is your position on those demands?

JL: Stanford does have a process to consider proposals for divestment, and those are decided by the Stanford [Board of Trustees]. There’s a petition that came in about divestment related to the Middle East conflict, and that will be considered later this fall.

TSD: Protesters have also called for the University to publicly disclose its investments, including its endowment. Do you support this kind of disclosure?

JL: I think that’s part of the proposal that will be considered later this fall. Historically, the University does disclose some aspects of the way the endowment is managed and doesn’t disclose others. That has really been dictated by the desire to make sure that we can invest the endowment in ways that promote the long-term sustainability and success of the University.

TSD: In a previous interview with The Daily, you expressed support for institutional neutrality, saying, “We want students to be comfortable with complexity and to hear many different views, and to think for themselves about complex events in the world.” How do you expect this philosophy to shape your actions as president?

JL: We are here as the University to facilitate discovery and learning, and an important part of having that happen is to create an environment on the campus where all of the students and all the faculty get the opportunity to think for themselves. And to feel encouraged to be able to speak up, even if they have a viewpoint or an opinion that might be contrary to the majority of people on the campus, and that there are forums on the campus to talk about those issues so we can learn from each other. 

Last spring, the Faculty Senate took up the question of institutional statements and adopted a policy — which I supported and continue to believe is the right approach — that University leadership, whether department chairs or deans or president and provost, would refrain from taking positions on social and political issues on behalf of the collective. The rationale for that was exactly to facilitate this environment on campus where there’s no institutional orthodoxy, where people are encouraged to think and speak for themselves. 

I think that’s actually a fundamental value to have at universities. I’ll also say, and I said this last year during the discussion in the Faculty Senate, that I think the dynamic that — not just Stanford, but many universities, and by the way, many organizations that were not universities — got into in recent years as the country became polarized, was an unhealthy dynamic. Where leaders of organizations felt expectation and often a lot of pressure to very rapidly — after things happened in the country, in the world — issue strong statements, declarative statements that passed judgment and took positions on behalf of their organizations.

In a university, not only is that not conducive to an environment of discussion but it also sets a bad example for students, because part of being a student in college is recognizing that many things don’t have simple answers. That college is really more about learning to ask questions than it is knowing the right position on every issue. 

Leaders of universities, including me, should be trying to model that, not trying to have a declarative answer on every single issue, many of which could be quite distant from the activities on campus themselves. So I commend the Faculty Senate for the resolution they passed last summer, and I have every intent to to honor it.

TSD: Last year, Congress also investigated how institutions of higher education, including Stanford, handle antisemitism, leading to subpoenas and hearings. How do you view these government interventions, and what impact do you think they could have on University practices?

JL: First of all, we have an obligation, like every university, to ensure that we have a campus environment that’s free from harassment and discrimination. That’s federal law, and it’s also an important part of having the campus be a place that can be welcoming to everyone who comes here. Some of the federal governance scrutiny is calling for us to be more intentional and have better processes to enforce those regulations, and we’re going to do that. 

There’s also scrutiny of universities that I think stems from some loss of trust in how effectively universities are carrying out their missions of research and education. We have some work to do to ensure that not only are we carrying out those missions, but that we are able to do that in a way that inspires trust and confidence, not just from the members of the university, but from the country and from the world. I will do everything I can to ensure that that’s the case.

TSD: The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2007 and Stanford Graduate Workers Union (SGWU) expressed dissatisfaction over wage offers, benefits and the ongoing negotiation process. How does the University plan to address these concerns? 

JL: We are in a negotiation with a set of Stanford employees who are represented by the SEIU. It’s been a very constructive negotiation, and I hope that we’re going to reach an agreement quite soon with them. We’re also in a new world with graduate students who have unionized, as they have at many universities across the country. We’ve been in a negotiation to form a first collective bargaining agreement with our graduate students for about nine months. Because it’s a first agreement, it takes more time.

And my hope is that, first of all, we’re able to get to a successful agreement with [SGWU] this fall that supports the students in a way that they can be successful while they’re here at the University, and also sets a foundation of trust and mutual respect that’s essential to any ongoing relationship with the union. I think we’re going to have to work really hard to get there. That’ll be a real priority for me to try to establish an ongoing, long-term relationship with [SGWU] where they can bring concerns to us, and we can hear them, and they can also understand the way in which graduate education works, from the perspective of the University and from the faculty, who provide a lot of the support for graduate students.

TSD: Are there any plans or policies that you would support to make life in the Bay Area more affordable for community members?

JL: Many of the things that make the Bay Area expensive are not directly related to the University. We’re partly victims of our own success in this area, because the Bay Area has been such an innovative ecosystem and such a dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and new companies and technology that many people want. And it’s a beautiful place to live, so many people want to live here. That makes it a more expensive place to live. 

Stanford, over the years, has been able to respond to some of that demand and rising costs by building more student housing on the campus, by trying to build more housing for faculty, by trying to create more housing options for staff. I hope that we’re going to, over the next few years, develop a very strong partnership with Santa Clara County, so that we could continue to do that and address the needs of the university community in a way that helps the whole region.

TSD: Two years ago, tensions over the University’s policies on campus social life came to a head, with students protesting under the slogan “Stanford Hates Fun.” What are your thoughts on those criticisms, and do you think policies should change?

JL: I think my pro-fun position continues. One, I’ve stated my pro-fun position. But the second [thing] is, coming to college at Stanford, there are many things about it that are really special for students. It certainly was in my experience. It just opens your mind in so many different ways — getting to be in Stanford classrooms and getting to be around all the other students and the faculty. 

Education is all about encountering different ideas and different people and different cultures. And the opportunity to do that at Stanford is extraordinary. And, it is supposed to be fun. It’s supposed to be a time to be able to explore and to meet people and have freedom in a way as you’re coming into adulthood. A beautiful part of the Stanford culture is that there’s also an aspect of joy and an irreverence to being a student at the University. That’s something that I personally benefited from and I want all students to have that opportunity.

TSD: In recent years, some commentators have described leading a top university as one of America’s toughest jobs, due to the intense scrutiny that presidents face. How have you prepared for this level of attention?

JL: I couldn’t imagine a better job than getting to be the president of Stanford. It’s a great institution, and I think the same is true of our peer universities. We play a very important role in the country and in the world. Yes, we face many significant and contentious issues that have to be the subject of discussion and debate on campus, and that does create challenges to be a university president. 

But when you walk around the Stanford campus, 98% — maybe even 99.8% — of what’s going on on any given day is faculty doing pioneering research and students opening their minds and talking to one another and learning. There’s a lot to be proud of there and to support.

TSD: Apart from your leadership plans, what should Stanford community members know about you?

JL: What else to know about me? Yesterday someone pointed out to me that because I’m a big Taylor Swift fan, becoming Stanford’s 13th president will have a certain resonance — at least with some subset of the population on campus.