The Faculty Senate voted to postpone a decision on rescinding the 2020 censure of Hoover Institute fellow Scott Atlas for his misrepresentation of scientific knowledge and discouragement of the use of masks and other scientifically accepted protective measures against the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the senate’s Thursday meeting, Steve Goodman, an epidemiology professor, proposed delaying the vote on rescinding Atlas’ censure for an additional month. Originally, the vote was scheduled for April but the censure was directed to a committee for further consideration until October. A vote on the censure will return to the senate in November.
Members of the Senate Planning and Policy Board (PPB) presented their findings on the matter. Kenneth Shultz ’93 Ph.D. ’96, a PPB member, said the board concluded that the Senate’s censure of Atlas had denied him due process.
Atlas “was not notified of the resolution ahead of time nor given an opportunity to respond,” said Shultz, a political science professor and chair of the 2022-23 Faculty Senate. “Condemnation by peers can cause reputational, personal or professional harm… Condemnation of faculty and academic staff should be governed by at least minimal due process rights to be notified and respond.”
However, Shultz recognized that the 53rd Faculty Senate, which originally censured Atlas, “did not violate any existing rules because there are no rules specifically governing a censure resolution.”
PPB chair Mary Beth Mudgett, senior associate dean for the Natural Sciences and the previous Senate chair, argued that if the senate chooses to condemn a faculty member, “it should do so in a manner that reflects the highest values of the University, such as respect and mutual accountability due to colleagues.”
Goodman’s proposal to postpone the decision was, in part, motivated by his concerns on how this vote could impact the current election cycle.
“I guarantee if we pass this today, it will make headlines within 24 hours,” Goodman said. “I would be shocked if this was not used against us, saying that Stanford experts and those at other elite universities are not to be trusted.”
Jonathan Berk, a banking and finance professor at the Graduate School of Business (GSB), disagreed, arguing that the matter had been delayed for too long.
“It was entirely clear to me that Scott Atlas was denied due process,” he said. “I did not need the PPB to tell me that and neither did anyone in this room.”
Jeffrey Zwiebel, a GSB finance professor, contended that delaying a decision to avoid political repercussions violates the principles of political nonpartisanship and institutional neutrality the University has adopted.
“The suggestion that we should think about what signal we are sending only serves to underscore that the original motion was brought to send a political signal,” Zwiebel said.
Goodman’s proposal to delay the motion was passed by a slim majority vote of sixteen to fourteen. The Faculty Senate is now scheduled to vote on the motion to undo Atlas’ censure on Nov. 21.
Democracy Day aims to depolarize campus dialogue
Stanford Law School professors Norman Spaulding and Juliet Brodie, also faculty director for the Haas Center for Public Service, presented on Democracy Day programming. Democracy Day, Stanford’s annual student-led civic celebration, is set to take place on Nov. 5 this year, and will include dozens of events, including a dine and dialogue with faculty, an election night watch party and a keynote conversation with Valerie Jarrett ’78, CEO of the Obama Foundation and Former Senior Advisor to President Obama.
The increase in political and affective polarization has led to “the tendency to view the other side and people on the other side not just as wrong but unworthy of moral dignity as humans,” Spaulding said. He argued this polarization has spread to Stanford’s campus, causing students to self-silence for fear of social ostracization, thus limiting the breadth of classroom discourse.
“We can have free speech and inclusion, rather than trading one for the other, if we cultivate the norms that encourage both,” Spaulding said. “Especially in a learning environment, understanding is the first objective. When the goal is just understanding, research shows that people begin to feel heard.”
Brodie highlighted student-led initiatives to create spaces for constructive dialogue on Democracy Day, adding that while many view it as a day off, the students involved “are leading the messaging that this is a day on.”
Berk expressed concern with Democracy Day serving as a largely student-led initiative.
“If I lose one whole day of teaching I think the faculty should have a role in the lessons,” he said.
Diego Kagurabadza ’25 the Associated Students of Stanford University president, voiced his support for Democracy Day as a student-led initiative. Last year, nearly 40 events were held on and off campus, Kagurabadza said.
“If I may speak in defense of the student leadership, I think the community really thrives when we have students leading this event,” Kagurabadza said.
Brodie concluded by voicing the importance of continued support for democratic expression. “Democracy is not a day. Democracy is a practice,” she said.
Faculty member questions political neutrality of Green Library banner
Zwiebel questioned the University’s political neutrality policies as applied to the Black Lives Matter banner that is hung outside of Green Library.
“Whatever one thinks of these positions, they are deeply political positions,” he said.
Provost Jenny Martinez said the poster was hung to advertise an exhibition currently on display at the library.
Provost clarifies penalties for pro-Palestine protesters
Martinez also discussed the penalties imposed on pro-Palestine protesters who either participated in the White Plaza sit-in or the occupation of Building 10. While the University has yet to hear back from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office regarding criminal charges, Stanford’s Office of Community Standards plans to hold hearings on the matter within the next week, Martinez said.
“Penalties typically involve community service and something that remains on the record until graduation,” Martinez said. “At some point, it would be useful for us to examine how well our processes are working. One thing I know we can work on is the speed of the resolution of these affairs.”
University continues negotiations with Graduate Workers Union
University President Jonathan Levin ‘94 updated the Senate on ongoing negotiations with the Stanford Graduate Workers Union. The University has held three negotiation sessions with the union this week but has yet to reach an agreement on key points such as wages and benefits, Levin said.
The University intends to negotiate in good faith and work to establish “a relationship of trust and mutual respect that will hopefully be a foundation for a longstanding relationship with the graduate union,” Levin said.
A previous version of this article misattributed a quote to law professor Bernadette Meyler (who was not in attendance at last week’s Faculty Senate meeting), misrepresented the name of the Planning and Policy Board, misspelled Kenneth Shultz’s name and misrepresented Mary Beth Mudgett’s role in the Faculty Senate. The Daily regrets these errors.
Clarification: The language in this article was updated to reflect that the censure vote was not delayed but sent to the PPB in April and that penalties for pro-Palestine protesters were not debated by the whole Senate but addressed only by the Provost in response to a question.