University president Jonathan Levin ’94 and Provost Jenny Martinez do not have a strategy in place against President Donald Trump’s executive orders but have advised faculty to continue their research despite orders for it to stop, the pair said at a Faculty Senate meeting Thursday.

In their second meeting of the quarter, the Faculty Senate responded to the impacts of Trump’s executive orders, including one that calls for the termination of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs.

Levin and Martinez responded to questions regarding the “Know Justice Know Peace” banner — recently removed from Green Library — which some have argued violates political neutrality. The Senate then deliberated the downsides of artificial intelligence’s (AI) increasing presence in education following a presentation by Stanford’s AI advisory committee.

The impact of Trump’s executive orders

David Studdert, the vice provost and dean of research, told the Senate that “there is a lot of uncertainty” surrounding research funding following Trump’s recent freeze on federal grants. Acknowledging that communications about the stop work orders from Washington are unclear and have not been well-coordinated, he said that “all hands are on deck” and “regular research activities on federal grants should continue at this time.” 

“There’s a lot of activity in Washington D.C.,” Levin said, referencing the many changes that Trump has enacted since his inauguration on Jan. 20. He said the University anticipates “many potential issues” and is closely monitoring developments.

Levin underscored the University’s goals to be transparent with faculty. Martinez echoed this sentiment, highlighting the University’s efforts to provide individualized support, particularly for faculty whose grants may be impacted. 

“We don’t yet have the clarity that some people might want,” Martinez said.  

Computer science professor James Landay asked if Stanford plans to “fight back” or organize with other universities. Martinez replied that it was “not easy” to respond given the uncertainty. She said the University would try to preserve academic freedom and diversity in research in line with the University’s mission. 

“We want this campus to attract a broad array of students and scholars and we can protect the freedom of faculty and students to speak their minds and work on the topics that they care about,” Levin said. 

Neither Martinez nor Levin offered a clear strategy in mind to combat the potential effects of the executive orders. Instead, Levin said that “we will start with something affirmative and work toward that.”

Comparative literature professor David Palumbo-Liu brought attention to Stanford’s department of comparative studies in race and ethnicity (CSRE) and said that he hoped Stanford would stand by its commitment to research in these areas.

In response, Martinez affirmed that the faculty’s ability to conduct research on race and ethnicity is “a core part of academic freedom the University will defend.”

Removal of ‘Know Justice Know Peace’ Banner outside of Green Library

The banner reading “Know Justice Know Peace” in front of Green Library’s main entrance, which advertises the library’s “Say Their Names — No More Names” exhibit that opened Sept. 2020, was removed at the start of winter quarter. 

Its removal followed a debate over whether it violated the University’s commitment to political neutrality.

Finance professor Jeffrey Zwiebel asked about the removal of the banner, calling the banner “a clear violation of the university policy of political neutrality” and inquired whether those who put up the banner had faced consequences. 

Martinez said that following a thorough discussion on the University’s policy of neutrality, it was decided, through a “very cooperative process” between the AdHoc committee on university speech and head librarians at Green Library to remove the banner.

Levin emphasized that the banner was an advertisement for an exhibit, and that it also could have been viewed as a political statement that spoke for the University. Considering these two viewpoints, the committee came to the conclusion that “it should come down because it fell into the latter category.”

Faculty deliberates implications of AI use

Bioengineering and medicine professor Russ Altman Ph.D. ’89 M.D. ’90 said that the AI advisory committee, which he chairs, aims to encourage innovation at Stanford while emphasizing the need for guardrails. “The University should view [AI] as augmenting human capabilities,” Altman said. 

Altman briefly mentioned student and educator use of AI as well as potential challenges to scholarly rigor and professionalism. He emphasized that certain areas of the University that must retain a human perspective include human resources, admissions, university communications, surveillance and the practice of letters of recommendation.

English professor Elaine Treharne called the presentation a “very non-precise recommendation.” French professor Dan Edelstein said that it lacked “a real reckoning with the existential challenge AI presents to a liberal education,” commenting that AI is disrupting the ability to write well and, consequently, think and speak critically. 

Regarding the brief section on student use of AI, Edelstein said he found it “disappointing” and that the University’s main concern should not be on cheating but addressing the “dangers of AI” to liberal education, which obstruct “the very mission of the University.” 

Altman, who agreed with Edelstein on writing’s importance for thinking effectively, said there should be a “robust and ongoing dialogue about the meaning of liberal education in the context of these tools.” 

Landay expressed excitement about students doing “incredible things” with AI, but said that there will be an unsettling period of three to five years of questions on how to teach writing. Political science professor Alison McQueen highlighted students’ worries about AI and its effect on their education, saying that “some of them do worry that they’re getting dumber.”

Correction: A previous version of this article misquoted Studdert‘s statement on the communications surrounding stop work orders. The Daily regrets this error.