Hoping to channel email chatter and Internet petitions into a constructive public forum, students formally debated the Hoover Institution’s appointment of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a distinguished visiting fellow last night.

Enlarge
#gallery http://daily.stanford.edu/image/full/8064
Maggie Skortcheva

Anish Mitra ‘09 of the Stanford Debate Team was selected to argue in favor of the proposal “Donald Rumsfeld’s appointment to Hoover is good for Stanford” last night.

Stanford Debate Team members Anish Mitra ‘09 and Michael Baer ‘08 opened with arguments for and against, respectively, a resolution that, “Donald Rumsfeld’s appointment to Hoover is good for Stanford,” before opening up the floor for public comment.

Intellectual diversity, as well as Rumsfeld’s competence and qualifications for a visiting fellowship, were the primary points of contention during the hour-long debate, which drew nearly 100 students, faculty and interested community members to Kresge Auditorium.

“We can either embrace diversity or shut it out,” Mitra said, defending the appointment in the name of academic freedom. “When confronted with ideas that we don’t agree with we can either engage them or try to shut them off.”

Baer, for his part, acknowledged the importance of academic freedom but challenged Rumsfeld’s appointment on personal integrity.

“He lost the loyalty of the Bush administration, an administration known for being loyal; he lost the trust of the American people,” Baer said. “Why should we trust him with upholding the name of our university?”

Graduate School of Business Prof. Jonathan Bendor, who later said he found the debate’s rapid format “uncomfortable and quite frustrating,” played devil’s advocate, challenging the debaters to defend their assertions: “What are his qualifications for a panel on terrorism?” he said. “What type of damage would he do to the University’s reputation?”

The University announced in September that Rumsfeld would be joining Hoover for a yearlong visiting fellowship, serving on a task force on ideology and terrorism. The announcement drew the ire of students, faculty and alumni who expressed concern with his record. An online “No To Rumsfeld” petition of Stanford community members garnered more than 3,900 signatures.

Limited to speaking for one minute, students in the audience took turns defending and condemning the appointment on moral, ethical and intellectual grounds.

“He knows his stuff,” said Ian Girard ‘11 of the former Defense Secretary’s qualifications. “Iraq is in the past. He should be allowed to come and learn from his mistakes and learn from others.”

But Stephanie Sy ‘11 expressed skepticism that Rumsfeld would come to Stanford with an open mind.

“He’s never acknowledged failure before,” she said. “Do we want Stanford to be associated with this type of man?”

The small contingent of Stanford Public Safety officers on hand proved unnecessary as discussion remained civil and concise. The loudest audience reaction came in response to Laura Wadden ‘09, who drew applause when she said, “I will not accept having a war criminal in our presence. We have blood on our hands.”

Stephanie Wright ‘11 said the appointment was positive for the University because it has inspired such student debate.

“The campus is buzzing,” she said. “People are talking, things are getting done and there is more student involvement. That in itself is good for campus.”

Others said the nature of the fellowship, a one-year visiting appointment, was little cause for concern.

“For Heaven’s sake, it’s called the Hoover Institution,” said Crystal Zhang ‘10. “How competent do you have to be?”