As evidenced by a major story in the Wall Street Journal, finding dirt on John Hennessy is no easy task. The article, which ran on the front page of the Feb. 24 weekend edition of the WSJ, was over 3000 words long and extensively focused on Hennessy’s business interests in Silicon Valley. What appears to have been an in-depth investigation by the WSJ results in no scandalous revelations or even accusations but amounts to a detailing of Hennessy’s holdings and history. It is comforting to know that our president is on the level, even if it is a very wealthy one.

According to the article, Hennessy has earned over $43 million in addition to his official university salary in the past five years, and much of it has come from participation and investments in companies closely tied to Stanford.

Hennessy sits on the boards of Google, Cisco and Atheros, and the WSJ reports that he has invested in “elite venture-capital funds” like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Sequoia Capital and Foundation Capital. Many of these firms have also funded start-ups originating at Stanford and Hennessy appears to have been involved in helping establish some of these business relationships.

Yet is there a conflict of interest worthy of concern?

Part of the WSJ headline reads: “How John Hennessy’s Silicon Valley connections reap millions for the university—and himself.” Combined with a graphic showing Hennessy in front of Hoover tower with a wad of money, a diploma and a computer chip, the piece seems to insinuate that something improper has happened.

The most pressing worries are that Hennessy’s business might be more important to him than the University’s, and the fact that his holdings overlap with investments by the Stanford endowment. The WSJ cites William Chace, the former president of Emory and Wesleyan, and former Stanford president Donald Kennedy as expressing concern on these issues, but goes on to quote the chairman of Stanford’s board of trustees, and the general counsel, both of whom express confidence and trust that Hennessy is committed to being president first. While holding a seat on the board of the endowment, Hennessy must excuse himself from any business involving companies he is attached to, and may spend no more than one day a week working on non-University responsibilities.

The tone set by the headline and graphic could be misleading, but the WSJ does not make any concrete connections suggesting wrongdoing, and the whole of the article indicates that Hennessy is in the clear.

The most accusatory statement in the piece says only that Hennessy’s earnings from participation and investment in tech companies are, “an income stream that many in academia consider without precedent for a university president.”

As a scientist who has held patents, started companies and written textbooks, Hennessy is a university president without precedent, and this is not a bad thing. Yes, he is rich, but president of a major university is hardly a low-income position in the first place. What’s more, much of his original wealth came from his work on central processing units. Hennessy helped design the Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC) processor, versions of which were used in enormously popular products like the Playstation and Nintendo 64, and he has contributed to several textbooks on computer architecture. A leader who is so involved with academia and new technology is a lucky find.

If Hennessy were really out for his own fortunes, it is unlikely that remaining an administrator would be the most lucrative position, influence notwithstanding. Hennessy was involved with startups before he gained influence as Stanford’s president, not because of it. It is understandable that having a president who does nothing outside of his official duties might be desirable on the surface, but Hennessy’s breadth has proved as beneficial for us as for him. We remain concerned about tuition increases, but the university has seen unprecedented fundraising during Hennessy’s tenure, and the close relationships with Silicon Valley companies are extremely positive. We are grateful to the Wall Street Journal for its thorough profiling of our president, and even more grateful that the results give us more reason to support him.