“President Hennessy is certainly mindful of SLAC’s opinions... But intense feelings and strong opinions cannot be the sole basis for making decisions that affect the health and well-being of the entire university.”

This was written by Diane Peck, Executive Director of Human Resources at Stanford University, in an op-ed published by the Daily in April of last year.

Her statement cuts to the core of my concern with student activists. The programs they champion, from Israel divestment to wage increases, are short-sighted and superficial, and Stanford will have to face the programs’ financial consequences long after these students have graduated. And, that revenue loss will adversely affect other, potentially far more effective, programs.

Student activists see Stanford as a large pot of money that can be used to help those in need. But because students will not be here for very long, they demand immediate, flashy change. Most of that change is designed to alleviate their guilt from being ensconced in a bastion of American privilege. They want to know that their dorms are being cleaned by workers who make enough money, and that no Indonesian children are knitting their sweaters, and that their grant wasn’t financed by the sale of weapons to Israel.

But every dollar that our endowment doesn’t make because we refuse to invest in defense contractors and every extra dollar we spend on wage increases comes directly out of other spending, like expanding financial aid or conducting groundbreaking research.

How can anyone look around this campus and not see the parade of good that it produces? This is not Wal-Mart. This is a non-profit. And the money that gets spent on these student causes does not come out of some fat-cat’s dividend.

The money comes from programs that students are generally less invested in than the administration and faculty. Research happens in laboratories far from Tresidder Union, and generally takes years to complete. Even then, the results are usually not spectacular. It’s hard for a student to say, “My tuition was responsible for 1/5,000th of a new computer program that models protein-folding.”

Student activists will never know which brilliant professor wasn’t hired because Stanford could not afford a new slot in the biology department. The increased tuition and decreased financial aid that pays for activist causes will affect students who are still in grade school right now.

It is Stanford’s responsibility to make the tough decisions that students cannot, the decisions they don’t have the information, expertise or foresight to understand. The people who run this university are not soul-less. They routinely outlay money for things that will have great social but little financial benefit, such as the performing arts, or astrophysics. They do, however, have the courage to calculate where each dollar will best be spent.

If you want to increase the maximum amount of good in the world, it is silly to redirect money from Stanford’s core priorities. Anything that leeches money from those priorities will do the world a disservice, no matter how good it may make you feel.

Fun Fact: President Hennessy does not have the highest salary at Stanford, not even close. Several med school profs make significantly more than he does. Request a copy of Stanford’s 990 Form and get back to me at rahkan@stanford.edu.