Hoover and Academic Freedom
Hoover and Conservative Politics
On October 8, 2002, the Stanford Daily ran an article with the headline "Hoover fellows help make policy on Iraq." The headline refers to the 8 Hoover fellows on the influential 31-member Defense Policy Board, which meets regularly with top administrative officials such as the Secretary of Defense; the Chicago Tribune described the board as "playing an influential role in pushing the Bush administration toward an invasion of Iraq, generating support for military action as members seek to transform a controversial idea into a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy."
The 8 members on the Defense Policy Board are: Richard Allen, Martin Anderson, Gary Becker, Newt Gingrich, Henry Rowen, George P. Shultz, Kiron Skinner, and Pete Wilson.
What does this have to do with Stanford? The Hoover fellows advising the Department of Defense are scholars at the Hoover Institution, which is a part of Stanford University. The high level of cooperation between a conservative administration and Hoover fellows is not unusual. Ronald Reagan met with the Hoover's Overseers in 1981 to inform them that the Institution was "the brightest star in a small constellation of conservative think tanks", and that he called on more people from Hoover to help with his campaign than from any other institution. At a White House reception, Reagan thanked the Institute's Director for building "the knowledge base that made the changes now taking place in Washington possible."
There is, of course, nothing wrong with a Hoover fellow or any other scholar advising a government official. However, we raise the issue of Hoover fellows involvement in U.S. foreign policy because we feel it reflects the nature of the institution. Hoover is the only institution at Stanford that maintains an overt political bias.
The Institute's Mission and Philosophy
We claim that the Hoover Institution, distinct from the projects of its individual fellows, has a political bias. Our primary concern is therefore with how the Institution acts as an institution. Let's look, then, at the Hoover mission statement:
The Hoover Institution's mission is defined, in part, by the 1959 statement by its founder, Herbert Hoover that calls for safeguarding "[the American] system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves." The Institution has reformulated Mr. Hoover's vision thus: "By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, our Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals."
This last phrase has defined the character of the institution to a great extent, and this is clear from how the institution describes itself. Hoover's Annual Report 2000 says:
"Evaluating and advancing sensible market-based solutions to public policy problems is an underpinning of the philosophy of Hoover scholars, who will continue to advance the principles of free enterprise and economic freedom for decades to come" ("Founding Principle: Private Enterprise", from the Introduction to Annual Report 2000).
This is from a section that describes the founding principles of the institution.
The institutional character demonstrated in the above passage influences the Institute's sponsored research initiatives, which are proposed by the director and approved by the executive committee. These initiatives are, according to the Institution's web-site, reflections of the Institute's overarching goals. Here, we see that the institution's academic agenda is linked to non-academic goals. For instance, the initiative Property Rights, the Rule of Law, and Economic Performance", intends "to emphasize the fundamental importance of property rights to the life and health of a free society." The Institution sponsored research initiative "The End of Communism" hopes, in the report's words, "to ensure that mankind will not again be tempted by the false utopian promises of this malignant ideology [of communism]" (Introduction to Annual Report 2000).
The University and Academic Freedom:
The university should be a place that upholds academic freedom. The crucial part of academic freedom here is freedom from "institutional orthodoxy." Academic freedom, as described by the university, entails that "Decisions concerning the search for, and appointment and promotion of, faculty [and] the support and sponsorship of scholarly research shall be made without regard to a person's political, social, or other views not directly related to academic values or to the assumption of academic responsibilities" ("Academic Freedom" Research Policy Handbook, Document 2.3)
Is Hoover compatible with Academic Freedom?
An institution with political goals and political bias is thus a violation of academic freedom. The mission statement guides the Institution's hiring practices, and since the mission endorses a specific political opinion we must conclude that political views plays some role in the process of selecting Hoover fellows. In addition, the Institution's sponsored research promote the political opinion endorsed by the mission statement -- institutional "support of scholarly research" therefore also proceeds according to non-academic values.