<p>“The concerns you have (widening wealth gap, the removal of executive leadership from workers, and the like) are not specific at all to the tech industry. That’s a growing trend of the entire world. Again, none of it has to do with any one university, and it isn’t fair of you to try to single Stanford out.”</p>
<p>“Why are you holding Stanford responsible for the evils of corporate America?”</p>
<p>I appreciate your questions. The issues I raised are complex and I want to be perfectly clear. You may well still disagree with me and that is fine, but at least you will understand my concerns.</p>
<p>Yes, the “evils” of corporate America (profit at any cost, disregard for the environment and the public good to name a few) are by no means exclusive to the Tech industry. In fact, two decades ago, as Stanford’s financial and business relationship with the tech industry was accelerating, the tech industry was not thought of at all as in any way “evil” as other industries were, but rather a societally friendly industry that held great promise to address problems of diminishing resources, illness, communication possibilites to name a few. </p>
<p>The introduction of the PC, for example, revolutionized households. There was a time without the internet, as bizarre as that must seem to most of you. These two innovations changed drastically life for many. Most, including me, would consider these extremely positive tech advances.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago, certainly during the time Hewlett and Packard Halls were being named, the tech industry was in a robust, exciting adolescence. Welcoming tech bell weathers onto the Stanford campus seemed to enhance the stature of each and most certainly Stanford’s endowments. But, the tech industry has matured, is displaying the underside of industry culture and has become in that regard more like other industries.</p>
<p>While I expect financial industries or energy industries to evade taxes, it still is a bit shocking to me for Apple to be doing so, maybe not to you, but shocking to me. In part this is because of the creative nature of Apple and the idealism and zeal so many, especially college and high school students have for their products. Apple does not seem a company that would avoid paying their fair share of taxes which will significantly hurt the very public high school and college students due to necessary education budget cuts who so revere Apple and line up at each rollout to buy their new product. </p>
<p>By my calculations from published figures, if Apple had not evaded the 2.3 billion dollars in taxes it owes the State of California for 2011, the California overall cumulative budget shortfall would be about 13% less. If Apple had been paying taxes all along, there likely would be no deficit at all. Does inviting Apple and its current corporate values into the heart of the Stanford culture still make sense for Stanford as it did when Apple was a revered start up Golden Apple?</p>
<p>Google, another close partner with Stanford, is dealing with very significant privacy issues for photographing every street and home throughout much of the world without the knowledge or consent of those whose homes were photographed. I personally have no issue with it, but many do. What is less known at this point is the engineers also developed software to “steal” personal data from home routers as they drove by–not only real time, but stored data. This is another of Stanford’s entrepreneurial partners and presumably a substantial donor. At what point does the close association with companies that are now mainstream corporate no longer serve Stanford or society?</p>
<p>It is clear the goals of most corporations is profit for its shareholders and not the betterment of society or addressing societies’ very considerable problems which my daughter and those of you in college and high school will have to grapple with. Universities, especially great ones like Stanford, potentially have the luxury and resources to explore solutions to problems of alternative energy, global warming, poverty in developing nations and even non-violent conflict resolution among individuals and nations to name a few.</p>
<p>Zenkoan described above a number of exceptional projects from the d.school that are undoubtedly excellent learning experiences of technical skills and of benefit to humanity. </p>
<p>“Some students do work collaboratively with faculty to create marketable products. However, it isn’t correct to assume that they are all for profit. Many of these collaborations result in items such as inexpensive solutions to water access in sub-Saharan African areas; low-cost, portable incubators for babies born in remote villages; inexpensive, scalable solar panels for equatorial countries; and many other things.” </p>
<p>These projects fit well into the belief a university is the last refuge for intellectual and values development before entering the world of “corporate values”. Some, including me, questions the wisdom of enmeshing current Tech bell weaher corporate values with a university culture as illustrated from this quote from the recent Atlantic Monthly article, “Stanford, Inc.”: </p>
<p>"David Kennedy, a Stanford historian, explained to Auletta that he “there are not nearly enough students devoted to the liberal arts and to the idea of pure learning. ‘The entire Bay Area is enamored with these notions of innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, mega-success,’ he says. ‘It’s in the air we breathe out here. It’s an atmosphere that can be toxic to the mission of the university as a place of refuge, contemplation, and investigation for its own sake.”</p>
<p>Some suggest the proportion of entrepreneurship devoted to societal enriching products relative to pure profit at Stanford is small: </p>
<p>"As tech-journalist Hermione Way wrote in 2011, “Everyone [in the Valley] is doing something amazing and trying to change the world, but in reality much of the technology being built here is not changing the world at all, it’s short-sighted and designed for scalability, big exits and big profits.” </p>
<p>Yes, my values are such that I do encourage assisting some the the best and brightest young STEM minds to develop a desire and ability to tackle world problems while at Stanford and other universities simply because no one anywhere else has the resources or opportunity to so readily do it. I view it desirable for faculty to take sabbatical and students time off to commit time and talent to developing for profit enterprises to preserve and optimize the unique and time-limited opportunities in one’s life at a university. </p>
<p>But from a self-preservation perspective, I do see early warning signs that the public perception and educational benefits of the entrepreneurial partnership between Stanford and SV, as well as the insidious creep of corporate “profit values” into the Stanford atmosphere no longer serves Stanford and its students as it once did as the Tech culture has become a corporate one. </p>
<p>Projects such as those from the d.school seem to serve every conceivable educational objective for Stanford and enhance its stature. It appears to me the entrepreneurial corporate culture detracts, so again I will ask, who and what interests is it serving?</p>
<p>I apologize if I seem to be singling out Stanford. Stanford is unique in its location, quality and deep connections with SV companies and I have considerable firsthand experience with Stanford. The experience of a somewhat unusual university atmosphere and the seemingly uncritical emphasis and promotion of corporate entrepreneurship by Stanford’s administration, most notably during the admit weekend keynote address, raised my curiosity. To the extent a similar situation exists at other universities, my concerns apply there as well. Stanford is a great university. My desire is that it continue to be great and serve the needs and challenges its students will face in the world in the decades ahead.</p>