The Board of Overseers (BO) of the Hoover Institution (HI) plays an important role in its activities. Its 100-plus members contribute annually 60-65% of annual expendable gifts. (Altogether about 150 Overseers and other donors provide 85% of annual gifts, with the balance coming from another 850-plus smaller donors and other miscellaneous sources.) Since the Hoover endowment generates about half of annual operating revenue, BO represents about a third of annual revenue.
The history of BO began shortly after the conclusion of World War II. On September 19, 1946, the Stanford Board of Trustees (SBT), with the agreement of President Herbert Hoover, adopted a plan for what was then the Hoover War Library. The HI and Library was organized as a separate division of Stanford University (SU), an Advisory Board (AB) was to advise the SU administration on its operations, and the AB chairman would be responsible to the SU president (SUP) similar to other department heads.
The next major statement of SBT came on May 21, 1959. With the approval of all parties, the status of HI was redefined as follows: “The HI is an independent Institution within the frame of SU....” The 1959 Resolution dealt with appointments, selection of the director, and defined HI academic appointments as “staff,” not “faculty,” lacking academic tenure. The AB was charged with the responsibility of helping raise money and advise on HI policies. It was to consist of “eminent men,” including SUP and chairman of SBT committee on HI.
The SBT Resolution of January 12, 1971, changed the name of AB to BO. BO was to be national, not local, given HI’s national and international standing and reputation. BO could elect its own officers, recommend new members to SUP and SBT, and was to make an annual report to both.
The September 12-13, 1988, Resolution authorized BO to create such committees as it determined useful in carrying out its duties. It was to advise SUP on the compensation of HI director and, after consultation with the Herbert Hoover Foundation, could recommend to SUP the removal of the director or acting director.
The June 15, 1990, Resolution expanded BO responsibilities. After stating that BO was responsible for overseeing the strategic direction and financial health of HI and the preservation of its institutional independence within the frame of SU, it was to undertake the following activities.
1. Ensure that HI policies and operations complied with SBT resolutions on HI governance.
2. Review and approve a strategic plan for HI, including research and publications.
3. Approve the annual operating and capital budget of HI, review its endowment and investment performance, and recommend the appointment or removal of investment advisors.
4. Assist with fund-raising, approve any future nominee for director pursuant to the 1971 Resolution, provide annual reports on HI activities to SUP and SBT, and review annually the director’s performance and recommend compensation.
5. Most importantly, BO was charged to work with SUP and SBT to promote and enhance the reputation of HI and to develop and maintain a cooperative relationship between HI and SU. This extra clause was reflective of the appointment of numerous Joint Appointment Senior Fellows (JASFs)
HI, along with SU, suffered a loss in its endowment and payout from the 2001 dot.com collapse and again in the financial crisis that erupted in September 2008. In both cases, SU offered tenured faculty and HI offered HI Senior Fellows (HISFs) enhanced retirement incentives. In all, 15 HISFs were induced to accept these offers or run the risk of being terminated with fewer benefits on grounds of financial exigency. Only one JASF accepted the offer, but he had already resigned from his department to move to New York.
Those who accepted the enhanced retirement offer were full-time Senior Fellows (FTSFs). None of the JASFs were prodded to accept. The reason is that SU would likely be pressed to make up the difference in compensation and benefits (between 30-80% of salary and other benefits) for any tenured JASF who lost the share paid by HI. Such action would have strained relations between HI and SU, violating the new BO instruction.
FTSFs do not enjoy academic tenure. They are easier to sever from their continuing appointments than are tenured faculty in departments or schools or JASFs. Effective spring 2013, FTSFs were denied permission to purchase a campus residence. Off-campus comparable homes in Palo Alto can cost as much as one-half more than the median-priced $2 million single-family residence on campus. The difference makes it much more difficult to recruit FTSFs.
No BO member publicly protested any of FTSF retirements, or loss of campus residence eligibility relative to other designated SU institutes and centers. Indeed, BO members, including successive chairmen of BO, have routinely praised JASFs on the grounds that they spread HI’s message of free markets, limited government, and strong national security into departments and their students. This flies in the face of the fact that all joint appointments but one were made at the behest of departments and other SU officials’ seeking to strengthen departments and schools.
In an October 19, 1989, statement to SBT, acting HI director John Raisian stated his hope “that relations between Hoover and other elements of the university can now enter a new era of harmony and fruitful cooperation.” “The practice of joint appointments to the university faculty and Hoover fellowship should be continued and expanded.”
Nineteen years later, on April 21, 2008, the Stanford Daily published an article headlined “Hoover, Univ. team up to hire faculty.” The article counted twenty faculty members holding ‘joint appointments’ with the Institution and the University,” which increased the integration of academic departments and the think tank. Dean of Humanities Richard Saller said that “a research fellowship at Hoover was an aid in recruiting faculty.”
An important reason for the attractiveness of a joint appointment was stated by Political Science professor Morris Fiorina, who noted that Hoover provided him with “summer research salary and a yearly research budget” without his having to jump through thirty-one hoops to get money from a foundation or the government. Director John Raisian stated “I think the integration continues and I think it will have a positive impact. This has been a feather in my cap and I’m proud of it.”
The proprietor of Thoughtful Ideas should offer a disclaimer. He was one of the FTSFs induced to accept the enhanced retirement offer in 2009 so that joint appointments would be spared. He has often been a minority of one in search committees opposing joint appointments and closer cooperation with SU, partly from self-interest, but also because he feared that HI would steadily evolve into a funding vehicle for faculty leave from teaching and research money, away from HI’s historical policy mission.
Thoughtful Ideas believes that the changing responsibilities of BO and the increase of joint appointments have diminished HI’s independence. A large majority of SFs are JASFs. This presages a future in which departments will increasingly determine SF appointments and research programs. HI will exist as an independent institution within the frame of SU in name only for fund-raising from conservative donors, but will lose its independence in appointments, programs, and expenditures.
“We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.” The past quarter-century of gradual assimilation have turned this Star Trek theme on its head. HI’s director, with full support of BO, have affirmed of SU: “You are Borg. You will assimilate us. Resistance is futile.” The next director will likely complete the assimilation, transferring four buildings (including a new one to open in 2017), an endowment nearing a billion dollars when pledged legacies are received, half-time relief from teaching duties for dozens of Stanford faculty with little interest in [conservative] policy research, freed-up funds for departments to recruit more faculty, and a permanent end to any future Hoover-Stanford controversy.
The history of BO began shortly after the conclusion of World War II. On September 19, 1946, the Stanford Board of Trustees (SBT), with the agreement of President Herbert Hoover, adopted a plan for what was then the Hoover War Library. The HI and Library was organized as a separate division of Stanford University (SU), an Advisory Board (AB) was to advise the SU administration on its operations, and the AB chairman would be responsible to the SU president (SUP) similar to other department heads.
The next major statement of SBT came on May 21, 1959. With the approval of all parties, the status of HI was redefined as follows: “The HI is an independent Institution within the frame of SU....” The 1959 Resolution dealt with appointments, selection of the director, and defined HI academic appointments as “staff,” not “faculty,” lacking academic tenure. The AB was charged with the responsibility of helping raise money and advise on HI policies. It was to consist of “eminent men,” including SUP and chairman of SBT committee on HI.
The SBT Resolution of January 12, 1971, changed the name of AB to BO. BO was to be national, not local, given HI’s national and international standing and reputation. BO could elect its own officers, recommend new members to SUP and SBT, and was to make an annual report to both.
The September 12-13, 1988, Resolution authorized BO to create such committees as it determined useful in carrying out its duties. It was to advise SUP on the compensation of HI director and, after consultation with the Herbert Hoover Foundation, could recommend to SUP the removal of the director or acting director.
The June 15, 1990, Resolution expanded BO responsibilities. After stating that BO was responsible for overseeing the strategic direction and financial health of HI and the preservation of its institutional independence within the frame of SU, it was to undertake the following activities.
1. Ensure that HI policies and operations complied with SBT resolutions on HI governance.
2. Review and approve a strategic plan for HI, including research and publications.
3. Approve the annual operating and capital budget of HI, review its endowment and investment performance, and recommend the appointment or removal of investment advisors.
4. Assist with fund-raising, approve any future nominee for director pursuant to the 1971 Resolution, provide annual reports on HI activities to SUP and SBT, and review annually the director’s performance and recommend compensation.
5. Most importantly, BO was charged to work with SUP and SBT to promote and enhance the reputation of HI and to develop and maintain a cooperative relationship between HI and SU. This extra clause was reflective of the appointment of numerous Joint Appointment Senior Fellows (JASFs)
HI, along with SU, suffered a loss in its endowment and payout from the 2001 dot.com collapse and again in the financial crisis that erupted in September 2008. In both cases, SU offered tenured faculty and HI offered HI Senior Fellows (HISFs) enhanced retirement incentives. In all, 15 HISFs were induced to accept these offers or run the risk of being terminated with fewer benefits on grounds of financial exigency. Only one JASF accepted the offer, but he had already resigned from his department to move to New York.
Those who accepted the enhanced retirement offer were full-time Senior Fellows (FTSFs). None of the JASFs were prodded to accept. The reason is that SU would likely be pressed to make up the difference in compensation and benefits (between 30-80% of salary and other benefits) for any tenured JASF who lost the share paid by HI. Such action would have strained relations between HI and SU, violating the new BO instruction.
FTSFs do not enjoy academic tenure. They are easier to sever from their continuing appointments than are tenured faculty in departments or schools or JASFs. Effective spring 2013, FTSFs were denied permission to purchase a campus residence. Off-campus comparable homes in Palo Alto can cost as much as one-half more than the median-priced $2 million single-family residence on campus. The difference makes it much more difficult to recruit FTSFs.
No BO member publicly protested any of FTSF retirements, or loss of campus residence eligibility relative to other designated SU institutes and centers. Indeed, BO members, including successive chairmen of BO, have routinely praised JASFs on the grounds that they spread HI’s message of free markets, limited government, and strong national security into departments and their students. This flies in the face of the fact that all joint appointments but one were made at the behest of departments and other SU officials’ seeking to strengthen departments and schools.
In an October 19, 1989, statement to SBT, acting HI director John Raisian stated his hope “that relations between Hoover and other elements of the university can now enter a new era of harmony and fruitful cooperation.” “The practice of joint appointments to the university faculty and Hoover fellowship should be continued and expanded.”
Nineteen years later, on April 21, 2008, the Stanford Daily published an article headlined “Hoover, Univ. team up to hire faculty.” The article counted twenty faculty members holding ‘joint appointments’ with the Institution and the University,” which increased the integration of academic departments and the think tank. Dean of Humanities Richard Saller said that “a research fellowship at Hoover was an aid in recruiting faculty.”
An important reason for the attractiveness of a joint appointment was stated by Political Science professor Morris Fiorina, who noted that Hoover provided him with “summer research salary and a yearly research budget” without his having to jump through thirty-one hoops to get money from a foundation or the government. Director John Raisian stated “I think the integration continues and I think it will have a positive impact. This has been a feather in my cap and I’m proud of it.”
The proprietor of Thoughtful Ideas should offer a disclaimer. He was one of the FTSFs induced to accept the enhanced retirement offer in 2009 so that joint appointments would be spared. He has often been a minority of one in search committees opposing joint appointments and closer cooperation with SU, partly from self-interest, but also because he feared that HI would steadily evolve into a funding vehicle for faculty leave from teaching and research money, away from HI’s historical policy mission.
Thoughtful Ideas believes that the changing responsibilities of BO and the increase of joint appointments have diminished HI’s independence. A large majority of SFs are JASFs. This presages a future in which departments will increasingly determine SF appointments and research programs. HI will exist as an independent institution within the frame of SU in name only for fund-raising from conservative donors, but will lose its independence in appointments, programs, and expenditures.
“We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.” The past quarter-century of gradual assimilation have turned this Star Trek theme on its head. HI’s director, with full support of BO, have affirmed of SU: “You are Borg. You will assimilate us. Resistance is futile.” The next director will likely complete the assimilation, transferring four buildings (including a new one to open in 2017), an endowment nearing a billion dollars when pledged legacies are received, half-time relief from teaching duties for dozens of Stanford faculty with little interest in [conservative] policy research, freed-up funds for departments to recruit more faculty, and a permanent end to any future Hoover-Stanford controversy.
