Obama heavily favored by Stanford employees

With the 2012 presidential election just four days away, many Stanford University employees have already voted with their wallets—most offering support for President Barack Obama’s bid for a second term.

Stanford donors have given a total of $473,372 to Obama’s reelection campaign through Oct. 25, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. Contributions to Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign from Stanford employees over the same period total only $45,615, a little under 10 percent of the Obama total.

(LORENA RINCON-CRUZ/The Stanford Daily
Data courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics)

These individual contribution figures only represent contributions made directly to presidential campaigns by donors who reported working for Stanford University. Only donations over $200 are tallied.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Stanford employees constitute the seventh-largest group of donors to Obama in the 2012 electoral cycle and the third-largest among universities, behind only Harvard and the University of California system.

“This [imbalance in support] is very typical of universities,” said Adam Bonica, associate professor of political science. “Academics also have a high propensity to give, compared to other professionals.”

Obama’s 2012 fundraising totals from Stanford employees, however, are lower than in 2008, when he received $595,716. Larry Diamond ‘73 M.A. ‘78 Ph.D. ‘80, a Hoover Institution senior fellow who has donated $1,250 in the 2012 cycle to Obama, framed the decrease in donor enthusiasm as reflective of 2008’s unique circumstances.

LORENA RINCON-CRUZ/The Stanford Daily
Data courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics

“2008 was quite exceptional and extremely unlikely to be repeated in enthusiasm or scale,” Diamond said. “A lot of faculty who are somewhere between left and moderate are sure to have disappointments with Obama.”

Diamond said his continued support for Obama emanates largely from the hope that he’ll continue the work of his first term, citing the electoral slogan that “Osama Bin-Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive,” while turning to address issues like the federal deficit and climate change.

“When you look at his accomplishments, they’ve been significant,” Diamond argued.

Keith Hennessey ‘90, a Graduate School of Business lecturer who has donated the maximum individual contribution of $5,000 to Romney, framed his donation as an attempt to address the nation’s current economic struggles and growing national debt.

“I care most about economic policy and have more confidence in both Governor Romney and his economic policy agenda,” Hennessey wrote in a statement.

Hennessey and Diamond both dismissed the notion that faculty involvement in the presidential campaign would have detrimental effects on classroom dynamics.

“You can’t ask faculty to surrender their political views and their sense of responsibility to the country,” Diamond said. “What you can ask faculty to do is to keep their politics out of the classroom, and I’ve tried pretty hard to do that.”

“My professional background is in policy rather than politics,” Hennessey, who was a senior economic adviser to former President George W. Bush, wrote. “I see my goal as making sure students understand a wide range of different approaches to policy, including views with which I strongly disagree.”

Democratic, national leanings

Stanford’s lean towards Democratic candidates extends to candidates further down the ballot as well, as does the fall in enthusiasm from 2008.

Just 12.6 percent of donations from Stanford employees in the 2012 cycle went to Republican candidates and committees, which is less than the 20.9 percent for American universities as a whole but more than Harvard’s 9.9 percent. That 2012 percentage is the second lowest in Stanford’s history since 1980 and is half of the 24 percent given in 2008 to Republicans.

The total amount of donations to federal-level candidates and campaigns has also fallen between 2008 and 2012 from $3,422,293.90 to $2,854,128.60, as did the number of contributing employees, from 1585 to 1262, though both figures could rise in the final week of the campaign.

Bonica framed the historical dominance of federal-level donations (so far this cycle, only $8,503.30 has gone to state or local recipients) as typical of a faculty focus on national issues rather than local concerns, a stance echoed both by Hennessey and by Diamond.

“When it comes to universities, their donations really seem to be tuned into national politics,” Bonica said. “They’re more or less removed from state-level issues…Most giving by university employees is an expression of ideological preference.”

While the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision has led to a highly contentious increase in corporate involvement in politics, University employees have also been able to take advantage of the ruling, with Griffith Harsh, a School of Medicine professor, providing the largest Stanford employee donation of $100,000 to Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney political action committee. Harsh declined to comment on his donation.

Bonica, however, downplayed the ruling’s significance, noting that affluent individuals have historically had an array of means for funding political activities, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 527 group of the 2004 presidential election.

“In the past, if you really wanted to give a lot of money, you always had a vehicle to do so,” Bonica said. “They didn’t emerge out of thin air after Citizens United.”

Other Stanford donors, like Carol Winograd, professor emeritus in the School of Medicine, and her husband Terry Winograd, professor emeritus of computer science, gave heavily through accumulated donations to individuals and party committees, amassing over $300,000 in total for Democratic causes.

Even while Stanford employees largely remove themselves from state and local politics, some faculty members remain active in promoting propositions set to appear on the 2012 ballot for California initiatives.

(DURAN ALVAREZ/The Stanford Daily)

David Mills, senior lecturer at the Law School, said his decision to donate $500,000 to Proposition 36, a movement to amend California’s three-strikes law, emanated from his support for civil rights.

“We can’t continue to imprison people with these extremely lengthy sentences—especially since so many of these people are [people] of color—without there being a great challenge to the fundamental equality of our society,” Mills said.

(DURAN ALVAREZ/The Stanford Daily)

About Marshall Watkins

Marshall Watkins is a senior staff writer at The Stanford Daily, having previously worked as the paper's executive editor and as the managing editor of news. Marshall is a junior from London majoring in Economics, and can be reached at mtwatkins "at" stanford "dot" edu.
  • pol_incorrect

    I think that these professors are being very disingenuous here. To say that their political biases don’t affect what they teach in the classroom is like saying that the leftist bias doesn’t affect news coverage. The best example of the later are the events in Libya. The leftist media (NY Times, CNN, ABC, etc) gave an incredible hard time to the Bush administration for the covering up in the Valerie Plame affair. Here we have 4 people killed, including the first ambassador to die in a mission since 1979, what seems like a deliberate effort by the Obama administration to deny help during the attack and a 2 week long cover up blaming it on a spontaneous demonstration that never happened in the first place. The leftist media is mute. As Brit Hume said recently, the problem with bias is that it is insidious. It’s not explicit, like these professors openly admitting it in class (though there are some that actually do), but in the choice of the material the choose to teach, the emphasis given to some topics vs others, the choice of readings, etc. That is how bias operates. So, with a reality that the vast majority of political science/humanities professors are hard core Obamaniacs, does anybody believe that what they teach is objective? Now, the problem is with those students who agree to pay $40K/year in tuition to be brainwashed when they could get the same thing for free by just watching MSNBC. Any serious Stanford student would focus on those areas that are really political bias free: hard sciences and engineering. Besides, those are the areas that are more likely to result in good job offers after graduation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1193406432 Keith Hennessey

    Good comment. I teach economic policy at the Business and Law schools. I did not say that my views don’t influence what I teach. On the first day of each class I tell students about my professional background, that it shapes my views on policy, and that at times that background will affect how I present issues. I tell them I will try to be explicit about my policy views, and will do my best to distinguish between when I am presenting analysis and when I am representing my own policy preferences. I work to present alternative views and reading assignments, including those with which I strongly disagree. I am explicit that my best efforts to do so will nevertheless be imperfect, as would anyone’s. Finally, I encourage my students to challenge me during class if they think I am allowing my views to unfairly shape my presentation without explicitly acknowledging it up front.

    Everyone has a point of view, and everyone has policy preferences. I think the best thing I can do when I teach is be as transparent as possible with mine, to present alternative views, and to encourage students both to disagree with me and to make their own best judgments.

  • pol_incorrect

    Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment and for your honesty. I think that we would all be better off if we stopped pretending that political bias doesn’t affect what professors teach in class. What you say you do in class is commendable but not all professors are as straight forward. The vast majority of leftist professors at Stanford think that they are objective in their teaching but they are not. Even in engineering, a discipline where politics should be off limits, professors are unashamedly partisan. I saw that you worked at the GW Bush White House. This reminds me of an incredible anecdote I witnessed with my own eyes and that must be videotaped somewhere (since the class in question was offered through Stanford’s SITN). The day after G W Bush was re-elected -for the record that was a time when I didn’t care much about politics-, I had to go to a lecture of a class on semiconductor devices (ee216) taught by James Harris at the Department of Electrical Engineering. Right at the beginning of the lecture he went on to say something along the lines that the re-election of GW Bush proved that for democracy to work people needed to be intelligent (implying that he had been re-elected because the majority of Americans were stupid). If I remember it well, he even went with a Kerry/Edwards pin to class. And that was an engineering class!!! I cannot imagine what the Stanford students who have conservative leanings must go through when they major in political science for instance. Stanford loves to practice affirmative action when it comes to race, gender, etc (issues that are irrelevant to class content). Maybe it’s about time that Stanford applies affirmative action to the political leanings of the professors it hires, especially tenured professors in the humanities.

Advertisment ad adsense adlogger