It has always been my experience that the more words spent on trying to convince someone that you are NOT doing something, the more likely it is that you are doing it.
The whole point of the article...Stanford's president, despite sitting on several corporate boards and presiding as president of the school has no conflict in interest.
A conflict of interest is defined - a 'divergence' between an individual's 'private interests' and university obligations. Stanford's code counsels faculty to 'minimize' such conflicts but adds they are 'common and practically unavoidable' and must 'be disclosed.
So...it's not a conflict of interest if it is disclosed?
Of course, it is.
The prez sits on Google's Board. No problem. Yet, he accepts a $75 million donation from Yahoo's CEO. Uh...have Yahoo and Google suddenly become good friends? Looks like a conflict of interest to me.
One of the venture capitalist organizations CFO says of the prez, he is not "actively involved in driving or directing" the endowment's decisions.
How long does it take for someone to say, "Stanford is going to give $50 million to ABC company?" to someone who is not actively involved but might want to make a phone call and buy some stock in that new Stanford pet project.
What the Stanford prez does or doesn't do, doesn't change my life one way or the other.
But, it seems to me he is sitting on two sides of a table too often, has a whole lot of insider info, and wants everyone around him to think that is NOT a conflict of interest. I disagree.
WSJ
.jpg)
Comment Preview