Author: Shelley Gao

In recent weeks, there has been quite a clamor about Stanford and the international community: the potential withdrawal of Google from China as result of cyber espionage concerns particularly in regard to a Stanford student and Tibetan activist, and last Friday’s House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, “The Impact of U.S. Export Controls on National Security, Science and Technological Leadership.” Given the relevance of the topic to the Silicon Valley high-tech industry, the Committee, which heard a testimony from President John Hennessy, met on campus at the Arrillaga Alumni Center.

The event especially has significant implications on Stanford’s research environment and compliance obligations. Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) plans to introduce in March a bill to revamp export controls laws. As Berman explained in his opening statement, export controls have been a central part of American national security policy. They involve the federal government restricting the international transfer of “dual use” technologies–those that can be used for legitimate commercial and civilian, but also military, purposes.

Hennessy urged reform of the current regulations, as they impede beneficial research through citizenship requirements. He highlighted how these regulations disrupted three breakthrough research projects at Stanford involving the development of microchip, design of an orbiting instrument and creation of a vaccine. Hennessy, along with other experts, emphasized the importance of safeguarding security while ensuring America’s leading role in science and technology.

James Fallows, in a feature published in the current January/February issue of The Atlantic, also points to the openness of institutions of higher education to international students as a critical component of America’s leadership in the world. In “How America Can Rise Again,” Fallows refers to the words of Shirley Tilghman, a research biologist and president of Princeton University on the American university model of advanced research as the engine of innovation. By ensuring that funding and promotions are widely available to young scientists, America is able to attract the best talent from around the globe.

However, this nation’s ability to absorb the best and brightest minds is jeopardized by the technology export regulations that restrict foreign students’ access to laboratories and research facilities. This will inevitably lead to diminished scientific leadership, erosion of soft power and reduction of a force that has historically made the United States great.

Export controls are not the only burdens experienced by foreign students studying in American universities. Apart from the difficultly in attaining financial aid and fellowships, visa regulations also significantly restrict international students’ ease of entry and possibility to pursue post-graduation career opportunities. Indeed, The Daily’s Editorial Board referred to this challenge on Wednesday in its “ASSU Executive Mid-Year Evaluation: Part Two,” deeming changes in immigration laws as an agenda item that the student body hopes to see progress on.

Grads should also consider pursuing agitation and activism on their own behalf. There is tremendous potential for Stanford students to champion the export controls reform movement. At Stanford, 32 percent of the graduate population comes from other countries and more than half of the international Ph.D. students are in engineering and the physical sciences.

Concerns may arise regarding the role of “scientific men” in policymaking and the boundaries between science and politics. However, it is vital for scientists to have an input in raising, shaping and amplifying policies when the future of international collaborative research is at stake.

A coalition of constituencies, including institutions of higher education and leaders in high technology industries, and scientific and research establishments can be mobilized to spearhead government relations campaigns. Developing tactics and incentives to gain support of the opposition, ranging from defense hawks to legislators like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)–who said, “You are essentially exporting technologies straight into the hands of the Chinese military”–certainly represents a challenge. However, more voices participating in the discourse will hopefully lead to pragmatic reforms in export controls policy.

At the Stanford-in-Washington (SIW) Fall 2009 reunion this week, we discussed the concerns toward our reintegration into life at the Farm. Similar to our classmates who study abroad, we return to campus from a quarter in D.C. experiencing “reverse cultural shock.”

Practical and tangible challenges dominated the conversation: feeling isolated living in non-traditional settings like Oak Creek and Escondido Village (a mom yesterday chided me for endangering the lives of small children by forgetting to close a gate in EV), having to adjust to the rigorous standard of classes at Stanford, dealing with the onslaught of summer internships recruitment and facing the imminent entry into the real world upon graduation. People missed the SIW house, the clear delineation of the day between eight hours of work and evening classes (unfortunately, there is now more potential for time mismanagement), the physical convenience of living in a city and uhmmm…the brunches (yes, SIW has an amazing chef).

The overwhelming attitude toward these challenges was that they can and should be conquered easily, with the passing of time. The focus is on surmounting, rather than understanding such issues. There is nothing like spending time in the nation’s capitol that forces you to be a pragmatist. While some of my peers felt “old and disillusioned,” and commented on the disconcerting insularity, what seemed to be missing from the conversation was a broader discourse about the underlying sources of our displacement. Perhaps struggling more than in this process than others, I am desperate to theorize and seek answers.

As someone who has been on campus continuously for the past two years, the last four months was the first time that I left “the bubble” and lived in an actual American city. For those of us whose being was inherently connected to the movement and rhythm of this place, we deal with the strange paradox of Stanford after some time away–confronting a place that remains the same yet changes rapidly. The world that was my Stanford has become radically different. June 2009 Stanford is not the same as January 2010 Stanford.

Sure, things have stayed constant. As I stroll (okay fine, more like madly dash) around campus, there is comfort in the familiar sights and patterns. The frightening thing was realizing that Stanford goes on without you. It raises the questions: Do we matter? Do our four years here on the Farm make a difference in the long run?

In an uncharacteristic moment of fatalism, our dear columns editor Zachary Warma published a column on Monday that offered a disheartening conclusion: we are not so special. I disagree. A sense of cyclical repetition of experiences and norms certainly govern our time at Stanford. But, we are unique and make distinct contributions to our environments. Individuals matter. Individuals make history.

While it is difficult and almost impossible for us to directly measure and quantify each of our impact on the campus community, our mere presence affects others and inevitably this University. Indeed, the tough readjustment some of us are encountering can be attributed to the change in people. Undoubtedly, the graduation of last year’s class witnessed the departure of some of my closest friends and intellectual and political mentors.

As a result, this place feels different. Whether it is dropping by The Daily office last week or sitting in ASSU meetings, the dynamics and atmosphere seem drastically altered. It is the personalities that define campus institutions and culture. Ideas and ideologies are important. However, without people pushing them forward and driving implementation, they would be insignificant.

The behavior of institutions at Stanford springs from the behavior of individual actors–their idiosyncrasies, ambitions, abilities and foibles. Individuals define the intention of the organization, formulate its priorities and devise its strategies. There is no such thing as inevitability. Individuals are the ones that make decisions. More importantly, our predecessors have laid the foundation for all of us–just as we will be laying the framework for future generations of Stanford students.