The president, provost, and vice provost and dean of research updated the Faculty Senate on the university’s response to recent executive orders during Thursday’s meeting.

Senators also learned more about the work of the AI at Stanford Advisory Committee and voted on two senate governance matters.

President Jonathan Levin acknowledged that there is significant activity in Washington, D.C., that impacts the university, including executive orders, agency guidance, and legislative discussions. The university is closely monitoring developments in D.C. and talking to a wide range of people on federal policy changes.

Levin outlined several guiding principles for the university in navigating these issues.

First, “we want to be communicating out when we have useful and actionable information to share without flooding faculty members’ inboxes,” Levin said. “That's a bit challenging right now because of the ratio of signal to noise in the environment, but we're trying to do our best on that, and it's good to hear about things that faculty want to know.”

Levin also emphasized the university’s support for affected university members and reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the academic freedom of faculty. He said Stanford Law Professor Bernie Meyler, a special advisor to the provost on university speech, is available for faculty concerns regarding academic freedom.

Lastly, Stanford wants “to chart a course through the current moment that is true to the enduring purpose and principles of the university,” Levin said. “... That's going to be the guiding view that we take to any decision that comes up in the coming weeks or coming months related to the political changes.”

Provost Jenny Martinez said a university policy coordinating group, working with government affairs, legal teams, deans, and senior associate deans, is tasked with surfacing issues posed by the executive orders and keeping faculty informed.

“We know people are eager for certainty and clarity, but many of the executive orders provide only high-level direction with instructions to federal agencies to provide further detailed guidance in the next several weeks or months, and so we don't yet have the clarity that some people might want,” Martinez said.

Regarding questions about DEI, Martinez said the university is guided by its core values and commitment to world-class research and teaching.

“We do think that the excellence of our research and teaching missions are advanced by having people with different backgrounds, interests, experiences, perspectives, and viewpoints participating in the conversation,” Martinez said.

“Academic freedom and freedom of speech – the avoidance of institutional orthodoxy – are absolutely essential to our mission, and we aspire to create an environment of openness and curiosity, where people can engage with one another, including those they disagree with or are different from, constructively,” the provost continued.

“Seeking input from our community, we started to work with deans’ offices in the schools and with other unit leaders to identify things that may need review, and throughout this process, we aim to work not in a top-down fashion, but collaboratively with those schools and with faculty to provide information, answer questions, as well as provide advice or guidance as it becomes more available,” Matinez said.

One senator questioned whether Stanford should take a more proactive stance against federal policies challenging diversity initiatives and argued that the university’s commitment to diversity should not waver in response to political pressures.

In response, Levin noted that DEI has “come to incorporate an enormous panoply of things,” making a broad declaration challenging.

Instead, he emphasized the importance of defining an affirmative vision for the university – one that attracts the broadest array of students and scholars, ensures all members can flourish and do their best work, protects academic freedom, and upholds the principle of avoiding institutional orthodoxy as a way to invite differences of viewpoints and perspectives.

“Rather than make a blanket statement about words that someone else has defined, [we should] start with something affirmative, and then we work toward that,” Levin said.

Navigating uncertainty

Vice Provost and Dean of Research David Studdert discussed the impact of recent executive orders and funding agency directives on research at Stanford. He noted that the first 17 days of the new administration brought a wave of new policies and messaging related to research funding.

“The funding agencies themselves are struggling to understand what they are being asked to do, and logically, we need them to figure that out and communicate it to us before grant recipients can know exactly what they’re being asked to do,” Studdert said.

He added that the ambiguity of these directives makes it difficult for the university to determine specific actions. “To date, we have only received one order to fully stop work that came from the United States State Department …,” he explained. “The rest have taken the form of what I would call partial stop-work orders – partial in the sense that they focus on certain grant-related activities, most commonly DEI-related activities. With the possible exception of those DEI directives … these partial stop-work orders are not clear or specific enough to be able to respond with particular actions.”

As evidence of the fast-moving nature of the situation, Studdert noted that even as the university sought guidance from the agencies about particular actions, courts in Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., suspended agency actions prompted by the executive orders and the Office of Management and Budget memo.

Given these developments, Studdert said his office advises faculty to continue their regular research activities on federal grants for now. “Our understanding is that these temporary restraining orders suspend existing stop-work orders or any funding freezes, and that they should prevent agencies from issuing new ones for the time being,” he said. “We are conveying that understanding back to the agencies so that they are aware of how we are understanding our current situation.”

As for new grant submissions, Studdert said they should proceed as long as submission portals remain open. He added that submissions should follow the latest instructions from the granting agency.

AI at Stanford

The AI at Stanford Advisory Committee aims to foster innovation while providing guardrails that support responsible AI use at the university, said Committee Chair Russ Altman.

“Our goal is to improve the human condition, including the condition of being a faculty, staff, student at Stanford, and that should be the mindset,” said Altman, the Kenneth Fong Professor and professor of bioengineering, of genetics, of medicine, of biomedical data science, and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.

Altman said Stanford has an opportunity to be a leader in implementing innovative, appropriate uses of AI. “In fact, many people are looking to us as a default leader, both because of our location and our history,” he said.

In March, the provost tasked the committee with assessing AI use in teaching, research, and administration at Stanford and recommending measures for responsible AI implementation at the university. The committee engaged with faculty, staff, and students and discussed “hot-button” issues such as cheating, AI-assisted grading and feedback, and academic misconduct.

A report released earlier this year outlines guiding principles for AI use at Stanford, emphasizing human oversight. It also identifies potential policy gaps and suggests improvements for AI use in education, research, and administration.

Some of the committee’s recommendations have already been adopted, such as piloting the AI Playground, which offers a secure platform exploring various AI tools. Stanford also provides faculty with access to iThenticate for plagiarism detection, and researchers can now apply to use Marlowe, Stanford’s first GPU-based supercomputer.

An expanded committee will continue monitoring AI-related issues and advising the provost.

Dan Edelstein, the William H. Bonsall Professor in French and professor, by courtesy, of history and of political science, said he felt the committee’s report didn’t grapple deeply enough with the “existential challenge AI presents to liberal education” or communicate the risks of over-reliance on AI tools to students.

Altman agreed, noting that there “must be a robust and ongoing dialogue about the very meaning of liberal education in the context of these tools.”

Alison McQueen, associate professor of political science, and by courtesy, of history, highlighted student concerns about AI’s impact on their learning. “It’s not just the case that a bunch of faculty are panicked about this and the students are sort of the enemy who we’re trying to outwit here,” she said. “... From what I hear from my own students, they have deep worries about this.”

Beverley McKeon, professor of mechanical engineering, asked how AI’s positive contributions to the university’s mission of teaching and learning can be reinforced.

Altman encouraged widespread experimentation with AI tools. “We probably don't know all of the killer apps that could be used that are perfectly consistent with our mission and are just awesome,” he said. “... Together, we’re going to figure out how to serve the mission of the university while also using these things in a positive way.”

Senate governance

Senators also approved two changes to governance legislation. Starting in the 2026-27 academic year, elections for the Faculty Senate, its Steering Committee, and Advisory Board will shift from ranked choice to approval voting. In this system, voters can select as many candidates as they “approve” of without ranking them, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Many voters were unaware the previous system used ranking, so this change aligns policy with practice.

Senators also voted to eliminate the vice chair role and replace it with a chair-elect role. Beginning in the 2026-27 academic year, the incoming senate will elect a chair-elect, who will serve in what is currently the vice chair role. This change ensures continuity in senate leadership and addresses concerns that both the chair and vice chair were automatically part of the Steering Committee.

Next, the items will go to the broader Academic Council, president, and Board of Trustees to be ratified.

Related story

Stanford welcomes first GPU-based supercomputer

“Marlowe,” named after the fictional detective created by Raymond Chandler, has the potential to transform research across fields, from political science to astrophysics.