The President of Stanford Wants Us To Debate Which Number is Larger, 9 or 133

Yet I believe we need to make every effort to get people who disagree, even sharply, in dialogue with one another.

In a previous article, I wrote an open letter to the Stanford President, Jonathan Levin, regarding a conference at his university, Pandemic Policy: Planning the Future, Assessing the Past. As SBM readers know, this conference featured doctors who mostly didn’t treat COVID patients, but instead spread misinformation about it and tried to purposefully infect people with it. My letter predicted that the conference would be a giant exercise in deliberate amnesia. As such, I encouraged President Levin to reject censorship and simply play videos of the speakers from the first two years of the pandemic.

Sadly, President Levin embraced censorship. Instead of honestly informing the conference attendees about the speakers, he whitewashed their pandemic record with the following speech:

Good morning and welcome to everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Now, you might wonder: Why is Jon Levin opening this conference on pandemic policy? You might say, Jon is no public health expert. And I might say: Well, I did run a business school during the COVID pandemic, so I have some experience making pandemic policy decisions. They also say you learn most by making mistakes. So I think there are probably a thousand Stanford MBAs who are willing to argue that I’m basically a world expert.

However, that’s not why I’m here.

When I was invited to participate in this event a few months ago, it was with the understanding that the goal was to bring together people with different perspectives, engage in a day of discussion, and in that way, try to repair some of the rifts that opened during COVID.

That struck me as a valuable goal, and the sort of goal we should aim for at Stanford. So I agreed to give a few brief remarks to that effect.

What followed was disappointing. When I was invited, I asked around and indeed the organizers were talking to some well-known people with quite different views who were likely to speak. However, it was not so straightforward. Some invitees weren’t able to make it, or withdrew, or didn’t want to participate in an event with other speakers whose views and behavior they found attacking or abhorrent.

When an initial and partial agenda was posted, it was immediately perceived as one-sided, and as I’m sure you all noticed became the subject of op-eds and social media posts.

Ironically, instead of repairing rifts as intended and perhaps spurring fresh thinking, the process seemed to reopen old and existing divisions.

As an observer and as the leader of this university, I found the episode dispiriting, in a way that goes beyond the specifics of this particular event.

We have many issues today at Stanford, and on other campuses, where views are divided, and in some cases, like this one, where feelings are raw.

Yet I believe we need to make every effort to get people who disagree, even sharply, in dialogue with one another. I believe it’s essential for us to do that as members of the faculty and university leaders – not just because it’s a way to advance knowledge, but because we need to model that behavior if we want to expect it from our students. And in today’s world, we absolutely need to ask and expect our students to be able to engage with, listen to, and debate with people with whom they disagree. My view is that we need to err on the side of talking to one another.

So I hope today’s conference will come off in a way that involves just that – thoughtful and robust discussion across different perspectives. I hope it yields some important insights about future pandemic policy – we certainly need that. Perhaps it does even bridge a few divides among those in the room.

And I hope even more that all of you will join in the larger project of trying to make Stanford and other campuses forums for the type of robust and thoughtful discussion that is at the heart of universities when we’re at our best.

Had I spoke, I wouldn’t have been afraid to mention that many of these doctors predicted COVID would kill less than 50,000 Americans and that the mass infection of unvaccinated youth would lead to herd immunity in 3-6 months. I also would have pointed out that the juvenile behavior of the many of the conference speakers created rifts. Instead, President Levin absurdly claimed they were interested in repairing them.

We’ve had more flu deaths among children this year than COVID deaths

With President Levin’s admonition to “listen to” people in mind, let’s revisit just one of the videos I presented to him. In this video, from November 2020 Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said “we’ve had more flu deaths among children this year than COVID deaths”.

As with most of Dr. Bhattacharya ‘s pandemic pronouncements, this was totally false. The first reported COVID death in the US was on 2/28/2020. By the time Dr. Bhattacharya recorded that video, COVID had killed at least 133 children according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. During that same time frame, the flu killed 9 children. The next year, just 1 child died of the flu while COVID killed several hundred children. Currently, the CDC reports 1,935 COVID deaths and 338 flu deaths amongst children since the start of the pandemic, though obviously children should be vaccinated against both viruses.

Although the conference speakers botched basic facts like this all the time, according to President Levin, “we need to make every effort to get people who disagree, even sharply, in dialogue with one another.” Sounding more like a college freshman than a university president, President Levin implied that no one is ever wrong, everything is just a matter of opinion, and what really matters is that no one get their feelings hurt. In President’s Levin’s telling, it’s wasn’t wrong for Dr. Bhattacharya to say that 9 is larger than 133, however it is inappropriate for anyone to say this isn’t a “different view” and it shouldn’t be a topic of “dialogue”.

I supposed I’ll be accused of silencing debate and discussion, but 133 is larger than 9. This wouldn’t have been controversial in 2019. When someone spreads dangerous, obvious misinformation, honest brokers call it out, even if that person has fancy credentials, can speak in scientific jargon, and will claim to be “censored” when their errors are corrected. President Levin, however, expects us all to be open to the possibility that 9 is larger 133, and it doesn’t bode well for the future that “leaders” of major American institutions look at naked emperors and compliment them on their beautiful clothes.