private university

Stanford University

A wealthy private nonprofit research university with strong teaching and research value, elite board governance, selective access, and campus climate footprint. Stanford University remains weak because of person-dependent governance, ecological harm, and ideological disavowal, even where the product or service has practical value.

Why this matters: Stanford is another elite university anchor where nonprofit mission and research value coexist with concentrated institutional power.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 6, 2026

Final Score 16* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE16 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material35

Bonus+0

Cap41Ownership <= 4 and Governance <= 4

After Cap35

Penalties-19

Private Government badge

Stanford University receives the Private Government badge because it combines large-scale private rule-setting over customers, workers, users, members, or counterparties with OpenLobby-documented lobbying of about $810K on public policy issues.

Evidence: [9]

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Loss-Bearing Fidelity, with the largest penalty coming from Reversibility.

Strengths

Loss-Bearing Fidelity5/7
Product Integrity5/5
Governance4/10

Penalties

Reversibility-5
Animal Testing-5
Policy Capture-4
Ecological Harm-3

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessPartial (AI)
Linked claims9
Direct axis claims8
Coverage8/14

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	3 / 10	Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That keeps Stanford University low on Ownership: decisive control remains with shareholders, private owners, executives, or state insiders rather than affected people. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 100 scored entries below, 9 tied, 117 above on Ownership. Linked evidence Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	4 / 10	Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Stanford University in the middle of Governance: there are accountability mechanisms, but they stop short of broad democratic control. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 108 scored entries below, 18 tied, 100 above on Governance. Linked evidence context Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	4 / 10	Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Stanford University in the middle of Extraction: the institution creates real value but still leaves room for rent extraction, unequal bargaining, or surplus capture. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 62 scored entries below, 32 tied, 132 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	4 / 7	Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Stanford University in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 112 scored entries below, 39 tied, 75 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	4 / 7	Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Stanford University in the middle of Solidarity with the Unemployed: some access, severance, retraining, openness, or mutual-aid value is present, but it is not central or durable. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 127 scored entries below, 30 tied, 69 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	5 / 7	Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Stanford University in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: there is some willingness to preserve obligations, but the record still leaves meaningful risk-shifting concerns. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 119 scored entries below, 43 tied, 64 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	2 / 5	Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. That places Stanford University in the middle of Market Conduct: the product has real value but still uses meaningful lock-in, gatekeeping, market power, or dependency. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 31 scored entries below, 22 tied, 173 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. That places Stanford University high on Product Integrity: the core offering is genuinely useful and comparatively less dependent on traps, degradation, or harmful dependencies. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 134 scored entries below, 92 tied, 0 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Stanford University high on Scale Integrity: growth appears compatible with accountability, quality, and stakeholder benefit. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 109 scored entries below, 81 tied, 36 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Reversibility ? Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	Stanford positive conduct depends on trustee governance, administrative policy, donor/endowment choices, admissions policy, and academic culture rather than durable democratic control by students, workers, or affected communities. Stanford positive conduct depends on trustee governance, administrative policy, donor/endowment choices, admissions policy, and academic culture rather than durable democratic control by students, workers, or affected communities. That warrants a severe Reversibility penalty because favorable conduct depends on current people or discretionary leadership rather than locked stakeholder structure. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 95 tied, 131 above on Reversibility. Linked evidence Stanford positive conduct depends on trustee governance, administrative policy, donor/endowment choices, admissions policy, and academic culture rather than durable democratic control by students, workers, or affected communities. [4]
Ecological Harm ? Footprint, trajectory, irreversibility, culpability, and scale, including whether ecological harm is central to the model and continued after credible notice. Range: -30 to 0.	-3	Stanford sustainability materials identify greenhouse-gas emissions and campus decarbonization as material institutional responsibilities. Stanford sustainability materials identify greenhouse-gas emissions and campus decarbonization as material institutional responsibilities. That warrants a limited Ecological Harm penalty because the institution causes or defends ecological damage that is more than incidental to the model. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 43 scored entries below, 9 tied, 174 above on Ecological Harm. Linked evidence Stanford sustainability materials identify greenhouse-gas emissions and campus decarbonization as material institutional responsibilities. [5]
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-4	OpenLobby records STANFORD UNIVERSITY lobbying on immigration, tax, education, consumer protection, energy, healthcare, and other issues with about $810K in spending across 34 filings; the… OpenLobby records STANFORD UNIVERSITY lobbying on immigration, tax, education, consumer protection, energy, healthcare, and other issues with about $810K in spending across 34 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. That warrants a limited Policy Capture penalty because private institutional pressure is being applied to public rules while affected people cannot democratically govern that agenda. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Linked evidence OpenLobby records STANFORD UNIVERSITY lobbying on immigration, tax, education, consumer protection, energy, healthcare, and other issues with about $810K in spending across 34 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. [7]
Animal Testing ? Direct animal testing, contract animal testing, animal-testing-dependent product development, or business lines where current safety/regulatory approval normally relies on animal experiments. Stronger penalties apply where animal testing is core, repeated, non-optional, or avoidable; documented cruelty-free or non-animal methods reduce or eliminate the penalty. Range: -8 to 0.	-5	Large research universities and biomedical institutions commonly operate under animal-research oversight systems; this warrants a material penalty where the profile has not yet separated non-animal work from animal-testing-dependent research. Large research universities and biomedical institutions commonly operate under animal-research oversight systems; this warrants a material penalty where the profile has not yet separated non-animal work from animal-testing-dependent research. The value stays below the floor because the current record shows material exposure without the strongest evidence of sector-defining or worst-actor conduct. Linked evidence Stanford University has biomedical research institution animal-testing exposure based on its listed business model and current profile description: A wealthy private nonprofit research university with strong teaching and research value, elite board governance, selective access, and campus climate footprint. Stanford University remains weak because of person-depende… [8]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Stanford University's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Stanford University exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting… Stanford University's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Stanford University exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. That warrants a substantial Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence Stanford University's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Stanford University exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. [6]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 75/100

8 verified linked claims 8 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 8/14 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

8 verified linked claims

Source quality 16/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 9/18

8 direct claims across 14 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 6/10

8/14 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessPartial (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Stanford is a private nonprofit university governed through trustees and administration rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership.

Ownership Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Stanford board of trusteesPrimary institutional record · 90%

2Stanford provides teaching, research, health, and public knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Stanford factsPrimary institutional record · 90%

3Stanford financial materials show large endowment resources and selective institutional capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct.

Market Conduct Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Stanford annual financial reportPrimary institutional record · 90%

4Stanford positive conduct depends on trustee governance, administrative policy, donor/endowment choices, admissions policy, and academic culture rather than durable democratic control by students, workers, or affected communities.

Reversibility Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Stanford board of trusteesPrimary institutional record · 90%

5Stanford sustainability materials identify greenhouse-gas emissions and campus decarbonization as material institutional responsibilities.

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Stanford sustainabilityPrimary institutional record · 90%

6Stanford University's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Stanford University exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Stanford University official sitePrimary institutional record · 90%
Stanford board of trusteesPrimary institutional record · 90%
Stanford factsPrimary institutional record · 90%

7OpenLobby records STANFORD UNIVERSITY lobbying on immigration, tax, education, consumer protection, energy, healthcare, and other issues with about $810K in spending across 34 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 11, 2026

AI scaffold

OpenLobby — STANFORD UNIVERSITY lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

8Stanford University has biomedical research institution animal-testing exposure based on its listed business model and current profile description: A wealthy private nonprofit research university with strong teaching and research value, elite board governance, selective access, and campus climate footprint. Stanford University remains weak because of person-depende…

Animal Testing Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 11, 2026

Stanford University public sitePrimary institutional record · 90%
FDA: Animal Welfare, Testing and Research of FDA-Regulated ProductsPrimary public record · 100%

9Stanford University receives the Private Government badge because it combines large-scale private rule-setting over customers, workers, users, members, or counterparties with OpenLobby-documented lobbying of about $810K on public policy issues.

Private Government Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 11, 2026

AI scaffold

OpenLobby — STANFORD UNIVERSITY lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD54 Berea College private nonprofit work college · same market AGOOD52 Maricopa Community Colleges public community-college system · same market AGOOD51 Miami Dade College public college · same market AGOOD51 Seattle Colleges public community-college district · same market AGOOD50 Bellevue College public college · same market BQUALIFIED49 Dallas College public community-college system · same market BQUALIFIED46 Western Governors University nonprofit online university · same market CPERFORMATIVE36 State University of New York public university system · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Stanford University Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding

View Full Audit Log