To former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, facts are always of the utmost importance, especially when discussing foreign policy. Throughout her career in government and academia, Rice has dedicated herself to building this knowledge.

Rice joined the faculty at Stanford University as a political science professor in 1981 before becoming a member of President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Council from 1989-1991. She returned to Stanford to serve as provost from 1993-1999. Under President George W. Bush’s administration, Rice became the first female national security advisor in 2001 and then the first female African-American secretary of state from 2005-2009. Rice is now back at Stanford, working as a professor.

Student Life had the chance to sit down with Rice to discuss her career during her visit to campus Thursday, April 18.

Although Rice has transitioned back and forth between working in government and academia, she sees the two fields as being interconnected. While working in government, Rice approached many issues she faced through an academic lens.

“I started out as a traditional political scientist, and then I went into government; I came back, and I went in again,” Rice said. “And I think that I am able to use the framework of an academic to structure issues that I’m looking at. Even when I was in government, I tended to do that.”

On the other hand, when teaching political science, Rice encourages students to look beyond that academic framework in order to account for the many factors that play into what she referred to as “the chaos of decision making.”

“It’s definitely helpful to think about, for instance, causal relationships and what caused what,” Rice said. “But when you’re in the policy-making environment, the time pressures and the problems of insufficient, if not inaccurate, information, the problems of so many actors that have to be brought into the process–it’s different than the way we teach a very structured decision-making process. So one of the things I do in my classes is I teach simulations a lot, because it allows students to take on a problem as a policymaker would take it on.”

In these simulations and discussions, Rice’s own decisions come into question. She continues to face criticism for her policies during the Bush administration, specifically in regard to the war in Iraq. However, Rice stated that she welcomes opposition from students, as long as it’s based in fact.

“I tell my students that they can say that the policy of the Bush administration was the dumbest policy in human history,” Rice said. “And I will totally will accept that. But you’d better know your facts, because I really know the facts. And so it’s really a matter of the same way that I teach about any period. I really do value and encourage diverse opinions, but they have to be informed ones.”

Through working with students, Rice occasionally finds herself re-thinking her own views and past decisions on certain issues.

“I like having students who will question policies of anybody, including ones that I was involved in,” Rice said. “And I find myself in my classes questioning the policies that I was involved in and saying, you know, maybe if we had thought about that a little bit differently, if we’d structured that a little bit differently.”

Rice expressed how she has seen her perspective change quite a bit throughout her career.

“I think that everybody evolves whether you want to realize it or not,” Rice said. “Early in my career I was probably known among political scientists as more of a realist. In political science we have this framework called realism…It’s really all about power and assets to enhance your power as a state at the expense of another state. And I think I was sort of very much in that tradition: great power politics. I think [in] my experience, particularly after 9/11, recognizing that the internal composition of states matters.”

However, Rice stated that she has transitioned away from thinking about foreign relations as a game of “great power politics” to focus more on helping democracy thrive across the world.

“I think I’ve become much more, in that way, ideological in my foreign policy perspective and certainly in my teaching, and I think people would now say I’m probably at the other end of the spectrum,” Rice said. “I’m much more interested in and a proponent of American foreign policy supporting democracy rather than treating all states as great powers. I would like to think that when people look back, they’ll recognize that we did stand for the proposition that nobody should have to live in tyranny.”

When Rice reflects on her career thus far, one important aspect that continues to stand out is the September 11th terrorist attacks, during which she was national security advisor to President Bush, as she continues to question what could have been done to prevent the attacks.

“You cannot have been in a position of authority on September 11th and not wonder if you couldn’t have done more,” Rice said. “In my head, I think we did everything we knew to do, but by definition, we didn’t do enough, and 3,000 people died. And so in your heart you think, did I miss something? Was there some clue that we might have seen? Should we have done more?”

Looking at present-day politics, Rice identified a lack of focus on policy in political discussions. Recognizing that even when candidates outline their policies for voters, they usually do not live up to those promises once in office, Rice encouraged voters to examine candidates based on values in regard to certain issues.

“I’ve learned to realize that maybe there’s some wisdom in being less wedded to ‘Candidate A has said that she will do the following tax reform,’ because it may or may not happen,” Rice said. “The more important question is: How do you think about the role of taxation in questions of equalization, opportunity growth? Do you think about taxation as redistribution or do you think about taxation as engine for growth? That for me is a really important question that I want to know what that candidate that thinks. What policy, tax proposal they have is less important. They’re just too many actors. They’re going to have to deal with Congress or have to deal with the states. But their philosophical view on it matters.”