How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University

These chapters document the escalating stakes of the author’s investigation, tracing its expansion from a campus story into a significant scientific controversy with the potential to end the career of a powerful man. The university’s initial reaction provides a case study in Institutional Protection Over Accountability. Even as Stanford’s Board of Trustees announces an internal review of the allegations against MTL, Board Chair Jerry Yang is quick to praise MTL’s integrity: “‘I also want to note,’ Yang wrote, ‘that since President Tessier-Lavigne’s appointment in 2016, he has effectively led the university with integrity and honor’” (105). As Baker researches the members named to the investigate committee, he scrolls “through the investment firm’s filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission” and discovers that “that Felix Baker, the only person on the committee with any kind of scientific background […] maintained an $18 million investment in Denali Therapeutics, the company that Tessier-Lavigne had cofounded in 2015” (105). This inclusion of a trustee with a financial interest in MTL’s work, and the hiring of a high-powered crisis communications firm all suggest that the university’s first priority is damage control rather than transparent inquiry. Baker reinforces this impression by highlighting the university’s denial of its involvement in the Stan Cohen fraud lawsuit, which establishes a clear precedent for dishonesty when powerful faculty are implicated in misconduct. 

Baker contrasts Stanford’s response to his article with the institutional response from the scientific community, emphasizing their willingness to admit past errors and pursue truth. Science magazine publicly admits to a past mistake that benefited MTL, and its editor, Holden Thorp, also takes a proactive role in placing “Editorial Expressions of Concern on several Tessier-Lavigne papers […] warnings [that] officially notified readers that the validity of data was under question, and undercut MTL’s defense” (111), making it clear that the scientific establishment was taking the allegations seriously, even if the university appeared to be closing ranks. As Stanford’s investigation into MTL proceeds with deliberate opacity, the author doubles down on his own journalistic methods, framing his work as a necessary counterweight to an institution more interested in protecting its reputation than pursuing accountability.

The narrative juxtaposes the public, institutional machinations of Stanford’s crisis response with the author’s private struggles, demonstrating the personal and psychological toll of the reporting. As the author’s reporting gains influence, his personal life suffers. His breakup, the social isolation of a COVID-19 quarantine, and the hostile turn in campus opinion transform him from a celebrated student journalist into a polarizing figure. This personal crisis is amplified by the death of his mentor, Blake Hounshell, which forces the author to confront the widespread mental health issues afflicting his generation. He uses the metaphor of duck syndrome—in which Stanford students appear to be gliding effortless through their studies like ducks across the water, but under the surface they’re furiously paddling for their lives. Baker highlights the tragic death by suicide of student-athlete Katie Meyer as an example. He implicitly critiques Stanford’s handling of Meyer’s death—blaming her parents and erasing her from campus events—and suggests that such a response mirrors Stanford’s handling of the MTL and Cohen scandals, demonstrating a consistent institutional pattern of avoiding responsibility, whether the issue is academic fraud or student well-being. The brief emotional reprieve Baker experiences during a surprise birthday party emphasizes the author’s deep need for connection amid professional and personal turmoil.

Structurally, Baker pairs the narrative of MTL’s scandal with a broader analysis of the university’s cultural ecosystem, critiquing the system that reifies the power and influence of figures like MTL, enabling unethical behavior. Baker’s interaction with Derek, a Silicon Valley CEO, illuminates a system in which venture capitalists aggressively recruit students, offering “pre-idea funding” and other perks that transform Stanford’s educational landscape into a speculative market. Baker describes as “a classic Silicon Valley success story, a man who achieved what so many Stanford students dream of: He was a Unicorn founder,” having built “a startup [with] a valuation of $1 billion or more” (119). Yet, as Derek tells Baker, “my secret job is working with interesting people” (120), reinforcing The Commodification of Talent as a central theme in the text. Like the How to Rule the World seminar that serves as a talent hunting ground for its instructor, Justin. The contrast between the cynical, value-extractive ethos of the “Rule” class and the ethical framework of Steve Blank’s “Lean LaunchPad” class reveals a central ideological conflict within Stanford that points to Silicon Valley’s Illusion of Meritocracy. As Blank laments, “We’ve lost the moral compass for what we invest into” (136), emphasizing that the university’s culture has shifted from one of innovation to one of financialization, creating an environment where the performance of success is often valued more than its substance.

Baker uses literary allusion to define his journalistic identity in opposition to the university’s flawed institutional process. His self-identification with the literary character Harriet the Spy, who wanted to “be a spy and know everything” (164), frames his investigation as a personal calling rather than a side hobby. This persona provides a moral justification for his persistence in the face of an official review that lacks a clear timeline, budget, or commitment to transparency. He concludes that he cannot trust an institution with a history of cover-ups to police itself. He underscores his own growing disenchantment with his idealized view of Stanford by building a more complex psychological portrait of MTL, presenting him as a man of immense ambition and hidden rage, whose labs were marked by suspicion long before the current scandal. The narrative builds to a cinematic climax as the author narrowly avoids a collision with MTL en route to a secret interview, a moment that collapses the distance between the reporter and his subject before the “jackpot” discovery promises to break the case open.