Showing Larry the Money
I keep hearing bits and pieces about how much decisions at Harvard are now being driven by anxiety over fundraising, and more specifically, what I'll call the "Summers Effect"—which is to say, the extent to which Larry Summers' troubles will hurt Harvard's fundraising.
Back when I was finishing Harvard Rules, there were whispers that Harvard was on the verge of announcing its latest capital campaign, which several people mentioned might be in the $10 billion range.
You don't hear that figure anymore, and you only hear talk of the campaign being in the "quiet phase"—early fundraising so that when you announce the campaign, you can create the appearance of momentum by stating that you've already raised x dollars.
This campaign's quiet phase has been going on for a while now, and I suspect that because of the Summers Effect, it will last a while longer yet.
Here's something else I hear: That Summers is determined to increase the number of truly large gifts Harvard raises—sums in the eight- and nine-figure range. He wants to focus on the moguls. Meanwhile, there's talk of downsizing at the fundraising offices, which means that there'll inevitably be less emphasis on five-, six-, and even seven-figure donors.
Two points.
With his connections to the worlds of business and finance, Summers is well-positioned to solicit those massive donations.
But this strategy also seems designed to minimize his own fundraising weaknesses—arrogance, lack of charm, poor social skills—as well as the amount of time he has to spend raising money.
But here's the rub: Harvard's fundraising operation has always been a well-oiled machine. In Neil Rudenstine's time, it raised more money in a shorter period than any university had ever raised.
You couldn't say it was broken. Does it really need to be fixed? Or is it being corrupted to cover up the deficiencies of the university's president?
Moreover, part of the purpose of fundraising is to engage alumni in the work of the university. If Harvard is now going to focus on a much smaller fundraising base, what will the long-term implications be for alumni participation, financial and otherwise? And how will that change the nature and character of the university?
