Change at the Top?
In an editorial,
The Crimson discusses the resignation of Corporation member Conrad Harper and warns of the Corporation's blatant homogeneity under Larry Summers. "
It is always worrying when a secretive, self-perpetuating body converges on a single viewpoint," the paper points out.
Rather mildly, I would say. As is often the problem with The Crimson, it's hampered by its somewhat overblown sense of being the paper of record at Harvard. Its arguments always seem tempered by a fear of rocking the boat.
Ergo the editorial's very next sentence: "This is not to challenge the Corporation’s secrecy or self-perpetuation; rather, it is to note that such insular conditions of operation, which impede external critique, make vigorous internal critique imperative."
Why not challenge the Coroporation's secrecy or self-perpetuation? It's the only university governing body in the country which is that small, that secret, and self-selecting. And at the moment, it's clearly not working. Not only did the Corporation prove itself oblivious to the campus' complaints about Summers (remember Bob Rubin's embarrassing remarks about being unaware of any discontent?). But word is that the Corporation is meeting less frequently than ever, and that Rubin, in particular, would just as soon not be on it.
And the argument could be made that the Corporation—albeit a largely different group than today's—erred in choosing President Summers, and that its secrecy and self-perpetuation were major factors in its wrong choice.
At the very least, it's time for the Corporation to start justifying itself. Why is it secret? Why is it self-selected? What are the benefits of those undemocratic characteristics, and how do they stack up against the downsides mentioned above?
The Crimson should follow its logic to its inevitable conclusion, rather than inching up to a real threat to the powers-that-be, only to retreat in an excess of caution and timidity....
