Richard,
That was an interesting blog about Ann Berman's resignation as CFO at Harvard.Unfortunately,your skepticism is totally unfounded.
The Crimson comment that she was going " to pursue her deep-rooted interest in foreign languages" was not accurate. Actually,the reason she is resigning is a very simple one: she has a home in Italy and would like to spend six months of the year there. The Crimson was correct when it said that "she committed to the position for only three years, so the decision to step down in 2006 was hatched at the start of her tenure." When Larry convinced her to take the job permanently in February 2003 (ater having been acting CFO since the previous October), she told him that she would do it for only three years.
So,as you can see,your innuendo that she, among many others can't seem to wait to leave Harvard is not true, at least in her case. In fact, she hopes to work on various projects at the university in the six months that she is in Cambridge.
How do I know all of this is true? I'm her husband.
 

Well, there you are; I can't argue with that. Thanks for your comment; I'm always happy for the input, even if it means that I'm wrong...perhaps it was the Crimson's phrasing—that bit about pursuing her deep-rooted interest in foreign languages—that made me skeptical?

Could you correct me if I'm wrong that there was no mention of the three-year time frame when your wife took the job?

In any event, I certainly stand by my suggestion—I think "innuendo" is unfair, because I'm pretty direct about saying this—that Harvard has experienced a statistically significant number of resignations in the past few years.

But again, I thank you for the input.
 

Richard,
I realize that you're direct about saying that "that Harvard has experienced a statistically significant number of resignations in the past few years." I was trained in actuarial science and the statement "statistically significant" in and of itself is meaningless in the context you used it. How do you define "a statistically significant number of resignations?" Five percent? Ten percent?
What is the "last few years?" Three years? Four years?
What is your universe of people who have resigned? Vice presidents? Assistant Vice presidents? Associate deans? Faculty? In the center? At the schools? I have no interest in defending Harvard. As many people, both inside and outside the university, know,I have been outspokenly critical of it.I do, however, believe that if people want to think of themselves as responsible journalists (or even responsible bloggers, if that isn't oxymoronic),then they have an obligation, to back up their opinions with facts, rather than using nebulous terms and numbers. Perhaps you don't see it that way, but it seems to me that if you, Richard Bradley, are going to criticize something, in this case Harvard (which, I believe, deserves a great deal of criticism in certain areas),it would be far better if you would make an intelligent coherent case, rather than merely spouting statements designed to provoke (isn't that what they taught you to do at Yale?)
If you do the latter, you wind up being part of that very large fraternity of journalists who say much, know little and have no credibility.
 

Sam,

I was being casual when I used the term "statistically significant," but fine, I cede that my use of it was more rhetorical than technically accurate. On the other hand, I could back up that statement without much difficulty: In the past four years...compared to peer universities...compared to peer universities undergoing a presidential transition... Etc.

You have caught me on some sloppy verbiage to which I plead guilty. But surely you wouldn't argue with the obvious point, which is that there has been and continues to be dramatic turnover during Lawrence Summers' presidency? If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

Regardless, allow me to rephrase: "There has been what strikes me as an unusually high number of high-profile resignations of valuable and hard-to-replace employees at Harvard in recent years, ranging from Cornel West to Jeffrey Sachs to Conrad Harper to Robert Coles to Mark Rosenzweig to Jack Meyer—and that's just off the top of my head—and the common denominator is their relationship with President Summers (although Jack Meyer has publicly given other reasons for his departure, so including him in that roster is, admittedly, conjecture on my part). A list of people fired or pushed into retirement by President Summers would be at least as long. The question I would propose is whether this level of turnover is necessary and healthy for Harvard."

I would add that, though of course I accept your explanation of your wife's reasons for leaving, she will not be easy to replace. Am I wrong?

And Sam, you write that I'm criticizing Harvard, and that is, simply, wrong. Criticizing Harvard is, in the context you used it, meaningless; there are too many different components of Harvard to criticize the university en masse.

In any event, I'm a great admirer of Harvard; I think it's a unique, important, remarkable and essential institution, one of civilization's great accomplishments. And though you mention that I attended Yale College, I've actually spent more time at Harvard as a graduate student and covering Harvard as a reporter than I spent at Yale.

You may have succumbed to the habit so common around Harvard of suggesting that attendance at its graduate schools somehow makes you a lesser part of its community than time spent as an undergraduate....

Nonetheless, I do distinguish between the institution and its president, and it is careless to speak as if the two are one and the same. One of the points I've consistently raised on this blog, and in Harvard Rules, is that events at Harvard since 2001 have shown that there can be an enormous gulf between different elements of the Harvard community and its president, a gulf that raises the question of who fundamentally represents Harvard. Just one possible dichotomy: the faculty, several hundred strong chosen by thousands of their peers, or a recent president chosen by six people, only one of whom is still active at Harvard and one of whom resigned in protest over that president?

As the events of last spring showed, that's a very real question, and I would suggest that it remains unresolved. Do you disagree?