At Harvard, a Lack of Confidence
Yesterday was another remarkable day in Harvard history. (There've been a lot of them in the past few years.) At the monthly faculty meeting, thirteen professors stood to question and criticize Larry Summers, while not one stood to defend him. Two called for his resignation.
As
the Crimson put it, "the spark that ignited yesterday’s uproar was the resignation of Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby 12 days ago amid reports in The Crimson that Summers forced him out."
Kirby received a standing ovation when he entered the Faculty Room in University Hall, which is a testament to picking your enemies well; being fired by Larry Summers is the only thing that could have generated that much goodwill for Bill Kirby. As the Dalai Lama is wont to say, "The enemy is a very good teacher."
What's remarkable is that this meeting was reportedly angrier and more hostile to Summers than the one a year ago to discuss his women-in-science remarks. That fact suggests that, for the past year, Summers had not only been ineffectual at diffusing faculty discontent, but his actions have increased it. How is that possible?
Meanwhile, none of Summers' allies were on hand to defend him, which is curious. Either they didn't know this attack was coming—in which case they haven't been hearing the ever-growing buzz of discontent—or they're deliberately sticking their heads in the sand. Perhaps they've abandoned him. Harvey Mansfield, the conservative professor of government, explained his absence yesterday by telling the Crimson that he'd forgotten about the faculty meeting—an explanation that invites skepticism. (Harvey would probably give that explanation, were it offered to him, a "C" for lacking credibility.)
History professor Stephan Thernstrom, another Summers defender, is on leave this semester, but explained that had he known the criticism of Summers was going to happen, "I might have gone."
Might have gone?
(In any case, given that Thernstrom's speech last year rallied Summers' opponents to pass the no-confidence resolution, his absence might have been the best help he could give Summers.)
One thing that struck me as important about this meeting: The professors who stood to fault Summers were a diverse group, and not the same ones who stood last spring. They can not be easily pigeonholed.
Moreover, their criticisms did not hinge upon a single line of attack, as was the case last year. Among the concerns raised were:
1) the fate of the curricular review
2) the FAS deficit
3) the drop in alumni donations
4) the Shleifer scandal (more on this later)
What this amounts to is a constellation of concerns—rather than just a single boneheaded speech—that does, indeed, constitute good reason for a lack of confidence.
Here's the question,
Harvard: Are you better off than you were five years ago? As Larry Summers fights for his job—again—that is the case he must make.
