Send via SMS
Shots In The Dark
Friday, February 24, 2024
  Common Sense
A letter to the Crimson from Argentina makes a point that I haven't heard yet but that is so important, it cries out to be emphasized:

To the rest of the world, Harvard stands for values greater than just academic excellence. Your editorial seems to suggest that because Dr. Summers could get a much-needed job done faster and better than anyone else, values such as personal dignity and civilized behavior are secondary.

Allow me to suggest that, as future leaders of the nation, you reconsider your own values.

It is gracious of the writer to concede that Summers could get the job done "faster and better than anyone else"—the evidence clearly doesn't support that—but even assuming it's true, his eloquent point remains.

Harvard students are smart and they will certainly, as their lives go on, become successful and influential. All the more reason, then, that they carry along with them the values of civility, decency, humility, and fairness—values that were conspicuously lacking in Larry Summers' leadership. Harvard alums need not just be rich people, powerful people—they must also be good people. As opposed to, say, Andrei Shleifer, whose behavior was appalling, but who was protected and promoted by Harvard's president.

These are intangible things, but in the long run, they may actually be more important than having a president who goes to pizza breaks and autographs dollar bills.
 
Comments:
Don't you realize that anyone who frowns on violating one's conflict-of-interest clause and on insider trading must be anti-semitic and a closet Nazi? That seems to be the position of Professor Glaesar in today's Crimson ("Corp. Enters Shleifer Fray"):

While many professors have brandished harsh words to describe the University’s handling of the case, Harvard economists have been virtually unanimous in defending their colleague.

Glimp Professor of Economics Edward L. Glaeser said last week that the Institutional Investor article “is a potent piece of hate creation—not quite ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ but it’s in that camp.”
 
Please, Corporation, please: ask Larry to call his dogs off. Charging much of the faculty with anti-semitism is a terrible thing to do. Why can't the Corporation see that Larry has gotten out of hand?
 
The letter makes an interesting point, but I think your dismissal of Summers' dollar bill-signing and pizza-eating with undergraduates sort of misses the point. See David Laibson's op-ed: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511574

Summers really did have a genuine commitment to undergraduates and undergraduate education and to having real discussions with students. It wasn't about eating pizza.
 
Oh please, David Laibson is just trying to save his own skin at this point: the compleat Summers groupie who also says that Andrei Shleifer is perfect.
 
What exactly did Summers do to improve undergraduate education in the economics department? The department is notorious at Harvard for professors who have open contempt for most of the concentrators, who teach far, far less than other Harvard faculty, and whose concentrators are very unsatisfied with their experiences at Harvard? He did not try at all to put his own house in order. The economics department grew by a great deal under Summers, but did the average economics concentrator have a better experience? Did the average economics professor pay any more attention to the undergraduates? No.
 
The ec department expanded its faculty considerably and will soon be able to offer undergraduate seminars led by professors for the first time in a while. It still has the highest student-faculty ratio, but to say summers did nothing is short-sighted.
 
The Economics department is completely egregious. Why are people looking for a cabal elsewhere in FAS when it is obvious where the true cabal lives? Could the Shliefer, Laibson, Cutler, Glaeser, Katz, Goldin team be any tighter? Or more outrageous?

Goldin of course gets the award for the least informed level ever reached by a Harvard faculty member: the woman who calls the calm Feb 7 faculty meeting (at which she was not present) "mob rule".

Glaeser gets the award for the most incendiary level ever reached by a Harvard faculty member: the guy who thinks that Fred Abernathy (and, by way of him, anyone who reads the Institutional Investor or even U.S. Federal Court documents) is an anti-semite. The Proctocols of the Elders of Zion comment is beyond ... well, beyond.

Is there anyone in the economics department who is at all sensible? Ethical? Hard-working?
 
Finally, the student editorial I wanted to read (Just wish it were in the Crimson...)

Hats Off to Larry?
Summers never respected the faculty. Good riddance.
By: Sam Jacoby
Issue date: 2/23/06 Section: News




He's gone. Suck it up. We didn't like him that much anyway. With Summers forced out, and most of the student body left crying foul, as intelligent as we think ourselves, a daring question must be asked.

What the hell do we know?

Spending four years at a university that has been around for nearly four hundred hardly puts us in the position of judging what makes a president and what does not. It's embarrassing how we easily we are taken in, wagging our little puppy tails for a few pats of acknowledgement from the President's Office. The stories of Summers' undergraduate vision, of Allston, of Loker and Lamont - is that really all it takes to earn our support? Granted, he made an effort, but we must be able to recognize that the importance of the presidency hardly lies in giving us beer on Friday nights and coffee in the library. In judging Summers' fitness for the job, we have to look outside of the narrow undergraduate scope, to our teachers and our mentors, to the hundreds of Faculty members who have lived and worked at Harvard for decades, and have far more invested in its future prospects than we who will be gone in a handful of years.

And our teachers have spoken out again and again, not against his controversial educational ideas, as many have postulated, but against Summers' performance as a manager, a leader, and a boss. Hardly just a brusque personality, he has proved himself a nearly impossible person to work with. Faculty members across every discipline, right up through department chairs and deans, have chimed in unison, "The man is an asshole." To us, surely not, but who are we? We are the bill-payers, the raw material, the fodder for the Harvard machine. The most we see of Summers is en route between his town car and Mass Hall, Diet Coke perched on his gut.

Yes, he was in the Clinton administration; yes, he may be a brilliant economist; but no one attends this college on the basis of the president's personal achievements. While surely we can expect that the president is a competent leader and figurehead, it seems obvious that the important part of the school lies in the Faculty. This is not about Summers' many controversies, about women in science or Israeli divestment.Summers was not forced to resign because he was an inflammatory rabble-rouser, an intellectual fire-starter.

This is not an issue about freedom of speech or censorship. Summers is free to say what he pleases as long as he is willing to take the accompanying heat, and although his remarks certainly have made him many enemies, they did not force him out of office. He resigned because of his poor management and strange inability to run the University smoothly - as vigorous a leader as he was, he never understood that to do the job properly, one must reach beyond the powers invested in your own office and make use of the tremendous leadership already invested in the Harvard Faculty. It is in this respect that he failed miserably, and to the only people that are in a real position to judge - the Faculty.

Yes, Summers was our monarch, our surly mascot - it is true. In giving his resignation speech outside of Mass Hall Tuesday morning, he was interrupted several times by a rousing cheer, "Stay, Larry, stay!" But stay for what exactly? To show up for more editorial-board meetings at the Crimson? To mingle genially at barbecues? I think we will be pleasantly surprised to find that any president can perform such monkey roles with ease.

But to run a university, to pull together the far-flung elements of a disparate academic community - that is a challenge of a much higher order, and it is on that count that Summers has failed. Rather than foster unity in the academic community, he has suppressed it. No, he was not forced to resign because he was a maverick or a loudmouth - he was forced out because he was an asshole, and Harvard will be better off without him.
 
Advice to Richard: Learn how to spell Shleifer's name (not Sch...) We aren't finished with him yet (and I don't mean because of his "Nobel Prize trajectory...")
 
A photograph of the Crimson editors with L A R R Y painted on their chests is available at:

http://www.harvarddems.com/j/components/com_jd-wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/larry2.jpg
 
Sorry—I have a weird mental block about Shleifer's name. I get it right about 50% of the time.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2024 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2024 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2024 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2024 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2024 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2024 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2024 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2024 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2024 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2024 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2024 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2024 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2024 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2024 - 03/31/2006 /


Powered by Blogger