Harvard: The Fallout
Two interesting stories in the Crimson today...
Allison Frost, Evan Jacobs, and Samuel Jacobs (you guys brothers?) report that the Faculty Council, the FAS governing board, is
considering a plan by which the new FAS dean would be appointed by the faculty, and not the president.
You have to think that Summers would resign sooner than accept that humiliation...but maybe that's the point.
Meanwhile,
Daniel Schuker reports on the history of the president's role in decanal appointments.
Schuker quotes the
always sage Henry Rosovsky to the effect that, while the faculty's role may be greater or lesser, presidents always choose deans—a quote which nicely shows how radical the Faculty Council plan is.
He also quotes the
sometimes coherent yours truly on the question of how a high number of decanal appointments influences the president's power.
“The knee-jerk answer is that this adds to [Summers’] power because it gives him a greater hand in the running of Harvard’s schools,” said Richard Bradley, author of the book “Harvard Rules,” a critical assessment of Summers’ tenure. But, according to Bradley, if deans depart or are forced out by Summers, that “makes it harder to attract good people down the line.”
Just to elaborate slightly—because what else is a blog good for, if not to elaborate slightly?—my quote about the "knee-jerk answer" had a second half. What I also suggested is that it may actually be the case that the appointment of weak deans, rather than adding to presidential power, may ultimately decrease it. Why? Because inept or ineffectual deans who don't do a good job of running their schools ultimately make the president look bad.
That's exactly what happened with Bill Kirby and the curricular review, which is the greatest single reason Summers has ousted Kirby, which is the greatest current reason for the faculty's discontent: As long as Kirby was in office, there existed two respositories of faculty dissatisfaction.
With Kirby gone, there is only one....
