It is not too soon to start arguing about who won and lost in this sorry episode. Here is a start for the list of Winners and Losers.

Losers

Andy Schliefer. Biggest loser because he will no longer have Summers’ protection from the faculty committee now investigating his conduct in the HIID Russian scandal.

Steve Hyman. Exposed as trying to play both sides - - pretending to be loyal supporter in Mass Hall, but outside telling people Summers was misleading the Corporation about fundraising and the Broad institute, and just last week overheard in local restaurant boasting that he would become acting president.

Economists. Smarter than political scientists and sociologists says Summers. Maybe but Larry Katz, Claudia Golden and Ed Glaeser are not smart enough to get what is bothering most of the rest of the faculty. It is about integrity and leadership, stupids. (Some other economists like Richard Zeckhauser an early defender got the point sooner.)

Jack Corrigan. Minor figure but worth noting because Richard refers to him merely as an alum. He was a Washington buddy, whom Summers tried to hire as VP for Public Affairs (the job that Alan Stone got). Corrigan did so badly in interviews with the Deans that even Summers could not pull off this bit of cronyism.

Michael Sandel. Only prof. quoted by name as critical of Summers in Traub’s breathless portrait of Summers in the Times (Aug. 2003), S. has since worked hard to ingratiate himself with Summers, teaching a course with him, and more recently defending him by spreading the rumor that Kirby organized the opposition at the Feb. faculty meeting.

Alan Finder. Late to the beat, this New York Times reporter missed every part of the story. (Only the Crimson editorial board - - as distinct from the news staff - - were more out of touch.)


Winners

Nannerl Keohane. New to the Corporation, she quickly informed herself, and managed to get other lethargic members to do so too (except Rubin). Not surprising that she is mentioned as best candidate for acting president (but Bok is more likely)

Peter Ellison. Known as a straight arrow, his statement that he resigned as Dean because he could not work with a less than truthful president helped remind people that the issue about Summers is not style but integrity.

Bill Kirby. Well not quite a winner - - he lost his job. But his mediocre job performance is now overshadowed by the fact that his resignation triggered Summers’ demise while he kept his own dignity intact.

Richard Bradley. Villified in Mass Hall, now vindicated by events. Only about 80 percent of his reporting is accurate, but even without grade inflation that is pretty good on this story. His speculation is not quite that good, but still interesting.
 

Vilified in Mass Hall? Well, yes, I guess it's true. That was certainly the impression I got.

As for the 80% figure...well, since the blog was a more casual format than a newspaper, magazine or book, I guess I can live with that.

Seriously, the above is a smart post. Thanks for it. I hope others respond.

Would you not put Steve Pinker and David Gergen on the loser list?

And—not to be cruel—but Lisa New is suddenly in a very awkward position.
 

The lists are excellent. Add to losers list:

Doug Melton (bribed with a lot of $$ to overlook character)

Drew Faust (tried to play both sides like Steve Hyman)

Stephen Greenblatt (bribed with a little $/power/buddy-buddyism to overlook character)

Steven Pinker (bribed with a little $/power/buddy-buddyism to overlook character)

Surprising, really, how little some people require in the way of a bribe...

David Laibson (like katz, goldin, and glaeser, just does not understand issues of character; might have been thought not so bad before outrageous defense of Shleifer)

David Cutler (errand boy for Summers; people who know what he's done are appalled)

Cannot include Harvey Mansfield, Ruth Wisse, or Stephen Thernstorm on losers list, as they are just plain misguided and were probably acting on their principles, such as they are.
 

Winner:

Conrad Harper!
 

Here are two other nominations.

Loser: Hanna Gray. She doesn't look so smart now.

Winner: Neil Rudenstine.He doesn't look so bad now.
 

here's another winner: Columbia. They got Lee Bollinger, who likely would've been a very good president of Harvard. Bollinger probably also counts as a winner, just because he sit there and savor the implosion of the Corporation's rival pick. I'm sure the Columbia Spectator tomorrow and other media soon enough will pick up this angle.