The Crimson Attacks the Faculty
In
a vicious unsigned editorial, the Crimson lays into the Harvard faculty for its failure to attend the recent faculty meeting and for wasting time during that meeting by arguing about parliamentary procedure.
According to the Crimson, "there are several members of the Faculty who have served the University admirably in this once-per-generation exercise of redefining education at Harvard College. But those who have served on committees, attended forums, and written essays are the piddling few; their work is mocked by a vastly larger portion of the Faculty that seems capable of showing up to monthly Faculty meetings—which last only 90 minutes—only when it means taking shots against someone who actually did care."
(The Crimson would seem to have a logical problem here given that Larry Summers fired the dean leading the review, not typically an act of caring, but never mind.)
The editorial goes on to charge that the faculty who were present were "woefully unprepared and uninformed."
Here's another hot-headed paragraph:
This shameful coordination and lack of devotion, especially in comparison to the impassioned, standing-room-only crowds that filled University Hall for nearly a year of attacking Summers, only reaffirms the perception of Harvard faculty members’ apathy toward undergraduate education. Pictured in a recent New York Times art editorial as “spoiled faculty members who refuse to teach,” FAS does itself no service by failing to attend its own crucial meetings.
I think that's a reference to John Tierney's column, which was more or less ghostwritten by Larry Summers. Was this editorial influenced by the president as well? I'm told that he's been suggesting stories for the Crimson....
In any case, I wasn't at the meeting, so far be it for me to say whether the Crimson is right. I'd like to hear from some of you about that....
