Send As SMS
Shots In The Dark
Monday, May 08, 2006
  What's Going on With Neil Rudenstine?
First, the former president gives a talk at the unveiling of his portrait that raises eyebrows and may or may not have caused Larry Summers to leave the room.

Then, at the funeral of former Corporation fellow Bob Stone, Rudenstine delivers what many (including me) thought was a pointed and political elegy, at least in part.

While remembering Stone, Rudenstine talked about two things that could have been interpreted as a criticism of Rudenstine's successor, Larry Summers. He talked about how Stone was never a numbers man, never believing that numbers really said anything about a person, but instead suggesting looking to "the character." And he said that while Stone was a great believer in debate at a university, that it was always tempered debate, never contentious. (I'm paraphrasing and condensing.)

Given that Larry Summers is renowned for his emphasis on data, and that he has been associated with contentious debate—and especially on the heels of the portrait incident—the remarks were heard by some as an implicit rebuke of Summers.

A number of people with whom I spoke after the funeral were struck by Rudenstine's words, and thought that they were pointed and deliberate.

If Rudenstine did intend either or both of his sets of remarks as a commentary on Summers, all agreed, such public criticism was very much out of character for him.

So what would explain it?

Perhaps years of being unfavorably compared to Larry Summers, years of having the accomplishments of his own presidency slighted. (In fact, I've argued that Rudenstine's presidency was successful if one defines success as fulfilling stated goals.)

I still think of Corporation fellow D. Ron Daniel telling the New York Times Magazine, "We agreed that we needed somebody more aggressive, more pushy, bolder," than Neil Rudenstine.

So if Neil Rudenstine is venting some pent-up frustration—well, it would be admirable if he could transcend his anger, or bitterness, or whatever it may be. (For surely, these moments do feel like kicking Summers when he's down.)

But can you really blame him if he can't?
 
Comments:
Larry Summers did NOT leave the room during the remarks by Neil Rudenstine at the portrait unveiling. He merely moved toward the back of the audience and the refreshments table, as many people did during what were very long remarks. He maintained his composure and neutral expression during what surely were very difficult remarks for him to hear, and I do not blame him for moving from the front where everyone was watching him.
 
I've no doubt that the remarks were difficult for him, and my phrase "may or may not" was intended to suggest that I didn't know whether he left, which I didn't. Thanks for clearing that up. And yes, I agree with you that it must have been an awkward and uncomfortable moment indeed.
 
I do not know what is motivating Rudenstine to speak out now, but it need not be a selfish motive. He may be worried that the Corporation has not fully learned its lesson from the Summers presidency, or has learned the wrong lesson, and that it might in consequence make another inappropriate choice next time round. My sense is that Rudenstine is principled rather than petty -- which is not to say that he had no shortcomings as a president.
 
Yes, that's a good point. But couldn't he do that privately just as effectively?
 
Rudenstine evidently told friends that he has been very disturbed by the public attacks on the faculty. He may think that the Corporation (including especially Summers) have not done enough publicly to counter this widespread negative reaction beyond the campus. His talk at the unveiling was almost entirely focused on the faculty, not his own accomplishments. It is unlikely that a man who was self effacing to a fault has suddenly become self promoting.
 
No, I don't intend to suggest that he's being self-promoting.

Again, the suggestions that this last poster makes are reasonable, but don't explain why Rudenstine would speak *publicly* as he did. And certainly there are more direct ways of sticking up for the faculty which would not be construed as insulting to Summers—a simple op-ed, for example, pointing out that the faculty is not a bunch of nuts.
 
Larry Summers spoke to the HAA directors last Thursday and repeatedly criticized the FAS - I would say he bashed the faculty. In fact, he also criticized the Corporation, for not agreeing to a uniform academic calendar. At one point, Summers bemoaned his inability to fire or reduce the salary of those who would not do what he wanted them to. His talk and responses to questions and comments demonstrated just how ill suited he is to the Harvard presidency. I fear what he is going to say at Commencement.
 
Actually, I look forward to what he will say a Commencement--should be quite a show!
 
Larry Summers has been actively encouraging at least one faculty member with an outside offer to leave Harvard. He should never have been left in a position where he could do further damage to the institution he was incapable of running. He cares about himself and wants Harvard to look bad after he leaves.
 
In looking at any number of earlier comments both in this thread and others, there have been a number of anonymous posters (maybe no more than three or four) who have been frequent, consistent, and deliberate in their criticisms of Lawrence Summers. However, there's a had line between criticism and/or unconscious bias, and what might be characterized as deliberate dissemination of false information, and considering the acusations that have seemingly been disproven by more informed parties, I wonder if some of Summers' critics might in fact might be guilty of the latter?

"All politics are local," whether it's Greater Boston, or the space between Mass and University Halls, and it certainly wouldn't be unlikely for a few interested parties to take a few, free parting shots at the lame duck knowing there'll be no accountability.
 
Problem is the lame duck is still in a position to do damage, and since he has never been able to see beyond his own (supposed) superior intelligence, and unable to accept that maybe the problem was, at least in part, with him, this sounds like a pretty weird situation. He probably should have been terminated with extreme prejudice, as any other CEO would have been.
 
Problem is the lame duck is still in a position to do damage, and since he has never been able to see beyond his own (supposed) superior intelligence, and unable to accept that maybe the problem was, at least in part, with him, this sounds like a pretty weird situation. He probably should have been terminated with extreme prejudice, as any other CEO would have been.
 
Re the cosmic question of whether Summers left the room, here is the definitive answer. The seemingly contradictory reports are both partly true. He first walked to the back of the room by the refreshment table, and then soon after left the room-- before the ceremony was over. I know because I left then too. It was a ceremony. (But it sure was more dramatic than the Crimson or the Gazette reported).
 
Post a Comment



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

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


Powered by Blogger