Why is no one in the press asking the obvious question?

If Summers accomplished so much in five years, why would the Corp fire him? Four members were handpicked by him (one his mentor and close friend). The other (Houghton) had picked him, and had a stake in his success. His only opponent (Harper) was long gone.

Worried about faculty controversy? Yes, there was widespread faculty opposition (starting well before the NBER speech)but either that opposition had not prevented the "great achievements" in which case the case for firing him was weak, or the achievements were not so great after all.

Recent controversies made it difficult to go forward? The faculty angered by the NBER speech now saw that Summers could not say no to their agenda. The faculty angered by the Kirby debacle saw that they had gained more control of the search process for the future than ever before. Some of the key opponents, then, had a lot to gain by keeping Summers for a while, even though they didnt like him.

Yet Houghton and others including some deans wanted Summers out immediately. That suggests something else is going on here. The official story is full of obvious contradictions. At least worth a question from some reporter or interviewer.
 

In both of these articles Summers reveals a new strategy for avoiding the obvious conclusion that he was a terrible leader, and at the same time proves his own ethical bankruptcy.

The Charlie Rose summary says "Summers said he underestimated the resistance of some Harvard faculty members to his efforts to streamline the university by merging smaller departments".

What on earth does this refer to? The failed attempt FOUR years ago to merge Sanskrit and Indic Studies with East Asian (the two have Buddha but nothing else in common)? There is no other example of any such effort, but it sounds good, and makes the faculty who would resist such fictional streamlining look like Luddites.

Pathetic. Even John Silber didn't sink this low.
 

Beating a dead horse has been elevated to an art form it would seem. Are some personalities possesing of egos so brittle that they gleefully continue to fire torpedos into a sinking ship that is clearly slipping below the surface?

Pot calling the kettle black when it comes to "pathetic"... no wonder the undergraduate students are increasingly losing faith in the efforts of faculty who operate in the rarified air of ambivalence and selfish intellectual indulgence.
 

Does "selfish intellectual indulgence" include spelling words like "rarefied" correctly?
 

Forget Summers. You may be right about Germany over Argentina (home advantage), but you're still wrong about the penalty that led to Italy's win over the Socceroos. The following from a thoughtful commentator:

Things are not always as they appear at first glance.

Or at second glance. Or third. Or fourth.

Or 50th.

That's how many times I pressed the rewind button on my VCR last night to watch Lucas Neill's foul on Fabio Grosso that led to Francesco Totti's injury time goal from the penalty spot in Italy's dramatic 1-0 win over Australia in the World Cup on Monday.

Turns out that after watching the controversial incident 50 times, I realized I should have trusted my initial instinct: it was a foul and the referee was correct to reward Italy with a penalty shot.

First, allow me to lay my cards on the table. With a last name such as "Molinaro," it would be foolish of me to deny where my allegiances lie.

Continue Article
I am not, however, your typical Italian soccer fan. I bleed Azzurri blue, yes, but that has never precluded me from reporting and commenting in an objective, dispassionate and fair manner on Italian soccer in my duties as a reporter for CBC Sports Online.

I have won few friends in Toronto's Italian community over the last four years. I have been chastised for writing, on more than one occasion, about the cancerous scourge of Italian soccer: its racist and anti-Semitic fans known as the Ultras. "Why are you making such a big deal over nothing" was the all-too often refrain I heard from some people.

I have gone on record as saying Italy's poor play against South Korea - and not the referees - led to its second-round exit at the 2002 World Cup and that there was no Nordic agreement between Sweden and Denmark that knocked Italy out of the first round at Euro 2004. (Again, Italy had only itself to blame.)

"Italians have never heard a conspiracy theory they didn't like" was how I responded, in print, after both shocking Italian exits, again, leading to a flood of outraged e-mails in my inbox.

Arm-flinging makes it a penalty, folks

But looking at Neill-Grosso incident, I can only come to the conclusion that the Australian defender brought the Italian player down illegally, albeit unintentionally.

Of course, that's not what some in the media would have us believe, foremost among them John Helm, the British television commentator who described Grosso as falling over Neill's "prostrate body."

Ahh. A "prostrate body." If only it were that simple.

What Mr. Helm and the rest of Australian fans conveniently overlooked was that Neill's body was anything but "prostate" - as Neill fell to the ground, anticipating a cross, he slid across the small patch of grass and nonchalantly threw out his left elbow just as Grosso attempted to jump over him.

If Neill hadn't slung out his arm, there would have been no justification for a penalty. But he did, causing Grosso to trip over him - claims that Grosso "dove" are exaggerated - while impeding his direct path towards the goal.

That's a penalty, folks.

Racism tinges stereotype of Italians as cheats, divers

I realize that rational thinking disturbs the common prejudices that most soccer fans have against the Italian players (they're cheats, they dive, they roll around on the ground whenever they are fouled) but let's try to looks at things objectively here.

This was not a decision made by a referee some 30 yards away from the play or made after consulting with the assistant referee. The Spanish official was no more than five yards away and had a clear and unobstructed view of the incident.

When he saw Grosso brought down, Senor Benjamin Medina called for the foul without hesitation and without prodding - he immediately pointed to the penalty spot before the Italian players even had a chance to protest and urge him to make the call.

Grosso is not a diver. I've watched him for the better part of the past two years while playing for Palermo in Serie A and he has always played the game with skill and honour. His dignity and integrity is beyond reproach. But because his name ends in a vowel, he is painted with same stereotypical brush that all Italian players are unfairly painted with - that of a "diver" and a "cheat."

It's the same old story, one that I have heard far too many times and one that continues to wear increasingly thin, especially in light of recent events at this World Cup.

In the first round, after Trinidad and Tobago and Angola defended in great numbers and put 11 bodies behind the ball to earn a result, they were described as "heroic," "brave" and "fearless." Italy does it against Australia - after having one of their players unfairly sent off, I might add - and they are branded "cowards," "timid" and "fearful."

It's this the level of hypocrisy, laced with an ever so-subtle undertone of racism, that is particularly appalling because, truth be told, there was one controversial call in Monday's game that unfairly tipped the balance in one team's favour - and that team was Australia.

Italy deserved this victory

Italy dominated the opening 45 minutes but the game turned in an instant when the Spanish referee gave a red card to Marco Materazzi for a rash tackle early in the second half. Replays showed Materazzi's offence was hardly worth a yellow card, let alone a red.

True, after the Italian defender's dismissal, it was Australia who dominated possession - playing with an extra man tends to allow you do that - but the shame for the Socceroos was that they could only produce neat and tidy passes, which, while pretty to watch, were ultimately toothless and barely troubled the Italian defence, expertly marshalled by Fabio Cannavaro.

Did Australia dominate when the contest was 11 vs. 11 in the first half? Hardly. Italy called the tune. Did they cause any serious problems for Italy in the second half when it was 11 vs. 10? The Aussies swarmed, but try as they did, they could not break down the Italian defence.

With that in mind, can anyone honestly begrudge the Italians their victory?

The bottom line is that Italy deserved to win. The Azzurri clearly outplayed Australia in the first half and put on a textbook display of how to defend and counter-attack in the final 45 minutes, and to suggest they somehow robbed their opponents of the victory is pure fantasy.

End of story.
 

Those that attempt to discredit blog POVs by merely illuminating incorrect spelling are substance-bankrupt turds. I'm not even the grammatical transgressor here, and it sticks in my claw. Typical Harvard low-highbrow retort.
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Those that attempt to discredit blog POVs by merely illuminating incorrect spelling are substance-bankrupt turds. I'm not even the grammatical transgressor here, and it sticks in my claw. Typical Harvard low-highbrow retort.
 

While my point is still valid, looks like both spellings are accepted--so there was no transgressor...other than the turd, that is.
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

The word is "craw"--not claw. "It sticks in my craw." Are we dealing with the Harvard-educated here?
 

Thanks for the correction above. Yikes. Thankfully, I haven't used that phrase many times (and had never written it before). Its common relegation to the spoken word has left me with a life-long misunderstanding. I thought "claw," because something could, conceivably, be stuck in one's claw (ie left over from a fight). Now, thanks to you and phrases.org.uk, I know that the sticking occurs in the "craw," or the lower throat or upper stomach of a fowl. For that small enlightenment alone, I thank you.

As you see, one can correct one's spelling or one's misquoted phrase. To steal from the spirit of Churchill, however: When I wake up tomorrow, I will know that the phrase is "sticks in my craw," but tomorrow you will still be a turd.
 

I don't know about the poster above, but this reader is not Harvard-educated, and, therefore, was not painfully awkward in my youth nor am I horribly arrogant now.
 

Richard,

Nice blog! Here is the charlie rose interview, thanks to Google video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7670401553300783496&q;=larry+summers
 

Richard,
You have an obligation to do more sorting. There are some good posts here and under other headings, but some that are not relevant or not serious. Why not gather the collection of the top ten best posts on Summers (pro and con)?
 

To the last poster...I try to highlight posts that seem most valuable, but to be honest, I just don't have the time to do that much sorting. The blog is, shall we say, a non-profit institution.
 

Richard, I did not mean that you should do this kind of sorting generally. Just for the special--even historical--occasion of Summers depature. There is a lot of good stuff in the comments (and in your comments too) that is buried in a lot of irrelevant other material.
A top ten would also help your future writing projects on this Harvard moment-- which many of us hope you will do.
 

Who you calling irrelevant? Just because I went to community college in Arkansas and you went to the Big H doesn't mean you get to set the terms of the debate. Larry Summers is sub-human and so are his critics. Because you know what: Harvard is irrelevant!