More Funny Money I suggested yesterday that a flurry of stories about Larry Ellison's non-existent gift to Harvard was curious. After all, there was no news in any of the stories; a gift that hadn't happened...still wasn't happening. Not usually cause for the media to go ballistic.

So why the stories in the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the Boston Herald (and this wasn't a wire story), etc.? I know the media has herd-like tendencies, but still...that was weird.

Could it be, I suggested, that someone at Harvard was pushing this story? And if so, who would have a self-interest in doing that?

I saw some evidence of a Harvard role in the fact that Harvard officials appeared to be cooperating with the story on background—the Herald reported that Ellison's secretary told one Harvard official that Ellison was on safari, and the Herald sure as hell didn't get that from Ellison's secretary.

(Prompting one of you to fault me for blaming "every single thing that happens at Harvard on Larry Summers.")

Problem was, I couldn't see quite why Summers would have any particular reason to publicize the non-existent gift and embarrass Ellison.

Silly me.

Two pieces of circumstantial evidence now make me think that the point of the articles wasn't to embarrass Ellison and secure the money, but to make Larry Summers look good.

First, there's this little squib in the Financial Times, a paper with which Summers has cooperated in the past:

Correction: HarvardHuh. Who would want to correct the impression that fundraising didn't go like gangbusters during the Summers presidency? That phrase "the second best year in dollar terms in Harvard's history" is an unnecessary part of the correction, a little gift, and clearly someone at Harvard asked for it. The language—"in dollar terms"—sounds like that of an economist, don't you think? (Since the dollar amount had just been stated, wouldn't the rest of us just say "the second best year in Harvard's history"?)

Second, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle quotes anonymous sources saying that, were it not for Larry Summers' ouster, Ellison's millions would be en route.

<Ellison delayed the project because of controversy embroiling economist and then-Harvard President Lawrence Summers.

The sources, who asked to remain anonymous because they feared losing their jobs, said only Summers had the international clout needed to roll out such an ambitious project, which involved tracking how health care dollars are spent and what impact they have in the developed and developing worlds.>>

That is too funny. "Only Summers had the international clout needed to roll out such an ambitious project...."

He's the only guy in the entire world who could do it, huh? Let's remember: the project is basically evaluating data on health care spending in foreign countries. But only Larry Summers has the international clout for that. (Someone should tell Condi Rice.)

Now, to be fair, this storyline could be coming from Ellison, an excuse for not giving the money. It's certainly not impossible.

But then today we have this headline in the New York Sun, a newspaper which has been supportive of Summers:

Summers's Ouster May Be Behind Delay in Oracle CEO's $115M Harvard Gift

And more evidence that Harvard folks are cooperating with these stories:

The delay is curious in part because, according to Harvard insiders, Mr. Ellison was insisting at one juncture that his entire gift be spent in three years, with possible additional sums to follow based on performance. The speed with which the money was to be burned through made some Harvard officials, including Mr. Summers, nervous. During negotiations, Mr. Ellison reportedly agreed to add five endowed professorships, adding some long-term stability to the effort.

Harvard is leaking like a sieve....and the picture those leaks paint is that of Larry Summers, the voice of reason, outnegotiating Larry Ellison....

It's a little confusing, I know. So let me just take a shot at what's going on here.

The most plausible explanation I've read about why Ellison isn't coughing up the cash comes from the Wall Street Journal article a few months back suggesting that Ellison was having cash flow problems, and various reports saying that Ellison wanted to use this Harvard gift to pay off court-ordered gifts for charity—Ellison settled charges of insider trading. But when it turned out that this donation might not count against that legal settlement, Ellison backpedaled.

That's part one.

Part two is that Larry Summers is trying to shape the current perception and historical evaluation of his presidency by trying to establish via the press that fundraising was booming during his tenure. (Remember that Mary Peretz, a Summers ally, has also been pushing this storyline in the New Republic. Coincidence? Doubt it.)

Summers already promotes the idea that the undergraduates support him, as well as the graduate schools . Now, if my guess is right, he's pushing the theme that the alumni are also on his side.

Next thing you know, he's going to be endorsed by Angelina Jolie.

It's all about isolating and blaming the FAS.... and making himself look good while making Harvard look bad.

Did the Harvard Corporation include language in Summers' severance agreement to the effect that the outgoing president could not act in ways detrimental to the University?

If not, they are strangely naive, and Summers truly outnegotiated them.....
  ¶ 7:46 AM