That's why you have to write your sequel, Richard
 

MySpace over? I doubt it. Didn't Fox buy it, or plan to?
 

As I said in the item, Murdoch owns it. (Murdoch=Fox.)
 

This seems manufactured. Who cares anymore what Larry Summers does or what he says? An academic institution getting a gag order in place re its former president? Ridiculous. Summers talking with other powerbrokers? Yawn.
 

Double yawn.
 

Didn't Harvard put a gag order of sorts on Harry Lewis?
In any event, it's clear that Summers is trying to rewrite what happened during his presidency.
 

Richard is right that Summers' campaign to salvage his reputation at the expense of Harvard (and indirectly higher education) is a serious matter. I doubt that the Corporation could have gotten an enforceable agreement about this, but now they (and others including the faculty and the new administration) should do more to respond to his rewriting of history.
 

In all seriousness, Bono (we know you love him deeply) is turning into a glad-handing powerbroker. His pretense to rock and roll godhood is now as defunct as MySpace's claim to being cutting edge. Look how fast New Media is turning into Old Fart.
 

Richard,

Very interesting. There is much real or perceived "residual Summers" at Harvard - the uncertainty in the wake of his departure makes it difficult to objectively view the spam/spin that comes out in the next 6-9 months. The Corporation could've gotten the gag order but they were conflicted themselves.

I don't think Harvard put a gag order on Lewis, that demonstrates how incompetent the Summers administration was. Look at the lawyers - they are important. Remember Russia.

I agree completely with "anonymous" about Bono.
 

Having been a regular reader of this blog since its inception and having agreed with pretty much everything, including the harshest criticisms of Summers, that have been written here, I find myself now disagreeing with you all (that being Richard and the anti-Summers commenters). I suspect part of it is that natural disinclination to kick a man while he's down, but if so, it's only a subconscious feeling. Because if Summers were really continuing to harm the university, then it would be completely legitimate to point that out. But it's my sense of fairness that has bore my disenchantment here.

The event that Summers will be attending in Los Angeles is private, and he will be speaking to 250 executives at News Corp. That's it. Sure, they're influential, but the whole thing strikes me as extremely unimportant. Looking at the other expected speakers, it seems clear that for the most part, Murdoch invited folks who precisely conform to his worldview. So what if Summers tells Rupert's boys that in order to reform an institution, you need to shake things up. He'll be wrong if he says that, but the only possible effect will be on a corporation far removed from Harvard. And, you know, considering how he was just very publicly proven to be ineffective at "reforming institutions," I bet Summers will have to acknowledge that not all shaking is beneficial. And that would be a very interesting, accurate, and not at all harmless thing for him to say.

On the issue of restricting Summers' ability to discuss Harvard in public, I will only say that such a restriction, even if they have been employed before, would run counter to every academic ideal for which Harvard stands. And as a journalist, Richard, doesn't it run counter to every ideal you stand for, too?
 

Anon 10.30 strikes me as very sensible. Enough kicking a man who is down. Some of the postings in this blog begin to have a manic feel to them. Epstein may not be the only person who needs help in making more productive use of his time.
 

"Regular Reader" may be right about this particular event. But he is naive if he thinks that Summers and friends are not trying (and to some extent succeeding) in doing damage to the university (and higher education). This goes beyond the playground ethics --don't kick a guy while he is down. There is a lot of prejudice out there against academia, even among alumni, and much of it is based on misunderstandings that Summers is exploiting. Of course there should be no gag order, but shouldn't the corporation, the faculty, even the interim president be defending the institution more? Not by saying everything is fine (just the opposite). Big changes are needed (as many professors have said). But giving orders from top down is not the way to do it. And it does not come quickly. But then the ideas that are generated by universities at their best last a long time.
 

The proposition that Lawrence Summers' talking in a "private" forum with 250 executives should not create concern about the damage he can/will do by peddling his views about the resistance to change that exists in university faculty is absurd. And the damage will be inflicted on higher education in general precisely because of the ignorance, prejudice, and anti-intellectualism that already exists in the forum in question, which cares only about immediate results, not about broad, long-term educational goals.

Anon 11:10 has it exactly right. President Summers is working for himself right now, all the while disguising his self-promotion behind assertions that those of us who work hard to make our institution succeed were simply resistant to his brillant visions for change.

Easy game to play given the general anti-intellectualism of our culture, but it's a shame to see Lawrence Summers outdoing even John Silber in this game.

I put my name under this in the hope others might come out publicly on this issue.

Richard Thomas