Shots In The Dark: You Post, I Respond

Thursday, July 13, 2006

You Post, I Respond

A poster below takes issue with my post about Harvard and donations this morning. The poster raises some serious questions, so let me address them...which I will in between his (italics added) criticisms.

As you said about Seward's article... your article would have been stronger if...
1. You knew what you were talking about (about some things). For instance, Zuckerman's media properties have little to do with his wealth. Boston Properties, which is near an all time high, has everything to do with it. Where did you get "by all accounts"...what accounts? The media properties are privately held and you have no idea how they are doing.
People tell you things, but that does not necessarily mean they are correct. For instance, in your recent Boston magazine piece, a number of quotes (while I'm sure they were accurate on your part) were complete fabrications (i.e. not true) on the part of those who gave them to you. They had an agenda and you fell for it. We expect more from a good journalist like you.

It's true that when people give you anonymous quotes, you're more susceptible to manipulation than when they go on the record (said the blogger to the anonymous poster). You try to minimize that possibility by seeing if other people are saying the same things, by tending not to use the most extreme quotes, by including other points of view when they exist, and by pushing people to go on the record.

Nonetheless, I'd be happy to hear what specific quotes the poster had in mind. Seriously. If you think that something in the Boston Magazine piece was off-base, I welcome your commentary. Even if it's anonymous.

I know that Mort's profits come from Boston Properties, but his losses seem to come from his media holdings, U.S. News & World Report and the Daily News, both of which have endured repeated staff cuts, losses in advertising revenue, and shrinking circulation. By the published accounts I've read, anyway.

2.You said: "He could go to Mort Zuckerman and say, I want $100 million, and I want it for x, which is a hell of a way of adding to the president's discretionary spending." Huh? I think you are mixing things up. This has nothing to do with the President's discretionary spending.

Okay, let me rephrase for clarity, since, admittedly, I used the term "discretionary spending" casually. What I meant was that such gifts, given to support Summers' specific priorities, were a great way for him to fund what was important to him, and a means of increasing his own power. If, for example, you have donors who are loyal primarily to you rather than to the university, and are giving to fund your priorities...then, on the off-chance that you get fired, you can argue that your firing is bad for Harvard.

3. To give you an example of how wrong jounalists can be, Seward got it exactly wrong when he said Byron Wien was a major Harvard giver. Where did Seward get that from?

Got me? Zach, if you're reading this...

And finally, here is what I said last month (and was chastised for saying it because "it wasn't true")" You might be surprised to learn that Larry is (still) held in very high esteem by most of those alumni who contribute large sums of money to the university. Many of them think the FAS faculty members are nothing more than whiners who are completely out of touch with the real world. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but it is true."

I can't speak to whether "most" of the alumni who give large sums of money hold Larry in high esteem, but I am sure that many do, and I don't think I've ever said otherwise. I'm sure that your description of their attitude regarding FAS is also true, if ironic; the idea of Wall Street financiers pulling down seven- and eight-figure salaries, helicoptering to the Hamptons, living high above Park Avenue, being in touch with "the real world" is hilarious.

Nonetheless, there's certainly a big problem for Harvard here in terms of the common perception—misperception, I would argue—of the faculty as a bunch of out-of-touch lefty loonies, and I have long argued that the Harvard faculty ought to make a serious, sustained and concerted effort to address this caricature.

One example that complicates the poster's thesis: Harry Lewis is not exactly a "whiner" who's "completely out of touch with the real world," as his book, Excellence Without a Soul, showed...and yet, he was one of Summers' fiercest critics.

¶ 1:35 PM

Comments:

It's also interesting that this poster, always comes on, if I read right, just after a posting that suggests much of the fault was with Pres. Summers' management and leadership. He/she asserts great knowledge, and, again if its the same one, is "not a member of the Harvard administration". That should mean he or she is a member of the Harvard faculty who is willing to go along with the Silberesque fictions about 370-year-old whining Harvard faculty members who are lazy, resistant to change for resistance to change's sake, couldn't deal with a visionary leader, etc, etc. The Boston Magazine article wrankles in such quarters precisely because Richard got the situation right, compared to John Tierney's op-eds, Peretz's New Republi piece, and the like. My BA is from Auckland, NZ, PhD from Michigan, by the way. So, who are you? I assume you have tenure, so take a chance and let us know!

Richard Thomas

# posted by Richard Thomas : 3:21 PM

Professor Thomas,
HOC ERAT IN VOTIS...to see a tenured professor deduce something (so incorrectly) from a mere blog on the net. The economists (friends of former President Summers) you have criticized, would never try to do that. One can only imagine the state of behavioral economics if this were the way they inferred something!?. I am not your colleague, don't have tenure and have nothing to do with Harvard. I am merely an observer of this blog.
I am puzzled by something you wrote and perhaps you can enlighten me. What was the relevance of "My BA is from Auckland, NZ, PhD from Michigan, by the way."

# posted by Anonymous : 5:19 PM

Richard,
I'll be happy to get back to you and point out the quotes I mentioned re the Boston Magazine article.I thought the article was excellent except for some of the quotes (which then become "statements of fact") In the meantime here is a link for the TLS review of Harry Lewis' book (by the way, a number of statements in the book are factually incorrect,but I'll bring those up at another time).
http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25351-2266728,00.html

# posted by Anonymous : 5:32 PM

'What was the relevance of "My BA is from Auckland, NZ, PhD from Michigan, by the way."'

Relevance has to do with the fictions, on Stephanopoulos and Charlie Rose, and easy to pass off on the larger world, about a faculty that is associated with Harvard's 370-year-old traditions and could not handle an agent for change and modernity. Those traditions per se mean little to me (as the bio might suggest), or to most of my colleagues, much as I enjoy teaching and working at Harvard.

The only exception is the tradition of outstanding collection by the Harvard libraries, making them the envy of the world, and one of the reasons many students and faculty want to be here. Unfortunately, since Pres. Rudenstine left, the libraries have become a low priority (rumored not have ANY place in the new capital campaign, e.g.), and any new President will need to reverse that--and also make sure the Google people are not destroying the books they are scanning, without supervision, as I understand it. But that's another story . . .

# posted by Richard Thomas : 10:17 PM

PS "Mere blog[ger] on the net", who say you have "nothing to do with Harvard", but seem pretty interested in making sure your version of things gets out there, all the more reason to tell us who you are, no? Until such time as you do, your claims are not to be taken seriously, in spite of you admirable knowledge of Horace.

# posted by Richard Thomas : 1:45 AM

PPS On my 3:21 post (hastily typed before my 3:30 class) for "wrankles" read "rankles"

# posted by Richard Thomas : 9:27 AM

Professor,
You said: "Rudenstine left, the libraries have become a low priority (rumored not have ANY place in the new capital campaign, e.g.), and any new President will need to reverse that--and also make sure the Google people are not destroying the books they are scanning, without supervision, as I understand it. But that's another story . . . "
Don't you think it is the job of the Director of Harvard's Libraries, and not Harvard's President, to worry about Google? Have you talked to your colleague Sid Verba about your concerns? Professor Verba is in charge and if you have some qualms, I would think you would talk with him. Professor Verba is highly qualified to be Director and I believe would be highly aware of the nature of your concern.
Professor, this is what I meant about Harvard being a very complex place today. The President can't do everything. He or she has to delegate to others. That is what the school across the river calls good management. These things can't be decided at faculty meetings, faculty council meetings or over lunch at the faculty club. Fifty years ago it could be done. Today it can't. That's why a school such as Harvard, needs professional management. If not, money is simply wasted.

# posted by Anonymous : 12:09 PM

The poster below writes: "Don't you think it is the job of the Director of Harvard's Libraries, and not Harvard's President, to worry about Google? Have you talked to your colleague Sid Verba about your concerns?"

In fact, the Google deal was brokered by Summers and Sheryl Sandberg, a v-p at Google who was Summers' chief of staff at Treasury. Sandberg met with Summers before meeting with Google; I doubt Sid Verba had any say in the matter. This was a particularly ugly backroom deal on a matter of great public import made without any public deliberation whatsoever. Look for Summers to be repaid with a position on the Google board or a consulting contract from Google in about a year.

# posted by richard : 12:20 PM

Big topic, anon 12:09, and although I brought it up I obviously can't talk about your details here, but can say that a president has to worry about and support the universe of a university, so there is a trickle-down on matters that are urgent, both new and continuing. He did give a good speech on the library in mid-term, but the Google project has tended to be the focus of late, as if that will take care of everything.

There is an FAS Standing Committee on the Library, co-chaired by Professor Verba (with whom of course I've talked), which delivered a very full report to Pres. Summers, Dean Kirby, and the FAS faculty, setting out the critical need for additional resources for collection, preservation, conservation, etc. Nothing seems to have come from the report.

The fault is not entirely with Pres. Summers, but my opening sentence stands. If you're interested, e-mail me and I'd be happy to talk one-on-one, but this is it from me on this (important) subject in this arena.

# posted by Richard Thomas : 1:05 PM

About Me