I Blog, You Post
My item a few days back about Larry Summers speaking to 250 or so of Rupert Murdoch's closest friends on "how to reform institutions" prompted some interesting responses. Let me quote a couple below.
One poster—let's call him/her "Regular Reader"—took issue with my suggestion that Harvard should be concerned about Summers' appearance at the event, which is, I argued, yet another way for the ex-president to spread the message that his ouster was a result of Harvard being "scared to change."
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....
The poster also faulted me for suggesting that the Corporation should have imposed some sort of gag order in its termination settlement with Summers.
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?
(The quick answer: Pretty much, yes. But the Corporation people believe in secrecy; secrecy is their currency, their oxygen. The fact that they did not employ a tool commonly used in the corporate world suggests again that, in their negotiations with Summers, he got the better of them. You can say it's against academic values if you want, but since Summers doesn't play by academic values....)
Meanwhile, a couple of posters have written eloquent responses.
Here's one anonymous one:
"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?
And classics professor Richard Thomas weighs in with a signed opinion, adding that he hopes that putting his name to his post will encourage others to do the same.
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
Your thoughts?
