Well, poster no. 2, what if YOU have no idea what you're talking about, eh? No reason for us to think you do now is there?
 

from Poster no. 2
Well, what can I say!? Keep believing in whatever makes you happy...even if it is incorrect.
 

4:32 here. All, you've done, Poster # 2, is reassert yourself, so why should we believe your anonymous claims to authority and credibility?
 

This shows the trouble with anonymity. And now I will demonstrate the problem again. No reason to believe me either, except that Richard does.

Here are what I believe to be the facts about the claims that Poster No. 1 made.

- Members of the Corp. did receive and some discussed the two reports referred to. Members are concerned about the problems described there, including but not only limited to diversity.

- Some of them think LHS is partly to blame, but this is the least of the damage they blame him for. More serious are donor and alumni relations, management company issues, special deals bordering on the corrupt, and much else.

- Bok may care about diversity, but not as much as Rudenstine who actually made some (limited) progress here.

- No one on the Corp. is seriously considering asking Bok to stay for three years. I heard second hand that one member had made a casual comment something to that effect (but meant it as praise not as a serious proposal). Bok has set terms for this year that would not be acceptable for a longer tenure--no fundraising for example. The Corp is sensible enough to know that the institution needs a permanent president (for many obvious reasons).
 

from poster number 2.
Glad 7:20 cleared that up. As I said (and the only thing I said poster 4:32), DB staying on for three more years was something you just made up.
7:20. Interesting that you bring up two new areas of contention:"special deals bordering on the corrupt"... that was NR's strong point (without the corruption); management company issues... what exactly could be the issues of the mangement company involving LHS?
 

Anyone with at least some once-removed indirect knowledge of these issues would recognize that a statement like that concerning Bok was merely offering praise and lamenting the difficulty of finding a great president.
 

Were these remarks in Derek Bok's speech yesterday at the Law School deliberate references to Summers?

“If a president comes out and tells something that’s exposed as a clear lie, or engages in some other obviously indefensible behavior, the moral authority just disappears, and the president isn’t effective,” he said. “And when something like that happens, they always resign.”

“You have to convince other people to focus on particular problems, to reach a consensus,” he said. “You can’t do that if you have a peremptory authoritarian style.”

Shouldn't this have been the lede in the Crimson story?
 

Those comments might as well be referrnig to Bush for all we know.
 

When he says "they always resign," I think it's clear he's talking about university presidents.
 

How can you resist mentioning that Prof Weitzman (who stole $50 of horse dung from a neighbor) and Andrei Shleifer (who stole millions from Russia, some of which Harvard had to repay) were equally sanctioned by Knowles. How can such inequity be justified?
 

The donor of Weitzman's Chair is alive, local and an active supporter of Harvard. I would guess he removed his Chair. Wouldn't you?
 

I doubt that Harvard would allow a donor to remove a professor from a chair, or to "take back" a chair once donated. In fact that would probably be illegal, as it would imply that the donor, having gotten a tax deduction for transferring control of the funds to Harvard, actually is retaining control over their use.
 

What's the inequity? Isn't the potential benefit of dong to farmers in Rockport significantly greater than the potential value of Rubles to the People of Russia? After all farmers in Rockport live much longer and earn much higher wages than people in Russia. A pound of horse dong in Rockport must be worth a significant sum in Rubbles. Only non-economists could fail to recognize the impecable economic logic of this argument.
 

Brilliant logic 6.58! If you did not receive tenure at the age of 28 you sure deserved it!

Have you read this?

http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html

Wouldn't you agree that a transfer of Rubbles from the inefficient Russian Economy to the savy custody of a brilliant economics wizard is a beautiful act of improvement of efficiency in resource utilization? Money is used to it's full advantage when in the hands of the people with the smartest genes!
 

poster 2:58pm

Perhaps the donor could request that the name of the endowed chair be changed to 'The Harvard Professor of Ethics and Higher Order Moral Dilemmas'.

Then they could give the chair to the horse whose dong was appropriated without retribution.
 

Really? The horse's dong was appropriated? This is getting serious, maybe rising to the level of gros moral turpitude.
 

What about the poor shrub that will never grow from this ill-gotten dung. Who speaks for the shrubbery? (other than the Knights of Ni)