Send As SMS
Shots In The Dark
Friday, November 10, 2006
  Blood from a Stone
Alan J. Stone, Harvard's Vice-President for Government, Community, and Public Affairs, has resigned, the Crimson reports.

This is excellent news for Harvard.

The Crimson describes Stone's job thusly: "Stone was responsible for managing the University’s relations with its neighbors, the press, and the government."

Well, sort of. Stone was a Larry Summers henchman, and his power around Harvard came largely from that status. He was secretive, and he did his job secretively. During the Summers' years, Stone was a guy whose name was always coming up in conversation, but no one seemed to know exactly what he did, except that he had Summers' ear. Also, he was extremely well-paid for his mysterious labors—around $400,000 a year, if I recall.

Stone represented much that is worrisome about modern Harvard: the hiring of political operatives who have no feel or appreciation for university culture and values, the gradual encroachment of "vice-presidents" within university administration, and their lack of accountability to the larger community. Alan Stone had no Harvard connections whatsoever when he was hired, no institutional memory. (To be fair, he wasn't entirely unfamiliar with university culture; he had a brief stint at Columbia.)

The Gazette says this about Stone: He has aimed to stimulate press coverage of the extraordinary accomplishments of Harvard faculty and students, and fielded innumerable media inquiries about one of the nation's most visible and closely watched institutions.

(Incidentally, the Gazette piece has vastly more information than the Crimson piece. The Crimson, which feels pretty sleepy this fall, needs to do a real story on Stone's behind-the-scenes influence.)

Stone was, in other words, a kind of Karl Rove figure for Larry Summers. He was almost never photographed, rarely quoted in the paper, and few people around Harvard knew who he was or what he did. That is not healthy.

The funny thing is, when Stone took the job, I heard only good things about him. He was reputed to be open, accessible, helpful. In my experience, none of those things proved to be true. What happened?

If Derek Bok is behind Alan Stone's resignation—as one assumes he must be, because a guy who was basically a speechwriter before doesn't leave a $400k a year job lightly—then this is an excellent sign: Bok gets it. Things at Harvard are changing.
 
Comments:
"He was almost never photographed, rarely quoted in the paper, and few people around Harvard knew who he was or what he did. That is not healthy."

Richard: If you're implying what I think you're implying, and what most people who know Alan would think you're implying, then that's disgusting.
 
Alan is a great guy. Perhaps he just wasn't open with you, which seems understandable.
 
Poster #1: I have no idea what you're talking about.

Poster #2--are you also poster #1?—whether or not he was a great guy (I'm sure he is) doesn't go to the substance of what I wrote.
 
Your comments about Stone's Washington mindset and hiring practices are fair enough, but the suggestion that his job was "secretive" or "mysterious" is silly. His job was public relations. He oversaw the central administration's communications office. He was a top adviser to Summers. You say "sort of," but then don't provide any specifics about his "real" role. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't make him mysterious.

Poster #1, by the way, is probably referring to Stone's illness, which kept him out of the office for much of 2004 and 2005. That partially explains why he was "almost never photographed." (Although who takes pictures of the PR guy?)
 
I know/knew nothing of Stone's illness, and if this has any bearing on what I wrote, then I apologize. Whatever it is, I hope that Stone has fully recovered from it.

But I stand by the mysterious/secretive theme. Stone was a very powerful guy at Harvard, but few outside the central administration had any idea who he was or what he did. This may be more a problem with the central administration in general than anything unique to Stone himself, but I do think that a guy who's supposed to be in charge of PR shouldn't be quite so cloak-and-dagger.

I think it's perfectly fair to photograph the PR guy when that PR guy is enormously influential in a very controversial presidential administration.
 
Alan Stone making 400 a year? I could be wrong, but I doubt that very much. Where did you get that number? Are you making things up to prove a point?
I don't know Alan Stone's salary, but why don't you go to the
990 and then tell us how much Alan made starting from 2001.
Sam Spektor
 
According to The Crimson, in fiscal 2004: "Alan J. Stone, vice president for government, community and public affairs, saw his salary rise slightly to $267,620. His total $313,549 compensation package included benefits, $13,223 in loan interest subsidies, and $2,124 in storage expenses."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=507782
 
And (this is the anon who just posted the salary article) I'm not sure where you're coming from with the Stone is secretive line. He was quoted relatively frequently in The Crimson and it would be hard to miss the fact that he was actively involved in dealing with town-gown relations. He wasn't Summers' personal spokesperson, and Summers is the aspect of harvard that most of the national press focused on, so that may explain why he was less of a presence in their articles.
 
The fact of the matter is this: Richard isn't as informed as he thinks he is, and more-so, might like to be in this particular matter. As is typical though, there's all manner of assumptions made that are based on 2nd-hand information, hearsay, and quite frankly, uninformed sources.

The irony of his post is that there's very little 'substance' to it, providing stylized commentary rather than provocative insight, no matter how he tries to sell it both here and elsewhere.

It's much easier to suggest guilt by association when one doesn't have access to the truth.
 
You know, speaking of secretive...it is hard to credit some of these posts when they're anonymous. Sam Spektor enjoys trying to prove me wrong, and sometimes he does, but at least he puts his name to his gripes.

If Stone was making $313,000 in FY 2004, he's probably making, what, $350 now? I overshot, perhaps, but not by as much as some of you are suggesting/implying.

To the last poster who talks of the irony of a post with stylized commentary but no substance...mmm, did you read what you just wrote?
 
$313, 549, for FY '04 ain't bad for doing PR, nor that far from the (likely) figure Richard gave of $400,000 for FY '07.
 
I agree, lot of money. But Rich, you really haven't been talking to the right people for information about Stone if you've never heard that he was ill.
 
folks. let's be real or atleast grown ups for a brief moment.

as in any organisation (government, industry, academia), when the boss leaves the next level down leaves shortly thereafter. if it is a political environment the transitions happen even that much more quickly.

perhaps the best motive that can be offered about "moving on" in such situations is common sense- you get out of the way and let the next leader build his team. in some circles they call this grace.

perhaps it is time to start applying it!
 
To anon 10:10. It may in fact be "grace" as you suggest, and contrary to what Mr. Bradley might be suggesting, it wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Stone made this decision without prompting from President Bok. Here's a man who, by most accounts, was open, pragmatic, and willing to work with people, at at a time when he was in an exceedinly difficult position to do so. Factoring in the severity and duration of his illness, and the current state of affairsd relative to the leadership of the institution, I would not be surprised of Mr. Stone decided it was an appropriate time to take stock, reconsider his priorities, and put himself, rather than the University first.

My concern is that Mr. Bradley feels otherwise, that there's more to this than meets the eye, and it would seem that many people in this forum take umbrage to that, correcting him on his assertion about Mr. Stone's salary, and questioning his knowledge of the situation through his profession of not knowing about Mr. Stone's illness.

People need to remember that this is a blog people, a nontraditional yet emerging means of providing information in a fashion that's consistent with the person who maintains and promotes it. That's a long-winded way of saying this: Mr. Bradley's going to write what he wants to write about, passionately or dispassionately, and like any source of information or news, it should be judged on the quality and consistency of the information that's produced.

Mr. Bradley has an uneven track record in this respect, much like any number of bloggers.

As for the truth? It's fair to suggest that it lies somewhere in the middle between Mr. Bradley's assertions and those of his critics.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 04/30/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 05/31/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 06/30/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 07/31/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 09/30/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 10/31/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 11/30/2006 /


Powered by Blogger