Maybe I'm reading too much into your comments, but are you suggesting that Gary Orfield's leaving Harvard because UCLA's offering more $$$$?
 

Gary Orfield leavingHarvard because of more $$$? Sounds out of character with someone who has devoted his career to issues of racial and economic justice.

His letter to students and associates contains a reference to his hopes that the Ed School 'deepens its commitment to diversity'

His departure continues the exodus, started under Larry Summers, of Ed school faculty with interests in social justice and in issues of difference.


A Note to Colleagues and Students from Gary Orfield.

Since first coming to Harvard to teach in the fall of 1990 I have been deeply grateful to work
with so many hundreds of students who have fascinated and inspired me and colleagues who care
deeply about the Ed School and improving education for the children of the nation and the world.

It has been an honor and a privilege to work here--
one of the best jobs in the world.

My decision to leave is a bittersweet one, leaving many friendships and associations I deeply value, will not forget, and will do my best to maintain. I deeply appreciate the opportunity being here made possible for me to create and develop the Harvard Project on School Desegregation, the Civil Rights Project and my other work. In the Project we
have now commissioned more than 400 studies by scholars across the nation, produced twelve books and played a major role in civil rights, educational equity, and social justice discussions across the U.S. It is wonderful to see people nurtured in this work becoming faculty members at major universities and playing important roles in the world of policy and service.

I have been offered an extraordinary opportunity to continue and expand the work of the Civil Rights Project, at UCLA, in a setting of great interest for the future of race relations and civil rights. Since my long-time co-director, Christopher Edley, left Harvard Law School for Berkeley it has been increasingly difficult to manage this effort by myself and there are a number of
colleagues at UCLA who have worked with us and have very substantial experience in civil rights
and related work. We will begin to set up an office in Los Angeles while carrying out work here
until summer.

I will leave Harvard at the end of the academic year with very fond memories and with the best wishes for the future of this good school. I hope the school will continue its powerful record of bringing together excellent scholarship and serious engagement with the world and that it will deepen its long commitment to diversity of the student body, which greatly enriched my experience here. I strongly support our often expressed goal of creating a senior faculty that more accurately reflects a nation in profound racial and ethnic
transformation.

Much of my work for years now has been in a great virtual community of scholars and civil rights experts from across the nation who communicate continuously, mostly through the web.

Though I will be across the continent I will be working in that same net of instant
interconnectedness and will always want to hear from you and share ideas and plans. We have
cosponsored research conferences with many universities, we would love to collaborate with GSE
faculty in the future and will continue to work with the Charles Hamilton Houston Center at the
Law School. So in that way, when I leave, it will not really be adios but much more hasta la
proxima. And, should a future journey bring you West, I would love to share a coffee and catch
up.

Many thanks again to all of you who have made my years here so good.

Sincerely,

Gary Orfield
 

Interesting comments from Howard Gardner... He was a very outspoken of Summers, wasn't he? Perhaps this is what was on his mind.

Time Magazine this week has an excellent article on Hedge Funds.
 

To Anon #1: No, that wasn't my suggestion. I really don't know anything about the circumstances of Orfield's departure.
 

But if Larry Summers caused the departures of these faculty at the Education School, why are they still leaving?
 

Richard,

Why don't you call Orfield and ask him?
 

Just time limitations, really. If there's a story there, I leave that to the Crimson...or to you folks, posting here.
 

From Bombardieri's article:

Michael Rodman, spokesman for Harvard's education school, said the school will continue to do a lot of work on inequality, diversity, and the achievement gap in education.

"While Gary's departure is a loss, our commitment to this issue remains unchanged," he said.

WHY WOULD THEY FEEL THE NEEDED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION? WOULD ANYONE HAVE DOUBTS? WHY?
 

Deans normally issue statements in departures of this sort.

Was there one issued over the loss of the Civil Rights Project? What did it say about the commitment to diversity?
 

Do you mean Harvard is about to lose the preeminent center on Education and Civil Rights because the Director married a scholar who works on education of latinos and Harvard could not offer her a job?

And UCLA tenured both of them?

Where is Evelyn Hammond in all of this? what does this departure do to The Shape of the River?

He hasn't left yet though. Surely the Education Dean will do all in her power to retain this Center given the scools commitment to diversity and the achievement gap.
 

Ah. Now we're getting somewhere.
 

May I take this occasion to just remark on the fact that its quite strange to continue "covering" Harvard as you are doing? Just think of all the happenings in academia that, well, happen every day -- yet you limit yourself to Harvard (and once in a while, for contrast, Yale). Isn't it a little like covering body language on the first page of the Times and burying the war on page 16? Ok, you wrote a book about Harvard, but why the lingering focus? Is Harvard's significance within the larger zeitgeist really worth the attention? Is this some kind of remedial project -- i.e., you're trying to "fix" Harvard?

-- A concerned, and often bored, reader
 

You can if you want, but it won't make any difference. There's only one of me, and my time is limited. (I mean, you do get this for free, you know.)

I definitely recommend to you starting your own blog.
 

Why on Earth, in almost every discussion, does someone feel the need to question Richard's partial focus on Harvard. Just seems like a really stupid question, time and time again. His last book was on a troubled Harvard presidency, a presidency that subsequently collapsed. What writer wouldn't want to follow up in some fashion, especially when the Summers wind continues to blow? And this blog is about plenty of other things as well: politics, sports, music, (women?) etc. But Rich knows his audience, and I dare say most them have ties to Harvard. Case closed?
 

Well, in the immortal words of Jules Winnfield, allow me to retort. Yes, RB wrote a book on Harvard, and yes a mighty wind is still blowing through the Yard, but "following up" doesn't really require constant coverage, does it? Your main point seems to be that RB's audience is dominated by Harvardites. But, speaking as a non-Harvardite, surely that is more of a reason to branch out from Harvard, than to keep feeding the Beast. RB has pointed out the interesting lack of blogs emanating from (or about) Harvard. Why don't one of you people who is so fascinated by the daily goings-on there start one and let the rest of us -- i.e., the apparently very small slice of SITD's audience who coudln't care less -- enjoy RB's thoughts on a wider range of topics. Hey, its a free country, and those are my two cents. It's because I care.
 

Of course, you must realize the advantage of an outside arbiter managing a forum like this? A Harvard insider would have a hard time appealing to the community at large like a journalist can. It is precisely because RB doesn't have a academic/disciplinary dog in this hunt that makes him a great Harvard blogger.
 

Hey, "concerned, often bored reader" of 11:40 and 2:42! Get a life and stop coming on this blog if it bores you so much. I think it quite strange that you find Richard's continuing to cover Harvard quite strange but keep coming on to say so.

By the way, over here in Oxford the "congregation" (faculty plus) just handed a very corporate vice-chancellor a 730-450 defeat in his attempt to put the University in the effective control of a board of corporate outsiders. The Harvard experience of the damage overly corpoirate outsiders can do apparently entered into the debate and outcome.

Richard Thomas
 

Just a few points to make.

* Gary is leaving because both he and his wife Patricia have considerable professional and social ties to the area, while at present, and likely into the near future, the area of the country he's moving to will serve as an incomparable laboratory for the research both he and his colleagues (now pretty much back together)have previously, and continue to focus on.

* The response of the spokesman from the GSE seems necessary when aprpeciating the context of Ms. Bombardieri's regular coverage of Harvard. She seems both eager and ambitious in her efforts, but at times, borders on overreaching. In her article on Orfield, one gets the sense that she'd like to suggest the reason for his departure as being something other than 'academic,' looking for something provocative when, in fact, there isn't. My guess is that she was late to pick up on this story, and considering this, could only fashion a piece that spoke of the (potentially negative) impact to Harvard, and implicitly, how such a move might be symptomatic of ongoing challenges facing the University.

* Richard likes to stir the pot, and for both personal and professional reasons, has maintained a healthy (some might suggest otherwise) interest in Harvard University and its personalities. His musings may or may not be interesting, and you're not required to like them, but then, this is his blog, and it serves as an extension of himself as much as anything else.

* Based on my experiences, I would suggest that there exists an active, albeit understated blog culture at Harvard, but relative to what other institutions I can't exactly say. As for why you don't see more faculty following suit? Well, perhaps there's an absence of understanding as the utility of such an effort, or perhaps more to the point, a lack of desire or compulsion to "put themselves out there" any more than they already are.

Harvard doesn't have a good reputation for quickly responding to emerging social trends, and maybe that's also something to be considered.
 

'emerging' social trends?

Talk about cultural isolation.

Perhaps the reverend Jessy Jackson could invite those responsible for the exodus of faculty like Orfield to his show.
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

This is the bio of Dr. Patricia Gandara. An accomplished scholar, a latina. Would the School of Education at Harvard have been able to retain the Civil Rights Center had they offered her an appointment? Why didn't they do this?

Dr. Patricia Gándara is a faculty member of the Division of Education at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Gándara has authored and co-authored various books and articles on such subjects as peer group influence and college-going behavior of low-income Latino and other ethnic minority students; immigrant students, bilingual education policy, and the public schools; high academic achievement of low-income Mexican Americans; Chicanos and educational mobility; and mathematics instruction in multicultural classroom.

Her most recent publication, Over the Ivy Walls: The educational mobility of low-income Chicanos was published in 1995.

Her professional interests in graduate teaching include: education policy/education reform, social context of learning, learning and assessment, and educational equity/bilingual and multicultural education.

She was President of the Sociology of Education Association in 1995 and Chair of the UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute in 1995. She has also been Chair of the Program Committee for Division G and Chair of the Hispanic Sig of the American Educational Research Association. She has been a member of the Latino Eligibility Task Force, the Bilingual/Crosscultural Panel of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the Center for the School Community. She has served on the editorial board of the Thought and Action Journal and been a reviewer for the Anthropology and Education Quarterly, American Educational Research Journal, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, and Sociology of Education.

She received her doctoral degree in Educational Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles and her masters degree in Counseling and School Psychology from California State University, Los Angeles.

Select Articles:

In the Aftermath of the Storm: English Learners in the Post-227 Era Bilingual Research Journal, 24:1&2 (Winter & Spring 2000)

See: http://education.ucdavis.edu/directory/person.lasso?PersonID=0363
See also: http://pace.berkeley.edu/gandara.html
 

So... the Dean appointed by Larry Summers was not successful in preventing the major research center on education and civil rights from moving to California.

What a surprise.
 

Regarding Dr. Gandara...I really don't know the context of what's going on here, and the person posting obviously is privy to some discussions to which I'm not.

But having said that, the case for Dr. Gandara as established by that resume doesn't particularly blow me away. Her last book was published almost twelve years ago...the one article I see cited came in 2000...

I'm not saying she isn't qualified, just that the information presented hardly establishes her as an open-and-shut case.

More to the point, perhaps, don't be so cryptic, poster...why don't you tell us what you think really happened here?
 

Perhaps Harvard is simply not interested in the kind of research Drs. Gandara and Orfield are doing.
 

Can she rap?
 

How does the number of citations to her work compare to those of other Ed. School Faculty?
 

They should be grateful they don't have to deal with Cosmo Kramer or Mel Gibson.
 

The problem may be more one of deep ignorance than lack of interest in diversity.

When leaders ignore the relevant scholarship in an area they are unable to recognize those who are making important contributions to the field.

In a sense the Larry Summers' problem, which perpetuates itself in the appointments he made.