On the Alan Stone Front
Perhaps I was too hard on Alan Stone. A number of posters below think so, and argue that contrary to what I wrote, Stone was open, pragmatic, and accessible. And a good guy, to boot.
So let me qualify my remarks, because I don't want to be unfair.
In my experience, Stone has not been open and accessible, nor even courteous. It's certainly been my experience that, when it came to Summers and the press, Stone was a highly influential but secretive figure, one with considerable power who didn't want to leave his fingerprints on anything. My conversations with other journalists who've reported on Harvard are consistent with that impression.
It is my strong belief that this approach never did either Summers or Harvard much good. And, frankly, it's unprofessional. I've worked with press people at the highest levels of government, and here's what the really good ones do: Even if they don't like what you're working on, they accept that you're doing it and they help in whatever way they can. Stiff-arming journalists always reflects badly upon the person and the institution employing the stiff-armer.
I also believe that Stone, through no fault of his own, represents a trend in university bureaucracy that people who care about universities should concern themselves with: the increasing power and presence of behind-the-scenes administrators who get paid extremely well, have considerable influence, and yet feel no obligation to conduct their business transparently. In recent years, more and more of these vice-presidents have cropped up at Harvard. Are they necessary? What do they really do? It's hard to say, because their work—and they—go unreported. More and more, folks like Alan Stone are running Harvard. That may be necessary; Harvard's a big place. But shouldn't we at least feel that we know exactly what they do and how they do it?
Having said all that, I can see that there are a number of people on this board who think well of Stone. I'm sure they have reason to, and I am sure that there are many contexts in which Alan Stone is outgoing, helpful, courteous, skilled at his work, and a lovely human being. As some of you have rightly pointed out, I've only known Stone in a specific context, and it's certainly true that that is my only first-hand perspective on him.
But to my mind, he was complicit in and a proponent of the secretive, anti-transparency, media-hostile culture of the Summers presidency, and that's why I continue to think that his exit is good for Harvard. In all his future endeavors, I wish him well. People who know him tell me he wasn't like that before going to work for Summers, and perhaps in a different environment his more catholic nature will emerge.
