An affirmative action product?
 

Mmmm...not quite. Anyone else?
 

secretary of the treasury?
 

Wow, Richard - between this bizarre, Botoxed portrait of some impostor and the truly Addams-esque Econ video, you've outdone yourself. Nice!

But I want to respond to the more serious set of questions below about the non-ladder (i.e., non-tenure-track) faculty and whether, just maybe, this category could be exploitative and gender-biased. CRIMSON REPORTERS, WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS?

So, anyway, the answer to this question is no further away than the Courses of Instruction (for the investigatively-challenged, http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/fasro/courses/index.jsp?cat=ugrad&subcat;=courses/). Each department and committee on degrees lists all its faculty here, it's all public, no secrets. All it requires is someone willing to spend a couple of hours looking at the faculty lists.

So, as a guide, ladder faculty are listed as assistant, associate, or just "professors," without qualifiers. If you see a "visiting," "practicing," "lecturer," or whatever, that means a non-ladder (non-tenure-track) appointment.

It is also nearly always possible to tell from the professor's name whether s/he is male or female. If in doubt, find the web site and look at his/her picture.

So, to the question of whether women are disproportionately represented in the nonladder ranks, we shouldn't need to rely on a blog -- can't someone at the Crimson just spend a couple of hours with the Courses of Instruction and answer this? This isn't exactly private information.

To anticipate the answer: focus on the departments that teach languages, math, and the non-departmental degrees (like social studies). You'll see that these groups have a large majority of women employed in the non-ladder ranks, and compared to the ladder faculty in these departments/ programs, the contrast will be dramatic. Then look at the Appoointments Handbook to discover the terms for non-ladder faculty, and realize that they get no medical, maternity, or other leave, and think about whether there might be a story here about gender equity.

I guess we don't teach investigative skills all that well, else all this would be obvious to even the least-enterprising reporter.
 

A man who could have saved us all from the bloated, shameless, stale, self-serving, out-of-touch, neglectful, oft-irrelevant, fiscally incompetent Faculty of Arts and Sciences...but he had to go and self-destruct, fumbling in the red zone. Thanks, Larry.
 

someone who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth?

and whose career was greatly advanced by family ties and well meaning friends. Alas, in the end, they could not save him from himself.
 

Regarding 10:50 pm:
I'd say the reason why no one has gone through this list is because ... well, no one cares. First of all, this story has been thoroughly beaten to death. There are zero women who are listed as senior faculty on Harvard's math department website. We know. Furthermore this is probably the case at many prestigious mathematics departments, physics departments, and what have you. This isn't news. It's never been news, except for when the Larry Summers comment exploded.
So is this really evidence of a scandal, of a global academic conspiracy to keep women out of the sciences (except for biology, of course, where they beat men 3 to 2)? Is that what you're implying?
 

Of course, if junior faculty positions are a rotating door for women --and perhaps minorities-- then the appropriate comparisons are between non-ladder, ladder junior and tenured faculty.

The previous comment suggests that Harvard is no different than the rest. Perhaps an analysis of these figures by department and by professional schools, highlighting those where Summers appointed the chairs or deans, might shed light on whether those he appointed have a better record within Harvard than those he did not appoint.

But the previous comment says something more fundamental, very true, and deeply troubling: no one cares. This is true, particularly among students at Harvard. This is Summers true legacy, to change the composition of the student body --through the many changes he was able to effect particularly to senior leadership position.

It is by design and not an accident that many Harvard undergraduates do not care about whether they might be the beneficiaries of an exploitative system. In this they are glaringly different to undergraduates in other colleges.

This was not always this way as we know. But Larry set out to change this, it was part of his vision of the role of the premier institution to educate the american elite class. A class that would not be troubled by the scandals in Wall Street, by the moral standards of Hedge Fund leaders who sexually exploit underage girls, by the exploitation of those who cook their meal and clean their dorms, and of course by the exploitation of those who truly teach them.

Of course Larry did not set out to do these things on his own. He was chosen to do them and he was supported all the way by the members of the Corporation and by many others who happily gave him the financial and political resources to effect this change at Harvard.

Derek Bok said manny times upon returning that he felt like R. Van Winkle awakening from a 20 year slumber. He may not fully realize how much changed the last 5 of those 20 years...
 

It makes sense that Larry's mandate was to fundamentally alter the way in which Harvard educates the ruling class.

This would explain why he had to focus so much on the undergraduate curriculum, as well as his hands on involvement in the B school, the Kennedy School, the Education School. It would also explain why he had to watch and contain what went on at the Divinity school and at places like Af Am. It would explain his opposing stance to the Humanities and, most importantly, why he had to go after Professors like Cornell West who taught students to question the status quo and who made them think about issues of race, inequality and social justice.

A way to test whether Larry was successful would be to examine whether the number of Professors with interests similar to West's increased or decreased at Harvard during Larry's tenure. And a more direct test would be to see what happened with those interests in the departments and schools Larry was most involved with.

But if Larry was not doing this on his own, but understanding that this is what his masters had hired him to do, one cannot really blame the man for doing it as best he could. Furthermore, one should expect the next Harvard President to be a lot more like Larry in these respects than unlike him.

And if done well, it should all be presented as if responding to the wishes of students and alumni, even as it represents the vision of a rather small fraction of the nation's ruling class.
 

If you are correct then he should have also been interested in the curriculum of the Law School.

There is a way to verify the supposition that, in making appointments of chairs and deans, Larry tried to change the direction of the schools away from issues of justice. Do a google search for a sample of those he appointed and count how many times the terms 'justice' 'race' 'poverty' appear in their speeches or writings. Then do the same for those they replaced. If what has been suggested is correct we should see a difference in the content of their public discourse.

There is perhaps another way to do another version of the same. Ask them to name their top 5 friends, count how many are African American or people of color. Then ask those named to name their top five friends, count how many of them include Larry's appointees on the list. Do the same for those these 'new age' leaders replaced.
 

Bill O'Reilly after several failed Botox injections?
 

"This is Summers true legacy, to change the composition of the student body --through the many changes he was able to effect particularly to senior leadership position."
I have no idea what you're talking about. Prove it.
Harvard students don't become Harvard students by fighting the system, they get to Harvard by studying. And when were students the moral watchdogs of the nation?
 

Towards the end of the Vietnam War.
 

Yes, it's funny—I think the commenter who says that Harvard students don't get there by fighting the system, but by studying, means that as a compliment, when those of us who are slightly older would consider it something of a diminutive, or at the very least, damning with faint praise. It'd be good for today's modern Harvard students if they fought the system a little bit more...
 

they are not bright enough-but boy can they take a standardised test.

next (original)thought will be their first.
 

It ain't over til it's over. Larry's true legacy will be to have chosen his successor. The next Harvard President will be someone that he appointed to their current position. In this way they will embody all the good qualities of Harvard and the values that he represented, but perhaps have better manners.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516480
 

some of them can take a standardised test, others come via the Z-list.