It's reading period. It's been reading period since Jan 2, and faculty are meant to be in residence to support their students. If they were scuba diving they'd be derelict in their duties - this is what the undergraduate poster of yesterday is referring to. (As a skier I wait until mid-late January, after MLK weekend, which happens to be a cheap time for skiing (low-season) and usually enough snow here in the east.)
 

i would worry about harvard professors scuba diving. they seem more suited to tobagganing or continuing to ride their bicycles in freezing weather
 

Or jogging! Can't tell you how many times I've seen Steven Pinker halfway across Mass Ave by Cambridge Common, wondering if he's going to get hit.
 

In fact, a January faculty meeting has been held only twice in the past 25 years--once in 2005 and again in 2006. So what's unusual is holding a meeting in January, not cancelling it.
 

We needed to allow time for the Gen Ed committee to produce its final report and for the faculty to digest it and fine-tune their opinions on it before we hold an FAS meeting. The report must be discussed at Faculty Council the week before the Faculty meeting, and this schedule did not give enough time for the Faculty meeting to take place in January.
In the meantime, we grade papers, prepare final exams, evaluate applications for admission to the Graduate School, conduct individual general exams for graduate students, conduct searches for junior faculty members (which means listening to several talks and attending a day's worth of meeting with each candidate), prepare our own graduate students for on-campus interviews (which means attending rehearsals of their own job talks, in addition to general advising), and much more. No one is being lazy--in fact, January is one of the busiest times of year for faculty members. I literally have trouble fitting everything in.
 

nevertheless, harvard profs are all slackers compared with our troops, who at this moment are putting their lives and limbs at risk in close ground warfare with a determined enemy that can melt into the population while, a world away, chais and lattes are consumed by the ton in cambridge
 

The last poster's comment is not fair. Harvard (as with other large academic institutions) has faithfully been supporting the military-industrial complex for years. Harvard profs may not be on the frontlines, but their research has contributed to building the most modern, lethal army known to human civilization. Isn't that patriotic enough?
 

Yeah, I'm drinking a Starbucks frappuccino right now while children are starving in Sudan, but do we really need to dote on that?
 

to amplify anon 4:32's remark: We gave them Henry Kissinger. They still owe us for that.
 

You know Richard, it might be suggested that, by not commenting on this article, you're chosing not to "bite the hand that feeds you."
 

I s'pose. Truth is, I just don't feel sufficiently informed to say anything opinionated. Rare reticence for a blogger, I know, but there you are.
 

to anon 4:57 - no, we don't need dote on that, we need to dwell on it and dote on those children

to anon 8:22 - i'm confused, in your analogy, whose hand is it that "feeds" richard? the faculty? the harvard admdinistration? critics of same? the crimson? trust me, if richard didn't comment, it's because this is one harvard story that even he finds boring, not because he lacks the courage to speak truth to power
 

No, I don't find it boring; I think it's an important subject. I just don't know enough about it to say anything constructive.
 

Prof Ryan, if that's the case why was the meeting canceled because of "insufficient business"?
 

Prof Ryan, if that's the case why was the meeting canceled because of "insufficient business"? Also, what percentage of faculty are engaged in the activities you describe, and what percentage are off conducting research in far-off climes?
 

When has not being "sufficiently informed" ever stopped you from being opinionated? :-)
 

3:13: hear, hear. Guess what, Richard--the fact that you're neither an engineer nor an architect nor an urban planner didn't stop you from spouting absurd commentary on Allston. Your bias is ridiculous: Summers could do no right, faculty can do no wrong. Why don't you just be honest and call the faculty out on the obvious: their progress on the C.R. has been unacceptable?
 

Just wondering--what part of my commentary on Allston is absurd?

And if you think the faculty progress on the curricular review is unacceptable, do tell. After all, Summers was the one singlehandedly guiding it until it was so badly botched that he dumped it in Bill Kirby's lap. Regardless, if you have specifics, let's hear 'em....
 

I'm amused, too, that my commentary is invalidated because I'm neither an architect nor an urban planner nor an engineer. All too true. But then again, lots of people who are none of the above are going to live in and around this space. Should they just sit down and shut up as well?
 

Absolutely. Everyone should be just sit down and shut up.
 

12.09 You must live in academia. So, we should sit down and shut up...?
 

Richard: sorry to have taken so long to respond. I'll focus on two of your points:

1) The net athletic space in Allston doesn't decrease all that much (and if it does, I'd be interested to see your evidence therein beyond what you extrapolate from the artist's rendition). And to say that this was Derek Bok's doing, when he's only been president for a few months and when this plan has been in the planning stage for years, is just, well, laughably absurd. I mean, were you making a joke?

2) As for another Charles River vehicular crossing... where do you propose it goes? How would it interact with Soldiers Field Road between the stadium and Western Ave? There's *nowhere* another automobile bridge could go. That's why they're building a new crossing for walkers and bikes and are decking soldiers field rd.

Also... anyone who criticizes the architecture at this point just doesn't know anything about this process. This is a conceptual plan, and the report even says that the architecture in the artist's renditions is far from final. The placement of the buildings, infrastructure, etc. is what the master plan is really about, just as it is with any conceptual feasibility study.

It's a fabulous plan, and from the way things look up here in cambridge, it seems like people are bitching about it b/c they want something to bitch about. If people have specific, intelligent criticisms, make them. Otherwise, don't spout off just to have something to say.