Lets be honest. We all judge books by their covers (even if we sometimes read them). This guy does look like a geek, whether he self-identifies or not. (And note: self-identification as such doesn't necessarily excludes self-loathing.) And geeks carry baggage (whether they like to admit it or not). And the baggage is, a) they look like people other people aren't really sure they want to spend time with and b) they look like people who might miss the forest for the trees. Both are liabilities. Can someone who looks like a geek, and maybe even is a geek, overcome these liabilities? Take your chances, Harvard, and find out. But please people, don't pretend to be offended by the very suggestion that looks might play a legit part in this. Whether we like it or not, they do.
 

I take it 6:40 is for Hyman, Faust or Kagan. "Take your chances Harvard and find out"?? That's ridiculous.If Cech has the experience, ideas, leadership qualities then his looks, which anyway seem fine to me, are and should be irrelevant. Are we to imagine alumni saying "I really like his ideas, and that was a great speech he gave, but he looks funny so I think I'll give to Yale"
 

Yes, 7:05, you are.
 

Nice follow-up 6:40, but since the Corp. did not hold Summers' looks against him, and we are told the alums loved him, no reason to think you are right here.
 

6:40 is another deep one....concluding the guy is a geek based on the pictures, then adding in, for good measure, that he may loathe himself, and carry baggage--unlike those who are not geeks who---what?--don't have baggage? Furthermore, we learn that he looks like he will miss the forest for the trees. That must be why HE won a Nobel prize but 6:40 has figured out geeks have baggage and that the Harvard presidency is a beauty contest. In which case.....they should call in some real talent.
 

7:05 it's unlikely that 6:40 is for Hyman for there are no chances to take with Hyman. His record has been well established over the last five years. He is a full co-author of Summers' mess.
 

And there are few chances to take with Kagan, who was Larry Summers pick. Her record too has been well established.
 

It's all pretty simple, either the Corporation will signal that they wish continuity with the last five years or a clean break with this recent past. That is what the next appointment comes down to and signals. My bet? they will choose continuity. It is Harvard after all.
 

It is Harvard for sure. But it's a new Harvard thanks to Larry. A Harvard where the pursuit of excellence dominates over all other interests. A Harvard committed to the pursuit of truth. A Harvard where Professors and Students alike must work hard. A Harvard finally awakened from the slumber of mediocrity in which leaders half asleep had sunk the Institution.

Yes the Corporation will choose continuity over mediocrity. They will choose excellence over intellectual laziness. They will choose enduring Harvard values over the narrow interests of small minds. And Larry's successor will continue to purge Harvard from those inferior intellects that demean this noble institution.

Long live Harvard! Long live President Lawrence Henry Summers, University Professor.
 

Maybe the Corporation should just reappoint Summers! revitalized after his break!
 

Sober up, you two!
 

Hay 9:10. Why do you assume Hyman shares blame for the mess? How do you know he did not help to clean it up:

Do you know the meaning of:

kai su, teknon?
 

What a place for tragedy Harvard is.
 

A Summers tragedy that ended in Spring...
 

...to be unveiled in Winter to start anew in Summer and inagurated in Fall.
 

I have no idea who the Corporation will choose, but I would agree with 10:04, and against 9:10, that Steve Hyman should not be excluded because he was Provost under Pres. Summers. I also don't believe Thomas Cech's appearance (on which there has been much idiocy here -- sorry, Richard but there you are) has anything to do with anything.
 

Well, Richard, not to worry. If you're going to call me an idiot, at least you have the courtesy of identifying yourself.

It is interesting to me, though, how people can repeatedly say of Derek Bok—as they did in my research for the piece on him I did for the new issue of 02138—"well, he just looks so presidential." His appearance obviously has an impact. You can't tell me that there aren't quite a lot of people who like the way Bok looks, and (certainly in the past) liked the fact that Harvard was represented by such a fine-looking fellow. He just plain looked like the right man for the job.

And yet, the suggestion that it might work the other way—that a geeky presentation, or hypothetically an unattractive appearance, might be a presidential liability—is greeted with skepticism and sometimes outright derision. This despite the fact that so many people on campus thought less of Larry Summers because of his untucked shirts, his pizza stains, his table manners, and so on.

Now, leadership ability is obviously composed of many different factors in varying degrees, and appearance or image is just one such factor.

But the idea that appearnance isn't a factor at all—that it is unconnected to the art of public persuasion, and that the art of public persuasion is unconnected to leadership—is simply a denial of reality.
 

Didn't mean to actually call you an idiot, R., but I guess that may be the inference from my post, so I certainly retract that. But evidence available in Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, e.g., together with the fact, e.g., that we have a disastrous (US) president who was brought forward for superficial reasons of the worst sort (including appearance) encourage one to hope the Harvard Corporation might not succumb to such considerations.
 

Didn't mean to actually call you an idiot, R., but I guess that may be the inference from my post, so I certainly retract that. But evidence available in Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, e.g., together with the fact, e.g., that we have a disastrous (US) president who was brought forward for superficial reasons of the worst sort (including appearance) encourage one to hope the Harvard Corporation might not succumb to such considerations.
 

Former geek David Oxtoby takes the lead!
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516621

http://poll.icommons.harvard.edu/poll/taker/pollResults.jsp?view=viewSummary&poll;=1-5463-24640
 

Well 10:04 if Hyman was the Brutus of the tragedy what does this say about his character? Would Harvard be well served removing a lyar to place a traitor in his stead?
 

Apparently some Harvard Professors may find it quite acceptable to have a Provost who contributed to oust his President move up. See Professor Thomas' post above...

Not sure what this says about their character.
 

9:23, I understand and respect the strength of your feelings about this, but can't there be an honest difference of opinion about this rather than a judgment about the quality of someone's character?
 

During the first four and a half of the last six years there was never any ambiguity regarding Hyman's complete support and participation in Summers' decisions.

Bill Kirby is an exemplar of what it means to take distance, with full knowledge that doing so would cost him the Deanship. Remember 'Bill, let's all walk together. Shall we?' on the way to that infamous faculty meeting.

It was only in the last few months of Summers' presidency that Hyman sought to distance himself. Once it was clear that Summers days were counted and that the Corporation had discussed asking him to step down.

Even then Hyman distanced himself prudently, always in small groups, sotto vocce. Never taking a public stance where he made it clear that he had different views on any of the numerous blunders of Summers. He knew why he had to do this. It would be all too easy for anyone who knew the record on his participation in this terrible Presidency to set it straight.
 

To anon 9:23, who has no character at all since s/he is anon: I never made any secret of the fact that I thought it right for Pres. Summers to resign, so have no problem with any provost, dean, dept. chair who might have come to feel the same. But I think anon 10:24 in fact has it right on the Provost Hyman's loyalty and participation. I don't have a horse in this race, btw, just the best leader, whatever he or she looks like.
 

Why are some bloggers to opposed to having a Nobel laureate lead Harvard? Perhaps it would restore the reputation of the place to have a true scholar, rather than a bureaucrat, lead it.

Thomas Cech is clearly a talented man. Not clear why he would leave his Institute to take on the helms of messy Harvard.

As to his looks? which of the other contenders is a pretty face? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It may be that, in addition to looking carefully at true intellectual accomplishment and leadership qualities, it would be helpful to look carefully at the character of the candidates. Getting a President of sound judgement and good character may help.
 

These are intangible qualities. How do you define, let alone assess, good character?
 

How about strong interpersonal skills, a clear record of truth telling, honesty, patience, ability to listen.

What's happened at Harvard that these simple qualities are not self-evidently traits of good character? Isn't it the case that the recent failures were more character failures than failures of the intellect?
 

They were both intellectual and moral failures.
 

You sure not beauty failures?
 

No, not beauty (how pretty was Rudenstine?), rather intellectual, ethical, temperamental.
 

There is much beauty in virtue. This is why Bok and Rudenstine are beautiful, because they are honest and wise, and they don't play the kind of games that have corrupted Washington. Of course it helps that they are also pretty smart.
 

Waste no time arguing what a good man should be. Be one. - Marcus Aurelius

Courage - not complacency - is our need today. Leadership not salesmanship. - John F. Kennedy

Compiled by the Santa Clara University and the Tom Peters Group:
• Honesty - Display sincerity, integrity, and candor in all your actions. Deceptive behavior will not inspire trust.
• Competent - Your actions should be based on reason and moral principles. Do not make decisions based on childlike emotional desires or feelings.
• Forward-looking Set goals and have a vision of the future. The vision must be owned throughout the organization. Effective leaders envision what they want and how to get it. They habitually pick priorities stemming from their basic values.
• Inspiring - Display confidence in all that you do. By showing endurance in mental, physical, and spiritual stamina, you will inspire others to reach for new heights. Take charge when necessary.
• Intelligent - Read, study, and seek challenging assignments.
• Fair-minded - Show fair treatment to all people. Prejudice is the enemy of justice. Display empathy by being sensitive to the feelings, values, interests, and well-being of others.
• Broad-minded - Seek out diversity.
• Courageous - Have the perseverance to accomplish a goal, regardless of the seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Display a confident calmness when under stress.
• Straightforward - Use sound judgment to make a good decisions at the right time.
• Imaginative - Make timely and appropriate changes in your thinking, plans, and methods. Show creativity by thinking of new and better goals, ideas, and solutions to problems. Be innovative!
 

A large number of the traits mentioned above are character traits.

How do the various contendors for Harvard's Presidency fare and compare on a leadership/character scorecard?
 

4:15pm - What a load of crap. I love the first Tom Peters-inspired motto: "Display sincerity....." Display! Well, doesn't that about sum up the last 20 years or so.

The John Kennedy quote was nice too. There's a guy who was all about substance -- no flaunting of beauty for him!