"...and the Lampoon apparently pulled a prank. Does their prank suggest that the presidential search is becoming a bit of a joke?"

No. Richard, I agree with most of your criticisms of Summers, Harvard, and the current presidential search. But this is the sort of ridiculous comment -- too frequent of late -- that once again undermines your legitimate points.
 

Okay, I'll take the bait. Given where things stand now-either it's Drew Faust, or it's back to the drawing board—I am not impressed with the process. I am willing to admit that I could be wrong, but I need to hear a little bit more than "this is the sort of ridiculous comment" before I proffer a mea culpa. You know me—I don't have a problem admitting mistakes, but..make the case first.
 

1:08 PM: I just read about the Lampoon's prank...and based on that and everything that's gone down...I don't see where Richard's comment is ridiculous at all. This just from an interested reader following the story, who probably knows less about it all than you do...but I have to call his comments as I see them. And given this "prank"...yes, obviously it needs to end.

lmpaulsen
 

Dude, it's not that your assessment of the presidential search is wrong. It's that you always connect wildly unrelated dots. Think about it: it's the Lampoon. Do you really think that their prank had anything to do with what campus insiders think about the search? Obviously not--they wanted to get a laugh (and flip the bird at The Crimson in the process). Most people on campus--especially undergraduates (except Crimson editors), and ESPECIALLY Lampoon types--don't give a damn about who becomes the next president. It's the Lampoon, Richard. The Lampoon!

Another case in point: suggesting, as you did a while back, that the reduction in total athletic space in the new Allston plan is somehow related to Derek Bok's distaste for athletics. Again, you make good points, but when you make connections like these, you just sound retarded.
 

Not as retarded as you sound DUDE.

Let's get back to the real point here---the Lampoon aside. And that is the unbelievably bizarre role that Penn is playing shilling for Drew Faust's candidacy. She hasn't been at Penn for 6 years and dumped the place for Harvard. It is her FORMER institution. So where are all her big supporters at Harvard --her PRESENT institution - who ought to be tooting their horns about how fabulous her accomplishments are/were at Radcliffe? Unhhhh...I just answered my own question. Her accomplishments were at Radcliffe. The crossover to Harvard isn't such an easy case to make
 

So Faust is not blowing her own horn? perhaps she is less prone to do this than Larry, which does not make her less effective.

See the Crimson today for an example of how fast Larry's projects vanish in thin air.

Remember his trip to China? and how he alienated all who helped organize it with his last minute grotesque requests for changes?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/05.16/11-china.html

Or his trip to Chile patronizing about all good Harvard students would do there?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.08/03-brazil.html

Or his wild trip to India?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/03.23/12-summers.html

Was there any lasting result from these trips and all his talk about global Harvard?

The Crimson reports that the Chile program is closing:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516796

Is this his legacy? Much ado about nothing?

Perhaps someone with a bit more modesty, as Faust, will build castles with a stronger foundation than sand or air...
 

I take your point. But the question I raised really is not about the bluster or modesty of the candidates and whether their castles are built on air, next to moats, or on wetlands. The question is about the role the University of Pennsylvania is playing in touting her candidacy--and I mean OFFICIALS at Penn. What is up with this? And why not a similar tidal wave of praise from her supporters inside Harvard--her own demeanor (modest or whatever) aside?
 

perhpas they like and respect her-are people at harvard capable of liking and respecting one of their own? didn't think so.

so boys and girls, what is really at stake with this appointment? is it change, it is status quo, is it 'the vision' thing, is it even improving the product? i bet it is just a continuation of the school yard brawl we have all had to endure as unbecoming as it is.

so what happens next.....?
 

You know, this is an excellent point about there being no vocal Harvard supporters for Drew, and I suppose it's a bad sign that I never really thought about how unusual this is until now--because unfortunately, that seemed normal. And I would not be surprised, given the Cech exodus, if Hyman climbs to the top because of Allston. Neither Drew nor Hyman would be a bad choice in my opinion.
 

Hyman would be an excellent choice to provide continuity to all that he started and accomplished with Larry, in substance and style... In fact, even better, why not reappoint Larry?
 

Remember this well, Allston is not just about internal Harvard politics. It involves many other constituences.

Does Hyman bring LHS baggage and/or could there be an argument that he will never be able to cut his own deal with the "other political entities"-will he be taken seriously or seen as the forever understudy. Faust may be the breath of fresh air that a new adminstration may want to deal with for development and environmental permits and approvals. To those of you who dont understand, you cannot get real estate projects done in this town without the legislature and the city (Boston)on your side.

Didnt LHS' regime reject Dan O'Connell whose agencies signs off on the project in favor of a guy from the airport? Wasnt Hyman part of that decision? Maybe that relationship is more important than the relationship with Boston since all that has to happen there is to write really big checks.

Faust can say she wasnt part of those original negotiations and realign the goalposts in H's favor.

Who brigns a stronger hand-I ask you. Remember, bring facts not just what you want to happen.

Perhaps the outside world doesnt care who runs H and will just hope H continues to stumble because it shows weakness and in this world that translates to greater tribute paid from the endowment (at the expense of the inside politics) whether fair or unfair.

Some may see this as harsh. Others prefer to deal in reality. The question is how much will it cost the university. Or, H could just hire Theo Epstein because everyone in this town loves the Red Sox.
 

I think the lack of strong comment in favor of Faust inside Harvard speaks to the temerity of the faculty--they are afraid of future recriminations if Faust is not chosen (and apparently the inside betting is that it is at best a 50-50 proposition). Meanwhile, those at Penn are safe to speak their minds...
 

8:30

Wise words!

Thank you.
 

As the first commenter on this thread, let me take a stab at bringing this all together to bolster my original point. Apologies in advance.

Another commenter explained it best when s/he said, "It's the Lampoon, Richard. The Lampoon!" To take an undergraduate prank as evidence that the search has been botched or needs to end soon is, as I put it, ridiculous. It may very well be a disastrous search, but the campus humor magazine is hardly an indication.

Shaky evidence is a common theme on this blog and among the commenters on this thread, especially when it comes to the presidential search. Okay, okay, I get it: Faust is inexperienced; Hyman is Summers' lackey; and Kagan is a Washington insider. It's such drivel.
 

I could understand fearing recriminations if you were tempted to speak out against a candidate, but to let that prevent you from speaking for someone is true cowardice--yet I do not doubt this is still the case. Perhaps Lewis should have called his book "Tenure Without a Backbone."
 

9:44, you're obviously correct. A little too correct and that's the problem. The prank means nothing in reality and that's probably why Richard put it at the end, I hardly saw it as a central tenet of the argument he's been making for a few weeks--that nothing about the secret search and the many drop-outs does anything to inspire confidence. So your bold debunking of Richard's Lampoon...er...theory is actually the "shaky" drivel here. Try to keep up, dear boy.
 

I think 7:12 has it right. If we are down to Drew Faust and Steve Hyman, either would do a fine job, and I mean a fine job, and I think either would find strong support from faculty, alumni, Boston politicians, and everyone else. If there is someone else out there who could do a better job, it is the job of the Search Committee to identify that person, but they needn't and shouldn't in my view feel they HAVE to come up with someone as yet unidentified or unscrutinized. If they were headed for Cech, then his withdrawal was obviously unfortunate in its timing. That is how I read Peter Gomes' good article (whatever the point of the Radcliffe joke). Don't rush it, but also don't feel the need to be innovative and "interesting", which could in fact lead to an unconsidered and less good outcome.

By now the Search Committee, if it is functioning as I trust it is in a more honest and collaborative way than it did in 2000-1, has largely done its work.

By the way, the leakers of the search deliberations, if they are actually leaking hard information, are as despicable and worthy of being ignored as the leakers we saw around the FAS last year. Don't you love the explanation "X insisted on anonymity because the proceedings are supposed to be confidential"!! So, we can hope that in consultation with the Overseers the Committee and the Corporation should now be close to getting us to a more than decent outcome. Then we'll all get back to the work that needs to be done -- as has already started to happen under our excellent interims.

Richard Thomas
 

9:44, thank you...well said.
 

I made a mistake. I meant 10:02 PM, not 9:44 PM, had something sensible and civil to say. You will have to pardon me, I was connecting "wildly unrelated dots". Thank you, 10:02 PM
 

Richard Thomas, again (and again), the level-headed voice of reason. Either would indeed be a fine choice.
 

Richard Thomas for President!
 

At the very least Richard Tomas for Provost...
 

Thanks. Clearly it's one of the great positions in academic leadership in the United States. But I already have a great job.
 

Peter Gomes for President, Richard Thomas for Provost and Richard Bradley for Secretary of the Corporation... That's a winning team!