Undergraduate Council (UC) President Ryan A. Petersen ’08 accused the University of hindering a range of reforms to the academic calendar, the curriculum, and student life. At a UC meeting last night, he warned that if the administration did not address the council’s complaints, outlined in a lengthy “Declaration of Grievances,” a sit-in was a “viable option.”

These are the same students who were unable to ever challenge Larry Summers... but they have the course to threaten with a sit-in during the last month of the Presidency of Derek Bok, a man who disrupted his retirement to avoid Harvard further embarassments from the disgraceful Presidency of Summers...

Harvard students are indeed smart, courageous and visionary. They have a bright future ahead of them as leaders of the Enrons of the future.
 

President Faust should appoint an investigative committee to look into how Harvard handled the US Government Inquiry regarding the Russian scandal.

The commitee could include Jack Meyer, Bill Kirby and Jeffrey Sachs... the committee should look in particular at the formal or informal role the President of Harvard played in the investigation.
 

Enough, please, about Summers and Shleifer, or I'm going to start deleting these posts. They are so random and off-topic that they aren't constructive and they waste everyone's time.
 

"random"? "not constructive"? Richard, that's an apt description of not only the Summers/Shleifer posts, but also this post of yours about the locution "Crimson editor." Deeply silly and trivial PLUS it manages to miss the point that these arrests -- at a talk on civil liberties -- sound like a bad over reaction by HUPD. What evidence do you have for your odd assertion that the protestors were "impinging on the free speech" of the speaker?? Or are protests of any kind now too much for your delicate sensibilities?
 

Nice logical reach there—because I'm against protests by newspaper editors, now I'm opposed to protests of any kind. How does that follow, exactly?

As I understand it, the students were shouting while Mueller was trying to talk. That's impinging on free speech.

I saw a similar protest at the Kennedy School against then RNC chair Ken Mehlman. Soon as he took the podium, students from various balconies started shouting him down. There are better ways to get your point across.
 

Also, you do realize that you're accusing a person of being opposed to protest...by commenting anonymously on the blog that he runs?

I think what most disturbs me about your comment is the suggestion that pointing out the impropriety of newspaper editors shouting down a speaker is "deeply silly and trivial." It's not. It goes to the essence of the principles of journalism as well as one's appreciation of the First Amendment.

You know what's deeply silly and trivial? Shouting about the unconstitutional repression of the environment—in other words, tramping on one constitutional right in order to shout about one that doesn't actually exist.
 

Are there efforts underway to derail Drew Faust Presidency?

The following e-mail was circulated to undergraduates over the weekend. How many similar mobilization efforts took place under Larry's Presidency? Of course, it bears pointing out that all current Harvard students were admitted under Larry, so presumably they reflect the vision and values to the extent he was able to impose those on admissions.

=================
Dear friends,

This is a plea from the bottom of my heart. The world's largest chemical disaster took place in Bhopal 22 years ago when a factory now belonging to Dow Chemicals blew up because of improper adherence to safety standards,
and this disaster has already claimed 22,000 lives, including those of my family members. THE CONTAMINATED SITE HAS STILL NOT BEEN CLEANED and
claims more lives each month.

www.petitiononline.com

Harvard VOTES on its position on a resolution coming up before Dow Co.'s shareholders on MONDAY, and we have a petition urging them Harvard's Advisory Committee to vote yes. Do sign if you haven't and please please forward this to your house lists, personally forward to friends. We don't
have much time and signatures have been accumulating very slowly...

10-15 people still die each month in Bhopal India the site of the world's worst industrial disaster. Amnesty International estimates about 22,000 people have died since the 1984 catastrophic gas leak at a Union Carbide
Chemical factory, yet Carbide and its current owner Dow have never shown up in criminal court or cleaned up the toxic site. Shareholder resolutions are
among the most effective ways to bring the plight of the disaster survivors to the company's attention.

PETITION TEXT
www.petitiononline.com

To: Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility & Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility

We the undersigned feel strongly that the Dow Chemical's inaction vis a vis the Bhopal survivors is morally reprehensible, and in addition is against the ethical and financial interests of Harvard Corporation. For the following reasons, we urge you to vote Harvard's shares in Dow in favor of
the Bhopal resolution.

1) The 1984 Bhopal Chemical Disaster was the worst industrial disaster in history, 22,000 people are dead and more than 100,000 are permanently injured from a catastrophic gas leak at a badly designed Union Carbide
plant.

2) Despite ongoing deaths of an estimated 10-15 people each month, Dow Chemical refuses to face its responsibilities and liabilities for Bhopal. Dow is working to find extra-legal ways to avoid liability in an Indian
clean up case dealing with poisoned water affecting 20,000 people due to toxic leakage from the abandoned plant site, and a parallel case in the US.
(see UK Guardian article) Dow also refuses to present Union Carbide to face criminal trial for manslaughter in India, giving justice to those who lost
their families.

3) It is in Harvard's financial interest to vote in favor of the Bhopal Shareholder resolution. As of last fall, Harvard owned 131,408 shares of Dow
with a market value of 5.3 million. On January 8th, Chemical and Engineering
News reported, "Fearful of Bhopal-related asset claims, Dow has not invested in new plants in India since acquiring Carbide in 2001." Avoiding the Bhopal
issue has become a block to accessing to one of the most important markets in the world.

4) In addition, Dow has consistently mislead shareholders on the subject of
liabilities in Bhopal. In its 2007 response to the Bhopal proxy, Dow states "UCC has resolved its civil liabilities arising out of the incident...The
Dow Chemical Company has consistently stated its position that it has no
liability in this matter." This carefully avoids the topic of the ongoing criminal trial in India for which Dow harboring an absconder (UCC), and the
2 ongoing civil cases for clean up of the site. Dow must be required to address this issue honestly, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because a company that fails to disclose such important issues to
shareholders is an investment risk.

Sincerely,

www.PetitionOnline.com

See Amnesty Int'ls report on Bhopal at:
web.amnesty.org/pages/ec-bhopal-eng
 

Would it be surprising if there were efforts underway to challenge Bok and Faust by arranging a sit- in in the President's office? reminiscent of 1968 and of the sit in that took place when Neil left office? Kind of a message to the Corporation and bigger donors that they made a mistake?

Who organized the students who went to cheer Larry in the Yard on the day when he announced his resignation?


You can just see the contrasting photos in the media, Harvard students cheering Larry and Harvard students in a sit-in for Neil, Derek and Drew...

Washington politics at Harvard are nasty indeed. You were right Larry the world is a shitty place.
 

—Would it be surprising if there were efforts underway to challenge Bok and Faust by arranging a sit- in in the President's office? —

Oh, for God's sake, this is absurd. Stop being paranoid.
 

Richard,

I think what 9.19 is referring to as "silly and absurd" isn't your (just) concern with free speech and its being trampled or not, but your fixing on the peculiar (if traditional) phrase "Crimson editor." This is a good place to point out that unlike journalists elsewhere, "Crimson editors" are students with other activities in their portfolios--sometimes The Crimson is the least of them. Ryan Petersen's opponent in the last elections was a "Crimson editor"--was that inappropriate, by your lights?
 

My problem here is one I've stated before: The Crimson wants to be treated like professionals—except when it doesn't.

So, yes, I think it'd be problematic for a Crimson editor to run for student government.

I also think it's classic resume'-building (sorry) for a Harvard undergrad, given the requirements of the Crimson, to feel that he/she also needs to hold a position in student gov't. (Could you possibly do both well and actually study from time to time and have a life besides?)

But that's a separate issue.
 

PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE OF VENUE

Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
2006-2007 Voices of Public Intellectuals Lecture

Women at the Top:
The Changing Face of the Ivies

will be held at

American Repertory Theatre
Loeb Drama Center
64 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

Wednesday, May 2, 2024
4:00 PM

For more information, please visit www.radcliffe.edu or call 617-495-8600
 

Richard, I think this convention is well-understood on the Harvard campus. People arrive as freshman and are confronted with a ton of extra-curricular options, so they try everything. But if they only do the Crimson their first year and then drop it in favor of other activities, they are still referred to through-out their time at Harvard as a Crimson editor.

I would think that you'd be in favor of that kind of transparency, but apparently you believe that it would be better not to mention at all that such a person was ever involved with the Crimson. You should also note that they are referred to as a Crimson editor almost no matter what part of the newspaper they were involved with -- arts reviews, photography, design, etc.

So, do you really think that, for example, someone who wrote a few music reviews their freshman year should be discouraged from being involved in political protests as a senior? That IS deeply silly.

Also, you've still produced no evidence that the protestors were trying to "shout down" the speaker. I wasn't there, but according to the article, it seems like they were going to make their point and then let the speaker continue. How that violates the speaker's "free speech" is totally beyond me.
 

If they do the Crimson for their freshman year, they're still referred to as a Crimson editor? That's absurd, and creates just the kind of situation I'm writing about. Plus, how can you even be an editor when you're a freshman?

Ombudsman, we need you.

Obviously, no, I don't think that someone who wrote music reviews should be banned from political protests, and if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see I never said that. I said that people who want to be involved in political protest shouldn't be affiliated with the Crimson.

And here is a line that would make George Orwell take note:

"I wasn't there, but according to the article, it seems like they were going to make their point and then let the speaker continue. How that violates the speaker's "free speech" is totally beyond me."

Love the way you put "free speech" in quotation marks.

At what point, do you think, would they have been gracious enough to let the speaker continue? I mean, I know you weren't there, but....
 

For someone so vehement with their criticism, you're awfully ignorant. YES, if they do the Crimson for their freshman year, they're still referred to as a Crimson editor. And you don't even need to be an editor; you just need to be a writer, photographer, etc. Anyone who sticks with the Crimson for a semester, in pretty much *any* capacity, gets to be called a Crimson *editor* for the rest of their Harvard career. Why that is, I couldn't say, but you've seriously misunderstood the Crimson if you didn't know that.

As for putting free speech in quotes, I did that because I was quoting your comment of 9:26am, not because I don't believe in free speech.

And as for when the protestors would have been "gracious" enough to let the speaker continue, as you sneeringly put it (yes, I'm quoting you again, and not because I don't believe in graciousness), I suspect it would have been they were warned to stop, as the article makes it clear they were prepared to leave when the cops asked them. Their complaint -- and the basis of the whole article -- is that they were never asked to stop, but simply arrested.

It seems pretty simple to me. You're assuming this is some kind of Columbia/Minuteman situation without any evidence at all that that's the case.
 

The Crimson should refer to "former staff writer" or whatever. Otherwise it devalues the title "Editor" for those who really spend time being an editor.

The Crimson makes errors, but to their credit, I don't remember one quite as blatant as this, which ran in a different student newspaper today as a correction:

"In a news story Thursday ("A mix of work and personal lives for married profs.," page 3), it was incorrectly stated due to a reporting error that English professor Maurice Lee is married to English professor Susan Mizruchi. Lee is actually married to Marisa Milanese, a lecturer in the CAS Writing Program."

How about that for likely producing a "former staff writer"?
 

Anon 1:24,
I don't think I'm vehement in my criticism, just firm. To me, and I would think to most journalists, this really isn't a tough call.

But you're right, I don't know all the Crimson policies, and I didn't realize that one is as broad as it is. Anyone who sticks with the Crimson for a semester is editor for the rest of his/her time at Harvard? (I hate the word "career" in this context.)

It's a little bizarre to call people editors when they (writers, photographers) don't actually edit, isn't it?

I'd be curious to hear someone who knows more about how the Crimson works than I do explain the logic of this policy.

I gather from the article that Harvard regulations stipulate that the protesters should have been warned, and if they weren't, well, then, they should have been. Nonetheless, they've still interrupted a speaker and impinged on his right to free speach; I don't know if you've ever had such an incident happen to you while you're speaking, but it is unnerving and can put a chill on your ability to say what you want. It's violent and threatening to interrupt a speech and start shouting at someone.

Re Columbia: You may me making an assumption, but I wasn't making an implication. As I...well, as I actually *said*--this sounded analogous to the protest against Ken Mehlman. If I wanted to say something about Columbia, I would have.
 

And, whoops, make that "free speech," not "speach."
 

And yet another typo: "You may *be* making an assumption..."
 

Richard: Of course you're right that the Crimson ought to have been more specific about the arrested students' roles at the newspaper. But I'd say that even if they are former staffers, the Crimson should note that. Clearly their policy on identifying "Crimson editors" was created in the name of transparency. I guess you agree.

All that said, why didn't you do your own reporting on this? In the Globe story on the arrests, the Crimson's president is quoted saying that the arrested students haven't been involved with the paper for over a year. And a little Googling reveals quickly that Mr. Gould-Wartofsky used to write a column for the Crimson (where, incidentally, he espoused views that should make this latest incident no surprise). In fact, Mr. Gould-Wartofsky has been an activist at Harvard for quite some time. His involvement with the Crimson has been purely on the opinion side. As for Ms. Provost, she seems to have written news articles for the Crimson but only long ago. So what's the problem? The Crimson should have detailed all this, but I don't see how you justify calling them "unprofessional and inappropriate" newspaper folks when they're not newspaper folks!

Finally, you say the Crimson wants to be treated like a professionl paper unless it doesn't. Where do you get that from? I'm not on the Crimson; I'm an assistant professor. Yet I'm defending them from your unfair attack. If I didn't reveal my affiliation, you'd just assume I'm on the Crimson....
 

In your Mehlman comment at 9:26am, you say,"There are better ways to get your point across." Could you please share a few? I'm sure that the protestors would be interested in any advice on how to make their points more effectively.

(I'm assuming, of course, that the protestors had some interest in being effective. That may be a much too generous assumption if they really were just shouting about McCarthyism, which is bizarre -- more like behavior I'd expect from an aging hippie than from a 21st century undergraduate. But let's grant that they actually wanted to get some point across...)
 

—But I'd say that even if they are former staffers, the Crimson should note that. Clearly their policy on identifying "Crimson editors" was created in the name of transparency. I guess you agree.—

One hundred percent. I'm not saying the Crimson shouldn't have identified them; absolutely, it should have. I'm saying that the Crimson should not let its "editors," however titular that term may be, engage in political protest.
 

—In your Mehlman comment at 9:26am, you say,"There are better ways to get your point across." Could you please share a few? I'm sure that the protestors would be interested in any advice on how to make their points more effectively.—

Sure.

I start from the premise that shouting down others while they're speaking is actually counter-productive; it discredits the protester and taints his message.

That said, anything that is an exercise in free speech rather than an abridgement of it—a picket line, an editorial, a counter-forum—is inherently a better way to make one's point.
 

Anon 1:59:

Columnists are columnists, and everyone knows they're there to express opinions. No problem there.

"Editors," however, shape news coverage behind the scenes, assign stories, and edit stories. That is a different mission than that of the columnist, and what is why they have—or should have—different names.

The Crimson policy creates unnecessary confusion, not to mention damaging the paper's credibility, and should be done away with.
 

Is the Crimson a Through the Looking Glass newspaper?? The Crimson says someone "is also a Crimson editorial editor" and someone else "is also a Crimson editor." Is there a claim here that when the Crimson writes that someone "is also a Crimson editor," that can mean that he or she once was a Crimson editor but isn't any more? And that therefore we shouldn't worry about journalistic impartiality, because "is" sometimes means "used to be"? I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. If so, we are going to have to regard every other present tense in the paper as maybe a past tense in disguise.
 

http://www.thecrimson.com/info/comp.aspx

talks about how to become a Crimson editor.

http://www.thecrimson.com/info/about.aspx

has a list of Crimson higher-ups on the right side. It seems that not all of them have the word "editor" in their titles.

Does seem that these are not too deeply buried, although I suppose that's arguable.

A quote from one of the sites:

"What happens when I finish my comp?

The Crimson holds Grand Elections at the end of the semester to elect as editors of The Crimson compers who have fulfilled all of their chosen board’s requirements. At this point, you become a full member of the organization, making you eligible to vote on staff editorial positions."

This would seem to explain, at least in part, the use of the word "editor."

I agree with the comments re: transparency.

-P.W. Emu
 

7:15 pm: Your comment might make a little bit of sense, if it weren't for the fact that The Crimson gets to decide who is or is not a "Crimson editor." The Crimson has decided that everyone who is elected a Crimson editor is a "Crimson editor" for the duration of their undergraduate career, unless specifically kicked off for some reason (which could happen). Not being active doesn't mean that someone is a "former Crimson editor," it just means they're an inactive, but current, Crimson editor. So the usage is not inaccurate and does not indicate that readers should regard other uses of present tense in the paper as inaccurate.

All this is not to say that Richard isn't correct that the use of the term "Crimson editor" in stories is outdated, especially as The Crimson's online audience is increasingly national. The Crimson really should change its policy and describe affiliations in ways that are understandable.
 

Like Humpty Dumpty, the Crimson can use a word to mean whatever it wishes. But if it uses a word to mean something different from what ordinary English speakers expect it to mean, then people will assume that those who are determining the content of their paper are also getting themselves arrested while shouting political slogans. Rich is exactly right: the editors want to be treated as professional journalists, writing editorials that should be taken seriously. Except when they don't, as when they are actually just students getting themselves arrested in protests and not implicating Crimson at all, because they are non-editing "editors" of the Crimson. They really do want it both ways if they use this term as they do.