He should be offered it and he should take it.


The Bernanke pick suggests that Bush is not intrinsically incapable of making a good appointment. Literally all the other evidence, though, in the form of probably tens of thousands of decisions, points in the other direction.

Maybe the expert-economist community should engage in a massive campaign of reverse psychology to get Summers appointed: "Oh God, Mars Bush, don't appoint that Summers guy! He thinks women are dumb! Don't throw us into that briar patch! He's way too conservative for us. Please, Mars Bush, please, the community of experts is begging you not to do this! He'll undermine every principle of empirical inquiry!"

If you put it in that form it might force Bush's hand. He'll have no choice but to show his anti-intellectual cojones yet again, and defy the received wisdom of the academic elites that Summers is unfit to serve.

How about it, Brad DeLong? Can we get Bush to take some anti-marching orders from the eggheads?

Standing Eagle
 

Come on, Richard -- Kamen is joking...Notice the juxtaposition of Summers and the deposed Smithsonian head. To say that Kamen "floats" Summers' name is to say that you didn't read the whole sentence....

"Perhaps one of the Larrys? Larry Small, who used to be head of the Smithsonian until he was pushed out over his lavish expenditures, or Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary bounced recently as president of Harvard after clashes with faculty and some remarks about women, might be available."
 

As someone who has read Kamen's column for, oh, 15 years, I can tell you, that's his way...and joke or no, in Washington, it still puts Summers out there. Small, obviously not, but they are different animals.
 

Harvard would be forever in the debt of the World Bank if Larry Summers left to become WB President...
 

What do the two Larrys have in common?
Both owe their appointments to Hanna Holborn Gray.
Did you know that, Richard?
 

In fact, I did—though not until a few weeks ago. What do you make of that?
 

Ok, let's be realistic here. Wolfowitz is possibly going to resign over a small scandal and then the WB is going to hire a guy (Summers) who is famous for creating big scandals. I don't think so. In any case, the WB is never going to forget that toxic waste memo.
 

Richard--Did you somehow forget that Larry was chief economist of the World Bank?

Also, not sure about draconian policies under Summers and Rubin. They are credited with using the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out countries -- against strong opposition on Capitol Hill from the likes of D'Amato. Among these countries were Mexico and South Korea. Greenspan was more an advocate of forcing tight money policies on counties than either Summers or Rubin. Many credit them with preventing a bigger global economic crisis.

Wolfy's salary is $302,470, probably about what Larry makes as a university professor. It would be a pay cut because he would have to leave D.E. Shaw, but certainly it pays very well and Larry has plenty of money as it is. He also doesn't seem that motivated by money -- he has never held a corporate job until D.E. Shaw, and that's not even full time. That IS admirable for someone of Larry's intellect. Compare that to, say, Bob Rubin, whose only hiatus from making tens of million per year was *five* years in D.C.

Finally, on Larry's viability, consider that he is a moderate Democrat (that is, one amenable to Republicans, including George Bush) and that appointing him would probably be a nice olive branch to Democrats, especially since Bush would not have to back down on any of his priorities/positions in extending it. Also consider who Bush would probably take advice from in making the decision: Paulson, Bernanke, hell, maybe even Mankiw and Hubbard. They are all thoughtful, serious economists (Paulson is a financier, yes) who would -- without a doubt -- sing Larry's praises if asked for advice.
 

Seriously, the only problem with this idea is that it's a good one. Bush hates hiring people who are qualified: he thinks an appointment is an opportunity for killing two birds with one stone, and he therefore feels obliged to ignore the bird in question and go kill a different bird, or a turtle, or a puppy, with that stone, to show his independent-mindedness.

Then he pulverizes the stone and throws it into acid, dilutes the brew, and serves the result to orphans -- after reading them the classic folktale "Stone Soup" in a carefully designed photo op. The front page of the White House website for weeks after is a wincing orphan with a stomachache forcing a smile as she pets and coos to an orphaned turtle hatchling that is become her only friend. Both will lead stunted, loveless existences and join al-Qaeda at the age of nineteen (the turtle then going on to live in Tora Bora to the age of 210).


Where was I? Oh yes:
Go, Larry, go! Be an economist again.

Standing Eagle
 

Further specificity about the World Bank issue, after a shower:

In the case of the World Bank appointment, the White-House-website orphan in question is of course a resident of the Third World, and endowed with enormous natural gifts of analytic skill, grit, and determination -- which in combination enable her to become the sole dark-skinned survivor of the acid-soup photo op.

Properly nourished under a competently administered international regime of economic development, she would have gone on to great things, and under the cultural programme of gender equity in education instituted by statistically gifted former Harvard President Larry Summers (leader of the newly christened World Bank for Fair Intellectual Opportunity) -- in any of several alternate universes in which Teresa LePore is competent, Ken Blackwell has a vestigial conscience, or G.H.W. Bush beat the shit out of his grown son W whenever he deserved it, and forced him into rehab repeatedly from age 19 until he learned that adult choices have consequences -- she would go on with her faithful turtle sidekick Happy Junior to perfect a satellite network of global coverage poised on a hair trigger to bombard any rapidly blooming nuclear reaction with pods of cesium. In the future in that world, all weapons are conventional weapons.

In this one, of course, without a qualified technocrat at the head of the World Bank, and with W having ventured out one fine morning with Wolfowitz's resignation in hand to crush the head of Happy Senior, and appoint Monica Goodling to run the World Bank, the orphan becomes al-Qaeda's chief scientific officer. Disfigured inside and out, her voice transformed by the powerful purging agents she administered to herself during W's visit, she delights in the anonymity afforded her by the burqa. Stroking her pet tortoise Maniacal Cackle, she devises for Uzbekistan the most powerful civil-defense system in the world. Its terrorist training camps are state of the art. She carries a small stone in her mouth at all times, and eats only cubes of beef bouillon.

If only our world were even a tiny bit closer to the first one than to the cartoon of evil. But the cartoon rings true these days.

Bush is really just THAT BAD a President.

Standing Eagle
 

If only the World Bank would take LS...

Everyone here seems to forget that LS has already tried once to get the World Bank job and he failed that time. He's not likely to succeed now with a more tarnished record.

A better job for LS would be an organization with less public image sensitivity. Some foundation financed by proceeds from insider trading?
 

A few minor problems with Summers "candidacy" for head of World Bank:

- As an employee, he might be able to fool his boss, but as a boss he can't fool employess who can be fired: ask almost anyone who served as an administrative dean under him. Similarly, many on Wall Street know the real reason all Harvard's endowment managers resigned.

- The threat that the financial malfeasance of the President and Fellows of Harvard University would start to come out publicly was a significant factor in his being fired when he was rather than even only a few days later. Example: Summers (aided by Hyman) represented to the Corporation funding for the Broad Institute as Harvard being given $200 million, while the reality was that Harvard was promising to give between $200 and $300 million. There are other issues of misrepresentation to the Corporation that Jeremy Knowles characterized as "well beyond egregious lying" and when asked whether the implication was that egregious lying was the normal modus operandi, JRK responded "yes".
In addition, some large promised -- or perhaps not even that -- donations to Harvard for 20005 were counted and double counted in ways that disturbed the devolopment office and faculty involved.

On earlier prospects:
Many who knew him thought that the only job Summers would voluntarily leave Harvard for was head of the Federal Reseve. As it was thought to be a real possibility John Kerrry would appoint him if elected president, there were discussions among faculty of this being an extra reason to hope for Kerry's election --- along with comments along the lines of EM Forster's "if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my [university] , I hope I should have the guts to betray my country"
 

Of course anon 11:48 can hide behind a cloak of anonymity, but even so, stating that the "The threat that the financial malfeasance of the President and Fellows of Harvard University..." are very harsh words indeed. That's more than insulting to friends of mine who are Corporation members and more than insulting to Larry and Steve (who are also friends of mine). It borders on the libelous.
In thinking about who would be so accusatory, it seems to me that the person who would know all the facts presented (as well as refer to Jeremy as JRK) is probably an unhappy soul in the development office. If I'm correct, it is unfortunate that he continues to work there and represent the university. What a shame.
Sam Spektor
 

To the anonymous poster: This is serious stuff indeed. One question springs to mind: In what context did Jeremy Knowles allegedly make these remarks?

Sam, I can't tell whether you think there is any fire in this smoke.
 

Dear Richard,
I do not usually write, and I do not know who 11:48 is. However, I do know that he or she is very well informed. I would not have offered the information myself can confirm that it is true. In the U.S. truth is an adequate defense against an accusation of libel.
 

I am not a regular contributor either, but I have to say that I wish 11.48 had not posted this comment. It does not do the institution any good. But now that it is out there, it should be corrected. Unfortunately, it is only partly mistaken. The implication that the Corporation is responsible for the malfeasance is unfair. They did finally act when they saw the full extent of the problem. The basic truth in the post is that Summers was fired as much if not more for financial and integrity problems quite separate from the faculty than for anything to do with his style and impolitic statements.
 

Let me ask something about this sentence:

—Example: Summers (aided by Hyman) represented to the Corporation funding for the Broad Institute as Harvard being given $200 million, while the reality was that Harvard was promising to give between $200 and $300 million.—

In other words, poster, you're saying that Summers told the Corporation that Harvard was receiving a $200 million gift to fund the Broad Institute...but was actually spending $200-$300 million of Harvard's money on it? A difference of $400-$500 million?
 

Sam, if you're such good friends with the Corporation, why not ask them:

Why didn't they intervene when Summers was driving Jack Meyer out with his second guessing? They are supposed to protect Harvard's financial interests. Summers' behavior was the talk of Wall Street.

Why don't they look into the Summers-Hyman spinning of gifts and into Center finances generally? It's not too late and they could hire a good outside person like someone who has worked for the SEC or Justice on accounting fraud. We thought Derek Bok might investigate, but it turns out that he's so tired that he turns over most financial work to Hyman.

The corporation has its head in the sand.
 

I think what 11:48 meant was that Harvard accepted a liability of 200-300 M along with the Broad gift. So the difference is 200-300 M, not 400-500 M. Harvard got 200 and signed away 200-300.
 

If 2:54 is right and the Corporation does know, then why is Hyman still around? Curious in Cambridge
 

Forgive me; I am being thick. Harvard "accepted a liability"? Meaning that the university had to pledge to commit $200-$300 million to fund the institute?
 

Right, Richard, Harvard had to pledge 200-300 M to fund Broad.
 

Well, that's a substantial chunk of change. And from what part of the endowment were those monies to come?
 

Sorry, Richard, cannot explain and stay anonymous. Try asking someone like Ann Berman, another top financial person who left Harvard rather than continue to work for Summers. She has no incentive to explain but she has no job to lose either.
 

Feel free to e-mail, Anon.
 

Oh, and Anon, I can tell you that I wrote a similar sentence about Ann Berman some months ago, and was pretty soundly lambasted by Sam Spektor, who is her husband. Sam's points: His wife had always planned to leave Harvard after a short period, and she liked working for Larry.

Now, of course, that does not contest your point that she would be an interesting contributor to this discussion.
 

Broad Institute was one example but many similar. LS would accept small gift in exchange for commitment to gift giver's favorite proj. Proj would go ahead even though development office had no time to line up additional givers. In some cases, the proj was so weak that additional givers never materialize. Harvard is left paying for most of a proj it would not have done except for the initial gift.
 

Richard,
It is really interesting to see so much incorrect information posted by people who claim to know the facts. Here we have anon 2:31 saying “I do not usually write, and I do not know who 11:48 is. However, I do know that he or she is very well informed.” Unfortunately, neither 2:31 nor 11:48 is well informed, nor even perhaps informed. What they and others have said, in many instances has simply been made up in order to try to make particular points. The points have not been made because their “facts” are not the facts. It is sad to see a few professors or administrators do this. It is also sad to see that all the people (many of whom have tenure) making so many unfounded accusations, are also so unwilling to sign their names to their accusations. Don’t these people have the courage of their convictions… at least enough to sign their names?
1.Richard, you asked, do I think there is any fire in this smoke? I would doubt it, but I was willing to hear the facts and not merely (incorrect) speculations. Unfortunately the facts were few and the speculations many. I do not like to be so blunt but…
2.Anon 2:31. Neither you nor anon 11:48 know what you are talking about. You can’t confirm that he or she is well informed because you are both wrong (see # 4).
3.Anon 3:00. I didn’t say I was good friends with The Corporation. You said, however, “Summers’ behavior was the talk of Wall Street.” That’s very strange, because coming from “The Street,” I didn’t hear anything from my friends who are Harvard alums, about Jack Meyer being driven out by Larry’s second guessing. Furthermore, you simply do not know what you are talking about because what you implied, is not the way in which HMC operated. Jack Meyer might not have liked it if Larry were second guessing him (and I have no idea if that were true), but I can tell you that Jack Meyer was going to invest the endowment the way he wanted it invested, subject to the parameters agreed to by the Board of HMC and Jack, and Larry be damned. I also don’t understand what you referred to when you said “Why don't they look into the Summers-Hyman spinning of gifts and into Center finances generally” and in the next sentence speak of accounting fraud. If you “want to go there” and talk of accounting fraud, why don’t you identify yourself and I’ll be happy to reply. If you don’t want to, I’ll merely say you made an accusation to the wrong person and leave it at that.
4.Anon 3:05. Neither you, nor anon 11:48 (where all this started) is correct. Are you not able to read footnotes to a financial statement or is it that you don’t want to read a financial statement to learn the facts, and instead would rather make “way off base” suppositions? Apparently both, because if you had looked, in 2006, at the Commitments and Contingencies, footnote #19, you would have seen it all spelled out for you. Absolutely nothing was hidden. Anon 11:48 said: “Summers (aided by Hyman) represented to the Corporation funding for the Broad Institute as Harvard being given $200 million, while the reality was that Harvard was promising to give between $200 and $300 million.” Why did you both decide to make up that number? If you are going to criticize, why can’t you at least be truthful with your "facts"?
5.Anon 3:15. Harvard did not “pledge 200- 300 M to fund Broad.”
6.Richard, your post is correct as far as it goes. When she took the position, my wife promised Larry that she would stay for three years; she stayed for three and a half. Unlike what anon 3:50 said “(she) left Harvard rather than continue to work for Summers” (another anon simply making up more “stuff”; why do they do this?), she very much enjoyed working with Larry. I’m sure you are right that she would be a very interesting contributor to this discussion because she has seen both the FAS and the Center over a long period of time, having worked at both places. Those who know her, however, would not be surprised to learn that she has never read this blog, has absolutely no interest in it and has not lifted a finger to help me in any way, in all the blogs that I’ve written during the past two plus years.
Sam Spektor
 

Sam,

Could you address Anon 5:19? That's an assertion that I've heard a number of times.

Richard
 

Who is Sam Spektor? I've been around a few years and don't know the name. I don't mean it rudely or dismissively--Sam is honorable in always signing his name--but I would like to know his background to judge his credentials, especially when he's so emphatic in asserting others don't know what they're talking about.
 

Richard,
The first sentence in the post of Anon 5:19 said "Broad Institute was one example but many similar."
If that part of the post and the implicit assumptions from it, and other posts, (that we are supposed to infer from it that Harvard was promising to give 200-300 million; the "Broad Institute is but one example") is incorrect, is it not fair to logically assume that any reference the blogger makes to any other project may not be correct either? With that said, in fact, I don't know about other projects, because my wife never talked to me about other projects. Perhaps what anon 5:19 said is correct, perhaps it's not. What I do know is that what was implied in the first part of the statement is false.
The only reason I know about the Broad situation is because I read the Harvard Annual Report, which is public information, from cover to cover. In fact, I read it in the same way as I used to read annual reports of corporations when I managed equity portfolios at a large New York investment firm where I was a partner. That is, I read them as I was taught to read books in Hebrew... from back to front,starting with the footnotes and winding up with the meaningless blather of the chairman. But I digress.
It would be nice if all the people who have posted on this particular topic and have claimed that Harvard committed (and thus had a liability)significant sums to the Broad (the posters said anywhere from 200-300 million)would spend a bit of time reading the footnotes (the financials are on the net and are easily retrievable; I've reviewed them again before my last post)and tell us what the real liability was? Don't be shy. Was it the 200-300 million number that everyone threw around or was it something substantially less?
It would be even nicer if the replies carried a name (why is it that Professors Thomas, Skocpol, Ryan, Goldfarb and Kelly seem to be the only ones who sign their names?).
It is really disheartening to see so many people (on this blog) at Harvard unjustly malign so many individuals and so many processes at the university, on nothing more than biased information based on anonymous sources,
speculation,innuendo, and unsubstantiated "facts." I think constructive criticism is very useful (even on a blog; I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't think this was the case), but doesn't common decency say that criticism should be fact based if you are trying to make a point? Don't people who seem to care about Harvard (enough so that they care to blog and, often have strong opinions when they do) have an obligation to be truthful?
The discussion of The Broad and the mis-information presented to support particularly points of view, is really sad.
Sam Spektor
 

Larry would have trouble getting hired for any position that involved managerial responsibility. The World Bank is a very large organization and it would be reasonable for those involved in the hiring to ask about his skills managing a large and complex organization.

His record managing Harvard is poor. A cursory look at the US News and World Report Rankings of Graduate Schools in 2001 and 2008 shows just how much things worsened at Harvard under Summers, particularly in those schools where he appointed Deans. The Business School is the only one remaining at the top of the rankins --but only in the firld of Management, not so in any of the remaining 11 specialities ranked. In Products/Operations, for example Harvard ranks 7, in NonProfit it ranks 2, in international business it ranks 7, in finance it ranks 8.

In Education, Harvard is below Teachers College and Columbia, and tied with Vanderbilt for rank 3-4, even though until last year it was at the top of these rankings and was so for over a decade.

In Engineering Harvard ranks 23, tied with University of Washington and University of Minnesota.

In Medicine Harvard ranks first.

In Law Harvard is below Yale and tied with Stanford por ranks 2-3, but is below 24 universities in the diversity of the student body in Law Schools.

In Public Affairs Harvard is second to Syracuse.

In the Sciences Harvard is below Stanford, MIT, UC Berkely and tied with Cal Tec por rank 4-5.

In Economics Harvard is behind MIT and Chicago, and tied with Princeton an Stanford for ranks 3-5.

In HIstory, Harvard is behind Yale and Princeton and UCBerkely, and tied with Stanford and Chicago por positions 4-6.

In Psychology Harvard is behid Stanford, UCBerkely, UMichigan Yale and tied with Princeton, UCLA and Illinios-Urbana for ranks 5-8.

In Sociology Harvard is Tied with UCLA for positions 8-9.

These rankings, and the dramatic decline in Harvard's position in those rankings, are reflective of very mediocre management skills. In effect, Summers turned many Harvard programs into third, fourth and fifth tier programs. He transformed the first University in the World in a second rate University.

This is not the record of someone who could ever manage anything important.

As it is clear that he can't do, he will have to stay at Harvard and teach.
 

Dear Sam Spector,
I'm assuming most of the allegations about LS et al. on this post come from non-faculty sources -- since I'm a pretty connected faculty member but find almost every factual detail or assertion on this post novel (and interesting). I too have deplored the prominence of anonymous posts on SITD, but on this post I am less deploring since some of the contributors are clearly not protected to the extent you or I are, but seem to have plausible -- if not necessarily true -- information.

So I would rather say let all be revealed, and even all be asserted, though let's have some back-up for more controversial items.

Richard Thomas
 

From "Anon 11:48"

Given the heat generated by my earlier post, many misimpressions need correcting.

First on anonymity: although the post was anonymous, this information and much more that has never come out was passed on ---far from anonymously --- to Bob Reischauer in Sept. 05 and Feb 06 The quotes from Knowles --- which are first hand --- are from Feb 06.

The intent should be clear from an excerpt from Feb 10, '06 correspondence with Reischauer:
"I, and others, tried hard last year to focus on the "management style" and process issues, rather than on the major substantive ones (such as the state and future of the sciences, financial mismanagement etc,) with the hope that these would be enough to push Larry to resign, while doing the least damage to the institution in
the process. ....
... But I am afraid that this time around, many faculty, including large numbers not openly critical earlier, are prepared to bring out into the open the much bigger problems. "

Second, on the Broad: There is a long history of how Harvard became involved with this, which --- independent of the mertis of the Broad --- are a damning example of decision making under Summers. The Broad is an independent institution, not part of Harvard, Thus Harvvard certatinly did not receive the $200 million from Broad for it. I have not checked back on these, but I believe the correct figures are that Harvard commited to putting up $100 million, to raising another $100 million and to raising a third $100 million if MIT did not raise their share. And this appears to have been commited with very little information beyond a vague year-and-a-half-old power point presentation of Eric Lander's. Indeed, when the question of FAS involvement with the Broad was brought -- for the first time --- to Bill Kirby just a few weeks before it was taken to the Corporation, Kirby requested from Hyman much more additional information which was never provided. How the Corporation could have commited major involvement of Harvard --- never mind huge resources -- based on so little information was a mystery until I learned much later how it had been misrepresented to them.

Third: on Meyer's and others reasons for resigning: Wall Street Journal reporters knew these well before Summers was fired but could not print them because no one would go on the record. But eventually they were alluded to. if I recall correctly, in a column in the WSJ last summer.

Perhaps it is time for Richard and others to look into much more of what really went on under Summers (including how bad he was overall for science) and what the Corporation knew --- much of which never came out thanks to the misplaced efforts of this writer and others to prevent further damage to Harvard.

At least there is still a chance of preventing damage to the World Bank!
 

Richard Thomas is right. Sam Spektor is not going to lose his job if he signs his name or gives details that are the same thing. Not all jobs are tenured you know. Reading the annual report hardly guarantees you're most informed.

Now we see what Harvard administrators are up against. If whistleblowers get angry rants from members of the Governing Boards as they did from Sam (who did not look into facts before starting to rant), then why take risks telling them?

If Ann Berman enjoying working for Larry, she fooled people here who think she didn't. I understand though why she wants to spin leaving positively.
 

This is a super-interesting thread. To the people who are scorning LS's record, though, as not spotless enough, I feel the need to re-establish some context.

The current leader of the World Bank heads his resume with his masterminding of the greatest strategic blunder in US history. He was shoehorned into the job because Condi Rice absolutely refused to keep him on at State in any capacity. The Bank itself had no say in the matter.

Recent White House appointments include Iran-Contra crook Elliot Abrams, Swift-Boat-liars financer Sam Fox (ambassador to Belgium), and minority-disenfranching Voting Integrity Project founder Hans von Spakovsky (to the Federal Election Commission). As chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Bushie Kenneth Tomlinson (According to State Department investigators in 2006) "used his office to run a 'horse racing operation'," that he "improperly put a friend on the payroll," that he "repeatedly used government employees to perform personal errands," and that he "billed the government for more days of work than the rules permit." He now runs the Voice of America.

And these are the high-profile jobs.

Summers is a choirboy in this political environment, even if all the horrifying things suggested above are true. No political pragmatism about a blot on his record could possibly give this President pause, and this President is the Decider when it comes to the World Bank.

There are clearly still Harvard grievances and concerns to air. Maybe even accountability. But none of that matters in US politics, 2001-2008. It's through the looking glass on the federal level, and there's no reason some good might not come of that in the form of a good economist getting a job he's qualified for. A little blottage on his copybook might be the perfect qualification under this administration, to get him in despite his expertise.

Standing Eagle
 

Wow, this is a super-super interesting thread as of 12:08.

Holy schnikeys.
 

If Sam did not hear rumors that Summers was driving Jack Meyer out, then that was only because Sam did not want to hear. Reminds me of Bob Rubin who refused to hear anything negative about Summers and made it clear that he damned anyone who brought negative news.
 

Punishing Success At Harvard
By JOSEPH NOCERA
22 October 2024
The New York Times

"And so, at Harvard Management board meetings, Mr. Summers began questioning Mr. Meyer about everything from the positions in the portfolio to its level of risk. In addition, Mr. Summers's old boss, the former Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin, became a fellow of the Harvard Corporation -- the equivalent of a regent -- and he began asking Mr. Meyer even tougher questions. (Mr. Rubin did not return my phone call.) For Mr. Meyer, the questioning felt like meddling, even if it wasn't meant that way.

But here was the real blow. For the last year or so, Harvard Management has been using a different compensation system -- one that Mr. Summers strongly backed and the Harvard Management board approved. The carry-forward provision was eliminated. The compensation at the low end was raised. But at the high end, the pay for overachievers like Mr. Mittleman and Mr. Samuels was capped at somewhere between $20 million and $25 million.

It would be hard to imagine a more politically boneheaded move. On the one hand, a $20 million paycheck is still far too high to mollify the class of '69 critics. On the other hand, it was a crushing blow to the fund managers still left, who felt that Mr. Summers was running roughshod over Mr. Meyer's incentive system. I don't believe that Mr. Summers imposed the new system as a means of getting rid of Mr. Meyer -- he simply thought it made more sense for a university endowment -- but that was the inevitable result. Mr. Meyer must have thought: who needs the hassle?"
 

THE MONEY GAME
3 October 2024
Fortune

"Over the past two years, people familiar with the situation say, Meyer has had to deal with a particularly knowledgeable and powerful critic: Harvard president Larry Summers, who wrote some influential papers in the 1980s on the workings of financial markets, then went on to jobs in the 1990s as World Bank chief economist and U.S. Treasury Secretary. He has voiced strong ideas about how HMC should be run. He's known to favor market-timing strategies (shifting the weighting of stocks and bonds depending on the market's direction) that Meyer has always shunned. Meyer, used to years of relative autonomy under former Harvard president Neil Rudenstine, "is fed up with Summers," says someone familiar with Meyer's thinking."
 

An F in Logic: By Letting Its Money-Management Chief Leave, Harvard Risks Paying More, Getting Less
31 January 2024
Barron's

"Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary, is believed to have strong views on how the endowment should be run. Among strategies it could follow would be to make asset-allocation bets, such as shifting the weighting of stocks and bonds if, say, equities look more appealing.

Meyer did little of that.

But, regardless of what Harvard does, it’s blown its best option: keeping Jack Meyer."
 

Richard, some questions and some answers.

1. Who -exactly- is Sam Spektor, apart from being the husband of Ann Berman (isn't relevant anyway as he says she takes no interest and tells him nothing). Not much info on him on google. Where does he get his supposedly perfect knowledge?

2. The Broad Institute is an independent operation but it looks like more of an MIT subunit than a Harvard one. It's often described as a spin-off from MIT's Whitehead Institute and is located in the building next door to Whitehead. It also has a mit.edu address.

3. The Broads donated $200M to the Broad Institute in two chunks of $100. Money is over 10 years and must be spent in 10 years so $20M per year for 10 years. Many newspaper reports about this.

4. Seems Harvard had to buy its way into the Broad Institute. Harvard's 2006 financial report says that "Harvard and MIT agreed to try to jointly raise $20 million per year in gifts and non-federal grants and awards to support the Institute’s endeavors. In the event this fundraising goal is not reached, Harvard has agreed to provide MIT with a portion of the shortfall, subject to certain conditions. Harvard's obligation for such payments will not exceed $32.5 million over the initial five-year term, or $60.0 million in total if the term is extended for a second five years. The University had a commitment of $9.0 million and $4.0 million as of June 30, 2024 and 2005, respectively"

Let's get this straight. Harvard is supposed to put $10M per year into Broad. MIT is supposed to put $10M per year into Broad too but if MIT does not raise $10M in donations for Broad, then money comes from Harvard. Last year, MIT raised only $1M so Harvard had to kick in its own $10M and kick in $9M for MIT.

Summing up, Broad funding is
$200M from Broads
$160M from Harvard (assuming MIT continues not to raise its share)
$40M from MIT

So, 11:48 has a point even if the numbers are not exactly the same.

5. What happens when the Broad money runs out in 7 years? If the institute costs $40M per year to run, will it be shut down or has Harvard signed on to cover it?
 

1. Anon 12:17 said: “If Ann Berman enjoying (sic) working for Larry, she fooled people here who think she didn't. I understand though why she wants to spin leaving positively.”
We have a house in Italy. I reluctantly agreed that my wife and I would, for three years, give up spending most of our time here, so that she could accept Larry’s offer to be CFO. If she didn’t like working for Larry, why would she have bothered to stay? I certainly wasn’t going to tell her that she had to continue to work. She didn’t need to work just to keep busy (she had stopped working as Financial Dean for Jeremy, three years before). She continued to work because she very much enjoyed working for Larry (and with her other colleagues in Mass Hall and with many people around the university). Furthermore, anyone who knows my wife knows that she doesn’t put a spin on anything. I guess you were easily fooled. It’s easy, as an anonymous contributor, for you to make asinine statements, but don’t you have any sense of decency toward others?
2. Anon 12:38 said: “If Sam did not hear rumors that Summers was driving Jack Meyer out, then that was only because Sam did not want to hear.” Really? Nice of you to tell me what I heard and what I didn't hear. Let’s see… Jack raised 6 billion. I think he gets 1 and 20 (although as The Globe has pointed out, so far, Convexity, has done poorly, so the 20 might be a bit of a problem in the near future). For Jack, Dave and Maurice, that could be a lot of money, substantially more than Harvard was paying and additionally they wouldn’t be subjected to newspaper articles about how much they were earning. Could that possibly be the main reason they left? I also find it ironic that so many are upset with Larry for purportedly forcing Jack out, when, just a few years ago, so many (on the faculty and elsewhere) were calling for Jack’s head because Dave and Maurice were earning up to 35 million. Can’t have it both ways folks, although with some of you, I’m sure you believe you can.
3. Anon 1:04 said: “"Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary, is believed to have strong views on how the endowment should be run. Among strategies it could follow would be to make asset-allocation bets, such as shifting the weighting of stocks and bonds if, say, equities look more appealing.
Meyer did little of that. “

This is a good example of exactly what I was referring to earlier in saying that many posters simply make up “facts” to suit their point of view. “ Meyer did little of that?” If you had read all of the HMC material in the annual report, year after year, you would see that asset-allocation bets were exactly what Jack was doing. You are clearly speaking about something which you don’t understand (even though it is clearly stated in the HMC sections of the Annual Report) and if one statement in this entire blog could be said to be more wrong than any of the other statements, yours wins the prize… hands down.
4. Anon 3:11 said: “Where does he get his supposedly perfect knowledge?” It’s far from perfect and only deals with public information. However, limited as that may be, unlike other posters, none of the information I use is made up. All you have to do is read the annual reports and other public information and it’s easy, if you know how to read financial statements and financial statement footnotes. If you do that, you don’t make the statements that some people have made. It is interesting that so far, not one of the people who said that Harvard had a liability of 200-300 for the Broad, has replied to show us how they reached that figure. Today is another day, however, and there is still hope. To anon 11:48… why don’t you tell everyone how you justify the statement you made: “Summers (aided by Hyman) represented to the Corporation funding for the Broad Institute as Harvard being given $200 million, while the reality was that Harvard was promising to give between $200 and $300 million.”
Sam Spektor
 

This is an interesting strand. I'd never even heard of the Broad two days ago, but now I've looked at those financial reports to see what all the fuss is about (google harvard annual financial report and then search on broad institute). Here's how you get to a # around 200 million, as I see it.

Take Harvard's 160 million obligation (3:11 explained this # already), add Harvard's 40 million obligation to MIT for improving facilities at MIT (4 million a year for 10 years), add 13 million in obligations to MIT for the new Broad building. That's 213 million.

11:48 said 200 to 300 million. It's easy to get past 200 million. Maybe 11:48 knows about other obligations. I bet the Broad Institute agreement is a long document not a couple of paragraphs. Science magazine (June 19 2003) said "The Broad Institute emerged after 2 years of tough negotiations over funding, location, and organization."
 

Sam S., 1:04 is a quotation from Barron's. It's not a comment by an anonymous poster. If you need to vent at someone, send a letter to the editor at Barron's
 

This is 3:11. My mistake. I read a bit more and discovered that the Broad Institute is apparently not an independent entity but is a dependent entity administered by MIT. Sounds complicated.

Broad's annual cost is also not $40M but $100M. The $40M is the part that comes from Broads, Harvard, and MIT. The other $60M comes from federal grants.

So I guess a concern might be what happens to Broad if the NIH budget takes a downturn. A 10% decrease in NIH could be $60M over ten years for Broad.
 

To 11.46pm:

You are right that the 2008 edition of America's Best Graduate Schools is damming to Harvard. It is a gross generalization, however, to blame the poor rankings of the University on Larry Summers.

First, there are two graduate schools ranked as number one: Business and Medicine.

Second, some of the programs were Harvard ranks poorly, such as Engineering, did not rank much better in years past.

Third, Deans are responsible for the academic integrity and management of graduate programs, not the President.

There are indeed problems in some programs in Arts and Sciences and in the Graduate School of Education. This is a much narrower focus of concern than your blanket statement about all Harvard graduate programs implies.

The Graduate School of Education was, until last year and during all of Larry's Presidency, ranked number one. Apparently there are serious problems there including discontent of junior faculty, a number of disgruntled staff, and large numbers of students who have written open lettes to the Dean indicating that they are concerned with the future of the school and the quality of their preparation. This in addition to the sudden decline of that school in the rankings suggest that with regards to that school you may be right.

But, in the year when these changes took place the President was Derek Bok, not Larry Summers and the Dean Kathleen McCartney was appointed by Bok, not by Summers.

As for the few programs in FAS that are clearly substandard, they may reflect problems with Bill Kirby's leadership and Summers got rid of him.
 

Simple fact correction here:
Kathleen McCartney was named Acting Dean of HGSE on June 6 2005 by Larry Summers. She was named (permanent) Dean of HGSE on may 16 2006.

Nothing to do with Derek Bok at all.
 

The well known and serious problems in Education are not reflective of any broader trends at Harvard. They are particular problems in that school.

The real problems are that the number of students applying to the school has dropped precipitously and that donors are not giving money to the school. While poor leadership may be part of the problem it is also the case that the competition from Teachers College, Stanford and Vanderbilt is getting tougher because the Presidents in those Univesities are focused in supporting those schools.

Sooooo... the problems at the Graduate School of Education may in part result from the lack of support and attention that Larry Summers gave it.
 

To anon 6:21. I've read Barron's almost every Saturday for 45 plus years. I've contributed to Barron's and have been quoted in Barron's. I nkow Barron's and know that even though the magazine tries hard to be correct, it publishes lots of incorrect information. After the above referenced article was published, I wrote a letter to the editor, pointing out the many factual mistakes.
My point here was that we have a poster accepting as gospel an article in Barron's, an article that is not accurate, but was nonetheless used by a poster to make a point (beware of secondary sources).
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in stating that the poster was quoting Barron's... my mistake.
What I hope that I was clear about is that that the information the poster published here is wrong.
Why don't you focus on whether the information was correct or not, rather than trying to shoot the messenger who was challenging it.
Why don't you, or the poster, explain how it is that HMC operated with regard to asset allocation. If Barron's is correct in what it said, you'll have no problem because it was all spelled out for you. If the poster was wrong in accepting what Barron's published (the poster can see what the story is by reading the primary material... the HMC reports), why doesn't the poster simply say they made a mistake.
You have other posters, anon 6:20 , who not only do not know how to read footnotes, but can't even add numbers (clearly didn't go to The College), yet try to, in the most convoluted way try to justify the original poster's (anon 1:48, who sounds as if it may be a current or former Overseer who likes to leak; wouldn't it be fascinating if Richard would give up the ISPs so we can see who has been doing the talking) number. Unfortunately, none of it washes.
However, it seems that people posting want to keep justifying their position, even if the "facts" that they are using are incorrect or are simply masde up.
Nothing I can say or do will change that, particularly because most is hidden behind a veil of anonymity.
Sam Spektor
 

Larry Summers did help the Graduate School of Education a great deal. He helped raise funds and gave the school large sums of money. He also worked actively with Ellen Lagemann to correct a dismal and untenable financial situation. He provided the school significant funding in scholarship money so they could attract stronger applicants and participated actively in hiring and promotion decisions to improve the quality of the faculty.

Since Ellen Lagemann resigned he could not continue providing that support, but focused on getting a Dean for the school. He appointed the best Dean he could find to replace Lagemann, given his own time constrains resulting from other priorities in University management. Had he remained as President he would have continue to work with Kathy McCartney as he had done with Ellen.

His successor, Derek Bok, refused to fund raise and did not help Kathy McCartney as he should have. That is the only cause of the small problems that have been mentioned on this blog.

Drew Faust knows Kathy McCartney well as they have worked together in the Deans Council for some years. If she supports her vision and assists in fund-raising, the temporary small problems facing the Ed School can be overcome rapidly. The Corporation needs to allow Drew Faust to support Education, which is a field where graduates are not in a position to give much money to Harvard.
 

Sam,

I have never learned how to determine the ISPs of posters because I don't even want to be tempted to look. I take that very seriously. If someone wants to be anonymous on this blog, that's how they'll be....
 

Sam, my heart goes out to Ann Berman if you rant like this often.

What's convoluted about Harvard obligations?
$100 million ($10 mill for 10 yrs)
$60 million (Harvard's obligation to MIT over 10 yrs)
$40 million (Harvard's obligation over 10 yrs for facilities improvement at MIT)
$13 million (Harvard's obligation for the Broad building)
=========================
$213 million
 

Richard,
ISPs are easy to determine
(harder to track).
I was only kidding when I said "wouldn't it be fascinating if Richard would give up the ISPs so we can see who has been doing the talking." I thought you would get the joke. My apologies.
No one would ever seriously expect you to do anything with regard to giving up the anonymity of the posters.
It is very interesting and fascinating that anon 11:48, who started this whole sequel of posts, in his/her 12:08 AM post, wrote about corrspondence with Bob Reischauer and quoted at least a small part of it as well as quoting Jeremy. Interesting.
Sam Spektor
 

To anon 10:03.
Why don't you and the others tell us who you are, and I'll be happy to answer you.
As for your ad hominem, we've been happily married for almost 30 years.
One person's rant is another person's correction.
Sam Spektor
 

There is an easy solution to the troubles of the Education School. Merge it with the Psychology Department --which is too focused on the study of animals at present-- and create a Department of Human Psychology and Development. After all, education is a subfield within the area of study of socialization, an aspect of the study of human development.

This would make all concerned with these issues winners. On top of it, it would resolve the problem that results from the fact that the Education School can only give EdD's, not PhD's, and no respectable university would hire an EdD's as faculty. That is the real reason the number of applicants to the school has dropped, the graduates can't get jobs.
 

Actually, I was about to delete that ad hominem and re-post the information without it.

Folks, let's try not to get personal, please.
 

Oh, and Sam, I knew you weren't serious about the ISP thing, I just wanted to err on the side of reaffirming.....
 

You're very deferential to Sam, Richard! But that is the mark of a good host. As perhaps the least connected of SITD's posters, I wish to say that talk of LS and financial malfeasance seems very unlikely. The Corporation would surely, if that were the case, have eased him out of Harvard altogether, and not made him a University professor.
 

No more deferential to Sam than anyone else, EADW. I try to encourage a level-headed tone all around.

As to your point...well, it ain't necessarily so. First—and I emphasize this is just hypothesizing—the Corporation might not have known all this stuff till later.

Second—and this is not hypothesizing—Summers had an ally on the Corporation who gave him enormous leverage.

And third—back to hypothesizing again—the Corporation may have feared that, if Summers were not given the professorship, et al, he would make the fight even more public, and even uglier, than it had been.
 

Richard, you are being too deferential to Sam. He's told one poster that he's libelous, another poster that he's asinine, and another poster that he's stupid. He's called about 10 posters liars. He's made veiled threats about checking ISPs and correspondence to disclose the identity of posters who wish to remain anonymous. He's used his connections (his wife, friendships on the Corporation, friendship with Hyman) to say that his word must be trusted. Then's he annoyed when others bring up those same connections.

Not best blog etiquette.
 

Poster, I'll agree with you somewhat on the first point; I do think Sam's rhetoric can go too far.

On the other hand, I also thought the comment about his personal relationship was over the line.

So let me reiterate my general principle about blog etiquette: You don't have to attach your name to your posts...but write as if your name *were* attached. It helps keep the conversation constructive and on-topic.
 

And, to be even-handed about this, I should add that attaching your name doesn't give anyone license to be dismissive or insulting.
 

To anon 11:54.You said " He's told one poster that he's libelous, another poster that he's asinine and another poster that he's stupid. He's called about 10 posters liars."
Gee, that's interesting. I hadn't realized I had said all that. Are you absolutely sure it was "about 10 posters" that I called liars, not seven or fourteen?
In fact, I don't believe I said any of the things that you attributed to me. However, why don't you point them out to me if you believe I did and I'll humbly apologize to you if I in fact did say them (please attach your name so I'll be able to address you properly). Thanks so much.
Sam Spektor
 

Sam:

You seem quite knowledgeable about the financial operations of Harvard even though you are not an employee or a consultant to the University.

Tell me this, since the University recieves considerable amounts of Federal (US taxpayer money) could the accounting systems withstand an audit and even an investigation by the likes of someone say, like Pat Fitzgerald of Chicago, to ensure that nothing untoward has occurred just to put all the questions and accustations to rest?

We are all aware of the Russia issue- are there more issues like that? If so, do tell.

Similarly, does the University comply with Sarbenes Oxley even though it is not required to (complaince not just "in principle")?

As I understand it, the former Attorney General for MA-Tom Reilly, recommended that all MA public universities comply with Sarbox. Would your wife, the former CFO for the University, have been able to sign her name to the financials if the financials had to adhere to Sarbox? If not, why?

By the way Sam, this is America-if you are thinking of tracking posters by their ISP then free speech is out the window.

One might wonder if you have already tried to find ISP addresses for responders-will you stipulate that you haven't and won't?

Signed- a US taxpayer
 

To anon 1:12
I'll just answer part of your email. I wouldn't know how to find ISPs of people who post here, if in fact it could be done. Can it?
I have never tried to find out (and never will) someone's ISP.If they don't want to be open enough to sign their name, I guess that's the way it is.
I am knowledgeable about the university's financial statements because I read all the documents that are public. I also know, from my previous position (among the equity portfolios I managed, in my prior life, were portions of large university endowments), that in fact universites are subject to audit by the Federal government...so I imagine Harvard is audited by the Feds.
As to your other questions, I have no idea and have no first hand knowledge about them, but would would be happy to give you my personal opinion if I know which taxpayer I'd be addressing. It might be a typically American thing to identify oneself,rather than just a "US taxpayer."
Sam Spektor
 

would your wife have signed the financials if they had to comply with sarbox, sam?

as for the fact that the documents are public doesnt mean that they are accurate or not misleading-paper doesnt refuse ink.

do those financials pass gao standards for operations and controls? would the financials stand up to a fraud audit as in the case with the russia controversy? were the financials subject to a gao audit since there were federal funds associated with the case? i am sure you know and if not, i am confident that you can find out.

as you know, each federal agency conducts "audits" for funds received, but the question is would the university pass gao accounting standards for operations and controls?

will you answer that question, sam? will you ask your wife if she could have signed if the financials had to comply with sarbox without losing her cpa license?

if you are so confident about the financial underpinnings of the operations then put it to the corporation and lets see if they will have the financials comply with the same standard that public companies need to adhere to-will you do that sam?
 

This discussion is fascinating. Clearly the possibility that Larry Summers could be appointed President of the World Bank has energized a few writers who seem to have spent all night and weekend disclosing information that only a very small group of very senior managers at Harvard could have.

These writers must know things about their until recent President that horrify them as they contemplate the possibility that he might be entrusted with World Finances...

This has all the feel and looks of an emerging Harvard-Gate...

How ironic that the reputation of Summers might be twice tarnished by World Bank related politics...
 

This blog makes clear that Standing Eagle is Larry Summers
 

There are 2 important questions here that are getting lost.

1. Did Summers and Hyman misrepresent the Broad gifts to the Harvard community and Corporation? Did they portray them as a pure gift or a net draw on Harvard's funds? Did the Gazette mention only the gifts and not the liabilities?

2. If Summers and Hyman did portray the Broad gifts accurately to the Corporation, is whatever Harvard is getting from the Broad Institute WORTH $213 million or whatever the exact number is? Harvard could be doing other things with the money such as undergraduates, graduate students, library, you name it. Answer to this question doesn't just depend on value of genome research. also need to consider what share of Broad production is Harvard's. Eric Lander (MIT professor) is leading it and MIT runs it and it is at MIT.
 

You're joking about Standing Eagle being LS, right? Standing Eagle is too good with words.

Not Standing Eagle
 

anon 2:33.
Hey boychick,
Those are a lot of questions.
You said: "i am sure you know and if not, i am confident that you can find out."
As a matter of fact I don't know.
You may be confident about this and other things, but I have no confidence in knowing who you are...so have a good day.
Sam Spektor
 

LS has become very good with words since marrying someone who is extraordinary with words.
 

Does anyone else get the feeling that Sam Spektor just does want to answer questions and this is why he is suddenly insisting on changing the whole protocol of bloglife? Get a grip Sam. There's no requirement that 2:33 or anyone else give you their name. What difference would it make anyway? Just answer the questions!
 

The feeling I've had for some time is that Sam Spektor is a very intelligent man. So intelligent that he has managed to smear Larry repeatedly, while appearing to be defending him. My hunch is that Sam often engages in dialogue with himself, signing only half of his responses as Larry's defendant and virulently attacking the anonymous poster who is no other than Sam himself under the cloak of anonimity.

Why would Sam do this I do not know, but otherwise why would he spend so much time on this blog and at such odd hours?

I can't prove this, of course, and it is entirely possible that my hunches about Sam are entirely unfounded.

What is certain is that he is smart, too smart, very well informed, and that there is a clear feeling in his contributions that he has a superior intellect, capable of doing what I think he is doing.
 

To understand the fears and motivations of some of the contributors to this discussion just think about who could be implicated, and be liable, if in effect there had been deliberate misrepresentation in the financials...

The answer to this question might explain why some people spent the night reading, and obsessing over, this blog...
 

Well, here's the answer to one question: Sam posts at odd hours because he's in Italy, where he and his wife live. That much I do know.
 

I live in Italy; six hour time difference, hence the odd hours.
All these off the wall, far fetched theories coming to the fore. Wow, you people have fertile, but misplaced, imaginations... interesting to hear though.
Sam Spektor
 

Well, well, interesting to hear about the time difference. Someone else must also be posting from Italy, or have insomnia in Cambridge. There are 5 posts between midnight at 5am NOT including the single post signed by Sam Spektor in that time interval. The anonymous posts have information on Harvard's financial transactions that very few people at Harvard or outside would have access to.

Fertile imaginations or someone became careless?
 

So, Sam, you were quick to say you wouldn't track ISP addresses-smart answer.

Let's be decent about this and not resort to namecalling, ok- you seem too intelligent to need to stoop to that level-ok!

So, US taxpayers should know if their tax dollars are being spend properly at Harvard. Can you look across the table and ask you wife if the financials could withstand the scrutiny of a GAO audit or Sarbox? Can you let us know, please.

By the way Sam, are you still American or have you been in Italy too long to realise that making fun of Americans is bad form? Actaully, making fun of any nationality is bad form and intelligence should never be considered a defense for bad manners.

LOL
 

Let's calm down a bit, please. Sam has a, well, vigorous style of posting, and I know that can rub people the wrong way. I'll even admit that it's irritated me in the past. But I ask that both sides leave the personal comments out of this conversation and focus on the issues at hand. In particular, let's avoid dragging someone's wife into it. Sam says they don't discuss these things, so let's just take him at his word, please. There's plenty on the table to hash out already.

I'd like to get back to the two questions posed by Anon 3:37. Was the financial plan for the Broad Institute improperly represented to the Corporation? Either way, is it a good investment for the University?

As a general matter, the Broad Institute seems to me a good investment. It's doing important work, seems to be doing it well, and generates significant publicity. But that's not the same as saying that it's a good investment for Harvard.....
 

Red Sox or Yankees...who is it going to be tonight?

Much more important than the rest of this, at least at this point.
 

Richard:

The issue is financial transparency. Getting Federal tax dollars and having tax exempt status requires a higher standard or reporting. Sam conveniently knows things, calls people names when they get too close for comfort to sensitive information and then he clams up- Yup, there is smoke and fire there.

Question is how much will people put up with from H if it isnt transparent. How much of the new science campus will be funded with or through federal dollars and what benefits go back to the tax payers who supported the development-much bigger issue (financially) than who runs FAS....many more dollars at stake-perhaps you should look into that aspect of the situation.
 

Anon 7:46—I hate to be cynical about it, but Harvard's utter lack of transparency hasn't hurt the university so far...or at least, that's what the Corporation would argue.

Me, I think Harvard's lack of transparency is the greatest obstacle to a renaissance at Harvard the likes of which the university hasn't seen since the mid-19th century. It creates a culture of secrecy that affects everything from inter-school cooperation to the university's participation in the web culture...
 

now you are getting somewhere-remember just like enron-follow the money.

perhaps faculty who say they are interested in transparency should attend public hearings on the expansion across the charles and start asking questions on the record-public record that is...it will begin to peel the onion as the old saying goes....if they are muzzled it will be picked up by other media sources....

use the format the H administration has put in place for its benefit to the benefit of the public at large....

perhaps you should make an appearance at those meetings richard and ask the questions directly-then we'll start to see if information will be forthcoming.
 

Interesting that you should mention Enron... Will Harvard be the next Enron?
 

This blog suggests that the University is in serious decline. When did things go wrong?
 

Is the person suggesting 'malfeasance' here suggesting that there was private gain at the expense of Harvard resources? that someone took money from Harvard in the Broad deal?
 

Started July 1, 2001.
 

Prove it!
 

You are not implying that Larry Summers did to Harvard with Andrew Shleifer did to Russia?
 

To those who have been posted on this discussion and who seem to have information about some of the things that have been going on at Harvard in decisions at the highest level, two questions:

1. What is your assessment about whether the culture that enabled these distortions can be brought into line with normal standards of decency?

2. What are some of the things President Faust could do to help restore decency in the University?
 

AUDIT!

Richard-are you watching the game?

Is that why you have gone mum?
 

It's obvious what needs to be done to correct the problem: Audit the finances of the University and of each of the schools over the last five years.

There will be some costs to doing this but the outcomes will be immensely beneficial. If no evidence of intentional wrongdoing is found, the audit will convey a determination to get to the bottom of things and to restore decency and transparency, which will serve her well during her tenure.

If intentional wrongdoing is found she will have to make, with the Corporation, very difficult choices about what to do with the information. In the long run this will be the only way to repair whatever institutional damage the knowledge of such wrongdoing may have caused.

To the students and graduates the Audits will teach a very important lesson, that there is such a thing as decency and that those entrusted with power at Harvard are accountable for their actions, without exceptions.
 

8.16pm, what do you mean follow the money? which money? follow it how? where does the trail lead to?
 

better to do it voluntarily rather than having the globe spotlight poking around in H's business-look what they did to the catholic church (not only Boston-it reverberated around the world)

get out ahead of it or it will swallow the place. if faust gets a call from tom farragher or walter robinson dont ignore it-should she need advise I understand bernie law (H alum) is available to counsel from the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore,Rome Italy

Perhaps Sam can stop in to receive counsel since he spends considerable time in that neck of the woods.
 

9:47
<