The current version of the article says he turned it down "when it was offered to him by University administrators," not "this morning," as you quote him reporting. I assume that means Mr. Goldenberg changed his post. If so, and especially considering that he didn't acknowledge the change, how reliable is this guy?
 

They also have one... anonymous... source.
 

And yes, I am aware of the irony.
 

Goldenberg does not know what he is talking about in any aspect of his claims or speculations. And if he has administration sources, they are once again playing the paper.
 

What Gadfly says about TS is not flattering
 

The faculty meeting this afternoon was another demonstration of Drew Faust's deft leadership. An almost unanimous vote in support of a new curriculum focused on real life applications of a liberal education. What Larry Summers was unable to do in five years, Drew has accomplished before formally starting her term as President --with some help from Derek Bok...

Harvard is again, after a long hiatus of incompetent arrogance, moving forward!
 

These news will make the major newspapers this week 'Harvard approves new curriculum', and this will please alumni and donors as much as it will displease rivals.

A most significant change is the emphasis in the solution of concrete problems, the accomplishment of specific tasks, and the creation of actual objects and out-of-classroom experiences. Also the emphasis on history, ethics and study of US government and the world.

Maybe this will wake the undergraduates up from their fascination with their virtual selves in Facebook and engage them with real issues in the real world.
 

but if the goal is to engage the students with the world, shouldn't the College engage with the professional schools in more clever and productive ways?
 

in the professional schools with competent and responsible leadership this should be feasible. More kudos for Elena Kagan and Jay Light!
 

To the early anonymous posters: The content of the post was changed from "this morning" to "by University administrators" when my initial source pointed out that I had misinterpreted the information I had been given. I corrected this very quickly after putting up the original post (but after Richard copied it to his blog) and so didn't think an "update" was called for. Sorry for the confusion.

The post has since been updated to reflect the fact that the story has been corroborated by mutliple sources. All have asked to remain anonymous, for fear of ramifications from the administration. I'm sure several posters on this blog can relate.
 

Hey, Adam, so you're sure "several posters on this blog can relate" to insisting on anonymity for "fear of ramifications from the administration". That sounds as if there have been acts of retribution by the administration against noble, whistle-blowing leakers. Give some examples, please. The reality is of course the opposite, at least on this blog. Lying anonymous sources (e.g. on Drew Faust's "bad blood" with Theda Skocpol) persuaded the Crimson they were legit., and were quoted anonymously so they would not "jeopardize their relationship with the administration" vel sim. Ha!

The Crimson looked pretty bad in that instance, and I hope I'm not being unduly cynical in thinking the "two sources close to the administration" are the same two "close to the advisory committee" who duped the Crimson on that one.

Your information may or may not be correct on Jeremy Bloxham, but be cautious about accepting the word of leakers around the FAS. They are pretty good at using their positions to convince they are dealing in truth rather than lies.

Richard Thomas
 

Richard!
Even you must agree TS and DF are women of two opposite.....personalities. (to be polite) Not a stretch, not a secret.
 

Anonymous 10:31 p.m.!

You may or may not be right. Check with someone in Psych., rather than Classics. I simply insisted that the anonymous leak that there was bad blood was a lie, and that I know as a fact.

I still don't have a horse in the race, just don't like lying leakers.
RT
 

Law School Dean Kagan just raided her Law School's library collection fund to the tune of $300,000 p.a. which she transferred to her building fund. Good thing Drew was picked as Pres. over her!
 

Prof. Thomas, I think the poster who responded to your comment does enough to confirm my assertion.

You're right, of course, to caution me—and The Crimson—against relying on anonymous sources. I was careful in this case to confirm my story independently with a number of people who could not know who my other sources were. I'm convinced it's true.
 

Law School Dean Kagan just raided her Law School's library collection fund to the tune of $300,000 p.a. which she transferred to her building fund. Good thing Drew was picked as Pres. over her!
 

Hold it now! sag, are you Alex Goldenberg? I assume so, though that's not entirely intuitive.

If so, on to yours:

"I was careful in this case to confirm my story independently with a number of people who could not know who my other sources were. I'm convinced it's true."

Your blog still just says
"According to two sources close to the administration", so you might want to indicate the rough number of your sources.

The poster who responded to my post, namely my good friend and interlocutor, anon 10:31, responded on the subject of the relationship of DF and TS, so I am REALLY puzzled by your

"Prof. Thomas, I think the poster who responded to your comment does enough to confirm my assertion."

You asserted nothing about that relationship, which I brought up in connection with the general issue of leaking and in connection with a Crimson story of some weeks ago, comparable, as I suggested, to your blog in terms of your both (possibly) being duped by some of my colleagues.

I'm more interested to hear whether it is true that the Law Library has had its acquisitions budget cut that drastically. Any info on that, Richard