Who told you Lary had a five year contract? Everyone knows the President serves at the pleasure of the Corporation just as Deans serve at the pleasure of the President.
 

Your point about buying silence is on to something. Did some of that go on as well with the 'resignations' of some Deans?

If everything done by the President and Deans was in full compliance with the law, and with ordinary ethical standards, why would silence be necessary?

This is a topic worth pursuing...
 

It's been widely reported that he had a five-year contract. Is this wrong? If anyone knows otherwise, speak now.....

In any event, there is a larger question here, which is why someone who is being fired for failing to perform a job well receives any severance at all.
 

Oh, there are lots of things the Corporation wouldn't want LS to discuss that are perfectly legal. I don't think lawbreaking has anything to do with this situation.
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Enough, please. Let's stay on topic. As (presumably) someone from the Ed School, surely you must know how disruptive it is to a discussion when one contributor keeps inserting irrelevancies. So, please—be true to your school.
 

Just FYI, but the story is from Bloomberg, not the AP.
 

Yes, of course. Sorry about that. Fixed now.
 

Rich, your comments about the severance reflect, I think, a lack of experience with the corporate (and bigtime non-profit) world. There is indeed a marketplace for talent, and that marketplace takes into account not only salary and perks, but severance packages, which (pay attention now) are absolutely standard to (a) reward service, (b) prevent lawsuits and/or (c) foreclose lingering bad publicity. I don't know that $2M is excessive for the "presidential marketplace", but frankly it doesn't sound all that high to me. I think you're looking for smoke where there isn't any.
 

Anon 9:40 is correct that this is just common business practice. Happens in the for-profit world all the time for exactly the reasons cited. Anon 8:01 is also correct in suspecting that some of the deans were paid severance packages conditioned on their keeping quiet. The question is, are such ordinary business practices appropriate for a public charity? How do Harvard's donors feel about the fact that their gifts are being used this way? How do Harvard parents feel about the fact that their tuition money is being used this way? In a for-profit corporation, the stockholders could complain, and, if they were mad enough, actually do something about it. But Harvard has no one to play that legal role. Would the state's Division of Public Charities care about such executive payoffs?
 

The question is, what are you buying and are you paying too much for it? I think the Harvard community understands that the job of president is a high-profile position of national import that carries with it personal pressures and risks that distinguish it from the average academic presidency. This is all part of what makes Harvard Harvard. So again, the question is not why did he get a severance, but rather one of proportionality: is the amount justifiable in the circumstnaces. Some would argue for complete transparency and disclosure; certainly the Massachusetts Attorney General may have jurisdiction to enquire if the facts suggest it; but on the other hand, my gut tells me that at $2M this is a whole lotta talk about nothing much. Capiche?
 

I wonder if this is what Larry had in mind when he used to talk about making Harvard more "businesslike."
 

get real-everyone fired from harvard signs a non disclosure.

of course the management dont want others knowing details. so what. most of the issues are mundane and they flatter themselves with the notion that others care about what goes on there.

at the pres/dean level it is a different story and the issues are protection of outside parties as much as internal persons and interests.

revenge and retribution are a concern in both private and public entities. however, the non disclosure does not prevent they parties from "talking" about one another just should not do it in way that one can be quoted (slander) or written down (libel).

word to the wise....keep your mouth shut and you wont be sued.
 

"everyone fired from harvard signs a non disclosure." i have no idea what this is supposed to mean. it certainly isn't true for all deans. we don't have enough president precedents to know if it's true for them!
 

we don't have any deans who've been fired at Harvard...
 

it said "everone" not just deans-can you read or only what you want to read? seems a trend....