It's funny how unaware Harvard types seem to be of the provinciality of Boston, a town noted for its endemic racism. It's much more Georege V. Higgins's place than Perry Miller's.

A generation ago Boston had amenities some newer cities lacked, but today it has few advantages other than some great old neighborhoods and a mass-transit system.

This may be Harvard's biggest problem in the long term.

But then again, Boston's been in decline since about 1750, so it will take a while longer.
 

I agree with this--and I would reiterate that part of Boston's challenge is its social culture, which is inbred, suspicious, not generally welcoming of newcomers, change, or innovation. (Not to mention minorities.)

To what extent Harvard reflects Boston's culture is an interesting question.
 

Not sure what racism has to do with the relationship btw the two; the overarching issue is one more of price. The city and the region is an expensive place to business. Medical industry has had a tough time recruiting and retaining staff-housing, schools, energy costs are often cited.

I would disagree about the racism charge leveled against Boston. It is the residents in suburbs who are real the racists/bigots. The main reason for the flight to the suburbs has to do with schools meaning they want white pupils not minorities. Interestingly enough, many of those suburbs are experiencing an even more subtle forms of racism-Asians. Most of the parents of the Asian pupils are Harvard/MIT professors/affiliates and they and their children are not "welcome" in the "affluent" 'burbs-quite sad since most of the folks dead set against the newcomers are really newcomers themselves having come from such distant places as Staten Island, parts of NJ, and even the exotic midwest-they attended the world's greatest university and "made it". They have no interest in rubbing elbows with "riff raff".

So, if we are going to frame this argument let's get the facts out there clearly and accurately.

And let's not forget Harvard's role in the busing/racism fiasco during the 1970's in Boston. I believe the Ed School's fingerprints are all over that one. Who won there-certaintly not the children, teachers, school system or the city; the school bus drivers union were and have been the only beneficiaries of that action.

Harvard's biggest problem is Harvard. The local authorities have more than embraced campus growth and are squarely behind the physical expansion and scientific thrust-good for both the school and the region. Expect very little resistence in that regard.

As for amenities-it is an old city and of the revenue producing land (how cities collect revenue) 50% is tax exempt but still requires servicing. If the non profits want to pay their full share of tax then the amenities will improve. Or, as is the current thinking, the tax structure will change/evolve away from land based revenue to more of an income-based system. That will actually be a major benefit to the major industries - ED's and Med's- who currently dont pay tax but indure payment in lieu of tax/tribute tribulations.

BTW, if you want a real book to understand the issues read The City Below by Carroll. It is an accurate description of the city as it was in the '60s and 70's. However, you should note from that book that Boston didn't have a black/white problem; it was the brahmins vs the Irish, the Irish vs the Italians, the Irish and Italians vs the Polish. Think long and hard were the problem of class in the city started-yup Cambridge/Harvard.

So, if it is such a racist place explain Deval.

So there!
 

What is this a joke? The suburbs are racist but Boston isn't? When I read moronic commentary like this---gross generalizations based on no cited facts---I can't believe that academics are posting this commentary.
 

Really. And this isn't the 70s anymore. Everyone who lives or moves to the suburbs is doing so for racist reasons? So you don't think the insulting housing prices have anything to do with it, huh?
 

Where do you live and why?
Be honest
 

I have lived in the city and the suburbs of Boston and can vouch that there is more racism in the suburbs (subtle and couched as political correctness) than the city. Sorry to disagree with you.

And what does the cost of your house have to do with anything other than you paid to much?

Yes, it isn't the '70s any more and the city seems to have grown up and grown from that experience.
 

What does the cost of your house have do with where you live? Well, if you don't know why that would motivate someone to move away from the city, then it's clearly not an issue for you. But I would expect an intelligent person to recognize the privilege of being ignorant on that issue. Then again, I've overestimated the patrons of this blog before.
 

Value versus cost...perhaps you wish to discuss the subtle differences?
 

"The main reason for the flight to the suburbs has to do with schools meaning they want white pupils not minorities." No, anyone who wants a good education, and can afford to move to the suberbs, does so because the city schools are so abysmally bad. That includes minorities, though they tend to have less money so it is harder for them to jump.
 

9:28 pm

Very good and why is that? Because of busing that started in the 1970's.

You can trace the fall of the local urban school system and the race to the suburbs to busing and bigotry. Follow the outmigration trends from the city to the surroundung suburbs and the tax overrides in the suburbs for the last 25 years and the answer will be right in front of you.
 

But all is well in Cambridge where the Harvard profs send their kids to Shady Hill, BB&N; and other such places----cause-----they have such GREAT FAITH in the public schools? Give me a break!
 

How on earth do Harvard prof's afford Shady Hill and BBN on their salaries?

As for public school and Harvard employees look at Lexington-they demand a BBN education on a public school budget and they are bankrupting the town doing so. Oh, yeah, and a real fun place to live too speaking of house values and family values.