Richard, you're being a shit-stirrer with this one... finding the 46th post in yesterday's thread because, by saying something unkind about a man whom you've said is clearly extremely accomplished, it will start up a whole new argument of interesting and perhaps revealing information about Flier, Faust, HMS and Harvard. Which is OK; you're a journalist and prodding & poking is how one goes about one's business. But we can call you on it too: this blog as part of your business.
 

I hope the comment isn't personal about Flier, because I try to avoid that, and if folks think it's too personal, I'll remove it from this high-profile spot. But the deanship of HMS is a very powerful position, and I don't see any reason not to debate the merits of a choice.
 

Is this a Friday 13th post? How come there's nothing to discuss the significance of this date?
 

What's you beef with Hammonds, and why can't you give her credit for a very good report? This information was not publicly available at Harvard until her office collected it, analyzed it and published it. The statistical analysis which has gone into the report is also very good.

Don't you think it is commendable that she can do those things AND also work on a book? Or do you find the area of foci of her office unimportant?
 

Richard,

Hammond's End of Year Report 2007 on Institutional Diversity was removed this morning from the web-site.

Apparently your suggestion that the Press would find it interesting concerned some with the authority to have the report removed...

Hopefully you had read it already because there may not be another opportunity to do so.
 

The report was removed only temporarily to be updated. Here it is:

http://www.faculty.harvard.edu/05/documents/FDDEndofYearReport2007_000.pdf
 

http://www.faculty.harvard.edu/
05/documents/
FDDEndofYearReport2007_000.pdf
 

Richard, when you were doing the research for Harvard Rules, wouldn't you have found it useful to have access to reports such as those now published by Hammonds' office? How easy was it to get this kind of information when you were working on your book?
 

Why would Nable have been a much more interesting and impressive appointment than Flier?
 

Yes it is valuable that the report publishes important information on diversity at Harvard. For example women faculty are significantly more unhappy at Harvard than their male counterparts. The report does not explain why this is the case?

It is troubling that the report documents significant declines in the percentage of women faculty in tenure tracks and non-ladder in the Medical, Education, Divinity and Dental Schools.

What the report does not do is show any evidence that there is ACTION at Harvard to counter these trends. In reporting the work of Hammonds office, for example, much of the work seems to be reporting, organizing speaker series, and doing surveys. Isn't that office suppoose to DO something about diversity other than contemplate how serious the problems are at Harvard?
 

so women are unhappy in the schools were Summers appointed Deans. What else is news?
 

I agree with Richard. As usual he has put his finger on the crux of the matter:

"big deal about the report---we've known this for years. The question is---what is she doing about it. A report is not action."

He is absolutely right, what are Hammonds and Harvard doing about the issues presented in the report?

Have you considered featuring EH in 02138 and ask her just that question: "What ARE you doing about it?"