Clearly, Drew can't get every pick right. This one is indeed poor and is the triumph of hope over experience. The word alienate comes to mind and that voice. Where are you Susan Feagin when we need you; oh, you're at Columbia with Bollinger.
 

Okay, so I guess not everyone has nice things to say about Tamara Rogers....
 

I am a fan of Susan Feagin too. But even if she were available, she is not in touch with the current alumni and big donors in the way that Rogers is. I suspect that this appointment will be seen by some as going for a comfortable friend and a woman. But in my experience (as a faculty member with a lot of contact with fundraisers over the years), Rogers is clearly the best professional in the Harvard development office now, and as far as I can tell much respected by development professionals at other institutions.
 

You folks at Harvard better hope this is seen as an outstanding choice because the stakes are enormous heading into a humongous campaign. Hard to see why it would be seen as very credible to appoint another former Radcliffe official. Did the best outsiders pull back and what could that say about how easy it will be for post-Summers, apparently overly wealthy Harvard to beg for billions more right now?
 

Good to know she was a knockout in her college days as this is clearly the sort of thing worth mentioning.
 

Well, 1:46, it's not irrelevant to fundraising, you know.
 

1:46 here. I was not actually aware that having been a hot babe in college was important to fundraising. In that case, Larry Summers should never have been a candidate for university president since university presidents are supposed to be successful fundraisers. It all comes clear.
 

Ever worked in fundraising, 1:46? There aren't a lot of unattractive people, whether male or female, in the field. And, in fact, when the base from which you're soliciting is largely male (Wall Street, for example, or older Harvard alums), being an attractive woman is a foot in the door. Imagine! The idea that being good-looking can help you when you're asking rich men for money.....

As for the point about Larry Summers—well, I've always thought it would have been interesting to see the reactions if Summers had done the exact same things he did but also happened to look like Derek Bok.....
 

Well, Richard, it might be more interesting to see the reactions if Larry Summers looked more like maybe you than Derek Bok. That is a much farther leap as far as looks are concerned in my opinion. But I'm not sure that would have changed anything even if the overall package is more attractive. I mean you get pounded for just liking Crowded House and Apple. Also you yourself have eluded that Ann Coulter looks pretty good for her age but that doesn't make her any less of a repugnant person.

eayny
 

maybe pounded is too strong a word.....teased unmercifully is more like it. :)

eayny
 

Richard,
I completely agree with you that being attractive, male or female, is an asset in fundraising, as well as in every other profession. And I regret that my post stooped to the level of angry sarcasm which you then adopted as well. My response was born of frustration from your original post that might better have been dealt with simply by not reading your blog since it is, in fact, your blog. But, as a female Harvard professor I do find this blog interesting (as well as somewhat alienating at times like this).

The bottom line: While I agree with your point, it was not at all clear in your original post that this was the point you were making, since being a looker in one's undergraduate days is not necessarily relevant to what one looks like now. And although it is certainly the case that being attractive is useful, it's always sad as a woman to see this qualification so high on a list of qualifications when it rarely is for men.

1:46
 

So Rogers was chosen after a "national search." Is this the new Drew Faust spirit of candor? It's looking more and more like "Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour" in critical high posts at the University and FAS. These are all nice people but with remarkably few clear qualifications for their positions.
 

There we go, Richard, the blog has become more "interesting" again, as it has whenever an administrative appointment has been made in the last six months, with anonymous detractors then coming on with dire rumblings about how disastrous are the choices. Right?

I don't know Tamara Rogers, but will assume until it's shown otherwise that the choice is a good one. I hope she succeeds, once Harvard comes up with a rational and compelling description of what it wants out of a new campaign.

The perennial pro-Bollinger poster should move on. I agree he would have been a good choice in 2001, but he wasn't chosen, so let's see if there exist other competent people to do these jobs.
 

Also, I'm sure Richard merely added the "knockout" bit as an interesting aside to his post. It just went awry as things do sometimes. The only university fundraiser I know of is Naomi Levine.

www.nyu.edu/nyutoday/archives/15/05/Stories/Levine.html

I'm sure she relied upon her looks at some point as we all do, but mostly it was her powerful intellect and personality that propelled her to her success. She's remarkable woman. I wish Tamara Rogers the same success at Harvard with her "knockout" looks and all. ;)

eayny
 

Whoops here's that link again for Naomi.

http://www.nyu.edu/nyutoday/archives/15/05/Stories/Levine.html

eayny
 

There we go...I hope

http://tinyurl.com/23yqdy

eayny
 

Yup things do awry sometimes, eayny! lol
 

to 11:24.
My comment, if you read the 11:00 post, was not about Bollinger, but about Susan Feagin.
NR had a perfect opportunity to appoint her as head of development, but didn't. What a mistake. On a scale of 1 to 10 for capability, if Feagin is a 10, Rogers is a 2 maybe a 3. And that voice, oh man.
 

As I remeber, NR did pretty well with fundraising. Haven't heard the voice.
 

Any person - knockout or otherwise - with 30 years' devoted service as an ambassador on behalf of Harvard as (1) an admissions officer, (2) front-line fundraiser, (3) director of major gifts in FAS in a major capital campaign, (4) senior University Development manager with oversight of interfaculty initiatives, international fundraising, as well as corporations and foundations, and (5) leader of external affairs for the smallest of the small tubs, would seem to be highly qualified to lead Harvard's alumni affairs and development group. Even Susan Feagin, as admired and accomplished as she is, didn't have this breadth of experience in large tubs, small tubs and University development, so necessary to making Harvard a whole.

Drew Faust conducted a lengthy national search - one that seemed unnecessary to many who knew the quality, integrity and experience of the internal candidates - to ensure that the silly, uninformed views being expressed here were indeed baseless. This was not a retreat to a comfort zone - indeed, it is a testament to Drew's innate ability to attract and retain top talent. Remember that Tamara Rogers had a prominent, responsible position in the University Development when Drew asked her to join her as the first head of external affairs at the then-new Radcliffe Institute. It was a career risk to move from the center to the newest edge of the periphery, but she did it because she was drawn to Drew's leadership and vision. It was a smart move by Drew, just as it is today.
 

This last post is pretty well-argued, but it seems to me that DGF's ability to attract and retain top talent in her current position is still an unproved hypothesis. We don't know how Mike Smith will turn out, but we know he wasn't the first choice for FAS dean; ditto with the Med School pick.

I'm not saying at all that these won't turn out to be excellent choices; they may very well. Just that what happened at Radcliffe does not automatically translate to Harvard at large.
 

Richard, I thought the point of 12:09's post, which was informative and encouraging on the subject of TR, was that TR's experience CANNOT be reduced to "what happened at Radcliffe" (e.g. she was "director of major gifts in FAS in a major capital campaign"). Isn't that what you found well-argued about 12:09?

What we seem to be seeing in all of these appointments is the creation of teams, teams that we can expect to be working quietly with DF and through her with and not against each other. This may be a radically revolutionary development for Harvard, not just from the perspective of the last half decade.

Vigilance will be necessary where the teams need catching up to speed, and the faculties will need to be putting in effort to argue objectively for priorities, but at least they will do so with the prospect of being listened to.
 

My apologies for being unclear, Richard. I meant what happened at Radcliffe in terms of Drew Faust's ability to hire and retain good people, not Tamara Rogers' fundraising performance.
 

OK Richard, but I think your initial assessment, without the knockout sentence, is likely true:
"Rogers has an excellent reputation and seems like a smart pick for this job."
Only time will tell.
 

Fair enough, Richard. And FYI, the knockout sentence was really intended as a harmless, and complimentary, remembrance from a classmate of TR's whom I happen to know. I do believe what I wrote about the role of aesthetics in the workplace, but it was, indeed, something of a throwaway line.
 

No problem, Richard, and I only mentioned it since it distracted from the sentence I quoted. Pats 28-Jets 7. Looks like a good start and Moss is on.
 

Oops. Make that 28-14.
 

"And FYI, the knockout sentence was really intended as a harmless, and complimentary, remembrance from a classmate of TR's whom I happen to know..."

You think after the attenion you've paid Larry Summers you'd have learned a thing or two about "harmless" remarks Richard.
 

When I become a university president, I promise to lay off passing along compliments to women on their looks, at least in public. (Though in my experience, most women don't seem to mind all that much.) Meantime, if you can explain to me just why it's offensive or insulting to call someone a "knockout," in addition to complimenting her professionally, then I'll worry about having said something politically incorrect.

Otherwise, it seems to me that you need to relax a bit.
 

6:53...yes, as a woman I've learned not to get all bent out of shape over these kind of "harmless" remarks...you should too. I assure you that as an American, and supposedly an educated one, they are the least of your problems these days...just as Larry Summers' remarks were. Get a grip...

lmpaulsen
 

Quite right, Impaulsen and Rich. It's a blog not a presidential website, and Rich's point was indeed a harmless aside, so don't be overly subtle, 6:53.
 

Indeed some relaxation is in order here, but so is a bit more analysis. Rich did not say she was a knockout; he said someone who knew her thirty years ago thought she was a knockout then. Talk about irrelevant. Rich, why didn't you come right out and say, "Hey! Look at that photo! with those looks she is going to do great in this job!" Rather than the childish reference to what someone said about her long ago, which you then defended by saying that for a woman, good looks are a fundraising asset. Were you were really making a comment about the way she looks today, and hiding behind the adolescent memories of a classmate to do so?

Anything is fine; it's your blog. If you want to keep posting pictures of women and snickering about how they are knockouts, or were, go right ahead. But be honest about what you are doing.
 

I think if you run a gossip blog you're perfectly entitled to try to show every now and then that you know people who know the people in question. Gossip is about being an insider, and the perception of being an insider is 80% of the reality.
 

"Rogers has an excellent reputation and seems like a smart pick for this job. I gather from one of her college classmates that she was also considered quite the knockout in her HC days."

That's a pretty weak excuse for inside information!
 

Snickering? Not hardly. My friend Andrew Sullivan (sorry about the name drop, but there you are) used to have a term for this, a compliment someone passes along to you from a third party; he called it a TL. (No idea what that stood for.) It'd go something like this: "Hey, Tamara, my friend X thinks you're a knockout."

Outrageous, I know. Who wouldn't be offended by that? The horror, the horror.

Oh, and by the way, poster: This wasn't my intention in this case, but I remark on the looks of people in public life when it's relevant to their work all the time, whether they are male or female. (I thought that Drew Faust and W&M needed better publicity photos, and DGF got one; in turn, someone teased me for wearing a turtleneck in my author photo. Fair enough.)

You are welcome to accuse me of being look-ist, if you want. But sexist? Nah.

And Standing Eagle...if you really think this is a "gossip blog," then you have been in academia too long. Someday someone will start a gossip blog about life at Harvard—it's kind of a good idea, really—and you will see that the "gossip" herein is, in fact, pretty tame.
 

As a woman, I have certainly learned to ignore comments about women that irritate me. But this is a blog where people comment all day long about things that irritate them, and, in fact, there is enough commenting about "hot" women, etc. on this blog that it seems relevant to comment back. Why is it less relevant to comment about this than about what Craig was doing in a bathroom, or about a photo of a hot tennis player? I certainly have bigger problems than whether Richard Bradley finds women hot, but then, we all have bigger problems that what is on this blog. And it's interesting how these little "harmless" comments are the same kind that make it uncomfortable to be in social/professional situations with men who are making them.

If Richard wants women to read and participate in the blog (and maybe he could care less), then it seems fair for those women to weigh in on things that concern them, whatever they are. But it may be simpler to just stop reading.

--not 6:53, by the way
 

You are more than welcome to comment, 11:53; your comments are entirely welcome and valued, even when the blogger in question disagrees with them. I certainly think about each and every comment....
 

"Hey, Tamara, my friend X thinks you're a knockout." Maybe that would be relevant, but it is not what you said. You made precisely two statements about TR. One, that she has a good reputation. Two, that a classmate thought she was a knockout when she was in college. Don't keep revising history. What you had to say about her was ridiculously shallow, and that is the stupid part, not the sexism or lookism or whatever.
 

Thank you, Richard.

--11:05 p.m.
 

I plead guilty to having my shallow moments, 11:11, and I sometimes enjoy the juxtaposition between serious and shallow. (There is no shortage of seriousness, and self-seriousness, at Harvard.) There is a method to my madness, but if you don't get it, it's too late to explain. I couldn't sleep last night, and I was up reading the new novel by Jim Crace, then watching "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" on HBO, until 4 AM. (Great book; terrible movie; Jennifer Love Hewitt, knockout.)
So if I try to say much more, I'll probably degenerate into total incoherence.

Let's agree to disagree.....
 

And I plead guilty to knowing the actual human being here, who deserves better.

Agreed we disagree.
 

11:40, you are welcome to compliment me professionally, then in the next sentence mention that someone once thought I was a knockout, any time you want.

Of course, you'll have to find someone who ever thought I was a knockout. But if you do, I promise you that you can write that in public and I won't be offended. Trust me, I've heard lots worse.
 

Give me a break, 11:11, 11:40! The actual human being, is it? She'll need years of therapy for RB's saying she was said to be a knockout in College, which he didn't tie to her selection or anything else. You Harvard people need to get into the real world and see what really offends.
 

11:46, thank you for injecting some sanity into this situation. And I'd like to say that I think Richard is a knockout...and I don't mean the ivy league blonde in the turtleneck Richard...I mean the one who keeps this blog going with no compensation...puts up with the insults of educated people who smack him for every off the cuff remark he makes (this is a blog, not the New York Times), maintains his cool and his sense of humour, displays an unshakeable sense of decency and fair play and justice, realizes that there is life other than Harvard even though he wrote the book (which is more than I can say for most of the Harvard contributors)(correct that to all of the Harvard distributors), loves sports and music and art and life, sees the beauty of the earth and the human spirit...now that's a real knockout.
 

Beautifully expressed, 2:29! I quite agree.

eayny
 

Wow, no wonder the kids today are stupid. If this is the level/direction of discussion in Harvard classrooms we all have to fear for the future.

So what passes in NYC as a compliment is considered insulting in Cambridge; oh well too bad grow up and get over it. Ever been to a I-bank, hedge fund or major finance institution-the people are good looking and dress very well. Perhaps they understand they are working with other people's money and that requires grown ups and they chose to look and act like grown ups. Nuff said on that.

So to all you sloppy dressers and thinkers in Cambridge-clean up the wardrobe, your presentation and your act- the donors are watching!!!!
 

Now that we've settled that, can we please talk about Britney?
 

Britney's not a "knockout."
 

By the way, eayny, 2:29 AM was was me...lmpaulsen. I almost never leave off my name...and this was one time when I should not have..when I should have stood up and given my name but it was late...I was angry that this had gone so far...and very tired. I probably missed a few other things I should have added but you get the picture. Richard should not have to defend himself to anybody, least of all Harvard people.

And by all means, let's discuss Britany...she's a knockout alright...can't say enough about her...I'm at a loss for words.

lmpaulsen
 

Good to know that in order to be a grown up you have to be good looking.

If this whole discussion of the "knockout" sentence is so irrelevant, then why does it make so many of you who think it's so irrelevant so angry? It seems to have touched a nerve, which irrelevant things don't usually do.
 

If we shouldn't disagree with Richard, then maybe the comment feature should be disabled. Thought that's what comments were for, and that Richard wanted to spark discussion.

If you don't like a thread, why not ignore it instead of smacking the poster and then complaining that it has gone too far?
 

Yes, you're right. Any Harvard professor who has an opinion about something you don't agree with is probably a bad teacher and a bad dresser and ugly.
 

I really can't believe that Harvard professors spend time reading and replying to the trivial crap that's being posted here. This stunning pettiness, plus the comforts of tenure and a $35 billion endowment, are what makes FAS such a sad and dysfunctional place. Best of luck, Drew.
 

10:05 you might be right...Richard gives Harvard faculty and students a forum to express their views and concerns, anonymously if they choose to, sparks discussion and all have the right to disagree with him. I don't see, however, that they have the right to attack him personally on the basis of trivial remarks like TR being a knockout. I have no Harvard education but I enjoy the legitimate discussions...there have been many and they are interesting and educational...and yes, I look up to and expect more from Harvard. This free-for-all over a trivial remark reminds me that Larry Summers will forever be identified with his remarks against women and it is widely regarded as responsible for his downfall when in reality, it was only one of the least of his mistakes.

lmpaulsen
 

Impaulsen makes a good point. At the same time, those who found the initial post trivial certainly fanned the flames with their own ad hominem comments--equally trivial by their standards. The point --at this point-- seems less about whether someone has the right to ask Richard why someone's looks are relevant and more about why everyone on all sides feels the need to be so angry and uncivil to each other. Harvard profs and non Harvard profs could all try airing their views with a bit more respect for each other, as well as Richard.
 

Sorry, I meant "as well as FOR Richard." As in "respect for him.
 

Sorry, I meant "as well as FOR Richard." As in "respect for him.
 

10:05, this post is at heart about the competence of a person just appointed to head Harvard's development efforts. Doesn't seem that trivial to me. I occasionally come on here and post while sitting at my computer doing the things Harvard professors do, writing and preparing classes, e-mailing colleagues, students, and advisees. I also go get a coffee, use the bathroom, and the like. More relevantly, I follow sports teams, and listen to and and care about some contemporary music, so Richard's blog is of interest, at times mild, at times otherwise. Why is it OK for you to descend to reading and posting but not a Harvard professor? That would in my view lead to a dysfunctional FAS. And actually it seems pretty functional these days.
 

I don't know Richard personally and I didn't go to Harvard. I just like reading his blog and I've had the pleasure of exchanging a few emails. But I think all of readers here can tell Richard is doing this to provoke thought and the exchange of ideas. That may at times get out of control and get personal, as all arguments can. It's the nature of beast and actually the very nature of blogs. But Richard's a tough guy. And from what I can tell very much a Guy! He can take it and he's sorta asking for it by promoting discussion. Good for him! Obviously he inadvertently touched on a nerve here as far as looks and women are concerned. Even I had something to contribute about that earlier. It's a frustrating fact of life that sexism is still prevalent in our society. But I don't think Richard meant ANYTHING by mentioning that a former classmate thought Tamara Roberts as a knockout in college. It was a typical male blunder to mention it. And honestly, he backtracked beautifully and with a great deal of charm. I think what's interesting here is how men can blunder upon these issues without thinking even the ones who are as sensitive to others as Richard.
Anyway, I do miss the Monday Morning Zen Picture. It's good to throw that kind of energy out there. I hope that feature comes back to his blog. So here's sending some Monday Afternoon Zen at you, Richard. I look forward to your next argument and article.

eayny
 

Also, as a woman, I'd be just fine with anyone telling me I was a knockout (it has been a while) as long it was not in a professional setting. In that context, it would be uncomfortable. An unfortunate fact of life of all women.

eayny
 

10:05 am You made my point.BTW, it is about appearance not just looks. If you are to be entrusted with other people's money you better look as though you know what real money is.
 

The matter here is the context. Richard's commentrary on the recent hiring of Rogers would have been better served to have left out off-hand remark the about her physical attractiveness. Whether or not the comment itself is appropriate, it serves to distract the reader from the more compelling point, that being the hire itself, how it was conducted, how does it reflect in any way on Drew Faust, and what might it mean for Harvard in the short and long term.
 

Did you get your copy of 02138? A classmate of Al Gore's tells me he was considered a knockout in college.