Shots In The Dark
The Dignity of Life, Part 2
News flash: the Pope has a urinary tract infection.
Exodus....
Another African-American scholar is leaving Harvard. Tenured political scientist Michael Dawson, a graduate of Berkeley with a Ph.D. from Harvard, says farewell in this e-mail:
<<
Subject: With regrets
Dear Colleagues,
I'm sad to say that for a variety of reasons--including some important
familial ones--[my wife] and I have decided to return to the University
of Chicago. I regret that I didn't get to work with many of you more
closely than I have been able to, but know that the future of the
department is extraordinarily bright and it will be my loss that I will
be unable to join you in the coming years.
With all my best wishes,
Michael>>
Is this a sign of things to come?
Sloppy Journalism for You
This Reuters article about the anti-Semitism debate at Columbia contains the following egregious lines: "The Columbia controversy is one of several freedom of speech issues to hit U.S. college campuses. Harvard University President Lawrence Summers was criticized for comments about women's aptitude for science..."
The controversy over Summers' remarks was
not a controversy over free speech, despite the attempts of a number of conservative commentators to frame it that way. It was a debate over a university president saying that women in science are held back by genetic shortcomings, which in turn fueled a debate over that president's leadership style.
No one was saying that President Summers' 1st Amendment rights have been impaired—no one serious, anyway. This Reuters journalist is editorializing by presenting the Summers controversy that way...
It's Not Just Harvard's Problem
The
Yale Daily News reports on a contentious faculty meeting at which women and minorities (in particular, though not exclusively) lamented a lack of diversity on the Yale faculty. The story shows just how complicated this issue is, and how the specific issues can break down differently for women, as opposed to people of color. For example: It may be relatively easy to recruit women in the humanities, but not in the sciences. The challenges for minority faculty seem even greater: they appear to be more scarce across the board.
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology chair Stephen Stearns explained that "
his department recently hired four new faculty members, two of whom were women, and although the department's senior faculty helped search for minority candidates, they were unable to find any candidates of color whom they believed would have reasonable chances of attaining tenure. Also, Stearns said it is difficult to identify minority candidates because candidates often do not indicate their ethnicity in their applications."
It is an irony that, while Larry Summers' clumsy remarks back in January have been extremely damaging to him, and at least in the short term damaging to Harvard, there's no doubt that Summers has brought enormous attention to a serious problem at campuses across the country. As he might put it, this wasn't his intent, but it certainly was his effect.
Summers' story, like that of the challenge of recruiting female and minority professors, defies simple conclusions....
The Finn Brothers Take the Stage—Sadly
Neil and Tim Finn, two of the three remaining members of Crowded House, played a gig at London's Royal Albert Hall the other night, as described by the
Financial Times.
Key quote: <
And so the masters of catchy tunes and feelgood chord changes found themselves in improbably melancholy mood, one that Neil Finn in particular managed to shake off only during an extended and poignant encore. For the rest of the time, he looked listless and uninspired, while brother Tim took over most of the big stage numbers.>>
The encore was, fittingly enough, "Don't Dream It's Over."
UC-Berkeley Weighs In
The
Daily Californian, the newspaper of the University of California at Berkeley, has this take on the women in science issue. You won't find this article in the "Harvard in the News" wrap-up, but it's representative of a genre I've seen quite a bit of in the past few weeks: college newspapers using Larry Summers' remarks on women in science to demonstrate how much more progressive their institution/president is than Harvard/'s.
Two thoughts:
1) Individually and collectively, these articles damage Harvard's reputation. It's a subtle thing, but Harvard is becoming better known for the off-base remarks of its controversial president than for all the amazing scholarship and remarkable graduates the university produces.
2) One of the striking things about Harvard's culture is how masculine it is. In ways small and big, obvious and subtle, from the number of female tenured faculty, the coolness of much social interaction, the macho, competitive culture—even the fact that out of something like 42 portraits in the faculty room, only two are of women. And don't even get me started on the subject of Hanna Gray...
I can't help but think that this gender-construction at Harvard is unhealthy, and it's one of the ways in which Larry Summers was a problematic choice for president. He was steeped in masculine cultures from the time he went to college, if not before. More, he'd scorn the intellectual genres—women's studies, for example—that would provide some insight into this state of affairs.....
Harvard: We're #27!
Even though Harvard College is on spring break at the moment, the
Crimson follows up the
Globe with this story about Harvard's abysmal ranking in a poll of student satisfaction. I suppose because the students are gone, the
Crimson interviews a number of professors—Steve Pinker, Harvey Mansfield, et al—about their opinions on the survey. The professors' comments are, with one or two exceptions, inadvertently hilarious, as they merely reflect the prejudices of the person being interviewed and they show just how little Harvard professors know about undergraduate life. Steve Pinker, for example, uses the opportunity to talk (yet again) about what a great humanitarian Larry Summers is, while Mansfield blames the problem on—what a shock—the faculty. (I'm surprised he didn't specify "feminists.")
Here's something I've wondered: Who leaked this document to Marcella Bombardieri in the
Boston Globe in the first place? Was it a Summers opponent who wanted to keep the heat on?
Pope Dope
So unlike Terri Schiavo, the Pope now has a feeding tube. "Frail Pope Supports Dignity for the Ill," headlines the Drudge Report. "Wants Life Support to the End."
It's dangerous to overinterpret a headline, of course, but since Matt's take on the Pope seems supported by consensus, let's parse that. The Pope apparently can't speak, so he wanders over to a window for a brief moment to show his believers that he's still alive. On Easter Sunday, his image is beamed to the masses, but shown only from behind. His illness has become a morbid spectacle watched the world over. He's being fed through a tube.
This is dignity for the ill?
Given that the Pope apparently can't speak for himself, it's hard not to wonder how much this situation is being manipulated by high-ups in the Vatican. Who knows what power struggles and intrigues are taking place behind the scenes?
I'm not a Catholic, but I've always had tremendous respect for this pope, a remarkable and inspiring man. Lately, though, I'm just feeling sorry for him. Where is the dignity in having a tube inserted into your stomach just to keep the body functioning past the point where the Lord is calling you home? I don't find this death-watch inspiring; I find it tawdry.
From a journalist's perspective, this is a book one would love to write. I'm not qualified to, but someone should: the behind-the-scenes story of what's happening inside the Vatican during the last months of the Pope's life. It'd read like
The Da Vinci Code....
Pipes Down
Students and faculty at the University of Toronto are protesting a lecture by pro-Israeli academic Daniel Pipes. They're not trying to stop him from speaking; they just don't want people to go hear him.
I was skeptical—is this just another example of pro-Palestinian radical chic—until I read this letter in the University of Toronto newspaper...sounds to me like the protesters have a point.
Don't Dream It's Over
That's the name of a song by the New Zealand band Crowded House, a group I've loved for two decades and still listen to frequently, even though they broke up in 1994. Crowded House created bright, catchy pop music that sounded easy but was exquisitely crafted. And on many of their songs, their playful quality was tempered with a dark and subversive take on life, so typical of the art produced by musicians and filmmakers from that part of the world. Plus, they wrote some of the most heartbreakingly honest and beautiful love songs you could ever hear, like the aforementioned "Don't Dream It's Over."
The first Crowded House album came out in 1986, as I was graduating college and moving to Washington, D.C., to start a career in journalism, making $25 a week as an intern at the Center for Investigative Reporting. When I hear Crowded House now, I can't help but think of those days...the wonderful stale popcorn and cheap beer at Mr. Egan's, the fire department coming after my roommate and I lit our Christmas tree on fire (on purpose), bailing the aforementioned roommate out of jail after he decided to take his unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured motorcycle for a spin on the Washington Mall....
That year or the next, I got the chance to see Crowded House play at the Bayou in Washington, and they were just fantastic—playful, fun, warm. An extremely likable bunch of guys. But perhaps the one having the most fun was drummer Paul Hester, who, even from behind his drum kit, appeared to be having the time of his life. He was the jester of the group, and he made everyone in the audience laugh along with him. (A friend reminds me that at one point he used his whisks to play bandmember Neil Finn's guitar.)
Some months after the death of my boss, John Kennedy, in 1999, I traveled to Australia, where Crowded House is hugely popular. I listened to the group all throughout that recuperative journey. You couldn't really help it; Aussies love their local heroes. Crowded House helped bring some light to that dark period of my life.
But things are not always what they seem. Yesterday the
New York Times reported that Paul Hester took his own life at the age of 46, leaving behind two daughters. He hanged himself from a tree in a park near Melbourne, Australia.
This one is tough. Only Crowded House fans will get this, but without Paul Hester, there is a hole in the river. Like the song says, I hope he was dreaming of glory/miles above the mountains and plains/free at last....
Bulldoggery
I had a great visit to Yale yesterday, although I do have one pointer for aspiring lecturers: try not to give your talk at the exact same time as a much-publicized lecture by
New York Times columnist David Brooks. Nonetheless, thanks to all those people who came to the Branford College master's tea and to the Yale Bookstore for some terrific conversation. And much appreciation to Branford master Steven Smith and writing tutor Fred Strebeigh for setting up the event. It's always nice to make a return visit to Yale, and New Haven certainly looks much spiffier than when I was a student....
The Natives Really Are Restless
A group of students at Columbia is circulating a petition calling for the resignation of Lee Bollinger because his speech the other day was, apparently, an insufficiently strong defense of free speech for them.
I'm off to Yale to speak, but more later...
If You Happen to be in New Haven--
—and why wouldn't you be?—I'll be speaking at the Yale Bookstore at 6:30 PM tonight...and would love to see you there.
Like Some Sort of Ivy League Tranny?
Shocking news: Larry Summers is
becoming a transvestite. You read it here first. Or maybe second.
Shocked, Shocked (Part 2)
Three political scientists have surveyed 1, 800 university professors and concluded that—yes—academics really are more liberal than the general population.
According to the
Washington Post's Howie Kurtz, "
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative."
There are some hints that this study should be taken with a grain of salt: the data is six years old, the study was funded by a conservative group called the Randolph Foundation, and the political characterizations are self-descriptions by the academics surveyed.
I'm sure that this report will have conservatives such as David Horowitz, author of the Academic Bill of Rights, hollering that campuses need affirmative action for conservative professors.
But should anyone really be surprised by these numbers? To the extent that being liberal in today's United States means being open-minded, non-moralistic, and non-judgmental, then of course you're going to find that academics tend to be liberal.
The real problem for conservatives is the deep strain of anti-intellectualism inherent in much of modern conservativism. (See, for example, the conservative fight against the teaching of evolution.) How, for example, could you go into science when you don't believe in the scientific method? How could you become, say, an anthropologist when you're more interested in judging other people's behavior than understanding it?
It's also possible that this story misses the larger point: that while university faculties may be liberal, universities themselves are not—and at universities across the country, faculties have a smaller and smaller role in governance and decision-making. The number-crunchers rule. And guess what? They're conservative.
The Hue-Manity
Thanks so much to the good people at Hue-Man bookstore in Harlem for hosting the event with Cornel West and me last night—and thanks to everyone who braved an absolutely miserable night of cold and pelting rain to come hear us. Sometimes book-writing can seem like a good way to play a cruel joke on oneself. In Boston, my reading at the Old South Meeting House took place on the coldest March 9th in the city's recorded history. Last night, the reading began after it had been pouring rain for around 17 consecutive hours, until New York looked like something out of Blade Runner.
But then you get a warm and welcoming group of people in a fantastic and important bookstore like Hue-Man, and people who ask smart and thoughtful questions, and welcome you into their community, and writing books for a living suddenly seems like not such a crazy idea after all.
If you weren't able to make it, C-SPAN recorded the event for posterity, or at least for "Book Notes." I'll keep you posted on the airtime as soon as they tell me....
We're Shocked, Shocked (Part 1)
According to an internal Harvard memo reported by Marcella Bombardieri of the
Boston Globe, Harvard students have such low levels of satisfaction with their college experience, Harvard ranks 27th out of a group of 31 elite universities, including the entire Ivy League.
Key quote: <<''Harvard students are less satisfied with their undergraduate educations than the students at almost all of the other COFHE schools," according to the memo, dated Oct. 2004 and marked ''confidential." ''Harvard student satisfaction compares even less favorably to satisfaction at our closest peer institutions.">>
That's basically a fancy way of saying that Harvard students don't like their university.
Or—forgive me while I toot my own horn—as I write in
Harvard Rules, "A startling number of Harvard students will tell you that they don't like their school. They appreciate it. They respect it. They are thankful for the opportunities it provides them. But they don't
like Harvard."
The question is why. I think it has something to do with the established culture of the institution: hurried, competitive, over-achieving, and individualistic. This is not a warm and nurturing place. It's not a
fun place.
But it's not just the institution's fault. So many kids at Harvard have worked since kindergarten to get into the university, you'd sometimes think that they wouldn't know fun if it hit them on the head. They've put the university on such a pedestal, they don't realize that once you're there, it's all right sometimes just to play. College may be the last time in life when you can have fun without guilt...but at Harvard, some kids feel guilty whenever they're not doing the same things that helped them get in in the first place: over-achieving like mad.
Women in Pictures
Cartoonist Sage Stossel has this entertaining take on a women in science panel discussion held at the Radcliffe Institute on March 21st...
Perhaps the most interesting part: Nancy Hopkins, the MIT biologist who walked out of Summers' NBER talk, got a standing ovation. She said that she regretted having walked out, though. Who could blame her? She's been pilloried as a hysterical woman for having done so...and called a feminist by Harvey Mansfield. Perhaps sometimes it takes an overreaction to draw attention to something that merits greater scrutiny.
Harvard Rules...USA Today
This
USA Today piece by Harvard grad Alvin P. Sanoff talks about why events at Harvard attract so much attention in the larger culture....and discusses
Harvard Rules and Ross Douthat's book Privilege.
My theory: "It is seen as a way station to the American dream in the same way that Ellis Island is," Bradley says. "The idea that any kid can grow up in the United States and go to Harvard and become successful is as ingrained in the American imagination as the idea that any kid can grow up to be president."
Harvard Rules the Times
Despite a few snarky lines, this review in the New
York Times Sunday Book Review is smart and thoughtful.
I don't agree with all the points made by reviewer Rachel Donadio, but one never does, and I don't want to quibble.
A few people have mentioned that the piece is sort of an odd hybrid of book review and essay. That's something new to the Times Book Review under new editor Sam Tanenhaus, and I have to say that I like it. The NYTSBR used to be dry as dust; Tanenhaus is livening it up immensely.
The Makings of a Hot Monday Night
I'll be speaking tonight at 7:00 at the Hue-Man Bookstore in Harlem. (For more information, see the link.)
Special guests will include Cornel West and C-SPAN....
Hue-Man is at 125th Street and 8th Avenue, easily accessible by the A/C/D/B subway....
Ward's no Winston
U-Colorado professor Ward Churchill may not get fired for his controversial remarks about 9/11...but he might get the boot for being a plagiarist, according to an article in
InsiderHigherEd.com.
It also turns out that Churchill may not be of Native American descent, as he has claimed.
Key quote: "The report also examined an unusual allegation that has been raised: That Churchill is not an American Indian.... Churchill has always identified himself to the university as an American Indian, and the university received complaints from Indian leaders 10 years ago that Churchill was being untruthful. At the time, the university concluded that self-identification was an appropriate way for Churchill to declare himself an Indian, so the matter was dropped."
This question of self-identification has become an issue at Harvard as well. If a student applies to the school and identifies him or herself as a minority—presumably creating some small advantage in the application process–does Harvard have any obligation to verify the claim?
I am reminded of an old friend of mine, a TV reporter with just about the WASPiest face and name you could imagine. She wanted to get out of her small market station, but despite being a terrific reporter, couldn't get hired anywhere. So she changed her preppy surname to a Hispanic one, and got a job offer within days—no matter that she couldn't have looked less Hispanic. Thus breeding cynicsm all 'round.
Two thoughts:
1) Winston Churchill shouldn't get fired for saying something political and stupid...but these other allegations are definitely firing offenses, if true.
2) The debate over "self-identification" is going to heat up....
Hours Later...
The NBER transcript has been re-posted on President Summers' website....
Apparently You Can't Teach An Old Dog
Remember how, in a spirit of openness, Larry Summers posted the transcript of his NBER remarks on his website? Well, glasnost didn't last long. Now, if you click on the site, you get a message saying that if you want a transcript, call the president's office.
Where I'm sure they'll take your name down very carefully.....
The Struggle for the Soul, Redux
A fascinating piece in the
Times looks at how New York governor George Pataki has privatized and politicized the state university system. Harvard afficionados will note the byline on the story belongs to Pat Healy, who used to cover Harvard for the
Boston Globe. This is a thorough and nuanced piece of reporting. Not to mention a good read.
Why Bollinger's Talk Matters
The ubiquitous David Horowitz promotes his "Academic Bill of Rights" here. Horowitz worries that lefty professors have taken over the academy, and so his bill aims to promote "intellectual diversity."
Key quote: <
Why do we need legislation? There are too many people like Ward Churchill—the University of Colorado professor who compared 9/11 victims with Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann—on faculties across the nation. They confuse their classroosm with a political soap box.>
Horowitz then gives a whopping two examples, both at small schools in Colorado. (What is with Colorado professors, anyway? It's not exactly a blue state.) At least one of those examples—a professor who asked students taking a criminology exam to argue that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal act—sounds defensible to me.
(Although better if the professor had said: "The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Agree or disagree." But who knows? Maybe he did.)
Legislators need to get involved, Horowitz concludes, to ensure that schools are "educating our kids, not brainwashing them."
Mmmm. Because there's so much intellectual diversity in our legislatures these days, right?
(Sorry. That was a cheap shot.)
The point is, the kind of political sermonizing Horowitz is up in arms about just isn't widespread. And when it does occur, universities can address it on their own, without any help from politicians.
What Horowitz really wants is affirmative action for conservative professors...
Harvard: We're #2!
According to a survey by the Princeton Review, more American students consider New York University their "dream college" than any other.
Harvard was ranked second, followed by Stanford, Yale and Princeton.
The Review interprets this as evidence that students are choosing an "urban" college experience, largely because of the internship and employment opportunities New York provides.
Let's hope that this is indeed the case, and it's not just that the Olsen twins go there....
The 2nd Choice Speaks Out
Lee Bollinger, who lost the Harvard presidency to Larry Summers, talks about free speech at universities here.
Bollinger was specifically addressing the allegation that the department of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia is a hotbed of anti-Semitism.
The Columbia president, a First Amendment scholar, strikes a reasonable balance. Just because they have tenure and the right to free speech, he said, professors can't say anything they want, and shouldn't use their classrooms to promote their own political agendas.
Then Bollinger adds this very important caveat: "When there are lines to be drawn," he said, "we must and will be the ones to do it. Not outside actors. Not politicians, not pressure groups, not the media. Ours is and must remain a system of self-government."
People at Columbia tell me that Bollinger's agenda is very similar to Larry Summers' at Harvard: centralizing the president's authority, expanding the campus, building up the sciences, etc.
And yet, for some reason, the Harvard president is embroiled in controversy while Bollinger looks like the public intellectual Summers was supposed to be....suggesting that it's not necessarily Summers' agenda that has gotten him into trouble, but his personality.
Harvard Hits the Big 4-0
And then some.
The College has announced that tuition will rise 4.5% next year, going up to $41, 675, once again outpacing the rate of inflation. Simultaneously, Harvard says that it will increase its college scholarships to $84.6 million. As much as that sounds, it's still less than a third of total revenue from tuition. My rough estimate: assuming that Harvard has 6, 400 undergraduates, they pay $266, 604, 800 in tuition every year.
I know that many students who want to go to the nation's finest colleges think that such exorbitant amounts of money are well-spent. The reward is economic success in later life.
I can't help but wonder, though, if the very purpose of college isn't being warped by such prices. The higher the price of tuition, the less likely students can afford to do anything but go into high-paying fields like law and finance after they graduate....
Struggle for the Soul, continued
Dormaid's "general counsel," a sophomore economics concentrator named Joseph T.M. Cianflone, makes the case for Dormaid in this Crimson op-ed.
Key quote: <<
The most important issue at hand is economic freedom. The principles of free enterprise and the right of every citizen in a just and fair society to decide how and when to purchase what they will are the cornerstones of any democratic meritocracy. Dorm life is not a mandatory egalitarian process imposed upon us by the College to distort our view of how societies run best. Nor is it a system designed to paternalistically decide what is fair and unfair consumption based upon income brackets.>>
Well, there you have it: For today's students, the most important right is the right to purchase whatever they want. That's the "cornerstone" of meritocracy.
Kudos to Cianflone for stating the case so forthrightly. But I couldn't disagree more. Harvard College should not simply be a luxury mall at which shoppers purchase the services they want--courses, maids, a diploma, whatever--and then depart, prepped for success in the outside world. Any college that means something should aspire to educate its students outside the classroom as well as inside. Who really wants to attend a college which teaches that money is everything?
Wait a second—don't answer that question.
It's not fashionable to say that a college should teach values, I know. But Harvard should—and Dormaid doesn't.
A Culture of Life?
The New York Times reports on the latest in the heartbreaking case of Terri Schiavo. I say "heartbreaking" not just because of the sadness of Schiavo's condition, but because of how Congress has exploited Schiavo for political gain. (And not just Republicans—a lot of Democrats voted for the ghastly "Palm Sunday compromise.")
Here's something I don't understand: why all the people who want Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted are so appalled at the idea of her passing.
Don't get me wrong: I don't worship death, and I'm not exactly looking forward to my own moment of reckoning with the Grim Reaper.
But it seems to me that part of honoring life is accepting that death—preferably death with dignity—is a part of the human narrative. And the Schiavo protesters want to deny her that death.
Anyway, don't these folks believe in heaven? After all, they're the same people who don't want evolution taught in schools....
Observing Summers
Tom Scocca has a smart piece on the Summers presidency in this week's
New York Observer (and not just because he quotes yours truly). Scocca looks skeptically at some of the much-touted Summers "accomplishments"—Allston, the curricular review—and compares his management style to that of Howell Raines, late of the
New York Times.
Key quote: "Mr. Raines lamented 'the destructive power of a change-resistant newsroom.' What he—and Mr. Summers—overlooked was the constructive power already in place. The procedures, structures and habits of Harvard or the Times had been built up by generations of smart people, trying to figure out the best way to do their jobs. They worked."
I think Scocca's on to something: All the talk about how Summers was supposed to "shake things up" has obscured any meaningful discussion of what, exactly, needed shaking up, and whether shaking up was really the best means of effecting whatever change was required. There are lots of smart people at Harvard—not just the president.
The Votes Are In...
...and it's Summers by a nose. As the
Crimson reports, Harvard graduate students rejected the vote of no-confidence by 699 to 608.
Tough to know what this vote means, if anything, which was part of the reason why some students were not entirely supportive of having it. Ninety students abstained, and 146 said they "need more information."
But certainly, when you're down, you take your victories where you can, and Summers should be pleased by this outcome.
My prediction: It won't be a day before a conservative pundit uses this vote to proclaim that the professors are more out of touch than the students, just a bunch of aging '60s radicals....
It's worth noting that the grad students also voted on the second resolution, the milder censure originally proposed by Theda Skocpol. They passed that overwhelmingly, by a vote of 945-362, with 149 abstaining and 87 saying they needed more information...
Not Prozac Nation—Harvard Nation!
Last night I watched the long-delayed film "Prozac Nation" on Starz (how I hate to write those five letters), and this morning I read Dana Steven's review of it in
Slate. I liked the movie less than Stevens did, but I agree with her that the movie's fundamental problem is that protagonist Elizabeth Wurtzel is wholly unlikeable.
(Full disclosure: I know Elizabeth and don't find her wholly unlikeable at all. Yes, she has a penchant for saying things that get her in trouble, but she's also a very talented writer; I published an excerpt from her book,
Bitch, in
George because it was the most insightful essay about Hillary Clinton I'd ever read.)
Part of the movie's problem is that the impact of Wurtzel's collegiate environment is absent. There's no sense of why being at Harvard was such an important part of her story. (There are some shots of the campus in the film, but most of it is set at some other bucolic university.)
An important element of
Prozac Nation was the contrast of feeling like a train wreck at a place filled with overachievers....a feeling that many Harvard students can still understand.
Harvard in the Modern Era
Here's my favorite part of today's Crimson story on Ellen Lagemann's resignation:
<
Lagemann said she left yesterday's faculty meeting 25 minutes early to discuss public relations strategy with University Provost Steven E. Hyman.>
Oh, my. Where does one start with that?
The Crimson also points out that the five ed school deans preceding Lagemann each served at least eight years, rather than Lagemann's three.....
Sweep Dormaid Under the Carpet
The Times runs its take on the Dormaid story—"At Harvard, An Unseemly Display of Wealth or Merely a Clean Room?"
The article hinges on whether Dormaid is a legitimate campus business or a way of reinforcing class distinctions at Harvard.
Key quote from a Dormaid founder: <<"There's so many ways in which on our campus you're able to display wealth in so much more obvious a fashion than having someone quietly clean your room," said Mr. Eisenberg, 20, a psychology major from Westfield, N.J.. He said class differences were evident in clothes, cars and entertainment, even in a campus laundry service that would wash, fold and place students' clothes in a "very noticeable" yellow bag.>>
I love the use of the word "quietly" there. Doesn't he actually mean "meekly"?
Harvard has made a huge mistake in sanctioning Dormaid. Everything about it appalls: that it allows students to pay others to pick up after themselves; that if one roommate can afford it and the other can't, Dormaid will happily accept money from the former and leave the latter's room untouched (as co-founder Michael Kopko hilariously puts it, "
to avoid stratifying people, if one roommate does not want the service, DormAid will clean only the rooms of those who do"); that one reason Dormaid was approved was that the founders agreed to appoint one student to "oversee" the adult cleaning crews.
Forgive my class consciouness, but this is exactly how Harvard students are trained to oversee the workers of the world.
If you don't believe me, just look at the picture that accompanies the article.
The photo shows a white male student—it's an unfortunate bit of symbolism that he happens to be German—happily striding through his (filthy) apartment, while below him two women, one black and one Latina, are literally on their knees cleaning.
But Harvard is not the only elite institution which has a problem with classism. Guess which participants in this debate the
Times didn't think important enough to interview?
It's almost too easy: the people doing the cleaning.
Or were they afraid that their boss, the Harvard sophomore, would fire them if they spoke to the press?
More on the Summers Brothers
The Daily Pennsylvanian's article on Larry Summers advances the story with quotes from Richard Summers, one of Larry's younger brothers.
Key quote: "There is a national, increasing tension in large universities between [the] corporate needs of a complex institution and the old-style university governance, a community of scholars," Richard Summers said. "Larry's found himself in the crosshairs of that kind of conflict. The faculty at Harvard want to be in charge."
Some caveats: Richard Summers neatly skips over the role of his brother's personality and leadership style. And I think he overstates the case. The faculty at Harvard doesn't want to be "in charge." Go to any faculty meeting and see how low the attendance is, and you'll see just how involved in university governance the faculty wants to be. They don't want to run the place...but they do want to be
involved in running the place. The difference may be subtle, but it's real.
Still, Richard Summers does put his finger on something that's true at Harvard and elsewhere: the corporate model versus the community of scholars model. You might even call it the struggle for the soul of a university.
Is Larry Summers' Brother Reading This?
Shots in the Dark, March 16, 2005: "In a year or so, once the dust settles, Summers [may resign] in a way that allows him to claim some measure of success as a 'change agent.'"
The
Daily Pennsylvanian, March 22, 2005: "I think he was asked to be president of Harvard to be a change agent," said Richard Summers, the president's brother and associate director of the psychiatry residency program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.
The Education of Ellen Condliffe Lagemann
Marcella Bombardieri in the
Boston Globe picks up on Ellen Lagemann's departure. Bombardieri writes that tensions with Larry Summers might have had something to do with it. Howard Gardner, a friend of Lagemann's and a Summers' critic, tells the Globe that "by all accounts their relationship was very rocky."
But Lagemann denies it. Key quote: "[Summers] is more interested in K-12 education than possibly any president of Harvard has ever been," she said in a phone interview. "No dean of the education school before me has had the kind of support I've had from Larry. We have a wonderful time arguing about issues in K-12 education, and I would say he has been very supportive of this school."
Lagemann adds that she's 59, she's "not going to live forever," and she has a book she wants to write.
Hmmm. Let's parse this.
It's my impression that Lagemann is right: Summers is indeed interested in K-12 education. He talks about it frequently, often using his daughters as examples of educational phenomena. (What their textbooks said about the Industrial Revolution, for example.) And he knows that for Harvard to find low-income students who are truly capable of doing the work there, public schools around the country have to improve.
However, it's also my impression that Gardner is also right. Stories about an argumentative relationship between Summers and Lagemann have been floating around campus for her entire 2.5-year tenure.
It wouldn't surprise me if Summers' interest in lower education (is that the right term? sounds too politically incorrect, but I like it) were, in fact, the reason for Lagemann's departure. When Larry Summers takes an interest in your subject, it's a mixed blessing. On the one hand, you have the president's interest. On the other hand, you have the president's interest. And when Summers is watching over something, he's not shy about telling you what you should do.
It's worth noting that Lagemann's politic statements might have something to do with the fact that she'll now be teaching at the ed school while she writes her book.
As she put it, she's almost 60. If she makes nice now, she can comfortably teach at Harvard for five years while she writes—a nice transition into retirement. At the same time, she knows that people in the community will suspect that there's more to the story than the fact that she wants to write a book.
Saying the gracious thing in public seems like the smart play here.....and who knows? Maybe it's even true.
The Plot Thickens....
A high-profile woman at Harvard is on her way out. Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, dean of the school of education, has announced that she will leave at the end of the school year. The timing is curious, to say the least. With just about two months to go before commencement, Lagemann's not exactly leaving a lot of time to find a successor—these searches take time. Also, you'd think that Larry Summers would do everything in his power right now to keep one of his three female deans (the others are at the law school and the Radcliffe Institute) from leaving.
Somehow I have a feeling there's more to this story....
The Bulldog Barks
The Yale Daily News offers its take on goings-on at Harvard here.
(Think folks in New Haven are enjoying this much?)
The most interesting part is this contribution from Yale history professor John Morton Blum, a former member of the Harvard Corporation, who spoke about the impossibility of knowing where the Harvard Corporation truly stands.
<
<"We don't know what the feeling in the corporation is," Blum said. "I don't know whether Mr. Houghton is speaking for himself or for a majority of the corporation or for the whole corporation."
Even if the corporation fully supports Summers now, its support may be tentative, Blum said. But chances are slim that the corporation would fire Summers outright, due to a "tradition of civility" that exists among institutions of higher learning, Blum said.
"What they would do would be to go to the president and say, 'We no longer support you, you've got to resign,'" he said, noting that former Harvard President Nathan Pusey, unpopular among students and faculty alike for his handling of a riot during the 1960s, was ousted in this way.>>
Blum indirectly touches upon a crucial point: that "tradition of civility" in institutions of higher learning. That's exactly what the faculty is saying has been lost under Larry Summers. Ironic that the very tradition he has scorned may keep him from getting fired.
Harrummph, said the Alums
A fascinating trio of letters in the Harvard Crimson.
The first, by J. Robert Moskin, class of '44, is almost a parody of the grouchy old alum.
"Enough of this disgraceful public bickering by teachers who are expected to know better." And so on.
The second, by Samuel S. Robinson, class of '54, isn't much better. Robinson talks about how Harvard once protected its professors from McCarthyism, and now is turning on its own president. "Who would want to succeed University President Lawrence H. Summers, or indeed even teach at or attend a place so disconnected from its glorious past?"
Not quite sure I follow the logic there.
David G. Winter, class of '60, sounds like a man who graduated just a little ahead of his time. "The Harvard Corporation—one of the oldest absolute oligarchies in the Western Hemisphere, and a bastion of the American ruling class—is in no way bound to act on the faculty’s views," he writes. "And so as expected, it has announced its continued confidence in Summers."
Isn't it remarkable how all these letters seem not just reflective of the men who wrote them, but the era in which they graduated?
And again, a point I've made repeatedly in this space: People outside the university simply do not understand that, particularly at Harvard, it is customary for the faculty to have a say in the running of the place. Not necessarily a decisive one, but a voice that is taken seriously and considered with respect.
The Satire Problem, Cont'd.
Here's Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at the St. Patrick's Day breakfast, an annual and venerable Bay State rite. (Spirits were, um, high, so the translation is loose.)
"I know I need to reach out to other constituencies, so I thought about the chances of organizing a 'Democrats for Romney' group....About as good as starting a 'Female Mathematicians for Larry Summers' group."
The Unbearable Whiteness of Being...at Harvard
Having said that...
I am surprised that race has not become a bigger part of the discussion at Harvard. Because if women are concerned about their lack of visibility in the university's higher echelons, African-Americans and other minorities have even more reason to be angry. Look around at the Summers administration—it's not exactly the Rainbow Coalition. In fact, "not exactly" is giving Summers too much credit. This group is whiter than a doily.
Summers sometimes seem to think that the rules which apply to everyone else don't apply to him. Even as he talks about diversity and its importance to the student body—even as he co-authors
New York Times op-eds in favor of affirmative action—he has not appointed a single minority to a high level post in his administration. Not one African-American, Latino/a, or Asian-American. So while I have no idea if Desiree Goodwin's lawsuit has merit, I do think that, unless things change, sooner or later Summers is going to get hit with a discrimination lawsuit in which he'll be the named defendant.
The declining numbers of female faculty members at Harvard is a scandal. So is this.
Let's Talk About Race
I have no knowledge of Desiree Goodwin's situation, but I should say that she came to my reading at the Old South Meeting House and asked what I thought was a smart question.
In James Traub's August 2003 profile of Larry Summers in the
New York Times Magazine, there's a curious anecdote. While meeting with a group of students, Summers was asked about the incident of the snow penis, the sculpture built by some male Harvard undergrads and knocked down by some female students. Was the sculpture's destruction justified or an unacceptable violation of free speech?
Summers responded by challenging students to think about the issue. What if a student had written "nigger" in the snow? he asked. Would that change your feelings?
Goodwin wanted to know my reaction to that story and whether I thought Summers was racist.
Tough question.
Because when I first read Traub's profile, I was a little shocked by Summers' use of the n-word. For one thing, because he didn't actually need to say it—he could have done what I just did, and said "the n-word."
But then, that isn't his style.
Summers was clearly using the word in a context aimed at showing its offensiveness. Still, it's risky to throw out that word in a crowded room. Especially when you don't really need to; when your use of it has more to do with an instinctive dislike for euphemisms, or perhaps the sense that it was so obvious that he was using the word in a critical way, no one could find fault with him.
Still...this is the kind of thing that gets Summers in trouble. Because not everyone will understand his intention. And his almost casual use of the word opens him up to the charge that he's racist in effect, if not intent.
My answer to Goodwin: I don't think Summers is racist. But I do think that incident is an excellent example of how Summers can be so clinical, he doesn't realize when he's playing with fire.
Harvard Rules In the News
The book's mentioned in two news stories today, this one from the
Boston Herald and this one from the
Baltimore Sun.
The
Herald reports on the ongoing lawsuit of Desiree Goodwin, a former Harvard librarian who is suing the university, claiming that a supervisor told her she was "too sexy" to be taken seriously. Goodwin, who is black, also claims that she was repeatedly passed over for promotion while less qualified whites were advanced. She and her lawyer were hoping to call Larry Summers to testify. The judge ruled against Goodwin on the grounds that Summers had no direct knowledge of her situation and that his appearance "would only be for the purpose of harassment and publicity."
The Herald also reports that Goodwin's lawyer wants to introduce Harvard Rules as evidence.
Key quote: <<Goodwin's attorney Richard D. Clarey wants to show jurors a new book, "Harvard Rules—The Struggle for the Soul of the World's Most Powerful University," whose author claims Summers oppossed Condoleeza Rice as a graduation speaker by saying he would not let "affirmative action" dictate his choice.>>
More on this momentarily.
The Baltimore Sun piece is called "Tell-All Books are a Dose of Poison in Harvard's Ivy," which is the kind of title that gets you irritated at newspapers. The article is about the campus reaction to Harvard Rules and Ross Douthat's book, Privilege, and neither work really falls into the tell-all category. But never mind. Here's the key quote in Ellen Gamerman's story.
<With a faculty fight over Harvard's leadership resulting in the largest faculty group's no-confidence vote against President Lawurence H. Summers last week, as well as two new tell-all books offering an unflattering glimpse behind Harvard's red-brick walls, the university with a seemingly unassailable brand name is finding itself on the defensive.>
Gamerman has a point: Whatever side you take in the Summers controversy, there's no doubt that it has tarnished Harvard's reputation. The left sees Summers as a tyrannical, sexist caricature; the right sees the faculty as a politically correct mob. What impact will this have when students receive their acceptance letters in a couple of weeks? Or will the youth of America simply base their decisions on the great soul-killing force of our era— celebrity?
Maureen Dowd Goes Crazy...Over Genes
Maureen Dowd writes about the scientific differences between men and women in this column. Does anyone, including herself, have the slightest idea what she's talking about? Or was she just really, really hard up for a column topic?
It's Kind Of Like the Middle East
Democracy is spreading. On Monday and Tuesday students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) will vote on the same resolutions that the faculty just approved. Here's the e-mail that's sent around by the Graduate Student Council, a group of about 50, including representatives from each academic department. (The website URL has been changed to protect the innocent voters.)
<<
The Faculty have spoken, now it's your turn.
Last Tuesday the FAS faculty voted "lack of confidence" in President Summers. On Monday and Tuesday GSAS students will have the chance to vote on the same question. Harvard and the world want to know what thousands of graduate students think about their university president.
Polls will open from 7am Monday (March 21) and close at 5pm Tuesday (March 22). Log on to the weblink below between these hours to cast your anonymous vote.
It's a quick and easy process.
http://www.xxxx.yyy.zzz
The two questions are those offered to faculty at their vote last week.
The results are vital to the ongoing debate, and graduate student opinion is of great interest to faculty and the press.
Yours,
The Graduate Student Council>>
So It's the Left that's Closed-Minded, Is It?
This New York Times piece
raises an issue that I've been trying to follow lately: the conservative attack on Darwin and the theory of evolution. (I say trying to follow because the attack is so ubiquitous, stories about it are increasingly commonplace.) Key quote: <<Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject [of evolution] - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.>>
Yup, there go those liberals again—waging war on Christianity.
Sarcasm aside, this is a truly ominous trend. It challenges the very notion of intellectual progress. In schools all over the country—not just in red states— children are being taught that evolution is just one theory among many, no better and maybe worse than creationism.
I have a suggestion for Larry Summers: This is the perfect subject for him to address. He's a great advocate of science; he's a leading public intellectual; and he's a university president.
Summers erred in January by relying on shaky science to draw dubious conclusions. He could do the country a great favor by speaking out in favor of real science.
Rush Limbaugh Has a Brother?
Just like the National Organization for Men—who knew?
In any event, he too is on Larry Summers' side. His
defense of Summers is subtly titled "Lawrence Summers and the Left's Thought Gulag."
It's worth considering the argument Limbaugh makes, not so much because it's serious, but because conservative pundits make this case so often that the sheer repetition of it may convince many.
First, Limbaugh dismisses the idea that Summers' leadership style is the source of faculty discontent. Instead, he says, it's all about Summers' remarks on women in science.
Key quote: "The FAS just could not abide the suggestion that
women might have different intellectual strengths from men. It not only wouldn't accept Summers' apology, it virtually demanded his head and permanently tarnished his reputation."
(It virtually demanded his head? Well, did it or didn't it?)
The faculty reacted this way because it is politically correct, closed-minded, intolerant and liberal—which, according to Limbaugh, is thrice redundant.
Limbaugh then extrapolates from the Summers situation to attack not just Harvard, but "the Left" in general.
As he concludes, "The Left is increasingly intellectually bankrupt and delusional. But worse, it has become boorishly dictatorial, not even sparing would-be allies, like Clintonite Lawrence Summers, from its hellish wrath, if they not just to disagree with its dogma, but to express a willingness to consider ideas the 'code' forbids."
I like that—"the code." As if liberals all sign their names in blood in a secret book.
In high school, I took a class in logic which taught me to look out for such debate techniques as the straw man, the reductio ad absurdum, the false conclusion. Limbaugh uses all of these and more; the argument is so intellectually dishonest that anyone trying to take it on can get bogged down by all the little lies.
More important, I think, is the big lie: That there is such a thing as The Left—in a country with a Republican president, a Republican Congress, and Republican-dominated governorships and statehouses—and that it is powerful, intolerant, and politically correct.
Limbaugh's argument really doesn't have anything to do with Harvard. But it says a lot about how conservatives debase political discussion in order to gin up hysteria and rally their supporters.
Oh, and by the way, David Limbaugh is also an author. His book: Persecution—How Liberals Are Waging Political War Against Christianity. I'm sure it's equally convincing.
There's a National Organization for Men?
Apparently, and it's sticking up for Larry Summers. (Remember, a couple months ago the National Organization for Women called on Summers to resign.)
Key quote: <
National Organization for Men (NOM) co-president Warren Farrell said, "Harvard's action reflects a new double standard: Nearly any negative statement can be made about men, but only positive statements can be made about women. Just imagine what would have occurred if Summers asserted that 'Men are just plain better human beings than women.'">
The mind reels.
And A Second Thought
It occurs to me that one fallout from the Summers era might well be a reexamination of the Harvard Corporation and changes in its structure.
Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if the man appointed by the Corporation to "shake things up" wound up toppling the Corporation?
Or will the Corporation conclude that survival in its current form requires cutting Summers loose?
Whose Corporation Is It?
Steve Bailey of the Boston Globe adds his voice to a growing number of thinkers raising doubts about the Corporation's role in Harvard's governance.
The key quote: "Summers can try to run the place like a top-down chief executive. But Harvard also needs a board that's up to the job of the 21st century. Harvard's president just lost an astounding vote of confidence by the faculty. Would its board have fared any better?"
The answer, I think, is that the Corporation would have fared even worse.
As I've suggested before, Harvard has a fundamental, structural governance problem. The powers of the Board of Overseers have been increasingly diminished. Meanwhile, the secretive, answerable-to-no one Corporation has grown stronger and stronger—and less and less diverse.
Three members of the seven-member board (Summers is one, ex officio) have left since Summers became president. One, Hanna Gray, is leaving, to be replaced by Nan Keohane, former president of Duke. (The token woman leaves to be replaced by--yes!--a token woman.)
Which means that four members of the board essentially owe their appointments to Summers. Plus the president makes five of seven.
If you were inclined to be paranoid, you could say that Summers has fundamentally taken control of the university governance structure.
If not, you could just ask whether the Corporation could possibly be an independent voice. Will it act in the best interests of the university? Or the man who appointed 56% of its members?
Goodbye, Good Reverend
Sometime after the publication of my last book,
American Son, I received a letter from a North Carolina pastor named Stan Easty, of St. Peter's Episcopal Church. The reverend Easty had read the book, and wanted to tell me how much he liked it. I had remembered John Kennedy well, he said, and he wished me luck in the future.
I try to write back to people who write me, and so I did with Reverend Easty. In the years since, we'd correspond from time to time via e-mail, usually around the holidays. We talked generally about politics and faith; Easty was a member of that seemingly shrinking but oh-so-important group, the religious left. Not long ago, he co-signed a letter to President Bush expressing doubt on the president's faith-based initiative plan.
The letter read, in part, "Partnerships between religion and government must be undertaken with great caution so as not to undermine the very integrity and freedom that allows both the followers and the institutions of religion to practice and keep faith in our nation.
"We urge you to protect the sacred role of religion in our nation by rejecting this avenue of infusing government funds into America's religious institutions."
This morning I received an e-mail from Rev. Easty's e-address informing me that Stan Easty had passed away, at home, with his wife of 60 years by his side.
I'm left with a feeling of deep sadness that I won't be hearing from Stan Easty anymore.
But even so: What a good man. What a good life.
The Satire Problem, Redux
Even President Bush is poking fun at Larry Summers, according to this report by Helen Thomas of the recent Gridiron Dinner in Washington.
The president's joke: "He said he was sorry Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University , could not be there. Bush added that Summers -- who has outraged women by questioning their skills in the sciences -- was 'at the Madam Curie Awards Banquet.'”
Ouch.
Abolish Tenure?
Max Boot in the
LA Times seconds the Boston Herald on tenure. His argument: tenure protects lefty academics by allowing them a) to say stupid things and b) to lash out against conservatives with impunity. "Harvard offers a good illustration of how harshly transgressions against liberal pieties are punished within academe," Boot argues. His solution. "Abolish tenure. Subject professors to the discipline of the marketplace like almost everyone else."
Sigh. This kind of argument is as silly as it is, unfortunately, commonplace.
First, let us reiterate this
one more time: The uproar at Harvard is not merely about Larry Summers' recent remarks on women in the sciences. They were the match that lit an extant pile of kindling. The uproar is about management style and the direction of the university.
Second, as a private citizen Larry Summers can say whatever he wants. The president of Harvard can not, just as the president of the United States can not, just as the Treasury secretary can not. (A fact Larry Summers knew about the Treasury but has had trouble learning at Harvard.)
When you are in a position of immense power, you simply can not pop off on any subject that comes into your head. There are consequences—legal, professional, intellectual—that can impede your ability to lead. Imagine if Alan Greenspan made some incredibly irresponsible remark, and the stock market plummeted. Would conservatives then defend his right to free speech?
Max Boot uses the example of Ward Churchill to show just how bad tenure is. (Churchill's the University of Colorado professor who made some asinine remarks about 9/11 victims.) Look how hard it is to fire Churchill! Boot proclaims.
Call me crazy, but I'd argue that Churchill is a perfect example of why we need tenure—to allow professors to speak their mind without fear of being fired for doing so.
It'd be nice if provocative speech were always intelligent. But intelligent or no, professors will often say things that get politicians, pundits and the general public riled up. If they had to worry about losing their jobs every time they opened their mouths, they'd shut up—and our society would be much the worse off for it.
We want professors to say whatever's on their mind...especially if we know that we won't always like it. That's vital to a healthy, self-confident, and open-minded culture.
Tenure Bad, Academic Freedom Good. Huh?
Today's editorial in the Boston Herald takes a predictable line: The problem at Harvard is that Summers "
keeps treating his faculty as if they were, well, mere mortals - and not the spoiled and ever-so-tenured brats they have long been diagnosed as."
I'm struck by the hostility to tenure that often shows up in the remarks of those who support Summers. There's a kind of resentful implication that academics have the world's cushiest life in part because they can never be fired. Anti-intellectual critics of tenure and academia in general want Summers to take all these "spoiled" academics down a few pegs.
This line of attack has certain ironies.
Such as:
1) Larry Summers received tenure at age 28, so he was pretty happy about the system of tenure at the time.
2) Imagine what life would be like at Harvard now if there weren't tenure...you'd have a miserable campus and professors job-hunting as fast as they could.
3) Larry Summers, under normal circumstances, has a kind of virtual tenure in his job. Harvard presidents almost invariably serve as long as they want to. The last Harvard president who left before he wanted to served before the Civil War.
4) Members of the Harvard Corporation serve as long as they want to...and choose their own successors.
And, most important...
5) The Herald approvingly quotes history professor Stephan Thernstrom saying, "[The faculty vote] is very menacing. . .It is a very bad blow to the conception of academic freedom."
There is, of course, a glaring contradiction between attacking tenure on the one hand and defending academic freedom on the other. Simply put, you can't do both.
Well, I take that back. As the Herald shows, you can. You just don't have to worry about making sense.
And In the Short Term
Whatever goals Summers was working on this year, you can stick a fork in them—they're done.
1) The curricular review. That was supposed to be discussed at the meeting yesterday. Shock! It wasn't. And it won't be until next year, and Summers' status is clearer.
2) Fundraising. This has got to be devastating. I'm sure some alums who strongly support Summers will make a show of giving large gifts. But ask any fundraiser whether controversy is good for their work, and you'll get a quick two-letter answer. Maybe preceded by a four-letter word.
3) Allston. Who's going to sign off on any major decisions now?
4) Faculty hiring. Hmmm. If you were a professor at another university, might you have some doubts about moving to Harvard at the moment? There's a lot to be said for a collegial campus.
That's off the top of my head. But you can imagine that in offices and hallways all over Harvard this morning, the conversation is of little else...and the work of the university lies dormant.
What Happens Next?
Let's be honest: no one has a clue. We're talking about an event unprecedented in Harvard's 370-year history. There's no road map to the future.
But if you asked me to guess...there are really only three scenarios.
1) Summers hunkers down and quietly rebuilds his presidency. Over the years, from the ashes of defeat he reemerges wiser, stronger, a more judicious leader, and becomes one of Harvard's greatest presidents.
2) Summers resigns before Commencement in June.
3) In a year or so, once the dust settles, Summers resigns in a way that allows him to claim some measure of success as a "change agent."
Of those options, I'd say number three is the likeliest. The antipathy against Summers is too deep for him to erase it, even if he did change his style fundamentally, and that's hard to imagine. How do you go from being one way your entire life to a completely different style and personality?
As for number 2...I don't think Summers will resign this school year, if only because the Corporation wouldn't want him to. After all, they chose him, and they're defending him. If he goes anytime soon, it makes them look silly. And they already look dumb for choosing him.
I know—that's a strong thing to say. But is there any doubt at this point that the Corporation made a mistake? Regardless of whether you support or oppose Summers, this episode is disastrous for Harvard. Summers is the epicenter of this storm, and the Corporation chose Summers. You can't argue with results: He was the wrong pick. But I doubt they'll ever admit that.
What the Vote Means
I got into a vigorous discussion last night about the meaning of this vote. My interlocutor said that it reflected an attempt by the faculty to take control of the university in a fundamental way; that this was a blow against not just the president, but the
presidency.
I disagree. This vote is not a
coup d'etat. In general, the Harvard faculty isn't much interested in the governance of the university. The Harvard faculty would not object to a vigorous presidency. If a vigorous presidency worked to effect the goals of the university and made Harvard look good in the public eye, the faculty would back it.
No, this vote couldn't be more personal. It's not a vote against a strong presidency. It's a vote against Larry Summers.
What Happened, Part 2
You have to wonder if Alex Beam's
Boston Globe column yesterday morning (see "Bombshell," below) didn't solidify some anti-Summers votes and push a few folks into the anti-Summers column. Beam's reporting on Summers' imperious treatment of the School of Public Health and one of its scientists was the most explicit detailing of Summers' leadership style I've seen outside of, well,
Harvard Rules.
Will more such stories start to come out? You know they're out there.
What Happened?
Clearly the depth of anti-Summers feeling was stronger than most observers realized. The fact that only a handful of professors publicly gave voice to that feeling may have created the impression that those who shared the sentiment were a minority of the faculty.
Personally, I'm not surprised by the fact that so many professors lack confidence in Summers. It's consistent with what I heard while reporting on Summers' presidency, and it's reflected in
Harvard Rules. It was always clear to me that those who supported Summers' presidency were a minority of the faculty—and truth be told, a smaller minority than those who voted in support of him yesterday. You have to think that a number of those pro-Summers votes were actually votes against the inevitable division that the no-confidence vote would create, rather than explicit displays of support for the president.
But I am surprised that the faculty passed the vote of no-confidence. It's such a dramatic step! If I had had to bet, I would have guessed that, having crept up to the brink of no-confidence, the faculty would pull back. The power of the secret ballot box—it's an amazing thing.
The No-Confidence Man
As of yesterday noon, Larry Summers seemed on the road to recovery. The worst was over. He'd survive the two votes at the faculty meeting, the bubble of tension would be burst, and Summers could begin the difficult work of revitalizing his presidency.
After yesterday, as Aimee Mann once sang, everything's different now.
First, Summers lost the no-confidence vote by a tally of 218 to 185. Then he lost the vote on Theda Skocpol's motion by 253-137.
It is safe to say that no one expected this.
In a statement released after the meeting, Summers said that he had tried "to hear all that has been said, to think hard, to learn and to adjust. I will continue to do that. I am committed to doing all I can to restore the sense of trust that is critical to our work together, and to reengage our collective attention with the vital academic issues before us."
It's the right rhetoric. Is it remotely realistic now?
Signs of Life
Pale Male and Lola, the hawks of Fifth Avenue, may be expecting. I hope so. It'd be the storybook ending to the saga of the once-evicted birds.
I happened to see Pale Male in Central Park last weekend, near a little marsh not too far from the 81st street entrance on the West Side. I thought he had a little spring in his flight....
At What Point Does Self-Interest Kick In?
The
Crimson has this balanced portrait of FAS dean Bill Kirby. One question raised by the piece is how his relationship with Summers affects Kirby's reputation.
It's a question that has broader applicability. Around Harvard, there are any number of men and women who have taken heat for Summers and whose reputation has suffered for it. Bob Rubin comes to mind. Because Rubin swore during the presidential search process that Summers' reputation as a tough guy was over-rated, there are now serious questions on campus about Rubin's judgment and credibility. Is it just coincidence that Rubin hasn't said a public word in recent weeks about his protege?
Steven Hyman is another example. Hyman, who by all accounts is a very decent guy, looks terrible defending Summers in today's
Globe.
And then there's poor Jack Reardon, the ubiquitous vice-president of alumni affairs and development. Jack's a lovely guy who is truly devoted to Harvard...and for the last three and a half years, he's been like a punching bag for alums who are pissed off at the president.
And don't forget the departing press secretary, Lucie McNeil, who was, shall we say, not beloved amongst reporters. But what a difficult job she had!
I could go on, but you get the point. This goes to leadership style. A good leader makes the people underneath him look good. Because, after all, he can't expect them to keep taking the hits on his behalf indefinitely.
And from what I hear, the distancing has already begun....
Just Because I'm Paranoid...
Is it just me, or has the Harvard webpage suddenly become feminist? On today's page are stories about:
1) Harvard women's hockey
2) French defense minister Michèle Alliot-Marie
3) Preventive breast removal for women at high risk of breast cancer
4) The "grim issue of sex trafficking"
Whew! All that estrogen is going to my head. Luckily, there's also a story about the Harvard math department, a woman-free zone. Of 16 senior faculty, all are men.
Lest We Forget
Today is faculty meeting day. Sara Rimer outlines the issues in her story in today's
Times. At the end of her piece, she predicts that the vote of no-confidence won't pass. I would have agreed...until this morning. Now I wonder what effect Alex Beam's piece might have.
For some reason, the
Globe doesn't have anything on the faculty meeting in today's paper. Makes sense. To quote the inimitable
Spinal Tap, it's not like Boston is a big college town.
I joke, but in fact, the
Globe's coverage of the Harvard story has been oddly restrained. It's hard to understand why...but I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the paper's editorial board has been one of Summers' biggest cheerleaders.
A Letter to Summers
The faculty council of the Harvard School of Public Health has posted a letter to Summers on its website. Key quote: "Our faculty affirms that respect for others both within and outside the university community is essential to open discourse and the pursuit of truth and excellence. We appreciate your recognition that the words and actions of your Administration have not always been consistent with the values that have made Harvard an admired institution worldwide."
Dean Barry Bloom is silent.
In
Harvard Rules, I wrote that Summers has systematically weakened the power of the deans at Harvard, in several instances by appointing deans whom he expected to be compliant. Barry Bloom appears to fit this description.
I interviewed Bloom for the book, and thought him a courteous, sincere, and thoughtful man who was passionate about the cause of public health. Sadly, his desire to retain the deanship appears to have superceded the better angels of his nature.
Bombshell
A devastating piece by Alex Beam in today's Globe. Beam reports that Lawrence Summers has systematically tried to undermine the Harvard School of Public Health scientist who is managing the $107 million AIDS grant that school received in 2004. The scientist is a woman, and Summers feels that she's not capable of administering the grant all by herself.
I reported a bit of this story in
Harvard Rules, noting that Summers was furious when HSPH put out a press release announcing the grant and failed to mention his name. Summers was so angry that at a subsequent dinner attended by both him and HSPH dean Barry Bloom, the Harvard president asked to be seated somewhere he couldn't see Bloom.
But Beam puts everything that's happened since then together. He writes: "Since then, for almost a year, Summers and his satraps at Massachusetts Hall have been working overtime to undermine the School's relief program and its principal investigator, Dr. Phyllis Kanki." Part of that strategy has, apparently, included a whispering campaign suggesting that Kanki "isn't a real doctor."
This is nasty stuff. But then, this is life at Harvard these days. Before today's faculty meeting, every faculty member should read this story.
Apple vs. Harvard...and the 1st Amendment
This
Boston Globe story combines two of my favorite obsessions: Apple Computer and Harvard University. It details the legal fight between Apple and Harvard undergrad Nicholas Ciarelli, founder of an Apple-devotee website called Think Secret. Apple is suing Ciarelli over his publication of material that may or may not constitute trade secrets. Apple has also subpoenaed Ciarelli to try to force him to disclose the names of his sources.
Columnist Hiawatha Bray's conclusion: "Apple decided to tee off on a 19-year-old kid, hoping to make an example of him. It's a bonehead play from a company that's cultivated a warm and friendly image."
I agree. Sites like Ciarelli's are beloved by Apple loyalists like me, and we kept Apple afloat during its lean years. More important, I get nervous when companies use their legions of lawyers to try to control what the press can and can't publish. Just because Ciarelli is 19 and publishes his scoops on the web doesn't mean he isn't a journalist. He is, and this kind of corporate intimidation should make every journalist deeply, deeply anxious.
So far, the court rulings in this case have gone in Apple's favor. That's too bad. But if Apple ultimately wins, the company ought to immediately announce that it was suing to establish the principle involved, and has no plans to seek damages from Ciarelli or to hunt down his sources. It's still a crummy situation, but at least the company would prove its point without further alienating its most loyal customer base.
On the One Hand...
Former Clintonite Gene Sperling defends his old friend Larry Summers in this
column. Sperling denies that Summers is sexist and points to a number of pro-woman policy proposals Summers has supported.
Sperling has a point: Summers has taken concrete steps to implement socially progressive policy measures over the years, and some of those measures have a significantly larger impact on women than on men.
But Sperling's column inadvertently points up why Summers is such a complicated and divisive figure: for every piece of evidence you can marshal suggesting that he believes
x, you can find another fact suggesting he believes
y. If you look at the number of women he's appointed to the highest levels in his academic administration, or the number of women who have won tenure at Harvard since he's become president, or the way he's talked to certain women at Harvard, you might very well conclude that Summers has a sexism problem.
Summers does contradict himself, and his inconsistency is one reason why people argue about him so heatedly, and for so long. Whatever the issue with Summers, both sides will always have material to back up the way they're already inclined to feel.
This Took Two Years?
The Crimson today has an important story about the pathetic state of the curricular review. The Committee on General Education, probably the heart of the review process, has about finished its report...but those who have seen it say the report is so vague, the committee should start from scratch.
Apparently the committee advocates that Harvard College students be required to take nine courses from three different areas: the sciences, the "study of societies," and "humanities and the arts." Two of those courses should be the new "Harvard College" courses, which are intended to be interdisciplinary, survey courses that teach a specific body of knowledge. (Unlike courses in the current Core curriculum, which are intended to teach "ways of thinking.")
Part of the problem, according to the Crimson, is that no one has bothered to give an example of what a Harvard College course is supposed to be. I suspect that's because the distinction between a Harvard College course and any other course is so vague as to be meaningless. If you actually try to define such a course, the banality of the idea would become embarrassingly obvious.
There's another problem. After two years of work, this is the best that Harvard College can come up with? The plan above sounds like something any professor could sketch on the back of a cocktail napkin in about five minutes time.
Dormaids Won't Be Doormats
Someone named S.N. Fierro sticks up for Dormaid here.
Sorry, but I'm unconvinced.
The Big Mo
Maureen Dowd weighs in on the debate over sexism on the op-ed pages here. The money quote: "I have no doubt there are plenty of brilliant women who would bring grace and guts to our nation's op-ed pages, just as, Lawrence Summers notwithstanding, there are plenty of brilliant women out there who are great at math and science. We just need to find and nurture them."
In the past I've written critically about Dowd; I felt that while she criticized much, and often glibly, she stood for little. But she's absolutely right on this issue. It's insane and offensive that of nine regular NYT columnists, only one, Dowd, is a woman.
Dowd seems to be becoming—dare I say it?—a feminist. Good for her. Her recent columns on women-oriented subjects have a depth and humanity that have made her work far more interesting than her facile takedowns of public figures. She's taking a chance with this material, opening herself up. That takes guts. But her writing is much the better for it. Taking a chance to write about something you believe in—this, it seems to me, is the difference between being entertaining and being important.
Does This Mean Gentiles Like to Get Up at 4 A.M.?
So occasionally I get sent things...like this inspired piece of satire, in which UC-Berkeley sociologist Nancy Chodorow wonders: What if Larry Summers had mused more on that burning question, Why
are there so few Jews in farming? The president's quote comes first...Chodorow's imagined extension folllows.
Jews in Farming?Lawrence H. Summers
Cambridge, Mass.
January 14, 2024
It is, after all, not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that group. To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for underrepresentation. >>
Why are there so few Jews in farming? —Nancy J. Chodorow Psychoanalyst; Professor of Sociology Emerita, University of California, Berkeley
I can think of three hypotheses, and I'll give them to you in order of most to least probable. The main reason, I think, is because Jews don't like to get up at 4 am, so they simply select themselves out of jobs, like milking cows, that require such early rising. Secondly, we need to consider biogenetic factors: that Jews may have less innate aptitude than non-Jews for activities like driving tractors or combines, or figuring out how much money you can make on a silo of grain, and whether you should sell it in early or late August, or being able to deliver a calf. Finally, and I think this is the least important of the three possibilities -- though of course I'll be glad to be proven wrong -- there is the possibility that the socialization of Jews has not been in the direction of making them farmers, and possibly there has been discrimination against Jews, when they've tried to own land, or to move into traditional rural Christian communities. But I'd just remind you that I think these last possibilities -- that Jews have been discriminated against in terms of whether they could own land, say in the Ukraine in the 19th century, or here in the U.S., when those few immigrants moved to Minnesota or Upstate New York, or that Jews are socialized to be more interested in urban occupations – those are way down the line in terms of where I'd see the causal probabilities -- I could be wrong here, of course, and I'm just trying to be descriptive, not get into all that judgmental stuff that one gets into when one is looking at questions of inequality. But I’d say, thinking systematically and clinically, that the factors of choice not to have jobs that require such early hours, and innate biological or genetic factors that favor Gentiles over Jews in those aptitudes that make for good farmers -- those seem to me more likely to be first and second as reasons.
Delivering the Post
The
Washington Post's Jonathan Yardley weighs in with his review. . .
As happens so often with this story, Yardley misrepresents what happened with me in the waning months of
George magazine. Someday, perhaps, I'll write about this, if only to set the record straight. But right now, I'm deeply bored of the subject. (And I suspect I'm not the only one.) Besides, Yardley's account is so deeply indebted to Nexis, it will likely live on, regardless of anything I write. The power of information technology....
Yardley does recommend that readers who want to delve more deeply into the subject of the commercialization of higher education would do well to read Derek Bok's
book,
Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education, and I couldn't agree more. Bok does an excellent job of exploring the issues in this phenomenon, and I was surprised that his book didn't get more attention when it came out in 2003; it strikes unnervingly close to home (i.e., Harvard) in a number of instances.
Shameless Self-Promotion
I've been frustrated with some of the reviews of
Harvard Rules, because they're so ideologically predictable. Liberals haven't been asked to review the book. Conservatives (like the
Wall Street Journal's Diane Ravitch) don't like the book, because they've circled the wagons around Larry Summers. So they criticize the book, without actually pointing to anything wrong inside it.
I'll link to some of those reviews as soon as I can find them online--Ravitch's appeared in the New York Sun—because, what the heck, if I can dish it out, I ought to be able to take it.
Sometimes, though, you get a review that you really
want to share. Like this one from
Publisher's Weekly:
<<
In an attempt to place Harvard's current president, Larry Summers, in historical perspective, this intriguing study explores his policies, leadership style and previous career in reference to other presidents as far back as Charles W. Eliot (president from 1869-1909). Bradley, author of the bestselling American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy, writes with tactful reserve about the backroom intrigues and infighting that have characterized Summer's presidency, always showing both sides of the issues-and the book is no less gripping for it. These struggles, involving such luminaries as Cornel West, Skip Gates, Robert Rubin and Alan Dershowitz, are riveting even when handled with kid gloves. But Bradley addresses much more than simply the contentious start to Summer's tenure at Harvard. On the one hand, he offers an insightful look at how the role of the American university president has changed from a moral and intellectual leader independent of political and corporate power to the administrator of an institution largely dependent on corporate and government largesse for its continued existence. On the other, he places Harvard's development and growth in a larger context, exploring its shifting goals, pedagogy and values in reference to other prestigious American universities such as Princeton, Stanford and Yale, as well as to American society in general. On a whole host of issues-including unionization, civil rights, affirmative action and militarism-Bradley uses events at Harvard to illuminate wider social trends and vice versa. Although Harvard alums will naturally gravitate toward this timely volume, it will also appeal to anyone concerned with the evolving relationship between higher education and American society.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.>>>
Thanks, PW. That is exactly what I was trying to do—use Harvard as a microcosm for trends in American universities generally while detailing a specific and compelling narrative. I'll be honest: this makes my day.
Get Up, Stand Up
A theme of Bombardieri's article is that the humanists at Harvard feel slighted by Summers' emphasis on the sciences. It's a fair point: Summers clearly does consider the sciences more important to the university's future, both financial and intellectual, than are the humanities. He doesn't say that explicitly, but every action he takes suggests it, and his manifest lack of enthusiasm for the humanities reinforces the impression.
But if the humanists are on the defensive, they may have only themselves to blame. They do not make their case well. And as we all know, much of their work during the past decade or so has been so insular, so out of touch, and so unconcerned with connecting scholarship to the world outside their field, it's easy to see why Summers might consider the humanities largely irrelevant to the greater scheme of things.
I know this from my own experience in graduate school at Harvard, where I would read what some of my peers and professors were working on, and think, my God, how could anyone possibly care about this stuff? You'd need a translator just to get past the jargon, and even then, what was the point? Why would anyone care except fifty other people in the field?
So Summers has picked a fight. It's time for the humanists to respond. They need to a) reconsider their own project, their own
raison d'etre, and b) make the case for the urgency, vitality and relevance of the humanities to the modern university. Take the fight back to Summers. Or, as he would say, prove him wrong.
It's time for the humanists to stand up for themselves and say,
this is why we are important. This is why we matter.
If they can't do that, maybe Summers has a point. If they can, maybe he'll take note.
Every Picture Tells a Story
Bombardieri's article does contain one particularly telling insight—the photograph. It shows Summers walking into Lowell lecture hall at the start of the most revent faculty meeting. To Summers' left is a man who appears to be escorting Summers, and two men behind him look like members of a security detail.
The first man is university provost Steven Hyman, one of the university's highest-ranking academic officials. Whether by choice or no, Hyman has been reduced to a chaperone's role, flanking and protecting his celebrity boss as Summers is chased by a cameraman—he's like the guy who carries Michael Jackson's umbrella as Jackson makes his way into court. You have to think that this is not why Hyman became provost.
And if the two men are indeed bodyguards...
Has a Harvard president ever needed a bodyguard before? Or enlisted the university provost to watch his back? This is the kind of thing that gives rise to the impression of an imperial presidency.
'Til Tuesday
Marcella Bombardieri, the Globe's education writer, weighs in with a piece on Larry's management style. Her argument: Summers' critics feel that he runs the university like a CEO or, some say, an "autocrat."
Marcella's piece is fine, though it reads like she's still having trouble getting people to detail specific incidents in which Summers exhibits such behavior. But I think that people are really dancing around the issue. It's not just that Summers runs Harvard like a CEO; there are plenty of chief executive officers who are inclusive, lead by example, inspiring, a firm hand in a velvet glove. I think you could find plenty of CEOs who could make the transition to university president without the carnage that Harvard has seen since Summers arrived.
So forget about the CEO language. That's not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that people see Summers as a
really bad CEO, whose management style actually detracts from the work of the university.
The truth is, Summers' critics see him as an arrogant, bullying, inconsiderate jerk—the Michael Eisner of Harvard. They don't think a man with this personality can lead the university. And they doubt his ability, at this point in his life, to change. After all, he was supposed to have changed already—when critics in Washington leveled exactly the same charge against Summers. And that makeover obviously didn't take.
But this is a tough thing to say in public. It can sound petty; it can make the accuser look weak,. It opens the faculty up to criticism from conservative pundits who rush to defend Summers merely because some apparently left-wing faculty are criticizing him, regardless of the substance of their complaints.
Here's Harvard's problem, though: If the faculty don't articulate this complaint, they'll lose the PR war. They might lose it even if they do. Either way, when the dust is settled, the anti-Summers feelings won't change. It'd be as if Howell Raines stayed on at the
New York Times despite the strength of the feeling against him.
I'm not saying an organization can't function in such an environment. Summers is a man of remarkable energy who desperately wants to revive his presidency, and I have no doubt that he's going to work extremely hard to do so.
But how well Harvard functions in this such an environment...
At some point you do have to wonder if Summers is fighting for his job more because of the personal stake he has in keeping it, or because he really, truly believes that for him to stay on is in the best interests of the university. Now, that would be an interesting question for one of Summers' critics to pose this Tuesday.
Un-Maid
Reuters reports on a small but symbolically telling controversy at Harvard: a new and administration-sanctioned service called Dormaid that allows students to hire a maid to clean their rooms. Yesterday the Crimson editorialized against Dormaid, arguing that the service would introduce another distinction between the haves and the have-nots at Harvard.
I agree. In
Harvard Rules, I wrote with some skepticism about the student job of "dorm crew," in which some students clean other students' bathrooms. That creates unhealthy divisions between students who need the money from that job and those who sit back while others clean their toilets.
Some might say that hiring working-class men and women to clean student bathrooms would create similar problems. Maybe. But that's not the only option. How about simply expecting students to clean up after themselves?
This is an easy way for Harvard to teach its students some sense of responsibility, perhaps even that dreaded word "character." Isn't that part of an "education"?
Making every student do work that they might otherwise think of as beneath them is something I have some experience with. I happened to go to a small prep school, Groton, which was well-stocked with the children of affluent lawyers, financiers, and businesspeople. (My own father was a magazine editor, my mother a paralegal.)
Partly to save money and partly to curb the students' sense of entitlement, Groton had long mandated something called "work program." Every student was required to help with manual labor—whether it was cleaning classrooms, mopping bathrooms, or washing dishes in the dining hall. No one was exempt.
Of course, at the time we all thought it was a pain in the ass. And certainly it wasn't as if we were compelled to work on an assembly line or in a coal mine. But looking back, I do think that work program instilled in the students an appreciation for the kinds of tedious and sometimes degrading jobs that some people who weren't born into such fortunate families will never escape—and that the vast majority of us would never have to depend on.
As Harvard extends its efforts to recruit children from lower-income families, the official approval of Dormaid takes the university in exactly the wrong direction. On the other hand, maybe this is the direction a university headed by a free-market economist will inevitably go. The student who founded Dormaid, a sophomore named Michael Kopko, defended his business like this:
<<"In a free economy it's all about choice, and the Crimson is trying to take choice away from people," the student entrepreneur told Reuters. "I think it's a very uneconomic and narrow view. It's essentially against creating wealth for society.">.
How fascinating—and depressing—that Kopko defines Harvard as a "free economy," a values-free university which is essentially nothing more than an economic marketplace. When I talk in
Harvard Rules about "the struggle for the soul of the world's most important university," this is exactly what I mean.
Harvard in the News
Some interesting stories today. This Boston Herald article discusses the odds of either motion on Summers' leadership passing, and considers them low. I think the important thing is the expectations game. Will Randy Matory's motion pass? Maybe not. But if 35% of the faculty in attendance votes for it, that's still a pretty significant base of support for a proposal that makes everyone uncomfortable. Will Theda Skockpol's more compromising motion pass? Maybe. But how much support does it need to have to mean anything? 51 percent? Seventy-five percent?
This Bloomberg piece discusses Harvard's "faceless" Corporation. It's a hugely important subject for the Harvard community. The Corporation chose Summers in a highly secretive process, and since Summers has been appointed, he's had the opportunity to choose four members of the seven-member Corporation (and Summers makes five). If Harvard were a company—and it is, in many ways—you'd say that it has a governance problem. And it does. This is the governing board of a tax-free institution which receives almost half a billion dollars a year in federal aid—but the Corporation refuses to publish an agenda for its monthly meetings, any minutes of those meetings, or meet with the press. It is the smallest governing body, so far as I can tell, of any university in the United States. And it's certainly the most secretive. Maybe the faculty should have a vote of no-confidence in the Corporation....
And finally, you can listen to me talking about
Harvard Rules on WBUR here.
Meeting at Old South
Thanks so much to the 70-something people who braved the record-setting cold last night to come talk about
Harvard Rules at the Old South Meeting House. And thanks to Alex Beam for his skilled moderation, and to the good folks at the Ford Hall Forum who staged the program. These people have a great speakers' list, and not just because they invited me... I'm tempted to head back to Boston to hear the
Boston Herald's Howie Carr talk about the fabulous Bulger brothers.
Whoops, There I Go Again
Apologies for the technical difficulties yesterday, which resulted in essentially the same item being posted twice. I blame it on Kinko's, a computer that crashed, and the eccentric Cantabridgian at the terminal next to mine who kept trying to engage me in conversation even as he listened to his Walkman and sang (loudly, but not well) and repeatedly offered technical help to the young women working nearby, who rather nervously—and quite understandably—declined.
Oh, Goodbye, Lucie
Larry Summers' press secretary, the much-debated Lucie McNeil, is leaving Summers' employ for greener pastures--the National Geographic Society. The
Boston Globe has a little item on the news, including a reference to one of my more curious encounters with her.
McNeil says she had planned to leave before the latest brouhaha, and who could blame her? Her job couldn't have been easy. Nonetheless, she enjoyed a less-than-stellar reputation with reporters who covered Summers, and was known for either a) rudely keeping them at a distance, or b) yelling at reporters whose work she disapproved of.
The question I could never figure out: Was this just her nature, or was she merely following orders?
Either way, it'll be interesting--and telling--to see who her replacement will be.
And has anyone kept track of personnel turnover at Harvard in the past few years? I'd bet a lot that it has never been higher.
A Warm Welcome in Cold Boston
Dateline: Kinko's, Harvard Square
It's wonderful to be back in Cambridge and Boston...despite the fact that my arrival coincided with a bitterly cold blizzard. Today the temperature is expected to hit a record low for this day in March.
But despite the cold outside, the reception here has been warm. Thanks very much to everyone at WGBH, CN8 Nitebeat, WBUR and Fox News for having me on. And thanks too to the good people at the Harvard Bookstore and the Harvard Coop, who have been so supportive of Harvard Rules, even though, as one bookseller told me, "lots of people buy it and then hide it under another book."
Ah, well--there are worse things than being a guilty pleasure.
I also spent a rewarding couple of hours last night with the reporters and editors of the Harvard Crimson, who plied me with alcohol and then asked tough questions. (These folks have a future in journalism.) I've read and relied upon so much of their work, it was a real pleasure to put faces to names. Stay in touch.
Catch Me if You Can
I'm headed to LaGuardia to catch the Delta Shuttle to Boston, so the posts may slow for the next couple of days. If you're interested in putting a face/voice to a blog, I'll be on WGBH tonight—don't know when exactly, it's taped—then CN8's "Nitebeat"—that's really how they spell it—between 7 and 8 PM, and then on New England Cable News between 8:15 and 9 (after which I will promptly collapse).
On Wednesday March 9, I'll be discussing
Harvard Rules on Fox 25 News sometime after 8:15 but before 9 AM, and then on WBUR's "Here and Now," from 9:15 to 9:45. And of course Wednesday night I'll be at the Ford Hall Forum at the Old South Meeting House, starting at 6:30..... Tune in if you can; I'll be doing my best to be a) presentable and b) coherent.
Double Trouble
Two thoughts on the motions below: One, that there's a choice thickens the plot. And two, Randy Matory has dispensed with the political language of his earlier motion for a straight-up vote of no-confidence. There's something quite powerful about that stark, solitary sentence. It certainly clarifies the issue.
I don't know how the faculty will see Theda Skocpol's motion now that Matory has given them a viable alternative. Will his motion be seen as too strong? Will Skocpol's be considered too conciliatory, too soft? Or will people vote for both?
Incidentally, the last item on the docket is discussion of the curricular review. The faculty will almost surely run out of time before getting to that...leaving just two more faculty meetings before the end of the year. The likelihood that nothing serious will happen with the review before 2006 is growing.
I Second that (e)Motion
The agenda for the March 15th faculty meeting has been e-mailed around, and the following two motions are on the docket:
<< 1. Professor J. L. Matory will move that the Faculty vote on
the following resolution:
The Faculty lacks confidence in the leadership of
Lawrence H. Summers.
2. Professor T. Skocpol will move that the Faculty vote
to affirm the following statement:
The Faculty regrets the President's mid-January statements
about women in science and the adverse consequences of those
statements for individuals and for Harvard; and the Faculty also
regrets aspects of the President's managerial approach as
discussed in recent meetings of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
The Faculty appreciates the President's stated intent to address
these issues, and seeks to meet the challenges facing Harvard
in ways that are collegial and consistent with longstanding faculty
responsibilities in institutional governance.">>
Of Words and Women
Larry Summers has had one big advantage in the public relations battle over his NBER remarks: the paucity of women on newspaper editorial pages. (Quick—name one female columnist who writes for the
Times and isn't Maureen Dowd?)
Now a debate over this issue has spilled into the press. Former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich is attacking
Los Angeles Times op-ed editor Michael Kinsley for not doing enough to get women onto the op-ed page of the
LAT. Kinsley, Estrich argues, has a "Larry Summers problem." She also says some other stuff that sounds way over the line of common decency.
Hot, Hot, Hot
Harvard Rules hit the bestseller list this week—in Boston, anyway. The book debuted at #10 on the
Boston Globe hardcover non-fiction list. Since a book about the future and character of a university isn't exactly a guaranteed bestseller, I'm pleased and grateful for the support. For a point of reference, consider what's #9:
He's Just Not That Into You.
Now, that's going to be tough to beat....
Thanks, too, to
Vanity Fair, which lists
Harvard Rules in its "Hot Type" column in its April issue.
Toil and Trouble
While Larry Summers is off to a Harvard conference in Mexico City, I keep hearing rumbles from campus of impending unrest....
Like Nixon to China
Folks at Harvard are buzzing about two stories in the new issue of Business Week. (Subscriber-only on the web, sorry.) The first, a news story titled "Harvard No Longer Most Likely to Succeed," discusses the Summers' fallout on his administration's agenda. The second is an editorial, and it's called "Harvard's Lessons in Management—Summers' Provocative Style May Push His Lofty Goals Out of Reach."
Coming from a conservative, business-friendly organ like
BW, these articles are a pretty tough one-two punch; they'll get read by Harvard's money people, and, more than the faculty, they constitute the bottom line.
The editorial is particularly wounding: "Summers joins the ranks of recent leaders brought in to generate change in organizations only to misfire and fail," it says, lumping Summers in with Carly Fiorina of Hewlett Packard and Howell Raines of the
New York Times. "Creative organizations, be they universities or corporations, cannot be coerced into change. In the
21st century, they must be coached, cajoled, and coaxed."
Of course, there's one big difference between Summers and Raines and Fiorina: He still has his job. It's an irony that Summers wants to make Harvard more like big business—hiring consultants, limiting employee access to the press, closer partnering with the private sector, almost doubling the president's salary—except when it comes to the job security of the CEO.
Still, that Summers remains president is what makes this story so compelling. Can a 50-year-old man famous for his brilliance—and infamous for his arrogance—really, truly change?
Non-Emotional Common Sense...or a Jerk?
The Crimson reports on a remarkable meeting last Friday between Larry Summers and Harvard parents. Summers began by making a joke about his reputation for being provocative. But the question-and-answer session later got hot, as parents pressed Summers on his remarks about women in science. Here's the key exchange, as reported by Zachary M. Seward:
<<“You should know that there are a large number of parents who are glad that you are here to bring a degree of non-emotional common sense to the University,” said one father to broad but reserved applause.
“And there are a lot who think you’re a jerk,” called out another dad from the rear of Sanders Theater, drawing scattered applause but mostly silence from the crowd.>>
Summers reportedly looked shaken by the incident. My first reaction to that is, Who wouldn't be? But on second thought, it makes me think that the Harvard president may still not realize just how much his comments angered some listeners. Maybe that's something you have to feel...emotionally.
This Is Not About Harvard, It's About Sex
A smart piece today by Drake Bennett in the
Boston Globe discusses the absence of anti-porn feminists from the current debate over pornography's growing popularity. It's social conservatives versus libertarians and First Amendment advocates, Bennett argues. Where are Catherine McKinnon, et al?
I haven't followed this debate closely, partly because it doesn't seem like there's been much of one. Porn chic mystifies me, and despite the fact that Jenna Jameson and I are published by the same company, I'm disturbed by it. Jameson, I understand, has actually had a pretty tough life. But there she is in glossy magazine ads for MP3 players, and whatever political context surrounds her is airbrushed away. She's just a woman with huge breasts and golden hair whom hundreds of thousands of people have watched having sex....and now she's selling electronics to teenagers. Perhaps this is the inevitable reductio ad absurdum of capitalism, but shouldn't liberals be a little concerned? Or is this just one of those social issues that liberals cede to conservatives?
Part of the problem is the difficulty of talking about politics in our entertainment-driven culture. As a former editor of
George, I can testify to the fact that most people don't want to concede just how political entertainment is. They want to turn their minds off. If you raise the question, for example, of race in "Survivor," or the political implications of Donald Trump's mantra, "You're Fired," they react like you've just put castor oil in their milkshake.
Those who enjoy talking about politics and culture might want to read a book called Citizen Girl, by my friends Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus. It's art, it's politics, it's entertainment—and it's two young feminists looking askance at porn with candor and wit.
Sneering Summers Supporters?
Coincidentally, a self-described Summers' supporter, undergraduate Kelly Shue, has written this piece for the
Harvard Independent arguing that Summers' supporters have grown overconfident. It's considerably more thoughtful than Mansfield's article.
Shue's conclusion: "
As supporters of Larry Summers, we should at least recognize that the other side has a credible argument. Summers's critics are more sensitive to the harms of prejudice [than are his defenders]. Before we dismiss them as irrational and over-emotional, we need to consider that such critics may actually be the pragmatists. They alone are considering the full consequences of free academic inquiry into innate gender differences. "
An interesting, and open-minded, point.
Harvey Mansfield Takes a Shot
Conservative political scientist Harvey Mansfield stands up for Larry Summers in this Weekly Standard piece, in which he proves that intelligence in scholarship and wisdom in personal politics do not always go hand in hand.
Mansfield writes: "Summers is easily the most outstanding of the major university presidents now on the scene--the most intelligent, the most energetic, as well as the most prominent. So, alarmed at his abilities and intentions, the Harvard faculty decided it would be a good idea to humiliate him."
You see this technique so often in conservative punditry, I'm amazed that it seems to work, and yet it does. (Look at the success of Fox News.) A simple assertion that the side one supports is unquestionably right, followed by a wild caricature of the opposition's arguments. Do they teach this stuff at conservative summer camp?
Summers may have been humiliated, but this result was hardly the intention of his faculty critics, who were not, in any event, motivated by "alarm at his abilities and intentions." They are fighting about what kind of a place Harvard is to be, and what kind of a man--yes, so far, always a man—will lead it. Agree or disagree, isn't this a conversation worth describing with some pretense of fairness?
But no. Mansfield goes on to describe Summers' critics as "feminist women and their male consorts on the left." (For Mansfield, who has recently become interested in the subject of "manliness,"this means Alan Alda-esque wimps and gays.)
That's about half the faculty, he says. The other half are "moderate liberals who are afraid of the feminists rather than with them."
Huh. Is that how Mansfield would describe the forty-plus member department of economics, where there are two tenured women? The equally large department of mathematics,which has no tenured women? Or his own 43-person department, which by my count is about 75% male?
Mansfield goes on to write that Summers' "accusers were relentless and, as always with feminists, humorless."
This is another neo-con technique: to deliver some incredibly insulting remark and then, when people get pissed about it, respond, "You liberals just can't take a joke."
That Harvey Mansfield is at Harvard is wonderful. It's vital to have a range of political opinions there. I interviewed Professor Mansfield for
Harvard Rules—on the record—and thought him gentlemanly, courteous, thoughtful, and quite a nice guy.
But this mode of argument—unfounded assertions, sweeping ad hominem generalizations, denial of competing realities—is beneath a Harvard professor. Can you imagine what conservatives would say if a liberal spoke like this?
Boston, Here I Come
I'm headed to Boston next week to do some press for
Harvard Rules. Mostly TV and radio, but on Wednesday, March 9, I'll be speaking at the Old South Meeting House in Boston, for the Ford Hall Forum. For more information, call 617-373-5800 or check out the Ford Hall Forum site. Hope to see you there!
Yale Sees Larry, and Raises Him
Perhaps the most successful move Larry Summers has made at Harvard was to eliminate tuition for students from families with incomes of under $40,000. Such students had previously been expected to make a $1,000 contribution to their tuition, but when you're only making 40k, a thousand dollars is still a lot of money. The move's effect was both practical and symbolic. I knew it was a huge success for Summers and Harvard when someone forward me a mass e-mail headlined, "HARVARD FOR FREE!" You know you've gone mainstream when your financial aid initiative gets turned into spam.
Now Yale is following Harvard's lead, eliminating tuition for families with incomes of less than $45,000.
This is all great news. But isn't it also worth having a discussion about why it costs $40,000 a year to go to college?
Larry vs. Neil
I'm skeptical of the argument that what Harvard needs most right now is a bull in a china shop. It sounds convincing only if you don't think about it for very long. But if you follow the logic and try to discern how President Summers' management style has translated into results, the proposition becomes murky indeed. I would argue that his leadership style has hurt his agenda at least as much as it's helped. In fact, I did just argue that, in this editorial in today's
Crimson.
Sins of Omission #2
Then there's this smart piece from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Sins of Omission
The more I think about it, the more I think I was naive not to consider that some items are deliberately omitted from Harvard's daily news clips. Controlling the information that gets distributed around the university is a powerful tool. (Busy people tend to read only information that gets put in front of them.)
So occasionally I'm going to link to articles and items that Harvard doesn't. (If you feel that I've missed something that should be linked to, let me know—I'm at
[email protected].
I'll start with this smart letter to the
Boston Globe.
Lucky Break #2
Here's Summers' second piece of good news: The motion of censure to be discussed at the March 15th faculty meeting has been distributed, and it plays right into the hands of Summers and his right-wing supporters. (You know who you are, Steve Pinker.) I'll post it below, but let me just say a few things first.
The motion has been proposed by J. Lorand (Randy) Matory, a professor of anthropology. I interviewed Matory for
Harvard Rules (on the record, obviously, or I wouldn't mention it), and he struck me as an intelligent, honorable and principled man. But without a doubt, he's on the far left of the Harvard faculty; he's the kind of left-wing intellectual that outsiders can portray as "radical" till the cows come home. Matory was a signer of the divest-from-Israel petition, and I think it's fair to say that he's never forgiven Summers for the president's "anti-Semitic in effect if not intent" rebuttal. Matory believes deeply that, given the United States' political and financial support of Israel, we need to treat that nation as we would a 51st state. He sees Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as a fundamental human rights issue.
His motion begins with language that many professors could likely support. Matory says that Summers has "a pattern of aggressive communication and inattention to faculty opinions." True.
But then Matory moves onto ground that will make many professors uncomfortable. He suggests that Summers doubts the "capacities and rights" of "African-Americans, third-world nations, gay people, and colonized peoples." In the next paragraph he refers to "subordinate populations" and rejects "the proposition that the criticism of Israeli military policy toward the Palestinians is inherently anti-Semitic."
Colonized peoples...subordinate populations...Israeli military policy.....
Such language is too divisive and political for the Harvard faculty. (This isn't Berkeley circa 1969 we're talking about.) It sounds a little like the Port Huron Statement of 1962. The faculty won't support it, and the pundits are going to make hay with it. Summers won't have to say a word; his allies will do his work for him. And, in this case, so will one of his opponents.
It's a shame. The fight at Harvard is not just about Summers' personality and leadership style. It's about the direction and character of the world's most influential university. That, and not a political fight about colonized peoples, is the true nature of this debate. Matory is well-meaning, but he's going to do his cause more harm than good.
The Motion
FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Regular Meeting, Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 4 p.m.
Location to be announced in the Final Agenda
Tea from 3:30 to 3:55 p.m.
PRELIMINARY AGENDA
...
VIII. Docket Items
1. Professor J. L. Matory will move:
That the Faculty vote:
(1) to register dissent from a series of pronouncements by
Mr. Summers that minimize the social causes of social inequality
and, at times, appear to censor dissenting views on campus; and
(2) to demand a halt to any expansion of presidential
prerogatives that will facilitate the application of these
pronouncements to the governance of the University.
(Explanatory Note below)
2. Deans Kirby and Gross will report on the progress
and schedule of the Curricular Review.
Explanatory note for Item #1 (provided by Professor Matory) :
While the Faculty gratefully acknowledges Mr. Summers' apologies for
remarks minimizing the innate capacities of women and for lapses of
respect in his communication with faculty members, the Faculty also
wishes to register its dissent from a number of public pronouncements
by the President that would otherwise appear to represent us collectively,
and to urge limits on the proposed expansion of presidential prerogatives.
Over the past three and a half years, faculty members have discerned in
the conduct of President Summers a pattern of aggressive communication
and inattention to faculty opinions, both of which are inconsistent with the
principles of free inquiry and the democratic management of the Faculty
of Arts and Sciences. The Faculty acknowledges Mr. Summers' promise
to improve his communication with us, but we remain concerned about
the substance of Mr. Summers' apparently ongoing convictions about the
capacities and rights not only of women but also of African Americans,
third-world nations, gay people, and colonized peoples. We are concerned
that Mr. Summers' latest remarks minimizing the innate intellectual capacities
of women reflect Mr. Summers' tendency to vocalize his speculations
without due regard for either the standards of scholarship or the effect
of careless pronouncements, particularly from the president of one of
the world's leading universities, on the human beings concerned.
Mr. Summers has demonstrated little concern for his role as the foremost
public representative of the University. Yet he has moved to increase the
powers of his office significantly, through, for example, the creation of
"divisional appointments." For these reasons, and in the spirit of freedom
of expression, the assembled faculty members wish officially to register
dissent from Mr. Summers' stated opinions regarding the innate capacities
of subordinate populations, the wisdom of dumping in third-world nations,
the authorized presence on campus of organizations that infringe upon the
equal rights of gay people, and the proposition that the criticism of Israeli
military policy toward the Palestinians is inherently anti-Semitic.
We, the Faculty, vote to dissent from these positions of Mr. Summers,
to demand that they not be employed in the governance of the University
or in restricting the free speech of professors and departments, and to halt
any further expansion of presidential prerogatives that will facilitate the
propagation of these positions.
Summers Catches a Break
Two interesting developments today.
First: Every morning the Harvard News Office distributes an e-mailed compilation of print media stories about Harvard. As you might imagine, during the last few weeks this "Harvard in the News" list has been filled with stories of Summers and controversy. (And the list is far from complete—it omits magazines and a lot of web-only pieces.)
Today, for the first time in a couple months, there is not one story about Summers and women, Summers and the faculty—nothing.
Alright, there is one Art Buchwald column, but that doesn't count.
The absence of bad news is good news for Summers. Then there's the presence of good news, which is more good news. (Got that?) The New York Times reports that Harvard led all universities in fundraising last year, raking in a whopping $540 million. (Now, there's the Harvard we know and love.) Stanford is nipping at Harvard's heels with $524 million...
The really interesting numbers will come out a year from now, when we get a sense of how much the current brouhaha has affected Harvard's money-machine. But all in all, a good day for Larry Summers.
Flacking, Flogging and Blogging
A nice review in this week's
New York Observer. Also, the March issue of
Boston magazine excerpts
Harvard Rules. It's not online, but you can find it at any good newsstand. As an old magazine hack, I'm amused by the title they chose: "Lawrence of Absurdia." Not bad pun-ditry!
The New Republic Weighs In
Jason Zengerle writes a piece of hilariously biased journalism in the February 28th issue of
The New Republic. (Sorry, it's available on the web to subscribers only, which I've always thought is a silly self-curtailment of TNR's influence, but that's another discussion.)
The article is called "Harvard Coup—The faculty attack on Summers," and it's really more a work of propaganda than journalism. It's not that there isn't a perfectly sound argument to make on Summers' behalf. But Zengerle makes it by omitting uncomfortable facts, declining to interview anyone but Summers' strongest supporters, and really unpleasant smears.
1) Let's consider a case of
omission. (Or maybe it's distortion, I'm not sure.)
Zengerle writes unflatteringly of Summers' predecessor, Neil Rudenstine, describing him as wimpy. Rudenstine was afraid of challenging the faculty when developing the Allston campus, Zengerle says. "At one point, he hired avant-garde architect Rem Koolhaas to devise a plan that called for actually moving the Charles river west, thus making Allston part of Cambridge and seemingly solving the faculty's objection to leaving the 02138 zip code."
This is a wildly distorted version of the truth. Rudenstine hired Rem Koolhaus to brainstorm, to consider any and every possibility for Allston's development. Koolhaus came up with the river scheme (which everyone knew was fanciful and would never happen) all by his lonesome. The object was to solve the problem of how people would get back and forth between Cambridge and Allston, when there's really only one relevant bridge connecting the two, and its four lanes of traffic are constantly snarled. (Walking isn't feasible, especially in the winter.)
Incidentally, Summers does not appear to have an answer for this problem. Now people are talking about monorails. That should be interesting.
"Summers didn't bother with such schemes," Zengerle writes determinedly. "Instead, he pressed the faculty on the issue—and came up with a workable plan that...will eventually make Allston home to Harvard's graduate schools of education and public health as well as a state-of-the-art sciences complex."
Well...kinda-sorta. First, Summers never pressed the faculty on the issue. When his handpicked dean of the law school, Elena Kagan, argued against moving the law school to Allston, Summers caved. Instead, he's relocating the ed school and the schools of public health, two of Harvard's smallest, poorest professional schools. (Along with, say, divinity and dentistry.) That's not exactly taking on the faculty.
It is true that Summers is going to run into some opposition from the sciences, who don't like the idea of their campus being split between Cambridge and Allston. So he's excluding them from the planning process. That's why physicist Daniel Fisher is one of Summers' most vocal critics.
2)
Biased sourcing. Zengerle interviews economist Claudia Goldin, pop scientist Steve Pinker, and former dean Henry Rosovsky, all public supporters of Summers. He also interviews Summers' critics.... Oh, no, wait. He doesn't.
3) Nasty
smears. Zengerle implies that Summers' opponent Theda Skocpol is anti-Semitic because she employed Summers' infamous phrase, "in effect, if not intent," against him at the first faculty meeting. In fact, Skocpol was using Summers' own logic to critique him. She never signed the notorious Harvard-should-divest-from-Israel petition, and is not remotely anti-Semitic.
Another example. Zengerle repeatedly uses the words "radical" or "radical left" to describe Summers' faculty critics. He never specifies who this term applies to or what it really means, but we all know what he's talking about: theoretical left-wing nutjobs, the kind Fox News rails against—as if the Harvard faculty consists of a bunch of Ward Churchills.
Let's deconstruct this graf:
"[Summers'] leading faculty critics, like Skocpol and History of Science Professor Everett Mendelsohn, have long records of campus activism and are experts at the art of academic warfare. 'These were the same people who were agitating in the 1970s for various reforms,' says Steve Pinker, who was a Harvard graduate student at the time.... 'They're very familiar with speechmaking and petition-signing and verbal manifestos.'"
I'm fascinated by the neo-retro idea that having a history of campus activism is an inherently bad thing. After all, Everett Mendelsohn's expertise at the "art of academic warfare" began when Joseph McCarthy tried to get the young graduate student ousted from the Harvard ranks and Mendelsohn had to convince dean McGeorge Bundy that he was not a Communist. Does Zengerle consider that an "activist" act?
And consider Pinker's quote. He is criticizing people because they "agitated" for "reforms." (Reforms are a bad thing?) They gave speeches and signed petitions. Pinker, in other words, is saying that these professors can't be trusted because they exercise their First Amendment rights. (Whereas at Larry Summers' Harvard, signing petitions can be a risky act.)
All in all, not Zengerle's finest piece of work. But to give him a break, he probably wrote this story under some pressure.
The New Republic's part-owner, Marty Peretz, is a passionate Summers' supporter. I like Marty very much and interviewed him for
Harvard Rules; it's to his credit that he spoke on the record. But you can feel Marty's guiding hand in every aspect of this piece.
Unintended Consequences
Let's give Larry Summers credit for one thing: his remarks on women in science really have set off far-reaching discussions, and much good will come out of them. (One just wishes that this result could have happened without all the concurrent damage.)
The Times has an important piece today that broadens the issue beyond women, Harvard, and science. Karen W. Arenson's article, "Little Advance is Seen in Ivies' Hiring of Minorities and Women," shows just how pervasive and knotty a problem this is. The crucial graf, to my mind, is this:
"The problem in hiring members of minorities, Professor Ehrenberg said, is that the pool of candidates 'just isn't that large.' He said that under-represented minorities earned only 6.5 percent of all Ph.D.'s granted from 1989 to 1993, and that the percentages in the arts and sciences and engineering were even lower. More than 40 percent of the doctorates earned by blacks were in education."
I don't know enough to explain this paucity, and although I have some opinions, I don't want to be provocative just for the sake of being provocative. But I can say from my time spent reporting
Harvard Rules that this is a real problem. It's fascinating to attend a Harvard commencement and see a remarkably diverse audience of graduates and families; it feels like an academic Epcot Center. But look up on the official stage, and you see a horde of old white men. (A situation which has gotten worse under Summers, who doesn't have a single black or Latino or Asian at a high-level post in his administration.)
The obviousness of the disparity is so great, Summers can't help but see it. Why hasn't he done anything about it? One explanation holds that Summers cares about meritocracy, not diversity. Is there really a contradiction between the two?
Scuttlebutt and Nexis searches?
Slate has a review of Harvard Rules posted today, by a writer named Stephen Metcalf. It's a curious piece of work. Metcalf likes a lot about the book, and he repeatedly draws on the substance of it to discuss something already on his mind, "the culture of flattery" that now pervades academia. By this Metcalf means, if I'm getting him right, a prevailing campus atmosphere in which academics are so reluctant to offend that they wind up flattering each other—and themselves—non-stop. He criticizes me for being blind to this culture of flattery and idealizing the critics of Larry Summers.
Fair enough. I don't agree with the point—what Metcalf considers flattery seems to me the civility necessary to function in a small academic community—but it's a legitimate argument to make. Metcalf engages deeply with
Harvard Rules, and any author is grateful for a review that seriously addresses the issues raised by his or her book.
But there is one cheap shot in this review that merits rebuttal. Early on, Metcalf describes
Harvard Rules as "little better than a hatchet job, built on scuttlebutt and Nexis searches." That's a nasty allegation, and it's wrong on every count.
Harvard Rules isn't a hatchet job. It's tough on Larry Summers, but it's fair, and it accurately recounts his years in at Harvard. The events of recent weeks have only made its accuracy manifest.
Scuttlebutt and Nexis searches? Nah. I spent 18 months living up at Harvard, about two blocks from campus, researching and reporting this book. During that time, I averaged about two formal interviews a day, plus any number of phone conversations and lots of e-mail exchanges. What Metcalf calls "scuttlebutt," I call reporting. That's what journalists do to make sure that they don't levy an unfounded accusation against someone. Stephen Metcalf ought to try it.
