Shots In The Dark

Well, for the next two days, anyway. I'm off to spend some quality time with Dad. Back Sunday, with the third edition of "The Re-Ethicist." And perhaps some thoughts on Commencement.

And you thought I forgot, didn't you? (And at least one of you hoped I'd forgotten.)

Here it is: graduation day for Larry Summers' first class of freshmen. Today marks the end of Larry Summers' first four years as Harvard president. And what a wild ride it's been! Who could have guessed, back in March of 2001, that naming Larry Summers to the presidency of Harvard would produce such interesting headlines?

Let's recap:

October 2001: Summers criticizes African-American professor Cornel West, saying that he disapproves of West's scholarship, travels away from campus, and political views. Weeks later the Boston Globe reports the story, leading to months of politically-charged headlines. Then West leaves for Princeton.

May 2002: Senior and Commencement speaker Zayed Yasin inadvertently kicks off a controversy when he titles his graduation speech "My American Jihad." A furious Summers forbids his staff to say anything publicly supportive of Yasin.

September 2002: Summers gives a Morning Prayers talk at Appleton Chapel in which he says that signers of a petition seeking Harvard's divestment from Israel are "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent." More headlines follow. While the talk is appreciated by many, others feel that Summers has just called several dozen Harvard faculty members anti-Semitic, and think that possibly there was a better way to address the divestment issue.

Fall 2002: Summers directs a million—dollar alumni gift to the DuBois Institute so that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. won't depart Harvard in Cornel West's wake.

November 2002: With Larry Summers' approval, English department chair Larry Buell cancels a speaking invitation to outspoken (and probably anti-Semitic) poet Tom Paulin. Concerned about the precedent, the English department votes to re-invite Paulin, who never accepts the invitation.

March 2003: With Summers' approval (at the very least), FAS dean Bill Kirby fires Harry Lewis, the dean of Harvard College, for not being a team player.

November 2003: Summers declines to stand up for gay students who want Harvard to protest the federal government's enforcement of the Solomon Amendment, which would cut off federal funds to universities which banned military recruiting. His rationale: the issue was not important enough to risk offending the Republicans.

February 2004: The Harvard Crimson editorializes about Larry Summers' hostility to the open flow of information at Harvard. "Summers' tactics...hint at contempt for students and faculty," the Crimson says. "Why does the ivory tower seem to have been occupied by sentries?"

2003-2004: Out of 32 new tenure appointments, only four are women—a 30% drop from the last year of Neil Rudenstine's presidency.

January 2005: Summers suggests that the lack of female faculty in the sciences and mathematics may be a result of "innate differences." You know the rest.

February 2005: Publication of Harvard Rules adds fuel to the fire. Summers' critic Randy Matoril will later cite the book in a faculty meeting, suggesting that it be mandatory reading for every Harvard professor. (The author concurs.)

March 2005: The faculty votes that it lacks confidence in Larry Summers' leadership.

Today: Commencement. Summers to speak on Harvard in the world, dodge any substantive discussion about the past annus horribilis.

And now....the grades.

Larry Summers Report Card, 2001-2005:

Allston: B-. The project is moving forward, and that's not nothing, especially for a development of this magnitude. But the secrecy surrounding it has made it hard to evaluate Summers' plans and left the Allston development without a core constituency. Even some of the scientists who are supposed to benefit have misgivings. Meanwhile, Summers' troubles have probably hurt efforts to raise money for the Allston development.

The Curricular Review: D. In the end, it probably won't be a complete disaster, and that's about the best you can say for the review, which Summers used to talk about as one of his grand projects but now conspicuously omits. Again, the problem is secrecy. Well, that and contempt for the faculty, who have felt ignored and/or slighted throughout the entire process. Ultimately, the review is going to be a matter of tinkering around the edges. There's a total lack of vision and coherence to the project that is unbecoming to our greatest university.

Globalization: B. Students will be going abroad more in the Harvard future, and very likely more students from abroad will be coming to Harvard. Summers himself has also traveled extensively to promote Harvard (and himself) overseas—to Europe, Asia, and South America. It's a shame that the biggest question about globalization has gone largely undiscussed: How will it change the identity and purpose of what is historically an American university, in every sense of that adjective.

Boosting the Sciences: B. The Stem Cell Institute is probably a good idea, as is Summers' constant promotion of biotech. And he's right, of course, that knowing more about science is i mportant to the average student, and important for the competitiveness of American students in a shrinking world. But he loses points because of the AIDS grant scandal.

Improving the college experience: B. Give Summers credit: He's tried to make himself accessible to the students, and he has talked up the goal of improving teaching at Harvard College. (Some easy steps have gone un-taken, though.) Jarred by a poll among peer universities that showed Harvard near last in student satisfaction, Summers has almost manically pressured administrators to do whatever it takes to get the numbers up. If that means students will drink more pub beer, so be it. At the same time, though, Summers clearly doesn't think much of athletics or extracurriculars, which raises that nagging question: Shouldn't he really be president of MIT?

Leadership/Management: F. Look at this in context: No president had ever faced a faculty vote of no confidence in Harvard's almost-400 year history. It took just three years of manifest contempt for and bullying of the faculty for Larry Summers to provoke one—and lose it.

Alumni Relations/Fundraising: C. Alumnae can't stand him, codgers and right-wingers support him, and everyone else has mixed feelings. Despite what the fundraising types say, this polarization of the alums has surely had an impact on fundraising, at the very least causing delays in the implementation of the university's capital campaign. How much longer will the alums put up with a president who, a majority of them believe, is damaging the reputation of their university?

Public Relations/Media: C. On the one hand, some media types (Tom Friedman, James Traub) like Summers. But all too often, he's become a figure of satire, shorthand for sexist thinking. True, he's made the Harvard president a national figure again, a public intellectual. Only problem is, half the people who know of Summers think he's a Neanderthal. Moreover, Summers' hostility to, manipulation of, and disdain for the press has caught up to him; he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, or the lazy puff piece, any more.

Overall Grade: C. This has been a painful four years for Harvard. Rarely has any leader entered an institution with so many natural advantages (both the leader and the institution) and so much goodwill and squandered both so quickly. And for no good reason, other than ego. Everything that Summers has done could have been achieved just as quickly and probably better by a man with a more diplomatic leadership style. And with none of the attendant controversy, division, and setbacks.

After four years, the questions are more urgent than ever: Can he change? Should he stay or should he go? Are Larry Summers' best interests and those of Harvard the same, or have they diverged?

And an extra, bonus grade goes to:

The Harvard Corporation: F. For its complete lack of leadership and bizarre detachment during a time of crisis. The Corporation, stacked but for two with Summers appointees, has never been more discredited; at the moment, it borders on the illegitimate. Is there an independent bone in this body? Or is Harvard suffering from a profound crisis of governance that can only be addressed by the very same people who embody that crisis?

"Daniel Lanois's songs don't sound composed so much as hewn: roughly carved out of some sturdy primordial material like hardwood or, perhaps, rock**. ...[Lanois] makes each hovering chord appear and vanish like an ectoplasm. ...The pieces developed through texture: the way Mr. Lanois teased out a note or gave it a distorted edge, the way Mr. Balde's cymbals filled out a sustained phrase like wind in a sail....

"One piece, 'Oaxaca,' was just a melody repeated in unison, each time starting out almost tentative and then turning richly inevitable. The music was pensive but never glum: more awestruck by its own imaginary landscapes...."

—Jon Pareles, writing about Daniel Lanois in the New York Times

* You will remember Mr. Pareles as the self-proclaimed only person in the world who doesn't like Coldplay.

** "Or, perhaps, rock"?

Zachary M. Seward reports in the Crimson that the University has delayed the launch of its capital campaign by six months to two years in order to put distance between the campaign and the Larry Summers controversy.

Donella M. Rapier, vice-president for alumni affairs and development, adamantly denies the charge, saying that everything's right on track.

But—and here's my favorite part of the story—she's almost certainly lying!

According to Seward: "But while Rapier has always described the launch date as flexible, her public statements appear to indicate a delay in the campaign’s schedule.

"In February 2004, Rapier said she expected to publicly launch the campaign in two to three years. In an e-mail this weekend, 16 months later, Rapier wrote, 'We continue to be on track for an expected public launch within the next two to three years.'"

Two to three years—give or take 16 months.

This is today's second example of doublespeak coming from the Harvard administration. Don't they know how patently duplicitous they sound?

Here—I'll show you how to say something honestly.

"It's true," Rapier [should have] said. "We were all distracted by the controversy, and we think given how high the emotions were a few months ago, it's appropriate to slow things down a little. Donors like to see the University moving forward, and that's what we will show them. I'm confident that our donors will rally around Harvard as they always have."

There. That wasn't so painful, was it? In fact, you might even find you sleep better at night after...well, heck, after telling the truth!

Really, you guys should pay me for this. Or maybe an honorary degree?

Congratulations, graduates! And to celebrate, I've got lots of news about your alma mater—most of it relating to controversy!

First, the Harvard Admissions Office photoshopped a headline embarrassing to Larry Summers out of a picture of the Harvard Crimson in an admissions brochure. (Sorry, that's a hideous sentence; I didn't sleep well last night.) The headline in question: "Summers to Face No-Confidence Vote."

Whoops! Dean of Admissions Bill Fitzsimmons says deleting the awkward headline from a pamphlet that goes out to prospective students was a "joint decision" between Byerly Hall and the Boston publisher which produces the pamphlet. The publisher says: "We were asked to make that change...."

Of course they were. Here's how the conversation went:

Publisher: "Hey, that's pretty funny that you're printing that picture of the Crimson. Look at the headline!"

Byerly Hall: "What headline?" (Unintelligible noises)

Publisher: "You okay? You don't look so good."

Byerly Hall: (Gurgling, considering leaving the country) "Larry's going to wring my ***** like a bolo for this. What can we do?"

Publisher: "We can take it out on the computer....no one will ever know." Pause. "You want some water?"

Byerly Hall: "Do it! Do it, I tell you!"*

(Copyright 2005 by Richard Bradley, film rights available.)

In all seriousness, why couldn't Bill Fitzsimmons have just said, "Sure, we asked them to take it out. We made a mistake choosing that photo, because it's not the message we want to send to prospective students"? No harm, no foul.

The contorted explanation is what happens to language, to veritas, at a university where everyone is terrified of losing his or her job for making Larry Summers look bad..... Bill Fitzsimmons is fantastic at what he does—is there anyone better?—and even he has succumbed to doublespeak.

Today's Times reports more proof of how the Bush Administration has rejected any moderate course on the environment in favor of promoting the interests of big oil companies: a little-known aide who, in dozens of instances, rewrote internal documents to raise doubts about the legitimacy of global warming science.

Phillip A. Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, rewrote or deleted passages in scientific reports even after they'd been approved by White House higher-ups. His revisions all suggested that global warming is not a serious problem and that scientific research on the issue is unpersuasive.

Creating policy through creative rewriting isn't normally the job of a chief of staff. But even if it were, Cooney isn't qualified to do it. He's not a scientist. He's a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. (Only in the Bush-Cheney White House would this make him a natural candidate to head the Council on Environmental Quality.)

Michele St. Martin, a White House spokeswoman, wouldn't allow Clooney to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin told the Times. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

If he's not a cleared spokesman, then why is Clooney writing environmental policy in public documents?

Clooney's rewriting of policy documents after they'd already been approved by White House staff raises the question of where his loyalty lies: to George W. Bush or to the oil industry. (Let us assume there is a difference.)

President Bush should resolve the ambiguity and fire Phillip Clooney.

The Boston Herald says that Harvard's early work in Allston is responsible for a rat armada taking to the streets and terrifying locals. Worth checking out for the picture alone.

Want to know why the Harvard faculty can't stand and don't trust Larry Summers? Crimson columnist J. Hale Russell has written the best explanation—well, other than a certain book—of the Kafka-esque nature of Harvard life these days.

Allow me to quote a couple of paragraphs:

"A parable has it that an old man was attacked by a group of bandits. He burst into tears, and they mocked him as a childish cry-baby. But the man cut them off. 'I am crying,' he said, 'not from fear. I'm crying because I pity what you and the world are losing from your behavior. The bandits, as the story goes, were so struck by his words that they immediately reformed their ways.

"Harvard has bandits. They're bundled between the pages of cryptic, bland reports about the curricular review; they lurk behind the provost's wresting away faculty control of grants; they laugh as departments defend themselves after falling out of favor with Mass Hall. The secretive, non-participatory, top-down processes brought to Harvard by the current administration threaten a key principle of university governance: those who lead the University's intellectual life, the tenured men and women of Harvard, are best suited to make decisions affecting that intellectual life."

I know that some of you Harvard alums and others outside 02138 find this hard to believe, because—well, because who wants to believe that such a state of affairs could exist at such an important university?

Read the rest of the column and make up your own mind.

Yesterday's Washington Post reported that House Republicans are worried that Tom DeLay will hurt their chances for reelection. Now the Post suggests they should ask the same question of President Bush. A new Washington Post—ABC News poll finds that "a clear majority of Americans say President Bush is ignoring the public's concerns and instead has become distracted by issues that most people say they care little about."

It's easy to understand why the public might feel this way. The president has devoted an enormous amount of time to his ideologically-driven crusade to privatize Social Security (big problem, wrong answer). In fact, crusades—whether they involve Terri Schiavo, judicial nominations, the war against Darwin, or the war in Iraq—are the hallmark of Bush's second term.

Here are a few issues that Bush could quickly address:
1) The alternative minimum tax. Every married couple I know has been hammered by it.
2) Medical marijuana. It's time for a little humanity in drug policy.
3) Pensions. Out there in the real world, people are shaken up by United Airlines' default on its pension obligations, and wondering where the next shoe will drop.
4) The environment. The Bushies' abuse of the environment is out of control, and Americans don't support it.
5) John Bolton. Only in Dick Cheney's bizarro world is this man worth fighting for. (The judicial nominations battle already damaged the GOP.) Dump him, and let's move on.

One thing these issues have in common: they require Bush to formulate public policy based on reason, rather than religion or ideology. That's all too rare in this White House, and it's going to cost the Republicans in 2006.

Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to build a football stadium on the west side of Manhattan appear to be dead, slain by the New York state assembly. Good.

Bloomberg's case for the stadium was never convincing. He wanted to redevelop a part of Manhattan that sorely needs improvement. And he thought that the stadium would help New York obtain the 2012 Olympics, which he believed would help "heal the wounds" of 9/11.

But the case against the stadium was far stronger. Football stadiums don't generally rejuvenate neighborhoods; they create a massive dead zone around which urban life withers. This stadium would have been used eight Sundays a year, with perhaps a few concerts thrown in. The rest of the time...?

Moreover, Jets fans didn't want the stadium. There were, bizarrely, no plans to build parking ; nor were there plans to develop new public transportation from outside Manhattan to help fans get to the stadium. Invariably, this would have meant massive traffic jams in the area on game days, but nowhere to tailgate—and only a mayor who probably never went to a football game in his life before running for office would propose a stadium where you couldn't tailgate.

As for the Olympics—people I respect tell me the plan to host them was smart and even inspiring, making reference to New York's multi-national quality. But the emotional connection to 9/11 was always tenuous. New Yorkers feel that 9/11 tributes belong downtown. Problem is, the mayor has overlooked the redevelopment of lower Manhattan, and the plan for a 9/11 memorial and development is in complete chaos.

Michael Bloomberg has, in many ways, been a fine mayor for New York. But his desire to leave behind a massive tribute to himself overwhelmed his better judgment here. He should forget about the stadium idea; devise better ways to develop the west side than dropping a massive stadium down in it; refocus his energy on lower Manhattan; and remind New Yorkers that he's a much, much better mayor than Freddy Ferrer could ever be.

The Harvard senior who helped me research Harvard Rules is graduating on Thursday, and I want to take a moment to wish her well.

Emily—she asked me not to use her real name, because she feared that working on a book that portrayed Larry Summers critically might prompt retribution from the university—was invaluable to me as I reported HR. She did much more than track down documents; she helped me understand how things really work at Harvard, connected me with sources, showed me the lay of the land. Whenever I didn't quite have a feel for something, I'd run it by Emily, and invariably she'd set me straight.

(She also wrote a hell of a thesis on—well, I better not say—but trust me, it was impressive.)

If she wanted to, Emily would have made a great journalist; she has natural instincts for reporting and storytelling. Fortunately for her, she's decided to go into a saner career. I know she's going to be great at whatever she does. And even though I can't physically be there at Commencement, I'll be there in spirit, cheering her on. Her parents should be very proud; they raised a fantastic daughter.

According to the Boston Globe, Kim Clark was contacted for the first time about becoming the president of BYU-Idaho last month.

There's more to this story than is currently being told....

Kim Clark, dean of the Harvard Business School, has just announced his resignation. He's stepping down from the deanship to become the president of Brigham Young University—Idaho.

Brigham Young University—Idaho? Clark is a Mormon, but still....

This is big news. Clark has been one of the last holdouts against the erosion of Harvard's famous every-tub-on-its-own-bottom (ETOB) system. A hugely respected figure, he's been able to maintain the autonomy of the business school despite Larry Summers' attempts to diminish the autonomy of Harvard deans and increase his own power.

Once Summers appoints a new dean, he will have appointed the deans of the business school, the law school, the faculty of arts and sciences, the Kennedy school, the education school, the design school, the graduate school, and the divinity school.

He has also appointed four of the six members of the Harvard Corporation, excluding himself: Robert Rubin, Robert Reischauer, James Rothenberg, and Nan Keohane.

I think it won't be long before members of the Harvard community are looking back on ETOB with fondness and a sense of loss....

Here is Kim Clark's statement:

From: Office of the Dean
Date: June 6, 2024 12:44:36 PM EDT
To:
Subject: Stepping down as Dean of Harvard Business School


Dear Colleagues and Members of the Harvard Business School Community,

I am writing to let you know that I will be stepping down as Dean of Harvard Business School on 31 July 2005, in order to accept the role of President at Brigham Young University-Idaho shortly thereafter.

This is a bittersweet moment for me. I arrived at Harvard University as an undergraduate, and it has been my home for more than 35 years. My tenure at HBS -- as a faculty member and, for the past decade, as Dean -- has been an extraordinary experience, one both professionally and personally rewarding. And I have been fortunate to serve as Dean during a period of remarkable renewal at the School.

We have launched innovative and important new initiatives, in entrepreneurship, in information technology, and in globalization, to name a few. Each of these, and many others underway at the School, enriches the classroom experience for our students and helps the faculty develop new insights with power in practice. The Leadership and Values Initiative, building on the work of our predecessors, has resulted in a full-length course in the required curriculum and a commitment to the highest standards of integrity in our community. New efforts, in health care and the sciences, will help ensure we are focused on issues of deep importance and relevance in the global arena, and will create opportunities for increased collaboration with our colleagues in the University.

At the same time, we have made certain that our core values remain strong. Our commitment to the classroom and to a transformational experience still lies at the heart of everything we do. We strive for excellence in achieving our mission.

It has been an honor and a privilege, as well as a great pleasure, to work with you. Harvard Business School is a special place. It is you -- the community of faculty, staff, students, alumni, and friends -- who make it so and who, through your dedication and commitment to our mission, move the School forward. I am deeply grateful for your support and friendship these past ten years.

Best regards,
Kim B. Clark

So House Republicans are worried about the impact of ethics controversies on their reelection chances in 2006? They should be. This midterm election shows every sign of becoming the most lethal to incumbents since the Republicans seized control of the House in 1994. Only this time, most of the incumbents are Republican.

Remember what was happening in the House twelve years ago? A flurry of ethics controversies had convinced the public that the reigning Democrats had grown decadent and corrupt. There was the House bank scandal, in which 325 members bounced 8, 331 checks at the House bank, without penalty. After that came stories about free medical care, free parking at National Airport, discounted gym membership, free flowers. (Seems almost quaint now, doesn't it?) Tom Foley, the speaker of the House, reacted to these problems in a way that made it seem he was trying to protect his Capitol Hill constituents, rather than reform Congress.

Sure enough, November 1994 came along, and with Newt Gingrich running on a reform campaign, the Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in half a century.

After a decade of dominance, the House Republicans have two problems. One is Tom DeLay, of course. The other is that they really are more conservative and more ideological than most Americans; the Terri Schiavo fiasco was proof of that.

How much will the GOP pay a price for public dissatisfaction? That depends on whether the Democrats can find their Newt Gingrich....

The backlash against Coldplay, whose new album, X & Y, is out Tuesday, is so predictable, we should just skip it and move on to the next phase of the band's critical life. No such luck: The backlash has officially arrived. Its equally predictable messenger is Jon Pareles of the New York Times. Pareles is perhaps the most consistently pretentious of all the Times' pop music writers, and that's saying something. Coldplay are really good and wildly popular. There's nothing bad to say about them. So naturally Pareles thinks of something.

Coldplay, writes Pareles, is "the most insufferable band of the decade," due to their male sensitivity, "self-pity," and aspirations to musical grandeur. "Coldplay is admired by everyone," Pareles says—"everyone except me."

That would be my nomination for the most self-congratulatory sentence in the history of pop music criticism. You can almost see Pareles puffing up his chest as he boldly goes where no one has gone before. Isn't he just so...contrarian! Because the sentence ostensibly suggests that Pareles is some crank...but what Pareles really means is that his taste is better, more discerning, than everyone else's. Literally, everyone else's.

Thankfully, the New York Post's Isaac Guzman has anticipated Pareles' "look at me! look at me!" positioning. In his article "A Hipster's Dilemma," Guzman writes, "For folks who love to burnish lovable, mid-list losers - like Wilco, PJ Harvey and Modest Mouse - into underdog idols, [Coldplay's success] is a problem. But it shouldn't be."

"There was a time when we didn't lose our passion for bands just because they were successful" Guzman concludes. "Sinatra, Elvis, Hank Williams, The Beatles - they were all massive, but worthy of respect. And nobody would hiss if they popped up on the jukebox in your local watering hole."

Not unless they're a New York Times' music critic trying to prove how above the mainstream he is....

Under the headline, "Poll of Harvard Alumni Gives President Support," news of 02138's alumni poll has been picked up in France....

It's fascinating to see how the headlines relating to this poll are so positive for Summers. I think the picture is more mixed. Okay, people don't think he should get fired or quit. (And remember: Harvard alums are conservative; they distrust rebellion against authority, because most of the time, they are authority. If Howell Raines were president of Harvard, he'd never have lost his job.)

At the same time, 2/3 of respondents think Summers' management style needs work, and a mere 25% of women like him.

If the New York Times ran a story about a poll saying that 66% of the Amerian people don't think George Bush should resign, would that be the news? Or would it be that 33% do think he should resign, that 75% of women don't like him, and only one-third think he's doing a good job?

Regular readers will remember that last week I initiated a new weekly feature, "The Re-Ethicist," in which I answer the questions sent to "The Ethicist" column in the New York Times Magazine. This is in an effort to actually make the column realistic. Plus, interesting.

So, without further ado, on to week two of the Re-Ethicist.

The first question sent to Times columnist Randy Cohen this week deals with a case of ethics on vacation.

On a recent vacation, our rental-car reservation was not honored because the location had no cars available. I wrote to the company demanding reimbursement for the cost of the occasional car and driver we hired instead. The company agreed to reimburse us upon submission of receipts, which, unfortunately, I neglected to obtain. May I submit ''receipts'' that accurately reflect my expenses but that I have simply forged? M.E., New York

Cohen's answer: No. "Rather than engage in counterfeiting, you should obtain honest documents." Get receipts from the car company, or write a letter to the rental company explaining your predicament. And why is the writer even asking for reimbursement except for whatever extra cost the correspondent incurred beyond what a rental car would have cost?

Wrong.

As long as M.E. doesn't cook the books, he should feel free to create receipts. The point is not that there's some inherent moral value in the original documents; the point is to seek reimbursement honestly, and the only reason the rental company wants originals is to prevent fraud. If the customer isn't gouging the company, there's no problem.

More important, Cohen suggests that M.E. should only ask for reimbursement less what the rental car would have cost. Wrong. As millions of people can testify, there are few things in life more annoying than showing up at a rental car desk only to be told that the car you reserved is unavailable. The car company has unilaterally reneged on a contract, thus wasting your valuable time and inflicting stress upon you as you scramble to find some other means of transportation.

In our capitalist system, companies which break legal contracts should have to pay a price for that action. (That's why, when airlines overbook and you're out a seat, they make it up to you with more than a seat on another flight.) Otherwise the sanctity of the contract is meaningless and our economy slides into chaos. Think about that, Mr. Cohen.

In this case, the car rental company is doing the right thing by offering to pay the entire cost of M.E.'s car rental. Moreover, having to pay the customer's car rental is an incentive for this company to function more efficiently, thus making capitalism work better. Seen in that light, M.E. actually has a moral responsibility to make the car rental company pay up.

Larry Ellison's rumored $115 million gift to Harvard is getting lots of attention.

(The Crimson did actually break this story; reporter May Habib seems to be one Crimson reporter who isn't afraid of making waves.)

But with all the excitement over what would possibly be the largest gift in Harvard's history, some significant questions remain unanswered and of deep concern to people at Harvard.

The $115 million is slated to go to the the Harvard Initiative for Global Health (love that acronym) to create a worldwide health monitoring organization.

The exact nature of this organization is vague, of course, as the gift hasn't even been confirmed.

But—question #1—what would it do that the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization do not? Should Harvard really be in the business of duplicating work that's already done by government-funded organizations with massive funding?

The apparent purpose of the gift seems a rather significant expansion of the university's mission. When referring to the infamous PEPFAR (President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief) grant, provost Steven Hyman suggested that the university was not equipped to be in the business of delivering AIDS drugs. Moreover, the idea was spread that HSPH couldn't handle a grant of that magnitude ($100 million).

Question #2: Is this new initiative so different? And if not, why aren't there similar objections to it emanating from Mass Hall? Or is it just different because it's Larry Summers landing the grant, rather than the Harvard School of Public Health?

Which brings us to question #3: What relationship will HIGH have to HSPH? Will there be "synergy"? Or is the "parallel" structure of HIGH merely a way to give Summers control over the program, and actually cut out the school of public health? Will the new entity report to HSPH dean Barry Bloom, or to Larry Summers?

Because the purpose of the grant is altruistic, it's easy to stop thinking critically about it. That would be a mistake. A gift of this much money from one individual (Larry Ellison) to, essentially, another individual (Larry Summers), isn't just about altruism. It's about power.

The Globe's story about 02138 magazine's poll of Harvard alumni adds nuance to the Times' piece.

As the Times emphasized, 63% of respondents said Summers should keep his job (the Globe makes specific that the question asked whether Summers should resign).

But 67% said that Summers' management style needed improvement.

And not surprisingly, how you feel about the matter varied according to your gender. Seventy-one percent of men think that Summers should stay on; just 41% of women agree. Just 25% of women have a favorable impression of Summers, while 65% of men like him.

Here are two questions I wish 02138 would have asked:

1) If you don't think Summers should resign, why not? If you do, why?

2) Do you think Harvard is better off now than it was four years ago?

A footnote: The Crimson, which tiptoes around the idea of actually breaking news, should consider itself scooped on this poll. It's kind of an obvious thing to do—but it took a new alumni magazine to do it. Congratulations to 02138.