Greetings from Mexico Where things are going swimmingly. It's a pleasure to be back on Careyitos, the dive boat I return to year after year. Careyitos is run by an absolutely brilliant diver named Ricardo Madrigal, who is more at home underwater than anyone I've ever seen. He is quiet, with a dry sense of humor, and doesn't talk about himself much. I didn't know until just the other day, for example, that he'd volunteered to fight in Vietnam—he's 59—and was shot while he was there. It was only through diving, he explained, that he found peace in his life.

Now he glides underwater, in tune with the ocean and its movements, often soaring upside down so as to peer under the edges of the reef, looking for critters. Occasionally we will pass other groups of divers in the water; they all look disorganzed and clumsy compared to the graceful way Ricardo leads us through, under and around the reefs. Occasionally he will see a school of fish and waggle his fingers, waving to them; it is an absolutely unself-conscious act. I think he really believes that the fish recognize it, and when he does it, I'm not so sure that he's wrong. Ricardo sees an immense amount and points out a lot; he disturbs nothing. It's not the worst way to go through life.

I was last here about six months after Hurricane Wilma devastated Cozumel and damaged its reefs. Thankfully, the damage is fading; the reefs are coming back to life, there is new growth, and sand that was covering much of the reefs is gone. The problem now, of course, is global warming. Hurricane season is already here, Ricardo says—it seems to start earlier every year. And the water is unusually warm. Anecdotal information, of course. But still....

There is nothing so wonderfully different as being underwater. It is peaceful, relaxing, and above all, humbling. You will not do well in the ocean if you do not appreciate just how much of a guest you are. (It's because of this that I sometimes think Americans are the worst divers; we tend to think that we own, or dominate, or should dominate, everywhere we go. We want to conquer and transform rather than experience and appreciate.) Yesterday afternoon we got caught in a current that just shot us down the reef; we were flying along like tumbleweed. If you'd grabbed hold of, say, a barrel coral—not that we would—you'd stretch out behind it like a flag in a stiff breeze, and you wouldn't have been able to hold on for long. So, literally, you go with the flow. This can be quite fun; sometimes I rest in a kneeling position, almost as if on a magic carpet. Not technically recommended, but amusing nonetheless.

So far I've had the pleasure of seeing beautiful moray eels—six, seven, eight feet long, they sound scary, but really they're not; as Ricardo explained, they are so near-sighted, you'd really have to be doing something wrong for them to lunge at you—any number of nurse sharks (that's about all they get here in Cozumel), turtles, sting rays, lobsters (they're big), crabs (huge) and incredible tropical fish—trigger fish, barracuda, midnight parrotfish, angelfish, jacks, boxfish, and countless others. Yesterday I spent the first dive of the day with one of the dive masters, Aaaron, who spent the whole dive showing me sea life about the size of a fingernail or smaller—nudibranchs, pistol shrimp, jawfish, I can't remember everything. All dive masters will point out the big stuff; these guys will find the small things, which are in some ways even more miraculous. The day before, Ricardo pointed out to me a purple stain on a section of coral around which spotted damselfish darted. The purple, he exlained later, consisted of damselfish eggs, and the damselfish were guarding their eggs against hungry predators.

I am of course looking forward to returning to work...but not quite yet. I have four more days of diving. Really, it is never enough.  ¶ 4:24 PM 7 comments   

  Oh, Mexico ...as James Taylor would say. "Sounds so simple, I just got to go...."

So I am.

I'll be in Cozumel for the next few days, spending as much time underwater as I can. It's been over a year since my last vacation, and I need a few moments of zen.

But I will continue to feed the beast. No, not the sharks. The blog. I'll post from time to time down in Mexico, depending on the availability of wireless and how many El Sol's I've had.

So if I seem unusually sunny, you'll know why....

  ¶ 7:36 AM 6 comments   

  Americans Get Smart Generally I never feel more alienated than when I see the results of public opinion polls. Now there are three of them in the news that show surprising consensus about tough issues in the country—and, weirdly, I find myself in the majority. I could get used to this! Americans are showing considerably more wisdom than their leaders—their Republican ones, anyway.

Over three-quarters of the public say that the war in Iraq is going badly.

Seventy-two percent of Americans say the country is on the wrong track.

Even as Republican presidential candidates like the increasingly vulgar Rudy Giuliani go postal on immigration, two-thirds of Americans think that allowing illegal immigrants to get work visas and apply for citizenship is a good thing.

As, of course, it is.

If I were a Republican in Congress, I would be very, very worried.  ¶ 6:18 AM 5 comments   

  Hip-Hop Hustles Back to Harvard Former Harvard hip-hop professor Marcyliena Morgan has been offered tenure by the department of African-American studies, according to today's Crimson. Derek Bok has approved the tenure nomination.

This is a bombshell.

In what was actually one of the gutsier moves of his tenure, Larry Summers denied Morgan tenure in 2004, after which she and her husband, Lawrence Bobo, headed to Stanford.

Here's what I understand about that incident.

Many people on the faculty did not believe that Morgan deserved tenure. Her scholarship was underwhelming, they said. (One book, basically.) I also heard several reports that she was a lousy teacher. But Skip Gates wanted to keep Bobo at Harvard, and this was one way to do it. Moreover, ever since the Cornel West incident, Gates knew that Summers could ill afford to provoke more ire from the black community. Give us this one, he urged Summers.

Summers knew all this, of course, and knew that he would take heat for saying no. But he could not bring himself to offer tenure to someone about whom there was such disagreement. (A hip-hop archive? Worthy, yes. Reason for tenure? Eh...)

(Morgan has also started such an archive at Stanford.)

And so Summers tried to find some other way to keep Morgan (and therefore Bobo) at Harvard. But the two had an offer from Stanford. "I feel the call home to California," Bobo told the Crimson. Stanford made Morgan an "associate professor of communication." Which tells you something right there. On the other hand, it was a tenured position.

Now, here's where the story takes a twist.

As I report in the forthcoming issue of 02138, Summers told people that he rejected Morgan's tenure nomination in part on the advice of Drew Faust. When Faust heard that Summers was invoking her name in the matter, she was not pleased, believing that she had never said any such thing.

So she quickly moved to correct the record. Nonetheless, the incident caused frosty relations between her and the Af-Am department for some time, until Gates and she smoothed things over.

Now there is another moment of racial sensitivity at Harvard: the "Quad Incident." And boom, back comes Morgan's tenure nomination, brilliantly timed to land near the end of Bok's tenure.

So far as I can tell, Morgan has not published anything major since she left Harvard. In the spring of this year, she taught "Hip-Hop and Don't Stop: Introduction to Modern Speech Communities," a course focusing on women in hip-hop.

Her tenure case would appear to be no different, on the merits, than the last time around.

Moreover, it is extremely rare for a professor to be twice proposed for tenure at Harvard, and to be granted tenure after once being rejected. (If anyone knows of a precedent, I'd be curious to hear it.)

What's changed then? Well, no Summers, of course. And how likely is it that Derek Bok, who doesn't handle confrontation well, and is extremely sensitive about his reputation, will reject the tenure nomination of a black woman just as he's on his way out the door?

That's the last thing he wants just as he's wrapping up his interim presidency: a controversy over the rejection of an African-American scholar...even as the Harvard police are asking black students to show their IDs.

Bok may also be taking one for the team here, dealing with this tenure case so that Drew Faust doesn't have to face such a hot button issue right out of the gate.

Meanwhile, someone is smart enough to get this news out on the Friday of Memorial Day weekend, when it's less likely to attract attention.

African- and African-American Studies is a legitimate, important field that deserves to be taken seriously. But such incidents only lend credence to the suggestion that it is a hotbed of racial politicking in which black scholars mau-mau the flak catchers...and win.  ¶ 5:55 AM 45 comments   

  The Giambi Paradox Let's see: Jason Giambi is the only baseball player ever to have apologized for using steroids. "I was wrong for doing that stuff," he told USA Today last week.

What we should have done a long time ago was stand up — players, owners, everybody — and said: ‘We made a mistake.’ We should have apologized back then and made sure we had a rule in place and gone forward.

So what does baseball commissioner Bud Selig do? Threaten to sanction him. But why? Is it for doing steroids, or for talking about doing steroids?

Because what other player will now come forward and honestly talk about the subject, as Giambi has?

As usual, Selig seems more interested in covering up the truth than dealing with it.

Moreover, there have been reports that the Yankees want to see if they can void Giambi's contract. What nonsense. The Yankees explicitly agreed to omit any mention of steroids from Giambi's contract. They surely knew what was what. To pretend now that they didn't would only add to an unfortunate chapter in baseball history.

I'm with Harvey Araton: We should applaud Giambi, not exile him.

And you Mets and Sox fans who are so quick to yell "Steroids!" when Giambi is at the plate—do you really think that no one on your teams used?

Giambi is twice right: He was wrong for doing that stuff, and he is right for apologizing. More players—and teams—should follow his example.  ¶ 5:42 AM 5 comments   

  Harvard Goes High Tech Speaking of Harvard and the digital world...here's the latest study aid the Harvard Coop is promoting in an e-mail today.



Note card "bleachers," for just $54.

You think they sell many of those at Stanford?  ¶ 10:33 AM 6 comments   

  Harvard Plays Catch-up in the Digital World Regular readers of this blog will know that I've often wondered why only a handful of Harvard professors write blogs—what is it about the culture of Harvard that makes people afraid to democratize education and make themselves accessible?

Now the Wall Street Journal reports that Yale, Stanford and MIT are all taking big steps in putting course material online.

Yale University, meanwhile, has announced it will produce digital videos of undergraduate lecture classes and make them available free to the public. This academic year, it is taping seven classes -- from Introduction to the Old Testament to Fundamentals of Physics -- to be posted online this fall.

Harvard is entirely absent from the article.

Could Harvard's mercenary culture be one reason why the university has been so slow to experiment with online education?

Here's a little test. Go to iTunes and search for "Yale" under Podcasts. Then search for Harvard. You'll notice one big difference. (Hint: It involves dollar signs.)  ¶ 8:35 AM 6 comments   

  There's Almost a Doctor in the House The Boston Globe reports that Drew Faust is close to picking a dean for the Med School—Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, which has a budget of about $3 billion and 850 employees. Here's a little NYT Q-and-A with Nabel.

No word on the FAS deanship, though....




Elizabeth Nabel.  ¶ 8:20 AM 2 comments   

  Harvard's Rejects in the News 02138's list of famous Harvard rejects is getting some traction—it's been picked up on AOL News and ABC News as well.  ¶ 8:12 AM 2 comments   

  Mitt Heads South The Globe has a nice piece today on the question of how Mitt Romney is trying to woo the South. One way: by playing down his Harvard roots....

Harvard spends a lot of time marketing itself to India, China, and other exotic lands. Might it not spend some time trying to convince southerners that it is not the bastion of evil?  ¶ 1:33 PM 1 comments   

  A Harvard Appointment Princeton's Robert Darnton is taking over from Sid Verba as University librarian.....  ¶ 3:49 PM 10 comments   

  02138 in the NY Post The magazine's list of the most famous people who didn't get in to Harvard is written up in the New York tabloid.....

P.S. If you happen to notice a misspelling, that's the paper's fault, not the magazine's.....  ¶ 2:27 PM 9 comments   

  Drew Faust's Dean Problem On Gadfly, Adam Goldenberg suggests that, with Jeremy Bloxham having turned down the FAS deanship, Drew Faust is going to have a very difficult time finding a replacement. I agree—though not for all the reasons Goldenberg states. They are:

• Deal with Harvard’s faculty. Every single day. Forever.
• Deal with FAS’ budget deficit. More than $75 million in the hole, at last count!
• Deal with someone else’s Curricular Review. Explain how the new curriculum is not the Core, redux. (It is.)
• Give up one’s academic vocation and instead become an administrator.

I don't think 1, 3, and 4 are such a big deal. The FAS deanship is still a prestigious and desirable job, especially for professors who might want to become college presidents one day. You also get a big raise. And let's face it, leaving scholarship behind for a while isn't always the worst thing.

Finally, I'm inclined to think that the FAS deanship under Drew Faust is going to be a strong position. She needs strong deans, and she's smart and secure enough to realize that.

No, the problem seems to me to be #2—budget issues. What if the new dean is going to have to operate in a time of shrinking resources? Trying to manage the relationship between science and Allston at a time when FAS is facing budget cuts could be a nightmare.

It's a lot more fun to be dean when you can say yes than when you're constantly telling people no.

I suspect that this is the real issue here, and it is a big problem for Drew Faust. She obviously wanted a scientist for the deanship. But will any scientist take the job if he or she has to pick and choose among the various science factions because of budget cuts?  ¶ 8:33 AM 23 comments   

  Don't Doom the Yankees Just Yet In the Boston Globe, Dan Shaughnessy all but says the season is over.

When the Braves were at Fenway over the weekend, veteran Smoltz took a look at the Sox roster and the AL East standings and said, "I don't think they can be caught."

He's probably right.

Remarkable. It's not even June, and the Yanks are finished?

Granted, they're 9 1/2 behind a very good Sox team, and they've looked awful on numerous occasions, mediocre on a few more.

But as the Times rightly points out, in 1978, the Yankees were 14 games out in late July. And we all know how that turned out. (If you don't, even more reason to read my forthcoming book on the 1978 pennant race, out next spring.)

Let's consider this Yankee lineup: Catcher Jorge Posada is leading the league in hitting, which won't last, but still..... At first base, Doug Mientkiewicz can't hit any worse than he is now. Robinson Cano will be a .300 hitter. Then come Jeter and A-Rod, both of whom are having great seasons. (Jeter is a marvel; he only seems to get better.) And in the outfield, Hideki Matsui, Johnny Damon and Bobby Abreu are all better than they've been playing. What's going to happen when they start to click? Same with designated hitter Jason Giambi, the only man in baseball to apologize for using steroids.

Meanwhile, the Yankee pitching will come together, especially if these starters—Chien Ming-Wang, Andy Pettite, Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens—remain healthy. And rookie Phil Hughes will return from injury to win, I predict, ten games.

Pretty much everything that could wrong in a season has so far for the Yankees; that luck will change. While for the Red Sox, pretty much everything that can go right has...and that will also change.

Trust me, it's not over.

And even if it is, there's always the wild card, right?  ¶ 8:08 AM 5 comments   

  Monday Morning Zen
Hawksbill turtle and angelfish feeding, Cozumel.  ¶ 8:22 AM 3 comments   

  College Presidents in Trouble The Washington Post reports on an exodus of college presidents in that region.

At dozens of colleges this month, graduates will get diplomas, hug their parents, toss their caps in the air. But it's not just students who are starting anew this commencement season: Many of the schools are, too.

There has been lots of turnover in leadership at Washington universities recently, shaking up schools that have had the same presidents for many years.

GW, Howard, Gallaudet—all are getting new presidents.

Frank Wu, a trustee at Gallaudet, said, "The increasing complexity of colleges and universities, heavy regulation, intense public scrutiny, demands for fundraising, relentless pursuit of rankings -- each has dramatically increased the pressure, and together they've transformed the college presidency."

Sounds like a fun job, no?  ¶ 8:13 AM 1 comments   

  The Ombudsman Comes Through Some of you will remember my suggestion here that it was particularly inappropriate for the K-School 4 to impinge on free speech given that they were also Crimson editors.

Now the paper's ombudsman, Michael Kolber, reports that there are a lot more Crimson editors than you might think.

The Crimson currently claims that about 800 undergraduates are Crimson “editors.” That’s because, until recently, it identified anyone who has ever joined the staff as an “editor.” Joining the staff involves writing a certain number of stories (or taking photos or designing pages as the case may be) and attending a few seminars, steps fully one in eight undergrads has taken.

800 editors? No wonder the Crimson doesn't worry about grade inflation. It's a massive practitioner of title inflation. Kolber says that only about 200 to 275 of those folks "regularly contribute" to the paper. I'd be surprised if the real number is half that. (Also, 200-275 is a pretty broad range.)

But let's be conservative and say that there are at least 600 Crimson "editors" floating around campus who don't actually do anything for the paper.

As a former editor myself, I dislike this policy on the basis of accuracy in diction. These people are not "editors," and the vast majority of them never were, even when they were active on the paper.

The Crimson has now decided to call them "inactive editors." Better, but not good enough. The paper needs a new term for people who worked on it for a couple months, then quit. Contributor?  ¶ 7:44 AM 8 comments   

  It's True, Then As blogger Adam Goldenberg reported last week, Jeremy Bloxham has turned down the FAS deanship. (The Crimson reports the news today.)

With Bloxham out, two of the most serious contenders appear to be Sociology Department Chair Robert J. Sampson and Psychology Department Chair Stephen M. Kosslyn, though other professors could still be candidates, the two individuals close to University administrators said.

Well! This is Drew Faust's first bump in the road, and it is a large one. She now has to hurry to appoint a second choice before the end of the school year, because the dean should be appointed by the end of the school year. (It's already taken an awkwardly long time.)

Here's a question: How you can not know that someone will say no if you offer them a job....isn't that what due diligence is for? And yet, the Corporation gets turned down by Thomas Cech, and Drew Faust gets ixnayed by Bloxham.

Of course, as readers of 02138 will soon find out, there are all sorts of poetic justices in this recent episode....  ¶ 7:34 AM 18 comments   

  2nd Prize: 48 Hours

36 Hours in Baltimore

  ¶ 4:22 PM 9 comments   

  Jack Who? CNBC runs a three-part series on Harvard money manager Mohamed El-Erian. Here are some snippets.  ¶ 7:51 AM 1 comments   

  Summers in the Sun The NY Sun runs a Bloomberg story on Larry Summers' severance....

"It is comparable for the marketplace," said Claire Van Ummersen, 70, vice president of the American Council on Education's Center for Effective Leadership in Washington. "It is also a reflection on how competitive the presidential marketplace is at the current time."

Am I missing something, or is that quote completely nonsensical? There's a marketplace in golden parachutes? How can a severance package possibly reflect how "competitive the presidential marketplace" is?

There's a point that a poster mentioned a few days ago that I haven't seen raised in a single story about Summers' severance: His five-year contract was up. Harvard didn't have to pay him a thing. Why did it? To buy his silence....

Again, perhaps I'm missing something, but what is the point of even having a five-year contract if its expiration is meaningless?
  ¶ 7:27 AM 17 comments   

  Larry Summers' Severance A poster below suggests that, in its piece on Larry Summers' severance package, the Crimson was implicitly criticizing me for something I wrote in Boston Magazine—I quoted an anonymous source saying that Larry Summers' severance was going to be "breathtaking."

Here's what the Crimson said:

(Sorry, the Crimson's site appears to be down. Maybe later.)

Here's what the M-Bomb wrote in the Globe today (bold mine):

The former Harvard University president, Lawrence H. Summers, received a severance package that could be worth up to $2 million or more, including a $1 million home loan, according to the university's annual Internal Revenue Service filing.

...His severance package includes a year's sabbatical, which presumably would be paid at his presidential salary; "less than one year's salary" in future pay supplements; and the home loan, according to the filing. Summers was also appointed as a university professor at Harvard, the highest rank.

And just for the record, here's what I wrote about Summers' severance deal in 02138 back in September 2006:

Summers would stay until July, after which he would receive a seven-figure severance package, take a year's sabbatical, and return to Harvard as a University Professor.... The value of Summers' severance is said to be in the area of $2 million, which includes continued presidential salary, travel and entertainment expenses, rent for an apartment Summers keeps in Washington, and a small loan towards the purchase of a house.

Yup, yup, yup and yup.

Incidentally, I also reported something that both the Crimson and the Globe ignored....

Finally, [Summers] extracted a promise that his speech at Commencement would be mailed to all Harvard alumni....

Some of you will remember receiving from Harvard in the mail a small pamphlet of Larry Summers' collected works, sent by Jack Reardon of HAA, a month or so after I wrote those words.

I did make one mistake: the loan Summers received, $1 million with no payments until 2010 and then interest-only payments until 2014, is clearly not small. A well-invested one million dollars could easily double between 2006 and 2014, so this is a pretty substantial payoff—it is, conservatively, a million-dollar gift.

(If you're interested, I had been told that the loan was substantial, but couldn't confirm that through real estate records in time for publication; there was on file, however, paperwork showing that Summers had received what is apparently a different loan in the amount of, I believe, $40,000.)

If one were a stickler about such things, one could say that both newspapers should have given 02138 credit for breaking details of Summers' severance.

In any case...is the amount breathtaking?

Well, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it is to me. Who wouldn't love to get fired from a job—especially at a non-profit—because of failure to perform it well and get a payoff worth, conservatively, $2 million?  ¶ 11:35 AM 27 comments   

  From His Mouth to God's Ear
The lions of the Christian right--Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson--no longer dominate Republican politics as they once did. Their grip is slackening as their older followers are slowly replaced...
—Thomas Edsall, The New Republic, current issue

Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority Founder, Dies at 73

—The New York Times, today

  ¶ 8:40 AM 0 comments   

  Jeremy Bloxham Says No In all the excitement today, what with curricular reform and Larry Summers' severance package going public, let us not forget about the importance of Adam Goldenberg's report that Jeremy Bloxham turned down the FAS deanship, and not just because Bloxham was my pick.

Let us assume the story is true; Goldenberg certainly believes it is.

Okay, folks. So why did he say no? And if it's not Bloxham, then who? And when? It's getting a little late in the game....  ¶ 8:29 AM 2 comments   

  The Core Is Dead Harvard's faculty voted on and passed a new curriculum yesterday, thus demonstrating that the faculty is not wholly ungovernable and counterproductive. So how come nobody sounds very excited about it?

English prof Jim Engell calls it "an imperfect document." Harry Lewis says that "we have simply missed the opportunity to do the right thing." Bill Kirby, always good for a China joke, said, "“The motion was passed unanimously although many comrades were opposed.”

I haven't thought as much about this as the people involved, but it still seems to me that there's no intellectual theory to this reform other than saying, well, people should take courses in a few important areas, and also it'd be swell if they connected to the real world.

The first strikes me as obvious, the second mundane. Is this really all we can expect from the world's finest university?  ¶ 8:16 AM 1 comments   

  Breaking News Adam Goldenberg's blog, Gadfly, reports that Jeremy Bloxham has turned down the deanship of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences....

According to a source close to the administration, Bloxham, who is currently FAS’ Divisional Dean for the Physical Sciences, turned down the job this morning.

I have no independent confirmation of this stuff, but if it's true, it's pretty interesting. Your thoughts?  ¶ 3:20 PM 17 comments   

  Drew Faust in the Herald The Boston Herald runs an Associated Press piece on Drew Faust and "the delicate balance of inspiration, ego-boosting and cocktail-party cajoling it takes to get Harvard’s 11 colleges and institutes and its 24,000 employees on the same page."

Faust apparently cooperated with the piece, which is odd, because she has turned down requests from Harvard Magazine and 02138, two outlets with Harvard constituencies, but now speaks to a wire service reporter.

"You have to [lead] in somewhat indirect ways because you have to bring everyone along with you," Faust said in a recent interview with The Associated Press, contemplating the "peculiar nature" of colleges.
"That challenge of movement and collaboration and to keep those things together is, I think, at the heart of every university presidency."

There's not much news in the piece other than the revelation that Faust "plans to start a major program to improve theater and visual arts on campus."

In fact, it doesn't sound like the reporter got a lot of time with Faust; Steve Hyman is quoted more than she is. One wonders if that is reflective of anything.
  ¶ 9:28 AM 6 comments   

  Another One Bites the Dust Deputy attorney general Paul J. McNulty has resigned. When will Alberto Gonzales do the right thing and follow suit?  ¶ 8:50 AM 3 comments   

  Now He's Raising Money for Republicans Joe Lieberman continues his shameful behavior: He has endorsed Maine Republican senator Nancy Collins for reelection, and now he's going to co-host a fundraiser for her.

Lieberman wants things both ways: He wants the power of being a member of the Senate majority party, but he also wants to stick it to the Dems for not supporting him in his 2006 reelection campaign after he lost the primary to Ned Lamont.....

Lieberman has no convictions other than his devoted commitment to his own self-interest.  ¶ 8:36 AM 13 comments   

  Feud Fight In The New Republic, Alan Dershowitz explains his "feud" with Norman Finkelstein.

Suddenly I'm the Nazi? And a masturbating one to boot! I'm not shy about entering arguments, but I can't help feeling like I walked into a trap. How could I not argue against Finkelstein? But, when I raise my voice, I know that I'm supplying essential ammunition. I guess when you've got no scholarship to make your tenure case, you need all the outside interference you can get.

With two such contentious people, one is tempted to wish a pox on both their houses, but such an abdication of judgment is probably unfair to Dershowitz. He actually sounds pretty reasonable here.
  ¶ 2:00 PM 8 comments   

  Drew Faust Makes a Move At Harvard, Drew Faust names an ally interim dean of the Radcliffe Institute. Perhaps the most significant thing about the pick is that it removes Barbara Grosz from consideration in the FAS dean sweepstakes...though I don't think she was every that serious a candidate. The former Radcliffe Institute dean picks another Radcliffe Institute dean to be her FAS dean? (Got that?)

That would create a perception of favoritism and weakness.....  ¶ 8:03 AM 0 comments   

  Quote for the Day Clients of Giuliani Partners are required to sign confidentiality agreements, so they do not comment about the work they receive or how much they are paying for it. Though now running for president, Giuliani refuses to identify his clients, disclose his compensation or reveal any details about Giuliani Partners. He also declined to be interviewed about the firm.

—The Washington Post

This man wants to be president, and he won't even tell us what he's been doing for the past six years?  ¶ 7:53 AM 0 comments   

  Monday Morning Zen



Photo of Groton School chapel by Townsend Davis  ¶ 7:48 AM 7 comments   

  Good Friday The blog will be a little light today, as I have other pressing matters: namely, my 25th high school reunion.

I know, I can't believe it either.

So, quickly.

The Globe reports that the K-School 4 won't face any criminal charges for shouting down FBI director Robert Mueller. (I wonder if they're disappointed?) Apparently Harvard's nameless, late-night plea worked; if Harvard won't press charges, the cops won't either.

Here's a little pop quiz for you: Without doing any research, can you name any of the causes the K-School 4 were screaming about?

In the Crimson, two smart guys tell the RIAA where it can go. Bravo! That's the spirit.

If Harvard decides to renovate its dorms—which are in serious need of that—it will need to build a provisional dorm to house exiled students. As Yale's experience shows, there could be some unintended consequences: more people living on campus.

School of Public Health dean Barry Bloom is actually making headway trying to convince Hollywood that smoking in films should affect their ratings. Interesting. Not sure how I feel about this...does anyone smoke in a G-rated movie, anyway?

Have a great weekend, everyone.  ¶ 10:15 AM 30 comments   

  For Bush, It Gets Worse and Worse Republican moderates visited the White House to warn him that their constituents are losing faith in the war...

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.

Five percent?

What I want to know is, who are the holdouts?

Seriously, that is astonishing. Can any Republican presidential candidate win without breaking from Bush?  ¶ 9:21 AM 0 comments   

  Drew Faust Parties in New York In the NY Post, Keith Kelly reports on the Time magazine party for its list of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Drew Faust sat at a table with Michael Bloomberg, hedge fund billionaire Stephen Schwarzman, and Time Inc. CEO Ann Moore.

That must have been interesting....

It is, however, an absurd list. The guy who jumped onto the New York subway is on it; George Bush is not.

America Ferrara, the star of "Ugly Betty," is on it. George Bush is not.

And in a case of magazine wussiness, Time didn't rank the list. (If they did, Bush's absence would have been particularly glaring.)

Every magazine editor knows that you have to do the countdown from 100 to 1; that's the whole point of those lists, which aren't meant to be taken too seriously, but are meant to be discussed and debated. (That's why ranking them is so important.)

Here's a good one from Blender magazine: The 50 Craziest Pop Stars Ever.

Time obviously wants to have it both ways—to exploit the marketing advantages of such a list, while also suggesting that they're serious about it, and would never do something so crass as rank the most influential people.

New editor Rick Stengel does not impress.....  ¶ 8:58 AM 1 comments   

  The Times on Harvard's Teaching Sometimes the New York Times really is pathetic.

In late January, a committee on teaching led by Theda Skocpol issued a report recommending ways to improve teaching at Harvard.

Today, the Times runs a story on it.

Yes, that's right, folks: almost four months after the report is released, the paper of record breaks the news.

Does it actually mention the date of the report's release? Nope. You can't very well suggest that something is important but simultaneously acknowledge that you're four months late in reporting it.

Here's how the Times fudges that embarrassing little fact; I've bolded the key words.

Headed by Theda Skocpol, a social scientist, the group has issued a report calling for sweeping institutional change....

And that's it—no date, no nothing.

But because of Harvard’s standing, its effort is being closely watched around the country.

Apparently not that closely watched, or it wouldn't have taken the Times (would it?) four months to get around to saying something about it.

One of the hilarious things about this story is that it pays all sorts of attention to Harvard's attempts to emphasize teaching...but barely acknowledges the fact that Yale and Princeton are renowned for their commitment to teaching, so really all that Harvard is doing is playing catch-up.

Which is not to say that it isn't a laudable goal; it is. And of course there are many skilled and devoted teachers at Harvard.

But still....it's a little silly to suggest that Harvard's new commitment to teaching is influential and everyone is paying attention to it when lots of other places already teach very well, thank you.

"It’s well known that there are many other colleges where students are much more satisfied with their academic experience,” said Paul Buttenwieser, a psychiatrist and author who is a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers, and who favors the report. “Amherst is always pointed to. Harvard should be as great at teaching as Amherst.”

I have a couple of reactions to this.

First, I think quite a few people who are paying tens of thousands of dollars a year to send their kid to Harvard will be disturbed to read the sentence, "Harvard should be as great at teaching as Amherst."

But Buttenwieser is actually quite savvy to use that college as his example, because Amherst and Harvard are apples and oranges; Harvard really doesn't compete with Amherst.

Imagine, though, if Buttenwieser had compared apples and apples.

Harvard should be as great at teaching as Yale and Princeton.

Now, that sentence would be more troubling, wouldn't it?
____________________________________________________________

A poster points me to this article in the Independent on the same subject.

Here's a hilariously snotty line from the Independent's commentary, by the way:

If the University of Sydney, in Australia, can introduce reforms to reward good teaching, so, too, can British institutions....

Old attitudes die hard, don't they?  ¶ 8:24 AM 38 comments   

  The Corruption of Rudy Giuliani In the Village Voice, Wayne Barrett reports on Rudy Giuliani's close—too close—relationship with the New York Yankees.

It's a hell of a piece of reporting.

Barrett finds that Giuliani accepted gifts of four World Series rings and over $100,000 worth of tickets to Yankee games. Such gifts would be illegal. The rings themselves, for which Giuliani apparently belatedly paid $16,000, are estimated to be worth $200,000.

No other U.S. mayor appears to be the recipient of a World Series ring.

That's in addition to oodles of Yankee paraphernalia, some of it signed and therefore valuable, that Giuliani apparently demanded of the team.

Frequently ensconced in George Steinbrenner's eight-seat 31A box and four Legends 31AA seats next to the Yankee dugout while he was mayor, Giuliani and his many guests were also repeatedly given Yankee jackets, caps, autographed balls, and other gifts. "He would require gifts at every game," says a former close Giuliani aide, whose account is supported by both a Yankee source and an ex-cop assigned to the mayor. He even wanted a fitted cap with the World Series logo and other special caps, and the equipment management had to reach into the players' uniform case to find one for Giuliani's large head. The Giuliani group also raided the closet in Steinbrenner's office, even taking DiMaggio jackets with red piping for the mayor and guests. "They finally turned the spigot off in 2000 and said we just can't do it anymore," the aide recalls. The cop remembers jackets and balls—some signed by all the Yankees—stuffed in the back of the city cars they used to drive back from the stadium.

And, though this is hardly illegal, Giuliani used to take his mistresses to Yankee games, flaunting his infidelities in full view of a television audience.

In his own book, Leadership, he revealed that the first Yankee game he ever took Judi Nathan to was David Cone's perfect game in July 1999, almost a full year before he announced at a press conference that she was his "very good friend." Judi and her girlfriends became part of his stadium entourage, just as his previous very good friend, Cristyne Lategano, had been in the earlier years. When Giuliani's wife Donna Hanover barred Lategano from the box if her son Andrew was at the game, the young press aide sequestered herself in Steinbrenner's suite, extending Giuliani's reach to the home-plate section of the stadium as well. Judi, too, eventually became a presence in the Steinbrenner suite.

In exchange, Giuliani handed the Yankees sweetheart deals on stadium lease arrangements, pushed for a heavily subsidized new stadium, arranged for $50 million in stadium planning costs, and so on.

It's great, great investigative reporting; Barrett at one point even tracks down the jeweler who made the rings, in order to determine exactly when Giuliani received them.

The piece is a reminder of Rudy Giuliani's deep-rooted conviction, remembered not-so-fondly by New Yorkers, that the law applies to everyone except for him.....  ¶ 8:07 AM 0 comments   

  Women and Work: Was Larry Summers Right? In Business Week, economist Laura D'Andrea Tyson writes about Larry Summers' women-in-science remarks—but not the ones having to do with "innate aptitude."

In his controversial remarks about the underrepresentation of women in engineering and science, Lawrence H. Summers, president of Harvard University, argued that top leadership positions in academia, business, and law require a time commitment that many women are unwilling to make. In both the U.S. and Europe several high-profile cases of successful women quitting their jobs seem to confirm his view that women are choosing to opt out of high-powered jobs. The opt-out hypothesis could explain why, according to a recent U.S. survey, 1 in 3 women with an MBA is not working full-time...

Tyson goes on to point out that many women take time out of their careers in order to spend more time with their children, and that this has a significant impact on how much money they make down the road, as well as women's patterns of work.

...Many women cope with job-family trade-offs by working part-time, reducing the number of hours they work in full-time jobs, and declining promotions.

Tyson's conclusion?

Larry Summers was on to something when he speculated that many women are unwilling to make the time commitment required to attain leadership positions in demanding professions.

My only quibble with Tyson: This aspect of Summers' remarks were not, as I recall, particularly controversial. They certainly weren't the thing that got him in trouble.

  ¶ 2:30 PM 15 comments   

  Jeff Ruby is My Hero Mr. Ruby, the owner of a Louisville, KY, steakhouse, asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant because—well—because O.J. Simpson is a cold-blooded killer.

According to AP...

''I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families,'' Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. ''The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct.''

We're not getting a lot of moral leadership from our leaders in the White House, who have blood on their own hands. So it's nice to see acts of morality from ordinary citizens....  ¶ 9:45 AM 11 comments   

  Kim Clijsters and Harvard Women Yesterday we talked about whether women who have kids are forced off the tenure track, or choose to step off it, or some combination of both.

In today's Times, Selena Roberts writes about the decision of tennis player Kim Clijsters to retire at age 23.

Clijsters explained her reasons on her website.

(Tennis players blog! Curt Schilling blogs! Harvard profs...don't!)

Quitting tennis at an age of nearly 24 is pretty young still. I could have easily gone on and still reel in the four major big earners (three Grand Slams and the Masters). Money is important, but not the most important in my life. Health and happiness are so much more key to life.

...it is time for a new life. Time for marrying. Children? Time for cooking and playing with the dogs.

Systemic discrimination?

Roberts certainly doesn't think so. She suggests that the only thing wrong with this situation is that not every woman can afford to do it.

...what women’s tennis may reveal is the same socially sanctioned element that ribbons through every Starbucks, where mommies with M.B.A.’s prefer to run play dates instead of boardroom meetings. In this circle, it’s O.K. to jump off the fast track for the mommy track or laugh track. Whatever makes a woman of means happy.

Let's just repeat that line, shall we?

...mommies with M.B.A.’s prefer to run play dates instead of boardroom meetings....

In Manhattan, I see women like this all the time—women who can afford to jump out of the rat race because of their husbands' earning power, and happily, happily do. Some of them have even gone to Harvard. I suspect there are many women whose husbands aren't rich who choose to do the same, either to be with their kids more or just because they're tired of working.

It's a choice that men really don't have.....
  ¶ 9:23 AM 11 comments   

  The GOP's Abortion Fratricide During last week's GOP debate, Rudy Giuliani waffled on abortion—there's only one permissible position on the issue in the GOP, and that's agin it—and suggested that the world wouldn't end if Roe v. Wade didn't.

Now, they're tearing him apart. Not only is he relatively tolerant on abortion rights, he actually once gave money to Planned Parenthood! He is the devil!

Actually, I think Giuliani is a dangerous man, as do most New Yorkers who remember his second term, so I don't mind him taking a little heat. You wait—he'll blow his cool soon and commit a gaffe that will haunt the rest of his doomed campaign.

But the larger issue, of course, is that the GOP is fating itself to irrelevance by harping on social issues. Which, much as it is sort of fun to watch, is probably not good for the country.  ¶ 9:02 AM 0 comments   

  Bad News for Katie Couric As previously discussed, I'm not a fan of Katie Couric, but even I am surprised at how badly she's tanking as anchor of the CBS Evening News.

The Washington Post reports that "last week [the show] recorded its smallest audience since 1987, and probably many years before that."

It is fascinating to see that people just are not accepting her as a serious news person....  ¶ 8:59 AM 5 comments   

  The Efficacy of Informed Protest The Crimson reports that the Harvard administration will meet with a group of hunger strikers urging the university to intervene on behalf of its security guards in a contract dispute.

Good for the strikers. Unlike the K-School 4, they've organized an honorable and effective protest that doesn't involve the trampling of free speech.

I don't know anything about the issue they're protesting, but I like the way they're going about it.  ¶ 8:52 AM 0 comments   

  Even Europe Blogs Before Harvard Three European professors have created a blog intended as a "sounding board for professors who believe they have been bullied, ganged up against, or otherwise pushed out of their jobs," according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

And still...outside the econ department...not a single FAS blog.  ¶ 8:49 AM 3 comments   

  Drew Faust Makes a Move Drew Faust is hiring a new vice-president to be in charge of the central administration's finances and administration.

This is:

1) a necessary move given the growth of Harvard's central administration
2) another sign of the growing influence of anonymous, behind-the-scenes decisionmakers at Harvard
3) something that Larry Summers had planned to do, and thus another sign that Faust's role is to continue Summers' work but be nicer about it
4) a diminution in the power of university provost Steve Hyman
5) a diminution in Drew Faust's power
6) a sign of Faust's confidence about not needing to control everything

It's also interesting to note who's returning to play a part in the choice of this figure: former finance v-p Ann Berman.  ¶ 9:18 AM 42 comments   

  Too Much Information John Tierney explains how to bring a fifty-year-old tortoise to orgasm. Must he?  ¶ 9:11 AM 2 comments   

  Is Roger Clemens Fat? Seth Stevenson really, really hates the Yankee pitcher.

Pretty funny.  ¶ 9:08 AM 0 comments   

  Wither The New Republic A couple months ago, The New Republic announced that it was, for the first time in its history, going from a weekly to a bi-weekly. (Apparently the news cycle has slowed down in recent years.)

Not to worry, the folks at TNR said—though the magazine would come out half as often, it would be twice as long. So subscribers (like me!) shouldn't feel cheated because we were suddenly getting half as many issues as we thought we had paid for.

As Gawker points out, that promise lasted all of one issue....  ¶ 8:59 AM 6 comments   

  In Ms., Sexism against Women In Ms. magazine—yup, it's still here—Caryn McTighe Musil says that the choice of Drew Faust as Harvard president is good progress for women, but it's not enough.

Feminists celebrated Faust’s selection for many reasons, including her distinguished feminist scholarship and the fact she was once a director of women’s studies. But while her appointment is historic and symbolically important, it should not mask the reality of life for women in higher education.

...women continue to advance more slowly up faculty ranks and earn less salary than their male colleagues. Even though more women are tenured today, the tenure gender gap has not narrowed in the last 25 years. Furthermore, despite high-profile appointees such as Faust, women are still disproportionately represented in lower ranks and at less prestigious institutions.

Musil goes on to discuss the problem of the "Baby Gap," an oft-discussed issue regarding women in academia.

...having children, especially “early babies,” is a disadvantage for women’s professional careers—but an advantage for men’s. Women with babies are 29 percent less likely than women without to enter a tenure- track position, and married women are 20 percent less likely than single women to do so.

This argument always strikes me as unconvincing. For one thing, it is profoundly sexist. It assumes that all women who have children want to be on tenure track jobs, when of course that's not true. Every couple with children has to negotiate some sort of balance between child rearing and work, and while some women may go the full-time nanny/day-care route, many don't, and there's nothing wrong with that. Frankly, having a non-tenure track academic job sounds like a great way to balance work and family whether you're a woman or a man.

But this argument in Ms. totally devalues women's choices by assuming that there is only one legitimate choice for women—to be as professionally successful as possible. If you are not as professionally successful as you potentially could be, it must be because the system discriminates against you.

Musil continues:

Women with “early” babies leave academia more frequently before getting their first tenure-track job, but women with “late” babies do as well as women without children. Given that systemic bias against motherhood....

Well, that's just bad social science, or at least bad interpretation of data. There are lots of reasons why women with "early" babies leave academia more frequently before getting their first tenure-track job—such as, maybe they weren't so sure they wanted to be academics. Or, maybe after they had their kids they reconsidered the balance of work versus motherhood in their lives.

The only systemic bias against motherhood that's on display here is the one shown by Ms. magazine.....  ¶ 8:04 AM 57 comments   

  Quote of the Day “For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars. And whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could’ve saved their industry.”

—Barack Obama, speaking to the Economic Club of Detroit

Can you imagine Hillary Clinton having the guts to give that speech in the lion's den? I'm not sure I can.
  ¶ 4:32 PM 2 comments   

  Drew Faust in the Time 100 Here's that Time 100 entry for Drew Faust, by the way.

Oh, hell, I'll just print the whole thing—it's short. I'll bold the parts that struck me as interesting....

Drew Gilpin Faust

  ¶ 11:25 AM 31 comments   

  Roger That Yankee-haters now have more fuel for their fire: The Bronx Bombers have signed Roger Clemens.

On NESN, Curt Schilling says of Clemens, "We don't need him," which, when you consider how well the Sox pitchers have been performing, appears to be a statement of the obvious.

(Good for NESN, by the way, to show the footage of Dan Shaughnessy saying with absolute certainty that Clemens would either sign with the Astros or retire. Oops.)

Did the Yankees need him? Ironically, their pitching has started to come around lately. Chien-Ming Wang, my favorite Yankee pitcher, threw 7.1 perfect innings on Saturday, and then Darrell Rasner threw a shutout for five on Sunday, as the Yankees took two of three from the Mariners.....

Clemens, who will turn 45 in August, signed a prorated contract worth something like $28.5 million. Will he be money well-spent?

By the way, Clemens announced his return from the owner's box at Yankee Stadium. But the owner himself wasn't there. George Steinbrenner must really be sick. Could anyone possibly imagine a healthy Steinbrenner missing such a dramatic moment?

It brought back memories of Old Timers' Day in 1978, when Steinbrenner announced that Billy Martin, whom he'd fired three days earlier, would be returning as manager in 1980....  ¶ 8:21 AM 3 comments   

  The Decline of Rudy Giuliani As a New Yorker, I'm familiar with Rudy Giuliani's least attractive qualities: his arrogance, his callousness, his authoritarian side, his hostility towards a free press. But at least he was consistent in his principles. So it's been depressing to watch him abandon his reasonable and tolerant positions on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and immigration in order to try to win the presidency.

Depressing, but predictable.

What really irritates me now about Giuliani is the way that he is trying to exploit 9/11 by using it as the basis for his campaign.

Speaking to the graduating class at the Citadel—which is not, by the way, a real military academy—Giuliani called the 438 "cadets" the "leaders of the 9/11 generation."

What the hell is the 9/11 generation?

A cohort defined by age? Well, people of all ages were killed on 9/11, and people of all ages lost friends and loved ones.

A cohort defined by growing up after 9/11? Well, everyone in America, one presumes, was changed by that day. Certainly we all live in a different country than we did before 9/11.

The truth is, Giuliani wants to enshrine 9/11 into national memory merely because his actions on that day reflect well on him. He has entirely equated that day with his own behavior on it and his own political future. It is an act of massive egoism and narcissism.

I don't know about other New Yorkers, but I sure as hell don't want to be defined by 9/11. Yes, some people were heroic. But let's be honest: There wasn't much good to come out of that day, either in America or the world.

Giuliani went on to say to the students, “Never, ever wave the white flag of defeat in front of those who want to come here and kill you and take away your way of life,” he said. “Never.”

Giuliani's implication: Democrats who want to end the war in Iraq are waving "the white flag of defeat" in front of people who want to "come here and kill you and take away your way of life."

It's scaremongering, pure and simple. And anyone who wants to be president must do better than that—and must ask more of us than that.  ¶ 8:03 AM 34 comments   

  College Pride The Princetonian reports that Drew Faust is on Time's list of the 100 most influential people in the world, a list in which "Princeton connections are scattered throughout."

But of course Faust did not go to Princeton. So why is she on the list?

Faust comes from a long line of Princetonians, including former University presidents Jonathan Edwards and Aaron Burr. When Faust was applying to colleges in the 1960s, the University did not accept female students.

That's pretty bad writing, because I can't tell if Faust's line of former Princetonians includes Jonathan Edwards and Aaron Burr, or if Jonathan Edwards and Aaron Burr are simply two former Princetonians.

But I think the suggestion is that if Princeton had accepted women in the 1960s, then Faust would have gone there.... (Her father went to Princeton.) Interesting to think how things might have turned out differently if Faust hadn't gone to Bryn Mawr.

Here's what else the Princetonian has to say:

Recently tapped as the first female president of Harvard, she will succeed Lawrence Summers, who stepped down following a firestorm of controversy for comments in early 2005, in which he suggested that the dearth of women in the sciences might be due to "innate differences" between the genders.

Again, note the causality here: Summers makes offensive comments, boom, he resigns. Of course, we all know it didn't really happen that way.....
  ¶ 7:48 AM 1 comments   

  Sharks Are Always Interesting In Australia, a man who was attacked by a 16-foot long great white shark that grabbed him headfirst has returned to diving.

Crazy...or inspiring?

Meanwhile, there's a lot of buzz about a forthcoming documentary, Sharkwater, by a Canadian filmmaker named Rob Thomas. Check out the trailer on the website linked to above—it's absolutely thrilling. There's one brief shot of a lone diver in the open ocean with a great white that must be fifteen feet long....  ¶ 7:35 AM 0 comments   

  Monday Morning Zen

Galapagos dunes by Terry Doyle  ¶ 7:26 AM 1 comments   

  Woodward on Tenet In the Washington Post, Bob Woodward's review of George Tenet's book is weirdly fascinating, and not just because it's pretty rough on Tenet. The problem is that Woodward is so much a part of this story—he's written about Tenet, Tenet's written about him, and Tenet has obviously been a source for Woodward—it's hard to sort out all the competing agendas.

And then there's this paragraph:

Full disclosure: In discussions with Tenet as a reporter for this paper, I many times urged him to write his memoir, and, after he resigned from the CIA, I even spent a day with him and his co-writer, Bill Harlow, in late 2005 to suggest questions he should try to address. Foremost, I hoped that he would provide intimate portraits of the two presidents he had served as CIA director -- George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Instead, he has adhered to the rule of CIA directors: protect the president at all costs.

You could throw up your hands and ask why a reporter is spending a day helping George Tenet write his memoir, but I suppose one can understand how such a situation might arise: Woodward and Tenet obviously know each other pretty well, and reporter-source relationships can sometimes be two-way streets. And complaining that the rules are different for Bob Woodward is like complaining about the post office: You can do it all you want, but nothing's going to change.

Still, it's a bit surreal to find Woodward reviewing a book that he actually helped to write...  ¶ 7:10 AM 1 comments   

  Brodhead and Summers Duke's president, Richard Brodhead, entered uncharted waters when he walked onto Duke's campus four years earlier. He was a shy, scholarly man from Yale, and big-time sports at the Division I level were foreign to him. Brodhead was unsure how to balance athletics and academics, a combination that Duke views with beaming pride. In fact, 10 percent of Duke's undergraduate students are athletes. Brodhead speaks in long, elegant passages and often quotes Shakespeare. His timid, calm demeanor is surprising for a man of such power. In the midst of this struggle to establish himself, he was forced to manage a faculty becoming more vocally radical in its political views. Brodhead had watched just a month earlier as his contemporary Harvard President Lawrence Summers fell victim to that university's more extreme professors and wanted to ensure he didn't suffer a similar fate....

From It's Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Case, by Don Yaeger with Mike Pressler
  ¶ 1:06 PM 4 comments   

  More SUV Carnage In New York, a mother dropped her baby under the wheel of an SUV rolling backward...

In California, an SUV driver jumped a curb and mowed down schoolchildren....

And in St. Louis, Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock couldn't swerve his SUV fast enough to avoid hitting a pick-up in the breakdown lane and died.

Of course, Hancock was also speeding, drunk, possibly stoned, wasn't wearing a seat belt, and was talking on his cell phone. Which makes it fortunate that he only killed himself.

Anti-SUV critics (myself included) often focus on the anti-environmental aspects of these horrific vehicles. Just as serious, I think, is the fact that they make the roads more dangerous for both SUV drivers and passengers, as well as those people who are unfortunate enough to be in the way when an SUV driver loses control.....  ¶ 2:08 PM 2 comments   

  In Which I Ask Your Wisdom Has anyone in the history of cell phone usage ever "left a callback number"?  ¶ 9:25 AM 8 comments   

  The Yankees Take Two! The Yankees Take Two!

Thank God for the Rangers....and in a doubleheader, Yankee pitchers gave up only five runs, which is about what they gave up in a good inning against the Sox.

Granted, the Sox are a far better team than Texas. Still, this does suggest that the Yankee pitching is finally starting to improve...

...except, of course, for Carl Pavano, who appears to be out for the season.  ¶ 9:02 AM 4 comments   

  Faust's Firings The Crimson reports on an interesting chapter in Drew Faust's career: the time when she had to fire 25% of Radcliffe's staff.

It's a fine article, but it does raise a broader point: In all the Crimson coverage of these firings, not once (that I've seen) has any reporter ever actually interviewed one of the people who was fired. Why not?

I suspect this isn't so much about sloppy journalism as it is about a subconscious desire to promote the new president and a latent classism prevalent at Harvard.

Why bother talking to the people who got axed by "Chainsaw Drew"?

After all, everyone gets laid off at some point, right? What's important is not what happens to them, but whether the chief executive did it well. Because Harvard students don't want to be workers, they want to be chief executives.

There's a bit of sexism here as well. Because Faust is a woman, she can wear that nickname lightly; it's a good thing! We expect male executives to conduct firings competently. When a female executive does so, there is a hint of gender-related pride in the reaction.

Thus, law school professor Elizabeth Warren sounds downright cold when she tells the Crimson, "It's a good nickname!" (Though, to be fair, the paper's quotation may lack context.)

If the term "Chainsaw" were applied to a male manager—"Chainsaw Larry," for example— it would surely carry an unflattering connotation and prompt us to further consider the impact of those layoffs on the individuals involved.

None of this is to suggest that Faust didn't do what she apparently had to do as humanely as possible. It is to suggest that only talking to the people who got to keep their jobs is likely to give you a one-sided picture of what really happened.

The Crimson might consider an article about who got laid off and why, and what those firings revealed about Faust's priorities and her management style.  ¶ 8:33 AM 25 comments   

  The Crimson Defends the K-School 4 Today's Crimson editorializes in favor of the four protesters who shouted down FBI director Robert Mueller and were arrested at a Kennedy School event.

The Harvard University Police Department’s (HUPD) response to a group of unruly protesters at last week’s speech by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller III demonstrated blatant disregard for established rules, past procedure, and—most importantly—common sense.

I respect the Crimson's passion, but it's wrong: The paper claims that it is arguing on behalf of free speech, when in fact it's arguing for the right to curtail free speech.

The whole thing lasted under two minutes, and the protesters planned on leaving quietly as soon as they were warned to do so by police. Instead the protesters were forcibly ejected, arrested, and charged criminally with disturbing a public assembly without ever receiving a warning.

This is an argument that has floated around since the arrest happened. We would have stopped if you'd just asked us nicely.

This is, of course, an easy assertion to make after the fact. But there's as good a chance that it's not true as there's a chance that it is. The clear intention of the protest was to disrupt the event; had the protesters not been asked to leave, who's to say they wouldn't have continued their disruption indefinitely? One suspects they would have been delighted to have had the opportunity.

Remember, for example, the students who took over Mass Hall in the spring of 2001. According to the members of that group whom I interviewed, they fully expected to be arrested for their actions. (No, "Oh, you should have asked us to leave" here.) But when they weren't arrested, they were only too happy to continue their protest indefinitely. (Good for them on all counts, by the way. Unlike the K-School 4, they understood that the acceptance of the consequences of protest is what lends protest its moral seriousness.)

Here's another sentence I find puzzling.

In an academic community founded on the bedrock principle of the unfettered exchange of ideas, the threat of unwarned arrest would no doubt have a chilling effect on the quality of debate and discussion that goes on at Harvard.

The unfettered exchange of ideas? That is, of course, exactly what the protesters were trying to obstruct. Mueller was starting to give a speech; they shouted him down. That is not the unfettered exchange of ideas.

Now, the Crimson points out that the students were supposed to be warned. (An astute poster on the Crimson site points out that the regulations in question are those of the FAS, and the event was held at the Kennedy School, which is not a part of the FAS.)

HUPD acted in flagrant violation of cut-and-dry standing regulations....

But those regulations aren't cut-and-dried at all. In fact, they never stipulate that a warning must be issued before an arrest, they only discuss the beneficial effects achieved by the issuance of such a warning.

The protesters should also not face sanctions from the Administrative Board of Harvard College. They have already been put through a trying ordeal thanks to University mistakes.

A trying ordeal? A trying ordeal, Harvard alums will recall, is sitting in University Hall when police shoot tear gas through the windows, then beat the shit out of you with nightsticks. A few hours in the HUPD is not a trying ordeal, and if you think it is, then maybe you should get out of the protest business.

The Crimson is right that HUPD erred badly in its police report, and that should be a subject of further inquiry. On most everything else, though, this editorial is wrong.  ¶ 7:47 AM 6 comments   

  Red Sox and Patriots Fans, Lament

Sure, Tom Brady's dating a Brazilian supermodel. But apparently he's a Yankee fan.  ¶ 2:56 PM 9 comments   

  David Remnick in the Dumps It's hard times for the New Yorker editor. One day after Gore Vidal proclaims Tina Brown the magazine's best editor, at the National Magazine Awards, Newsweek's Mark Whitaker proclaims that New York mag editor Adam Moss is "the new David Remnick."

A fairly innocuous joke, right? But no—everyone got all huffy about it. According to Women's Wear Daily, "The barb drew audible gasps."

Whitaker then compounded his mistake by telling WWD, "Adam didn't seem to mind, but David didn't seem to have a great sense of humor about it."

Come on, people, lighten up. You're reacting like Remnick's the pope or something.

What's going on here is just that everyone wants to suck up to the editor of The New Yorker.....  ¶ 9:43 AM 9 comments   

  Women at the Helm From what the AP and the Crimson report on yesterday's gathering of female Ivy League presidents, the conversation was pretty banal and Oprah-like.

From the Crimson: “Give voice to the fullness of who you are, including the fact that you are a woman,” said [Judith] Rodin.

"It is much too early to declare either victory or defeat," Ruth Simmons said, according to the AP.

Drew Faust, as seems to be her norm, listened but said nothing of particular interest.

Nonetheless, the Crimson ran a photo that, I think, has more power than anything these women said or didn't say. It's simply the five of them sitting around a table. When was the last time you saw a group of five powerful people...and all of them were women?



Crimson photo by Natasha L. Coleman  ¶ 9:14 AM 8 comments   

  Harvard's Three Presidents Harvard seems to have an excess of presidents right now, even as it's going through something of a power vacuum. It's an odd situation. FAS dean Jeremy Knowles has stepped down; one president is outgoing; one president is incoming; one president is returning.

Yesterday, Drew Faust and four other female presidents of Ivy League universities gathered to talk about women and leadership. Faust continued her policy of keeping mum about her opinions and priorities.*

Faust listened carefully but refrained from expressing her own opinions throughout the discussion, as she prepares to become the fifth woman to lead an Ivy League university.

At the same time, Derek Bok e-mailed the entire campus to start a discussion on calendar reform, suggesting that he has no intention of acting like a lame duck.

Meanwhile, stealing the thunder of both Bok and Faust, Larry Summers spoke yesterday at the final class of "Morality and Taboo," a course taught by Summers supporters Steve Pinker and Alan Dershowitz, on the subject of his women-in-science speech.

Summers made a joke about not being able to imagine why he was invited to a class on morality and taboo, then ate some crow.

All kinds of girls all over the world were reading that the president of Harvard believes that they can’t do math,” Summers recalled yesterday. He said that his position at the University’s helm should have kept him from acting as an “intellectual provocateur.”

Then Summers actually took another shot at explaining the paucity of women in science and math.

In a brief aside, Summers compared girls and boys who earn a perfect score on their math SATs. The girls, he said, are more likely to score higher on the verbal portion of the test.
Summers then asked rhetorically whether it should be “shocking or disturbing” that those girls choose to enter fields broader than math, given their “superior verbal abilities.”

I suppose the man deserves credit for venturing back into what are, for him, such dangerous waters. But to my mind, this is a little bit like Mitt Romney saying he disapproves of Scientology. Why even raise the issue?

Summers also took a shot at the faculty in discussing the reasons for his ouster.

“Some of it undoubtedly had to do with the issues we’re discussing,” he said, “but part of it also had to do with my conviction to push the faculty into places that they were less willing to go.”

It would be interesting for some interviewer to follow up on that and ask Summers exactly what places he is referring to. He has made this claim several times, but never, I think, in a forum where there's an opportunity for a follow-up question. (Or if he has, no one's ever asked it.)

As long as Summers makes this claim vaguely, he gets away with it. But the second he offers specifics, people are going to call him on them.
___________________________________________________________

* All quotes are from the Harvard Crimson articles linked to.  ¶ 8:45 AM 4 comments   

  The Harvard Statement Courtesy the Harvard Crimson website, here is the Harvard statement on the Kennedy School Four:

University Spokesman John D. Longbrake released the following statement just after midnight Wednesday morning.

Last Thursday, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III spoke at the Forum at the Kennedy School of Government. As required by Forum policy, his remarks were to be followed by a question and answer period in which audience members would have the opportunity to pose unfiltered questions to him. Four Harvard College students, acting in coordination, sequentially interrupted his remarks and disrupted the event. They were escorted from the Forum and arrested.

The University deeply values reasoned and constructive debate. The ideals of free speech encompass the right of a speaker to speak and the audience to hear. Without undermining either right, a member of the community may register dissent by any number of effective means. Choosing a device that is designed to disrupt an event or limit debate is not consistent with these ideals.

Given the importance of dissent in an academic community, the arrest of a student protestor remains a significant event. For that reason, the Harvard University Police Department has carefully reviewed the situation at the Forum. The University is persuaded that more could have been done in the circumstances to apprise the students that they were in jeopardy of arrest. Without condoning the students’ behavior at the Forum, broader principles have led the University to request that the criminal charges against the students be dropped.

I like the second paragraph, but I don't think much of the third. Does anyone seriously think that four students who stand up and start screaming at the director of the FBI as he gives a speech didn't know that they might be arrested?

And what exactly are these broader principles?

And why is it that no one at Harvard dares put his or her name to this statement?
  ¶ 3:53 PM 8 comments   

  Mitt Romney Redux Something about Mitt Romney's quote regarding his favorite novel, Battlefield Earth, has been bugging me, and I've finally realized what it is.

Here's the quote:

“I’m not in favor of his religion by any means,” Mr. Romney, a Mormon, said. “But he wrote a book called ‘Battlefield Earth’ that was a very fun science-fiction book.”

Here's my question: Where does a Mormon get off dissing Scientology?

Scientologists believe that we are all reincarnated space aliens, or something. Mormons believe that we are all, literally, the children of God (He's a busy being) and that our souls are floating around somewhere before we're born.

Hey, as long as you don't hurt anyone, I don't care what you believe in. I just don't think it's a good idea for Mitt Romney to go around saying that another religion is too wacky for him.....  ¶ 10:57 AM 14 comments   

  The Admissions Backlash Continues In the Times, Michael Winerip realizes that his kids aren't going to Harvard. Also, that life goes on.

I came to understand that my own focus on Harvard was a matter of not sophistication but narrowness. I grew up in an unworldly blue-collar environment. Getting perfect grades and attending an elite college was one of the few ways up I could see.

My four have been raised in an upper-middle-class world. They look around and see lots of avenues to success.


Story instantly becomes the Times' top e-mailed article....

Most E-mailed

1. Young, Gifted, and Not Getting Into Harvard
2. In Ducks, War of the Sexes Plays Out in the Evolution of Genitalia
3. For Motherly X Chromosome, Gender Is Only the Beginning
4. No, Really, It Was Tough: 4 People, 80 Martinis
5. A Foodie Scene in the Twin Cities

  ¶ 10:47 AM 1 comments   

  The Free Speech Guidelines A commenter below posts this excerpt from Harvard's free speech guidelines:

Because the definition of disruption is subject to interpretation, a single warning procedure would avoid confusion about what constitutes disruption. By issuing a warning, the disrupters are told that their actions are unacceptable and must stop. Members of the audience will learn where they stand; they will know where the line is. If people cross that declared line again, they cannot claim not to have realized they were disruptive.

This is, in fact, a poorly written statement. Here's the problematic part:

....a single warning procedure would avoid confusion about what constitutes disruption. By issuing a warning, the disrupters are told that their actions are unacceptable...

The use of the word "would" in the first sentence adds ambiguity; the sentence does not say that a warning "must be" issued, as some are interpreting it to mean. It merely suggests the effect of a warning.

Then, in the following sentence, we have some hideous grammar: "By issuing a warning, the disrupters..."

Harvard—come on. You're the finest university in the world, and you can't write a proper sentence on a matter as important, and which so urgently calls for clarity, as freedom of speech?

The author of the sentence means to say this: "Having been issued a warning, the disrupters are told that..."

Even written correctly, the sentence does not eliminate the ambiguity; this guideline does not mandate the issuing of a warning, but merely recommends it. (A tone that is consistent throughout this vaguely written document.)

There is one sentence in the guidelines that is clearly written, and it is this (the bold type is Harvard's, not mine):

Thus, the definition of disruption is any repeated or continuous action which effectively prevents members of the audience from adequately hearing or seeing the event.

By that standard, there is no question that the Kennedy School Four (there you go, I've given you a name) were disruptive.
  ¶ 9:40 AM 7 comments   

  Another Day, Another Injured Yankee Pitcher In just his second major league start, Yankee Phil Hughes had pitched 6 1/3 innings of no-hit ball when...he pulled his hamstring muscle.

Thereby making him the fifth Yankee starting pitcher to go on the disabled list.

They include:

Mike Mussina—pulled hamstring
Carl Pavano—general wussiness
Chien Ming Wang—hamstring
Jeff Karstens—broken leg after being hit by a batted ball

This is getting ridiculous.  ¶ 9:18 AM 3 comments   

  Harvard's Free Speech Mistake The Crimson reports today that the University supports the dropping of criminal charges against the four protesters who disrupted a speech by FBI director Robert Mueller at the Kennedy School.

“The University is persuaded that more could have been done in the circumstances to apprise the students that they were in jeopardy of arrest,” said a statement released by Harvard last night. “Without condoning the students’ behavior at the Forum, broader principles have led the University to request that the criminal charges against the students be dropped.”

Isn't that like asking the police to read a suspected criminal his Miranda rights before making an arrest?

Apparently because the statement was released late at night—an attempt to bury it, I suppose—the story is short on important details, such as:

Who at Harvard released this statement? Mass Hall? College Dean Dick Gross?

What, exactly, are the broader principles involved? The right to shout down an invited speaker?

For, if you watch the video of the event, you can see that that is exactly what occurs.

It will be interesting to see the full text of this statement from the University, but my instinct is that Harvard is making a mistake here.

The students involved are facing punishment ranging from a month in jail (highly unlikely) to a $50 fine (much more likely). Let them face the legal consequences of their intrusion. Otherwise, how can protest have any seriousness?

I'm sure the protesters are well-meaning. But they seem to have an inflated opinion of themselves and a superficial understanding of the nature of their actions.

“We are looking forward to getting back to our lives,” [protester Michael] Gould-Wartofsky said.

No. After eleven days in the Birmingham jail, Martin Luther King was looking forward to getting back to his life. After 27 years in prison, Nelson Mandela was looking forward to getting back to his life. After a few hours in the Harvard University Police Department, you do not get to say that you are looking forward to getting back to your life.

Here's what one protester, J. Claire Provost, concluded: “In a way it was good to have such an issue made out of this case so that it highlights the issue that we were trying to highlight through our protest—the issue of suppression of civil liberties and the importance of free speech."

Provost says that she and her colleagues are protesting on behalf of free speech...by repeatedly shouting down a speaker in a public forum. If she is aware of the irony, she gives no sign.

“We hope that this will be the last prosecution of peaceful protesters that ever happens on Harvard’s campus,” Gould-Wartofsky said.

But shouting down a speaker is not a peaceful act; it is a violent one. It is aggressive, threatening, unnerving, disturbing, disruptive, and upsetting. And this is precisely why these students chose that route—because they thought that such a disruptive action would be more effective than, say, carrying picket signs outside the school.

Yes, shouting down a public speaker on private property is a form of protest. Just not a protected one.

Except, apparently, at Harvard.  ¶ 7:55 AM 10 comments   

  The Case of the Unresponsive Applicant A poster writes:

I know you tend to come down hard on your loyal readers if we stray off-topic, but I need advice from some Harvard people who would know...As alums, my husband and I have done local interviews in our town for College applicants under the misapprehension that the applicants "must"have such interviews to be considered. This year, one of my assigned applicants did not respond to emails or phone calls to set up an interview: the director of admissions in our town contacted the admissions office in Cambridge, no info forthcoming. I eventually gave up. Amazingly, when the admission list comes out, this applicant is on the wait list. What's the deal with that? An applicant who is so uninterested in the College that she could not even type a one sentence "no thank you" reply to an interview request is on the wait list? Are the alumni interviews just a sham? Who could I contact in Cambridge to ask more? Many thanks...

Some good questions. Any answers out there?
  ¶ 7:17 AM 6 comments   

  Bush=Nixon Writing in the Times, David Greenberg thinks so.

Both Bush and Nixon, resentful of the supposed cultural dominance of liberals, perfected a conservative populism that vilifies academics, journalists, bureaucrats and other professionals as out-of-touch elites. Both men, hostile to the news media, rigidly prescribed the messages that their staffers could take to the press. Both vaunted secrecy, restricted access to information, and politicized areas of the government once deemed the province of non-partisan experts.

It's also interesting to consider how two men with such different family backgrounds—and different mental capabilities—could wind up with such a similar world view.  ¶ 7:10 AM 1 comments   

  Mitt Romney Is Freaking Me Out I understand from the folks at 02138 that I got some hate mail on my recent profile of Mitt Romney accusing me of bias, Republican-hating, and so on. Which is funny, because I thought the story was considerably more balanced that most of what I've read about Romney. I tried to go beyond all the stuff about flip-flopping—not that you can ignore it entirely, but it's only a part of the story—and consider some other sides of the man.

The other reason I find the criticism that I was too hard on Romney bizarre is that Romney keeps making himself look stupid without any help from the media.

First there was the whole "I'm a hunter, hear me roar" fiasco.

Now Fox News has asked Romney his favorite novel. His reply?

Battlefield Earth, by Scientologist founder L. Ron Hubbard.

“I’m not in favor of his religion by any means,” Mr. Romney, a Mormon, said. “But he wrote a book called ‘Battlefield Earth’ that was a very fun science-fiction book.”

That's just great, Mitt. A third of the country already thinks you're a wack job because you're a Mormon. Now you say that your favorite novel is by a Scientologist. (And apparently a pretty awful book even if read in a vacuum.)

Way to reassure the voters....  ¶ 2:56 PM 8 comments   

  Gawker Goes to PEN, Trashes Food, etc. Someone from Gawker attended the PEN dinner last night, and saw some of the same people I did. Some reactions similar, some...not so.  ¶ 2:11 PM 2 comments   

  Slate Hatin' Slate is in a bad mood today. The on-line mag has three vicious takedowns.

Christopher Hitchens describes the Tenet book as "sniveling" and "disgraceful."

Daniel Gross says that not only is Tom Wolfe's piece in the new magazine, Portfolio, really bad—"astonishingly bad"—it's also anti-Semitic.

And Jeffrey Goldberg says that the last episode of the Sopranos was crap (which, if you saw the show, is kind of a lame pun).

And you folks think I get cranky....

Gotta say, though—they're all pretty good reads.  ¶ 1:28 PM 0 comments   

  Literary Gossip I took a little break from the computer last night to attend the annual PEN black-tie bash, held this year at the Museum of Natural History.

The PEN American Center, if you don't know, is a literary organization that fights for freedom of the press around the world and, increasingly in recent years, here in the United States. Its director, Michael Roberts, used to work at Harvard under Neil Rudenstine.

I was the guest of Joan Khoury and the Bank of New York, who, I'm delighted to announce, will be advertising in the next issue of 02138.

Some thoughts on the evening.

It's easy to be cynical about these affairs—wealthy New Yorkers getting all dressed up to schmooze—but there is something inspiring and fundamentally serious about the PEN dinner. The evening paid tribute to the four Connecticut librarians who refused to comply with a Patriot Act request for information on the Internet searches of its patrons—that's my home state! Small, but feisty—and to a Cuban journalist, Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, who is dying in prison. His mother came to accept an award for him, and gave a short but moving speech in Spanish. After the black tie is hung up until next year, these are the memories that linger and matter.

That said, the PEN dinner is also really terrific for people-watching, partly because it's a bit of a challenge: Literary celebrities are only semi-famous, and you often look at them and think, I know I know who that is, but I can't quite remember...

Here are some tidbits.

Salman Rushdie was on hand with his wife, the model/writer/chef Padma Lakshi, who is so beautiful, it's difficult not to simply stand and gawp. She is quite tall, with flowing black hair, flawless skin, and hypnotic eyes. She was wearing a faux-fur wrap and a lime green dress with a long, sloping cut down the back, exposing an arc of her skin from her top right shoulder to her left hip. I can tell you this because she had a long conversation right in front of me—I swear, this was not intentional on my part—and it was logistically impossible not to look. She also seems like a nice person.

Salman Rushdie, on the other hand, looks kind of surly. The tabs have these two on the outs, and for a few minutes, he looked irritated as more people seemed interested in talking to his wife than to him. He kept trying to catch her eye in that, "Okay, honey, can we go now?" look that all husbands and wives are familiar with. But then a couple of fans came up to him, and he was happy again.

PEN and Borders bookstore gave an award to Gore Vidal, I have no idea what for, but bully for them; as speaker Tina Brown pointed out, the dinner this year was without Kurt Vonnegut, David Halberstam, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., which is a heavy-hitting threesome. Gore Vidal is a pain in the ass, but he is brilliant and unique and we should celebrate that while he's still alive.

Vidal didn't look well. He could not stand to receive the award, and his body looked shrunken. His mind, however, is as acerbic and contrarian as ever. He made a little joke about entering the museum and seeing old friends—"the dinosaurs"—and then thanked Tina Brown, whom he called the best editor of The New Yorker, despite the fact that David Remnick was hosting a table not far from him. Then he railed against the Bush administration, which went over better than his claim that Tina Brown was a better New Yorker editor than David Remnick.

I spoke briefly with Alex Kuczynski, author of Beauty Junkies, a book about plastic surgery. She was there with her husband and mother, who was very sweet. "Ever since that book came out," she whispered to me, "people keep looking at my face." To quote a great man, charming as hell.

Tim Russert was the MC of the night, which was a little depressing—even at a literary dinner, TV people are the real stars—but then, he has been embroiled in some freedom of the press fights recently. Russert was wearing make-up. He began his speech with two Yogi Berra jokes, which felt like two jokes he has delivered about 100,000 times.

I talked to the brilliant Peter Carey, who would not tell me about the new novel he is writing. I also talked with Jennet Conant, who also would not tell me about the new book she is writing. (Her last book, you will remember, was largely about her grandfather, former Harvard president James B. Conant.) "It's something about World War II and spies," she said. "But then, that's what all my books are about."

Gay Talese looked dapper as usual, in black suede lace-ups, a tux, and a black fedora.

Calvin Trillin was the guest of honor at my table, and he is just delightful—warm and funny and unpretentious. He spoke of his grandchildren with a quiet love. On taking them shopping, he said, he found himself saying something he'd never before said: "Don't you have anything more expensive than that?"

The moment was particularly poignant because Trillin's wife, Alice, passed away (of natural causes) on September 11, 2001, and grandchildren really matter under such circumstances.

I saw Jay McInerney wandering around, looking slightly pissed, in a Salman Rushdie sort of way, that no one wanted to talk to him. Then he saw a woman he knew. Much better.

Writers have a challenge these days, and that is to claim their relevance in a culture where television and the Internet have usurped the prominence of writing. The silver lining is that, in hard times like the ones we currently find ourselves in, writers do matter; they are important.

(I bumped into New Yorker editor Henry Finder—former editor of the Harvard-based magazine, Transition—and had the chance to tell him what a powerful, and important piece of journalism I thought George Packer's recent article about the fate of Iraqis who risked everything to work for the United States—and how the White House is abandoning them to be slaughtered.)

Whether in the United States or abroad, more and more writers are rising to the challenge of writing in an age when freedom is under siege. Let's hope it makes a difference; I have to believe it will.  ¶ 8:03 AM 11 comments   

  What's UP with HUPD? A nice piece in the Crimson today; the paper reports that the police report filed for the arrest of four student protesters contains some serious misstatements.

According to the police report, obtained by The Crimson from the Cambridge District Courthouse yesterday, “All of the individuals were yelling ‘the FBI are murderers’ and ‘the FBI equals terrorism.’ They were all yelling other slogans as well but kept repeating the two aforementioned phrases the most.”

However, video footage from the event—available online on the IOP’s Web site—shows that neither of these phrases was ever uttered by the protesters.

That's a pretty serious discrepancy. The Harvard University Police Department declined to comment, but really, they have some explaining to do.

The Crimson also inserts this graf near the bottom of its story:

Gould-Wartofsky and Provost have served as members of the Crimson staff. Provost wrote her last news article in May 2004 and Gould-Wartofsky is a former editorial columnist.

That explanation of their relationship with the paper is much more specific than "Crimson editors," and clearly shows that the two aren't currently connected with the paper. Nicely done.

Now maybe it's time to review that "once a Crimson editor, always a Crimson editor" policy.  ¶ 7:53 AM 3 comments   

  The Times' Grouchy Old Man Clyde Haberman has to be the grouchiest, most curmudgeonly columnist at the New York Times, and I love him for it. He is a master at cutting through bullshit, and his column today, about George Tenet and Tenet's new book, is full of the jaded insight that defines his work. You can tell he's really an idealist at heart, but he'll be damned if he comes out and says so.

Here, for example, is a brilliant paragraph:

For “Today,” Mr. Tenet went yesterday to the NBC studios in Rockefeller Center. The usual early-morning crowd had already gathered, a congregation of screamers praying for the cameras to catch them in full cry and with homemade signs held aloft: “It’s my birthday” and “Hey, Mrs. Steinberg.”

The comic payoff of those two sentences really comes with those last three words, "Hey, Mrs. Steinberg," which are wonderfully nonsensical. They tell you all you need to know about Haberman's opinion of the "congregation of screamers" outside the Today show, which is truly one of the oddest rituals of American life. (There is no clearer manifestation of the difference between New York and the rest of the country in the way that New Yorkers think of this tourist ritual, and the tourists who get up at 5 A.M. to stand outside a TV studio in the desperate hope that Al Roker will acknowledge their existence, like a priest offering a communion wafer.)

Here's another great paragraph:

Another ritual of publishing requires that a controversial book be characterized as “tell-all” even if, as in this case, a more accurate description might be “tell-some.” As a fillip, there is, with Mr. Tenet, an unavoidable question of “tell when.”

After which Haberman warms to his point; here comes the idealism!

He is the latest in a long line of government officials who built careers on the taxpayers’ nickel and then turned their résumés into multimillion-dollar book deals. All but lost is the fact that any information they possess belongs to the public; they were nothing more than temporary custodians.

This is old-school stuff: The director of the CIA serves the American people. So why did he not tell us before the war that there was no serious debate in the White House about Iraq?

Haberman points out that Condoleeza Rice has intimated that she'll be writing her own book.

Great. We can then go through the rituals all over again. They might include another sacrament of publishing that we almost forgot: the book party. For Mr. Tenet, or Ms. Rice, the menu need not be elaborate. A simple pastry would do. Like yellow cake.

Simply fantastic.  ¶ 7:36 AM 5 comments