Shots in the Dark

In John Donnelly’s well-reported article, provost Stephen Hyman proffers a number of excuses for Harvard’s five-month (minimum) delay in buying AIDS drugs for dying people in Africa.

These excuses include:

1) “[Summers] worried that the program was hastily crafted and could be a legal risk to the school.”

2) “…during the five-month period, Summers and [Hyman] were reviewing Harvard’s role in the project and trying to ensure that it was properly managed.”

3) “One major concern for Summers…was whether the U.S. government or patients could sue Harvard for any perceived future problems, Hyman said. In 2000, the U.S. government had sued Harard for alleged misuse of federal funds in a development grant in Russia. “That lawsuit sensitized him enormously for the need for Harvard to do this right,’ Hyman said.”

4) Hyman and Summers were so concerned about AIDS patients, they wanted to take the time to set the program up correctly. “‘Precisely because this is about life and death, it is absolutely critical that we get this right,’ Hyman said.”

5) Was this task appropriate for Harvard? “Hyman said Summers also raised questions about whether running an AIDS program in Africa was consistent with the university’s strengths of teaching students and conducting research.”

Let us consider these excuses, noting first that their multiplicity suggests a bureaucrat throwing explanations at the wall in the wan hope that one of them will stick.

1) “[Summers] worried that the program was hastily crafted and could be a legal risk to the school.”

Well, yes, the program was hastily crafted; it was called the “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.” In other words, the White House’s express intention was that this money be spent quickly. So Summers overruled the White House.

2) “…during the five-month period, Summers and [Hyman] were reviewing Harvard’s role in the project and trying to ensure that it was properly managed.”

Let me repeat: the President’s Emergency Plan...

In any event, given the upheaval at Harvard recently, one has to ask whether a program under Larry Summers’ control would, in fact, be better-managed than one independent of his authority. The evidence would suggest that management is not Summers’ strong suit.

3) “One major concern for Summers…was whether the U.S. government or patients could sue Harvard for any perceived future problems,” Hyman said. In 2000, the U.S. government had sued Harard for alleged misuse of federal funds in a development grant in Russia. “That lawsuit sensitized him enormously for the need for Harvard to do this right,” Hyman said.

To those familiar with the events in question, the cynicism of this explanation is staggering. At the center of the government’s lawsuit is Harvard economist Andre Shleiffer, who is accused of profiting off Russian stock investments even as he was taking US money to give advice on the Russian economy. For years, Harvard has been arguing that it did nothing wrong in the Shleiffer fiasco, and has backed the economist to the hilt. Why? Well, as Boston Globe columnist David Warsh has persuasively suggested, perhaps because Shleiffer is one of Larry Summers’ best friends….

But setting aside that conflict of interest, let us consider the argument on its own terms. In one instance, Harvard is being sued over accusations that one of its economists insider-traded and that Harvard should have known about it.

In another scenario which is supposed to be analogous, an African AIDS patient might sue Harvard over mismanagement of a federal program. Think about that. Assume that such a patient lived long enough to file a lawsuit (because that’s what dying African AIDS patients do, file suit against a far-away university). What’s the realistic likelihood of such an event occurring?

Yup-better to just let the patient die.

4) Hyman and Summers were so concerned about AIDS patients, they wanted to take the time to set the program up correctly. “Precisely because this is about life and death, it is absolutely critical that we get this right,” Hyman said.

In other words, because this is a matter of life and death, let’s move with exruciating slowness that will, in fact, cost lives—possibly thousands of them.

5) Was this task appropriate for Harvard? “Hyman said Summers also raised questions about whether running an AIDS program in Africa was consistent with the university’s strengths of teaching students and conducting research.”

Whatever the answer to the question may be, the real point is that it contradicts things Summers has said a hundred, a thousand, times. He has consistently advocated a greater role for the university in the real world and urged that Harvard help solve the world’s health problems in a hands-on way. In this speech from just a few months ago, Summers contradicts the above explanation in half a dozen different ways. Here he talks about Harvard’s attempts to participate in tsunami relief. And here Summers talks about his view of the global role for Harvard’s School of Public Health.

Key quote: “But I say to you, if any institution in the world is well situated to maximize the contributions to solving that problem [of disease and economic inequity], it is the School of Public Health, with unmatched connections throughout the developing world, with an extraordinary scientific capacity, located here in the center of the best bio-medical research community that there has ever been in the history of the world, in the middle of a university whose major mission is to become more open to the rest of the world. It is a very exciting time to be associated with the Harvard School of Public Health because I am convinced that the School is going to accomplish great things in the next 10 years. And I am determined to do everything that I can to help [dean] Barry [Bloom] and his colleagues do those things and make progress against what I believe are the largest solvable problems that this planet faces.”

Sounds like a prescription to fight AIDS in Africa, doesn’t it?

The point is, none of the various excuses that Stephen Hyman offers are convincing. The truth may just be that Summers wanted to take control of a $100-million federal grant…no matter how long it took. Or how many people died in the meantime.

One reason why I’m appalled by Summers’ handling of this AIDS grant is because I don’t believe the proffered excuse that he was worried about legal risks. The other three institutions which had received money from the federal government weren’t worried, and they started spending the grant money almost immediately after receiving it. After all, people were dying.

So what was really going on? Well, there’s substantial, if circumstantial, evidence that Summers just didn’t like the fact he didn’t control a massive federal grant given to one of Harvard’s schools—and he refused to let the program be implemented until he did control it.

Start with my own reporting, on page 305 of Harvard Rules: “In the spring of 2004, Barry Bloom, dean of the School of Public Health, infuriated Summers by announcing that the school had received a $100-million grant from the federal government without first informing Summers or including the president’s name in the relevant press release. According to several sources familiar with the incident, Summers was so enraged that, at a subsequent dinner attended by both Bloom and him, the president insisted on being somewhere he could not see the dean. (Asked for comment, Bloom said, ‘I have the greatest respect for President Summers.’)”

The Boston Globe and Harvard Crimson have both detailed Summers’ attempts to wrest control of the grant away from Dr. Phyllis J. Kanki, apparently because Summers didn’t think Kanki was competent to handle such a large grant. (She is, after all, a woman in science.)

Never mind that the federal program which distributed the grant money was called the “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.”

(That would be President Bush; italics added.)

Or that grant applicants were given a month to write proposals, due to the urgency of the situation. People were dying.

Larry Summers held up the purchase of AIDS drugs for dying people for—depending on how you calculate the delay—five to seven months. And one very possible reason is because he was furious that he was not given credit for bringing the money to Harvard, and he did not control the distribution of it.

In other words, because his ego was bruised.

This story is a tragedy.

The Globe’s John Donnelly investigates Larry Summers’ handling of the $100-million AIDS grant to the Harvard School of Public Health. This disturbing piece of reporting raises probably the most serious questions about Larry Summers’ judgment and leadership style yet raised.

Nut graf: “Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers delayed the spending of millions of dollars to treat dying AIDS patients in Africa for five months last year, because he worried that the program was hastily crafted and could be a legal risk to the school,” a senior Harvard official said. “…Harvard’s delay meant that some patients died.”

Some background. In February 2004, the federal government awarded large grants to fight AIDS in Africa to Harvard, Columbia, Catholic Relief Services, and the Elizagbeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. As Donnelly reports, the latter three institutions began spending that money in March. Immediate action was urgent.

But Harvard waited until September to start spending its funds, many of which were earmarked for the purchase of AIDS drugs. The drugs didn’t start arriving in Africa until November and December, nine and ten months after Harvard received the money. How many AIDS patients died during that time? “We lost many,” said Dr. Isaac Adewole, who oversees one of Harvard’s treatment sites. “Even now, we still don’t understand what Harvard was doing.” And, Donnelly notes, “doctors running the program said that without the delay they would have had more than 10,000 on treatment in the first year,” instead of the 7,300 it had at the end of March. That’s a difference of at least 2700 people receiving treatment. 2700 people.

What was the reason for the delay?

“Harvard Provost Stephen E. Hyman said that during that five-month period, Summers and he were reviewing Harvard’s role in the project and trying to ensure that it was properly managed.”

Of particular concern, Hyman claims, was “whether the U.S. government or patients could sue Harvard for any perceived future problems.” Hyman referred to a federal lawsuit against Harvard for alleged misuse of federal funds in a development grant in Russia. “That lawsuit sensitized [Summers] enormously for the need for Harvard to do this right,” he said.

But as Donnelly reports, Summers spoke with Columbia president Lee Bollinger to discuss these concerns, and Bollinger spoke with Dr. Allan Rosenfeld, the dean of Columbia’s school of public health. “I told [Bollinger] that I didn’t think there was a large [legal] risk,” Rosenfeld told Donnelly. “I don’t think the university is at any greater risk than any other funder.”

So we are left with an unconvincing explanation, a nagging question—what was really going on here?—and a sense of horror over the fact that thousands of people may have died due to Harvard’s inaction.

Meanwhile, Larry Summers quite obviously declined to speak for this story. (If he did, it certainly wasn’t on the record.)

Instead, he has shoved Stephen Hyman out in public, leaving the poor provost to twist in the wind….. Hyman may not yet realize it, but this scandal will forever taint his career. How many people will have to fall on their sword for Summers before they decide it’s just not worth it any more?

More stories about how Bush U.N.-nominee John Bolton terrorized people who disagreed with his opinions or refused to give him the intelligence estimates he wanted to push his ideological agenda.

The Bolton nomination is dead. The only question is whether President Bush decides that it’s in his political best interest to force a vote—which he’d lose—or whether he withdraws the nomination early next week. My guess: The Republicans don’t really want to have to vote for this guy, who gives every indication of being a complete crackpot. They’ll pressure the President to avoid a vote, so that they don’t have to go on the record with their support or opposition. Bush will withdraw the nomination.

I think there’s a larger point here besides the fact that Bolton is, apparently, a jerk. Despite the fact that the war on Iraq may yet turn out to be a success, Americans don’t want unilateralism. We still think diplomacy is important, and yes, even the United Nations. In fact, we may think that even more now than we did before the Iraq war, and the realization that those much-touted weapons of mass destruction don’t exist…..

Another point: Since Bolton was obviously Dick Cheney’s guy, one has to wonder where else Cheney is driving Administration policy…

Writing in the Jewish World Review, First Amendment advocate Nat Hentoff makes the case for Summers as a victim of political correctness. Hentoff tells the story of a high schooler in Yakima, Washington, who defended Summers.

Key quote: “President Summers offered no conclusions [at the NBER conference]. He wanted these intellectuals to do what they’re supposed to do — think. But his challenge resulted — as high-schooler Toop wrote — in “the political correctness squad (rushing) upon him like a pack of bloodthirsty dingos that just smelled baby.”

I’ve written before that I don’t think this controversy had anything to do with free speech—or political correctness, for that matter—but in the interests of balance, I post the article for your consideration.

And also because I love that simile—”a pack of bloodthirsty dingos that just smelled baby.” Fantastic. Rush Limbaugh, your successor has just entered the building.

Microsoft caves in to bigotry. So disappointing.

I’ve long thought that the key to Summers’ fate lies in the hands of Harvard donors. If a significant percentage of them stop giving, his goose is cooked. But if they continue to give—or actually increase their contributions—his position is stable, and he can work to shore up his internal support.

Now I hear that the Corporation has privately acknowledged that Summers needs to be “built up” before he can embark on a major, public capital campaign, a process that, the Corporation thinks, could take two years.

Moreover, a recent Summers visit with several Silicon Alley billionaires left the billionaires “visibly unimpressed”…

Crimson columnist Stephen W. Stromberg has a smart take on the latest Summers controversy, his remarks on Native Americans and genocide. Like me, Stromberg finds the latest remarks less objectionable on paper than would merit the angry reactions they have prompted. I think it has something to do Summers’ high-handed manner of speech; Stromberg argues that people are just so irritated with Summers now, they’re quick to be offended.

(A possible flaw in this argument: the Native American conference took place last September, and participants were ticked off at the time.)

Stromberg suggests that one solution is for Summers and Mass. Hall to be more forthcoming with information generally.

Key quote: “Releasing everything—meeting notes, administrative documents, memos, you name it—isn’t just in the best interests of the Harvard community, but of the president’s office, too. And this doesn’t just apply to potential scandals. Students and Faculty often feel out of the loop in Allston decision-making, the curricular review, shakeups in administration. …They complain that communication between Mass Hall and the rest of the University community often comes in the form of press releases….”

It’s a smart piece and well-worth reading.

And if I may add my two cents: Summers should make it a policy not to speak to journalists off the record or on background. It would befit his office, and diminish the air of secrecy and manipulation that surrounds his presidency.

I have no idea if this is a public event, but if it isn’t…well, I couldn’t sneak in, because I’m a reporter, and that’s frowned upon for us. But if I were you, I would. It should be fascinating….a conversation about the brain that’s really a conversation about Larry Summers.

< A Conversation with Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke

Friday, April 22
4:00 pm
Science Center B

The speakers will discuss research on mind, brain, and behavior that
may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the
studies of bias, discrimination, and innate and acquired differences
between the sexes.

Sponsored by Harvard University - Mind/Brain/Behavior>>

Wish I could be there…but I’m helping some friends move, and postings may be affected today.

This story in The Record of New Jersey compares Larry Summers to Princeton president Shirley Tighman. Less than favorably.

Key quote: “If the president of Harvard thinks women are innately inferior, how far have we come? The reassuring answer from the president of Princeton: We’ve not only come a long way, but the young women coming after us will go a whole lot farther.”

But here’s the real problem. The piece is headlined: “Princeton to Harvard: Girls Rule.”

I’d guess at least one newspaper in every state in the country has done a similar piece. The common theme: Despite what Larry Summers might say, girls in our state are good at science, and don’t care if the president of Harvard thinks otherwise

This is obviously a caricature of what Summers said, but that’s the way the media works. The problem for Summers—and for Harvard—is that the caricature is taking root.