Conrad Harper’s resignation gets play in the Boston Globe and New York Times. The Globe story is better, the Times story more important.

The Globe story is better because it adds new material to what the Crimson reported yesterday. Reporter Marcella Bombardieri finds a source who is “close to Harvard’s leadership” and “familiar with the discussions over Harper’s resignation” who provides these insights:

“…Harper was displeased with Summers’ criticism of celebrity professor Cornel West, which prompted West to leave Harvard. Harper was also upset, according to the source, both about Summers’ comments on women in January and his remarks about Native American history at a conference this past fall. In that speech, Summers contended that many more Native Americans were killed by disease than by Europeans, and spoke of the ‘vast majority of suffering’ as a ‘concidence that was a consequence’ of assimilation and ‘nobody’s plan.'”

The Times story is more important because it’s in the Times, which people all around the country read. When the Times says that a story’s important, then Harvard alums take it seriously.

Some thoughts of my own.

You’ll notice that Harper says “it’s up to Harvard” to release his resignation letter. That’s different than saying that it shouldn’t be made public. Harper clearly wants his grievances to come out. Fascinating; he must really be pissed. This move puts some pressure on Summers, et al, to release the letter—just as happened with the transcript of his remarks at the women-in-science conference.

The question of the Corporation and its composition now becomes so urgent for Harvard, it has risen to the level of a crisis. In four years, Larry Summers will have appointed five of the six Corporation members other than himself. The last holdout is Jamie Houghton, who is not young, and surely can’t enjoy having to stick up for Summers every time some new controversy arises.

(And yet, Houghton, the Harvard loyalist, does it. Notice his quote about Harper’s resignation: “I regret that he has chosen, in reflecting on recent matters at the university, to bring his service to a close.” This we can classify as spin. That clause—”in reflecting on recent matters at the university”—is a subtle dig, an attempt to suggest that this is the last fall-out from the women-in-science fiasco, and nothing more…when in fact Harper’s dissatisfaction with Summers dates back at least to the Cornel West matter in the fall of 2001. Houghton is playing damage control here…and in the process, he is damaging his own reputation and credibility. Sad for an old man nearing the end of his career to compromise himself for a younger man who probably doesn’t deserve it.)

(It is possible that if Houghton were really the Harvard loyalist, he would organize Larry Summer’s ouster…but then, he’s outnumbered, isn’t he?)

The question becomes, what if everyone wanted to fire Larry Summers…except the people who have the power to do it? Because Larry Summers appointed them….