Shots in the Dark

Now we know why Harvard FAS dean Bill Kirby recently announced a slowdown of faculty hiring: he’s projecting deficits in the tens of millions of dollars, starting next year.

Higher-than-expected construction costs are to blame, Kirby says, even as he argues that FAS has been planning for these deficits.

Huh.

For construction overruns to run into, say, $50 million a year—higher and lower figures were guesstimated—someone really has to have been asleep at the wheel. Granted, Harvard’s got a lot going on, but this isn’t the Big Dig here.

Whatever the case, the idea of FAS running a deficit isn’t going to make anyone feel comfortable. Harvard has made so much money, and with such apparent ease, in the last fifteen years or so, the experience of losing money is going to feel very foreign. I would be surprised if there are no administrative consequences as a result.

Especially when combined with this other headline from today’s Crimson: Stalled [Curricular] Review Inches Ahead.

Tina Brown coins a new term for the age in her Washington Post column today: “fake transparency.”

She’s talking, of course, about the Times’ long Judith Miller story, and the fact that that story seemed to raise more questions than it answers. That’s a cliche, but in this case, it’s really true. You can’t trust the accounts of any of the players in the piece; everyone comes across as dodgy and not trustworthy. And as Brown points out: How exactly did Miller keep “kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm”? Why was Miller apparently driving the Times’ legal conduct of the episode?

“‘Transparency,'” Brown writes, “turns into a combination of partial truths and morose institutional venting that makes everyone, including the readers, feel worse about themselves and the newspaper than they did before.”

I agree with the first half of that sentence and part of the second. I do feel worse about the Times than I did before. Its half-assed reportage (no fault of the reporters, in this case) of its own half-assed mistakes lays bare the emperor’s lack of clothing.

But I feel pretty good about myself and all the other bloggers and journalism-watchers out there; we’ve all held the Times’ feet to the fire on this one. I can’t wait to see its subsequent articles clarifying this first one. It’s a grand mystery, and watching it unfold is a combination of good fun and high stakes.

I have only one caveat: We do need to remember who the ultimate bad guys are, the people who conducted a smear campaign against a CIA operative and her husband in order to spook the country into war….

Two Miami men have captured a ten-foot-long Burmese python that they suspect was scarfing exotic fish from an outdoor pool.

(Let us pause here and reflect upon the wackiness of the world.)

It’s a helluva story. As the Miami Herald puts it, “The suspect resisted arrest.”

The snake was discovered by one Tommy Compton near the man’s fish pond. It evaded capture and slipped into the water. Then, showing either unparalleled courage or a craven desire to show off for the TV camera crew that he had called, Compton and a friend jumped into the pool and wrestled the beast into submission. They sustained several bites in the process, but apparently—and contrary to the thoughts of at least one poster on this blog—the python bite is not venomous. Still, the experience is probably less pleasurable than, say, a love bite from Carmen Elektra.

According to one snake expert, ”Typically pythons aren’t fish eaters. But you never doubt a hungry snake. They are very resourceful.”

I believe I’m going to adopt that slogan, especially when dealing with gossip columnists: Never doubt a hungry snake.

Don’t you just love nature as metaphor?

Reaganite Republican Bruce Bartlett has been ousted from his position at the conservative National Center for Economic Analysis after writing a book critical of the Bush administration.

The book, called “”The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy,” is self-explanatory. It is also, of course, evidence of the deep split within American conservatives over the Bush presidency.

I must say, I love rubbernecking at this conservative civil war. For years, the conservatives have had it both ways, campaigning on ideals of small government and reduced federal spending even as they turn to the federal government to impose their ideological mandates on the country and the world. This implosion is long overdue. I can’t even say that I give conservatives like Bartlett credit for engaging in the debate…for years, they turned a blind eye to the party’s internal contradictions so as not to interrupt the party’s march to power. Now that legacy of willful denial is coming home to roost.

Ryan Lizza of The New Republic points out that earlier this year, Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, was not even licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia…and now she’s a nominee to the Supreme Court.

Here’s his excerpt from Miers’ responses to Senate Judiciary Committee questions:

“Earlier this year, I received notice that my dues for the District of Columbia Bar were delinquent and as a result my ability to practice law in D.C. had been suspended. I immediately sent the dues in to remedy the delinquency. The nonpayment was not intentioned, and I corrected the situation upon receiving the letter.”

Let’s forget the obvious and pathetic embarrassment that this SCOTUS nominee had her law license suspended. Okay, sure, it happens, whatever. I’m more struck by her language: “the nonpayment was not intentioned.”

Argh.

Let’s see how one could phrase this clause. “I was busy, and forgot to mail the check….” Or: “I meant to pay, but I was busy approving torture in Iraq….” Or, simply: “My bad.”

Instead, Miers uses that awful phrase: “The nonpayment was not intentioned.”

Intentioned?

It’s the same kind of passive language that she used in her letters to the Texas Bar, as pointed out by David Brooks, which, as you now know, I can not link to because of TimesSelect (speaking of awful language).

Not only is this excruciatingly bad writing—though we shouldn’t downplay that in a potential Supreme Court justice—but I would argue that it’s a metaphor for Miers’ relationship with President Bush, and perhaps her approach to life. She’s attached herself like a remora to a more powerful person. What happens next is unexpected and, well, dare I say it? Not intentioned. Maybe that’s why she apparently turned down an earlier offer to be nominated to replace Sandra Day O’Connor…she never realized how far passivity could take her. But now that she’s gotten used to the idea, she’s willing to ride the president all the way to the Supreme Court. It is, I guess, one model for getting ahead in life….

Joe Scarborough talks with a snake expert about the vicious warring between pythons and alligators in the Everglades.

It’s kind of like the movie Underworld, which posited a long-running blood feud, heh-heh, between vampires and werewolves. (Expect Underworld II sometime next year.)

My favorite quote: “When the snake is bigger and can overpower the alligator, then the snake will win. But alligators have been known to win. And there have been ties.”

Ties? Does that mean there are rematches?

And my favorite fun fact: Python-alligator fights have reportedly lasted as long as 24 hours.

I have no idea how anyone could possibly know this, given that no one seems to have actually witnessed one of these marathon duels, but since I like the fact, I choose to accept it.

I’ve been meaning to write a post asking whether Lawrence Summers was going to start a Harvard matching fund for contributions to the earthquake victims in Pakistan. He’s done the same with victims of the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and while one can’t argue with the humanitarian impulse, I’ve wondered in the past whether that’s an appropriate use of Harvard’s money. (And it’s not a small amount; Harvard matched about $250,000 worth of gifts to Hurricane Katrina related charities.)

I’ve questioned this giving for a few reasons. First, when donors give to Harvard, they’re making a specific choice, and the recipient of that choice ought to respect their wishes, rather than redirecting their money to another charitable cause. Second, such giving changes the nature of the university from a place of education to a world geopolitical actor. Third, if you give for tsunamis and hurricanes, where do you draw the line? Surely the Pakistani earthquake has cost more lives and caused more devastation than Hurricane Katrina did. Fourth, such charitable gifts could be a way of influence-buying and reputation-repairing for the president of the university—any president of the university. Problem is, it’s really not his money to give.

Now the Crimson has weighed in on just this question…and comes down on both sides.

This editorial argues the following:

Offering a donation matching program after these two catastrophes was the right thing for the University to do. Although Harvard’s primary mission is educational and academic, Harvard is also a community of nearly 35,000 and an employer of over 15,000, making it the fifth largest employer in all of Massachusetts, according to the Boston Business Journal. Beyond the philanthropic and noble ends of raising funds, matching donations when there is a community outcry helps build morale, which is why many businesses across the country had a similar matching program for their employees.

A dissenting column disputes that, saying: ….Matching donations for the tsunami and for Katrina have set a dangerous precedent—recently broken by Harvard’s choice not to match donations for the earthquake in Kashmir—that encourages our community to judge Harvard’s responses solely on a monetary basis. It is a slippery slope that the University must not traverse. For future disasters, Harvard should cease impersonating a charitable organization and instead focus on the unique and valuable ways it can help as an institution of higher learning.

I do not find the first argument suasive; boosting “morale” is insufficient justification for transforming the mission of the university.

But, as with the debate over the Solomon Amendment, this is another situation where President Summers should rise to explain himself. What principles underlie his thinking? Why give to tsunami and hurricane victims, but not earthquake victims? When is it appropriate to give and when not? How does this fit into his vision of Harvard in the world?

These are important questions in a debate that the president himself has ignited. He should explain himself now. After all, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has visited Harvard and met with Summers. What would Summers say to him now?

Or just ironic.

Because if it’s sincere…I shudder to think about the fate of our young people.

Harvard students had their most successful party of the fall last night to celebrate the fact that Lamont Library is now open 24 hours a day….

I think Harvard students are great, but guys, come on—get a life.

Michelle Wie has been disqualified from her first professional tournament after a reporter for Sports Illustrated told tournament officials that he thought she had violated tour rules when she dropped a ball about 12″ too close to a hole.

No one has suggested that Wie intentionally did anything improper—which means that the real story here is whether the reporter’s actions were appropriate. Is it within the bounds of a reporter’s job to point out a suspected rule violation? The answer is no.

According to the AP story linked to above, “Michael Bamberger, a reporter for Sports Illustrated, told tour officials Sunday afternoon that he was concerned about the drop.”

“Asked why he didn’t bring it up before the third round ended,”—when Wie could have avoided disqualification— Bamberger said [italics added], “That didn’t occur to me. I was still in my reporter’s mode. I wanted to talk to her first.”

As time passed, Bamberger added, “I thought about it more and was just uncomfortable that I knew something. Integrity is at the heart of the game. I don’t think she cheated. I think she was just hasty.”

Let’s review. Bamberger stepped out of reporter mode when raising the issue with tour officials. He thinks integrity is at the heart of golf, but he doesn’t think Wie cheated—so what integrity is at stake? Then, when it’s too late to rectify the error, Bamberger causes Wie to be disqualified from her first pro tournament. He doesn’t do it because he’s reporting a story, but because he’s “uncomfortable that [he] knew something.”

What an unfortunate incident; Bamberger shouldn’t sleep well about this one. He should publicly apologize to Wie, and Sports Illustrated should pay her the $50,000 that she lost because of Bamberger, who—not Wie—is really the one who crossed the line.

David Brooks wrote yesterday on the fact that women seem to be doing better than men at all levels of education, which I will link to if TimesSelect allows me to. More women than men are graduating from college; fewer women are diagnosed with learning disorders, etc.

Along the way, he throws this bone to Larry Summers: ” For 30 years, attention has focused on feminine equality. During that time honest discussion of innate differences has been stifled (ask Larry Summers). It’s time to look at the other half.”

Huh.

I’m fascinated by how conservatives have turned Summers into a free-speech martyr; they’re certainly not aware of Summers’ own attempts to discourage free speech at Harvard. (Zayed Yasin, anyone?)

I think Brooks fundamentally misreads what happened with Summers. No one was saying that the president of Harvard doesn’t have the right to speak on any subject he wants to talk about. The frustration over Summers’ remarks on women in the sciences came from the fact that, many experts in the field believed, he was speaking out of ignorance, and his opinion reflected a personal bias more than an informed opinion. Coming from the man in the highest position in the world of higher education, these things matter; the words of the president of Harvard have consequences.

The right to free speech does not deprive listeners of the ability to react with outrage…and nothing in the Summers’ matter suggests that there was no “honest discussion” of the status of women in the sciences. There was a great deal of it—millions of words—and virtually all of them, except, perhaps, from Steve Pinker and the political right, felt that Summers’ opinion was wrong.

So by all means, let us have open and honest discussion of all the factors that might contribute to educational differences between boys and girls. But when we start talking about innate differences—i.e., genetics—we are on volatile ground, and we need to remember that, and conduct our discussions with the nuance and sensitivity for which David Brooks is known and Larry Summers is not.