A Crimson Vet and Summers Supporter Speaks
Posted on February 27th, 2006 in Uncategorized | 22 Comments »
Several items below, I posted a photograph of five former Crimsonâians who painted L-A-R-R-Y on their chests to show their support for Larry Summers at a Dunster House study break.
I’ve criticized the paper for the action, on the grounds that whether these people covered Summers or no, whether they are currently on the Crimson or not, it’s inappropriate for someone affiliated with the newspaper to engage in such a public display of affection. It has hurt the Crimson’s appearance of objectivity, I argued.
I still believe that. But one of the people in the photo has written a long rebuttal to this argument that is serious and worthy of being read. It’s in a comment below, but I’m going to post it here so it’s more visible. You all can make up your own mind.
[Meanwhile, Crimson folks, could you please correct those things about me in the Sam Teller interview? What’s good for the goose, eh?]
[Also, while I realize that not everyone took my joke about the chest-painting as “totally gay” in the sardonic spirit in which it was intended, I still think there’s something a little American Idol-ish about the act. But there you are.]
Richard -
Being as you continue to trash on us, calling us an “embarrassment to the paper,” I feel like I need to respond to your comments.
First of all, it should be noted that we were all acting within the confines of our own dormitory, at a study break which had been planned out months ago. This was far from a public forum. But this is truly an aside from the points you are making; I simply wanted to point this out.
Second of all, none of us have to do with Summers coverage on the Crimson. I will break down our roles for you:
There are two photographers, one of which last contributed to the Crimson in 2003, and the other of which is a former executive editor. There is a sports beat reporter, mainly with a focus on soccer and lacrosse. He has not written any news stories. There is the business manager. The former business manager was certainly a member of the executive guard, but someone with no control over content. Finally, there is a former news executive editor. This is as close as you get with hitting home on your point. However, the news executive is not one who has covered Summers, or one who oversaw Summers coverage - an archive search turns up no references to Summers in the headline or lede of any articles. The total Summers coverage from these five individuals is in the form of two photographs: one mugshot, and one appearance at a study break dancing with freshmen, both in early 2005.
I should note that only executive guard members have any say over content that appears, and none of these executive influenced Summers coverage, nor have we given the appearance that we have.
None of us have, or have had any impact on Summers coverage throughout this ordeal, and as former editors, our actions do not reflect upon current coverage.
Those who must remain impartial on The Crimson are those who cover Summers, and those who control the content that he appears in. The Crimson, just like any other newspaper is clear about this; for example, The Crimson has written staff editorials supporting Summers. By definition, some members of the staff have taken a stance on the issue. We have made no effort not to weigh in on the topic as a staff â much like any major newspaper advocates for political candidates and political policies â but those who report on Summers do not participate.
Claiming that all Crimson staffers should remain mum on the issue is like stating no member of a magazine (former or current) should ever staff a political campaign, or join an organization on which the publication has reported. On the contrary, this restriction becomes quite silly unless is deals with only those reporters and editors who cover the topic. Do you think no one from the New York Times, George Magazine, or The New Republic, has ever advocated a cause or candidate discussed within its pages?
The Crimson currently covers all the varsity sports that take place on campus. Some Crimson editors are athletes. Does this bias the Crimson’s coverage of sports? Should the organization force these editors to choose either their team or The Crimson? No - so long as they do not cover their own sport.
The Crimson reports on Harvard football. Does this preclude all editors from cheering in the stands, or, gasp, painting their chests in support?
I think this is truly the point that is of concern. The Crimson, or any other publication, would be paralyzed if every one of its editors had to refrain from taking stances on any issue covered in the paper, or expressing any sorts of opinions relating to any aspect of the publicationâs coverage.
You also mention that perhaps we had a “booster-ish” attitude while we were contributing to the Crimson. Perhaps some of us did (I can only speak for myself), but any reporter might have any opinion on a given issue. Those who cover politics likely vote, and thus have an opinion strong enough to pull them to the polls; the important thing is that if they cover an issue, they cover it objectively and not publicly take a stance. Though we have publicly taken a stance, we did so after our tenure ended, and stayed away from Summers coverage during our time at the paper. The fact that we may have had an opinion, whether or not we covered Summers, is again irrelevant. We all have opinions about President Bush, but some still report on him.
The conflict of interest argument also cannot be applied retroactively - just because someone has an opinion now doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have covered an issue in the past. However, again, this is irrelevant, as none of us did cover Summers.
I think it’s important that I address these issues if they concern you, and if this represents the organization’s biggest flaw during all this coverage, I think it serves as a testament to the great reporting current editors have done so far.
I also think it is important that we try to maintain discourse while examining the issue - if you have a problem with coverage in the future, please say so, because I think it fosters productive discussion, but I personally think printing headlines such as “The Crimson Shows Its True Colors” and âBad Journalism,â while labeling us as an “embarrassment” and âtotally gay,â is at best inflammatory, and doesn’t serve to further these goals.
Best,
âRâ
22 Responses
2/27/2006 10:59 pm
This is what “R” has written.
“Being as you continue to trash on us.” “Second of all, none of us have to do with Summers coverage on the Crimson.” “I think it’s important that I address these issues if they concern you, and if this represents the organization’s biggest flaw during all this coverage, I think it serves as a testament to the great reporting current editors have done so far.” “I also think it is important that we try to maintain discourse while examining the issue-” “None of us have, or have had any impact on Summers coverage throughout this ordeal.”
Is ” “R” at Harvard or is this someone who pretends to be here? If “R” is here, has “R” completed Expos? If “R” has not, it would be advisable for “R” to do so as soon as possible. Until “R” has completed the course, “R” should stop writing for the public.
The Crimson not only got most of the story wrong, but has “editors” who simply cannot write a proper sentence in English.
2/27/2006 11:27 pm
oh please, grow up
2/27/2006 11:43 pm
That is a brilliant statement… so cogent.
2/28/2006 12:22 am
This is a veritable Harvard faculty member writing.
Over recent years, I have had three Crimson editors try to blackmail me for grades that they did not deserve. “Would I be sad to see negative coverage of my class in the Crimson?”
The first two times, I thought that the students in question were anomalous. When it happened a third time, I saw a pattern.
These incidents soured me on the Crimson long before the Larry Summers coverage. They also made me wonder whether the campaign against grade inflation is meant just for other students’ grades.
2/28/2006 12:28 am
Dear Crimson Staff,
The reason that people have trouble with the Crimson’s coverage is that it combines arrogance and ignorance in equal measure. The chest painting may be a sign of immaturity, but a surer sign of Crimson staffers’ immaturity is their blustering attitude toward matters about which they know next to nothing and their easy seduction by a person who threw a few tidbits (coffee at Lamont, chummy meetings with the editorial board) to them.
Why not try a few more years of being students who know that they have something to learn?
2/28/2006 12:31 am
Reading what “R” wrote (as opposed to harping on blog grammar), there’s a three out of five chance that “R” is either a photographer or a business manager first, writer second (if that)-as opposed to Anonymous 1, who is obviously, in all things, a twit first (which means no one cares what he/she is second).
There is certainly more to talk about, even regarding the Crimson, than these five Larry fans. Get over it (you too, Richard). Stay vital, folks.
-Not a member of the Crimson
2/28/2006 12:41 am
What a crock of you-know-what. A veritable Harvard faculty member wouldn’t introduce himself/herself as a “veritable Harvard faculty member.” If one did, it would mean that faculty member had long since ceased to be relevant. Charlatan, liar, scoundrel. An ethical person would have handled these matters (were they true) with the responsible authority after they occurred and would not leak them anonymously some time later. “Shame and intolerable shame.”
2/28/2006 12:52 am
Previous poster:
I am a veritable faculty member, and you are completely out of control. You need to calm down and grow up. You also need to wash your mouth out.
2/28/2006 1:02 am
Previous poster:
Perhaps I let my emotions get the best of me. If you are truly a faculty member, then I obviously retract and sincerely apologize. But I stand by my censure of your anonymous accusation of incredibly serious charges-charges that you make quite informally against an entire institution (the Crimson), not against individuals. This does not seem like an ethical manner with which to handle something of this magnitude. You should cite evidence or announce yourself. Until that time, you remain unsubstantiated, and no one should grant you any credibility because you are merely an anonymous faculty member. Poor methodology at best, Professor X.
-also not a member of the Crimson
2/28/2006 1:05 am
Since other Harvard faculty are addressing the Crimson, I have a question for their editors.
When they abuse Harvard faculty, why don’t they realize that they abusing the very people with whom they supposedly want more contact? They may think that they are insulting only a small group of faculty, but (in fact) the vast majority of faculty I know were planning to vote a lack of confidence. The Crimson is not abusing a few, abstract people, but the actual people who gave them helpful comments on papers, listened to their family problems, wrote letters of reference, gave them career advice, went to faculty-student dinner with them, and attended their student performances. Other Harvard students will not thank the Crimson if all of the faculty who have put so much of themselves into teaching and advising are insulted. Do you think that caring faculty will continue to make effort when this is the return they get?
2/28/2006 1:09 am
I am interested in the previous post and wonder if the writer would clarify. What exactly do you mean by “abusing Harvard faculty”? Are you referencing the editorials that disagreed with the faculty’s actions or the news coverage? Where is the line between disagreement and the much stronger term, “abuse”?
2/28/2006 1:18 am
There is little a professor can do if a Crimson editor who is dissatisfied with his or her grade threatens to write negative articles about the professor’s class.
This would not be something that it would be easy to bring before the Ad Board.
Complaining to the student’s Senior Tutor would just make the student vindictive and more inclined to write the article.
Regardless of your protestations, the incidents really did happen.
2/28/2006 1:20 am
Faculty:
It’s not just the Crimson, not even close. Most op-eds across the country have criticized you as well. Even pieces that point out Larry’s shortcomings also point out yours. You can dismiss some of the reactions as right-wing liberal bashing, but not all. Buckley’s comment has never been so referenced (and so appropriate): “I’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phonebook than by the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty.” Lock your doors ladies and gentlemen, egos are running wild in Cambridge like blood-stained Roman senators.
2/28/2006 1:34 am
And you’re afraid that they would have written what exactly in the article? Headline: “Professor is not an easy ‘A’ as once thought.” So you waited for an anonymous, high-traffic forum to air your grievances. Poor form, old sport. The way you’re telling it, sounds like you caved. Any good professor would have said “go to hell” at the very least. Many would have pursued disciplinary action regardless of further editorial threats (if there’s nothing to hide). This smells bad all around.
2/28/2006 1:35 am
To the faculty member:
If what you say is really true, why didn’t you simply mention the incident to the relevant editors at The Crimson? Believe it or not, that would have ensured such an article never ran, if the students you alleged threatened you were even in a position to run such an article (which I find unlikely, since most serious Crimeds who have the trust of their editors wouldn’t compromise their position in that way, and, quite frankly, care more about The Crimson than about their grades).
You apparently believe that Crimeds are only on the paper to bully faculty members, but in my experience the people in charge of the paper care very deeply about journalism and the institution of The Crimson itself. They’d be appalled if a faculty member was “threatened” into giving a student a good grade for fear of negative coverage. I find it hard to believe that there have been three of these incidents involving you alone in recent years, given that there are hundreds of faculty, and if the trend holds there should be hundreds of similar incidents, yet I never heard of one in my four years on The Crimson, and I would have heard.
Are we to take it that you gave the students the grades they didn’t deserve?
-A former Crimed
2/28/2006 1:37 am
Penultimate poster (like blood-stained Roman senators): block that metaphor!
2/28/2006 1:45 am
P.S., to the faculty member:
Why not sign your name when making inflammatory accusations like that? That way, next time The Crimson savages you, we’ll all know why, right?
2/28/2006 7:15 am
I had a similar thing happen to me (just once not three times), and -though the threat was implied rather than explicit — I still felt it. Perhaps Crimson staffers should leave the fact that they are Crimson staffers out of conversations in which they express dissatisfaction with their grades.
2/28/2006 9:32 am
I think the above responses can be summed up in four words: too many fragile egos.
2/28/2006 10:10 am
I think it’s more likely that the Crimson editor said s/he was on the crimson in an effort to elicit sympathy because s/he probably spent a lot of time at the paper, not to offer some sort of implied threat. I don’t see how such a threat would be “implied.”
2/28/2006 10:40 am
The problem with the “journalists” at The Crimson is that the work they do is shoddy. It is almost as if they are trying out for the part of journalist. In the last few years, the accuracy of the information in articles has declined dramatically. Reporters tackle issues about which they are unqualified to cover and the articles reflect both their inexperience (which is forgivable) and their lack of hard work (which is not). I am referring particularly to non- deadlined articles. There is no valid excuse for this.
A simple example from today’s paper will make the point. The sub- head of Noah Bloom’s article reads “Trial of Quincy student charged with drug possession set for April.” That didn’t seem quite right because trials in Middlesex County rarely happen that soon after an arraignment.
In fact there will not be a trial in April. In the body of the article Bloom says “the next pre-trial hearing slated for April 10…”
This inaccuracy, in and of itself, is meaningless. When you see the mistakes in important articles it is very poor journalism and brings into question the accuracy of the entire article.
The Crimson is making a very large number of mistakes and the editors appear to be so full of themselves (“we’re serious journalists”)that they don’t seem to be willing to work hard and get it correct. Shameful!
2/28/2006 12:44 pm
RICHARD.
This thread has become too obsessed with the Crimon, too inbred. We’ve lost track of the main story. There were some good substantive posts earlier that have been lost in all this in fighting. Can you revive some and get us back on track?
Here are two that deserve more attention. Could you revive?
The post on Summers’ “accomplishments” which you invited a response but no one challenged it yet. It appeared as the first post on Feb. 25 “At Harvard the Backlash Continues”
And then there was the Winners and Losers post which you zaid you would revive “Summers Resignation :Thoughts on Feb. 21. posted just before the announcement. It looks relevant now.