More on Harvard’s Missing Money
Posted on July 14th, 2006 in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »
The Crimson follows up on Zach Seward’s piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, which reported that Harvard donors were withholding $390 million in gifts due to anger over the ouster of Larry Summers.
The Crimson’s take is decidedly more cautious about this than the Journal.
For one thing, it discounts the donation of Larry Ellison, thereby reducing that number to $265 million. (Adding David Rockefeller’s $10 million, Marcella Bombarieri in the Globe has $275 million.)
For another thing, the gifts now sound a little less in-the-bag than the Journal suggested.
Mort Zuckerman’s spokesman released this statement: âMr. Zuckerman had several conversations with Larry Summers. They had neither a final understanding of the project nor a final commitment, or a final agreement. But Mr. Zuckerman looks forward to working again with the new leadership at Harvard.â
Hmmm. So you couldn’t really say that Zuckerman is withholding money, because he’d never really agreed to give it in the first place.
An e-mailer yesterday suggested that Seward was manipulated by proponents of Larry Summers, or perhaps Summers himself, into writing the story, as it continues the theme that Summers has endorsed that his departure is an enormous loss to the university about which everyone is outraged except for the nutters in FAS.
Remember, it was Marty Peretz in the New Republic who wrote a few weeks back, “I know of at least three gifts in the $100 million range that were very likely to materialize and now are dicey.”
Summers is gone, but the debate about him and the meaning of his presidency lingers. So far, the advantage goes to his proponents: They are angry, they feel wronged, and their sense of being wronged inspires them to action. As a result, they are having a profound impact on shaping the conventional wisdom about what kind of president Larry Summers was and why he was ousted.
The world of politics and powerbrokers versus the world of academia, indeed.
____________________________________________________________
P.S. The Financial Times plays the story aggressively with the headline, “Harvard Faces Donor Backlash,” but the actual story is, again, more cautious than the Journal piece.
9 Responses
7/14/2006 10:40 am
zach seward is no pawn of larry summers’
7/14/2006 11:10 am
In today’s Globe Brian McGrory (City and Region B1) makes the excellent suggestion That Romney appoint Charles Vest and Larry Summers to head an investigation into “every single engineering aspect of the failing Big Dig”.
7/14/2006 11:10 am
and larry summers would never help zach seward. summers vehemently dislikes the man!
7/14/2006 11:58 am
it does look like seward now has a position with the WSJ (previously, I think he was free lancing)
7/14/2006 11:11 pm
Why doesnt the Globe or the Crimson or the Journal write the more significant story-the massive public relations campaign that Summers supporters have mounted and evidently continued with his approval? His so far successful effort to try to salvage his personal reputation at the expense of the institution is beyond anything seen in recent years in public life.
7/14/2006 11:18 pm
And where are Harvard’s public affairs people, who have no excuse now that Summers is gone? They can start serving the institution again, instead of the personal agenda of a egomaniacal president.
Alan Stone!
Joe Wrinn!
You are liberated now. Now is your chance to redeem yourselves.
7/15/2006 1:11 am
Doesn’t work that way, guys. You have to keep the 100 million dollar men on board for the next reapers and gatherers to work on. Their background and outlook meant they found CEO Summers just fine, and they were untroubled by, even impressed by, his rudeness, his arrogance and his purloined visions. His own lies and self-serving justifications about why he couldn’t succeed (so visionary that his hurriedness offended the plodders) can’t be refuted and won’t be refuted by Stone, Wrinn and the rest, who have already been reassigned.
What will be interesting to observe is whether anyone actually wants to take Summers on to be their leader-foundation, corporation, university, that is. I’m betting against that, but that’s what the flacks and spinners out there, and in here, are working on and all about.
7/15/2006 1:50 am
In that connection it’s worth noting that Rudenstine, who raised $1M per day over his presidency, has been the strongest voice to speak up for the demonized FAS faculty:
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070661.html
One year of Rudenstine would have taken care of the retractions by these renegers, and who wants Ellison’s court-ordered charity anyway? Not a good message to the students.
7/15/2006 4:01 am
I don’t have $100M to donate to Harvard but I will be donating what I can now that Summers is gone.