Shots in the Dark

In the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson writes about economic insecurity among the American middle class, referencing Larry Summers’ recent column in the Financial Times and Bob Rubin’s new economic policy group, the Hamilton Project.

Meyerson quotes Summers to the effect that “the vast global middle is not sharing the benefits of the current period of economic growth — and that its share of the pie may even be shrinking.”

Of Rubin, he says….

Concerned that the American dream is fading for the middle class, and fearful that said middle class may turn against the global free-trade order he helped erect, Rubin has created the Hamilton Project, which, in the spirit of its namesake, our first Treasury secretary, proposes a series of enlightened Tory solutions to address these conundrums. The project has called for greater public investment in education, health care, research and development, and infrastructure; balancing the budget; and wage insurance for workers compelled to take lower-paying jobs in our Wal-Mart-ized economy.

All well enough. But, Meyerson says, neither Rubin nor Summers can really deny the fact that for the middle class around the world, wages are “converging,” leveling out in a way that helps workers in developing countries but isn’t so great for Americans.

A big problem, indeed. But there’s a corollary problem: the divergence of wealth in the United States. (Summers, to be fair, touched briefly upon this in his column.)

Every poll suggests that part of the anxiety of the American middle class stems from its conviction that the rich in America are getting richer…and richer…and richer—to levels unprecedented in the history of the world.

And, factually, that’s correct. (It’s happening in England too.)

Unfortunately, both Rubin and Summers are fundamentally compromised on this issue, as they work for a mammoth multinational banking group and a mammoth international hedge fund. It’s unlikely that they’re going to come up with any proposals addressing the social impact of the super-rich that would harm their employers. (Which, of course, is one reason their employers hired them—to neutralize them.)

Rubin and Summers are two extremely smart men, among the Democrats’ most serious thinkers on economic issues. It’s a shame that, on one issue of increasing importance to the country, they are so compromised. And, again, it makes you think of the post-presidential choices that separate Derek Bok and Larry Summers; one worked for Common Cause, one works for a hedge fund. Personal choices, certainly. But nonetheless, choices that send very different messages to Harvard students.

The Times runs a fascinating piece about university presidents who have taken to writing blogs. They include the presidents of Trinity University, Towson University, Colorado College and Michigan State.

Here’s an interesting example of what one president blogs about.

Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon, of Michigan State, used her blog to condemn a plan by a conservative student group to stage a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant” day, in which a student playing the part of an illegal immigrant would have been hunted down and “arrested.”

According to the Times….

But the group that planned the event, Young Americans for Freedom, said that the blog inhibited free speech, and that no professor or administrator should express an opinion publicly about anything.

“We’re here to be educated, to get our degrees,” said Kyle Bristow, chairman of the group, which dropped its plans in favor of a forum on immigration later this semester. “They’re here to provide an atmosphere where we can be educated. We should be able to think for ourselves and not have people like Lou Anna Simon thinking for us.”

I think that’s pretty tenuous logic, myself, but I can see the issue: Would a presidential blog tempt its author to comment on campus matters too readily, like a teacher waving a ruler overhead to inflict punishment upon wayward students?

On the other hand, of course, students could strike back, by simply posting comments on the blog?

The larger point, of course, is that none of this goes on at Harvard. The presidential website posts speeches and press releases; the president is intended to be a figure of remote and Olympian status. (How else can he raise money?)

But why couldn’t Harvard officials blog? I could see Derek Bok, the author of annual letters to the community during his time as president, reveling in the ability to blog. Neil Rudenstine, the author of so many handwritten letters, might also enjoy it.

Larry Summers, not so much.

And while it’s unlikely that the Corporation would blog, I could certainly envision a Corporation website. (Then again, I’m not so sure that Jamie Houghton knows how to surf the web, so that’s a problem there.)

Incumbent upon such developments is a change in attitude within the upper echelons of the Harvard administration—a willingness to be less secretive and more transparent, less faux-omniscient and more accountable.

That seems unlikely to happen any time soon, as Harvard’s status in American society rests upon the idea that the purpose of a Harvard education is to achieve power, and power is something to be hoarded rather than shared. It is the elitism of power, rather than the elitism of excellence, that truly defines Harvard.

I asked a Crimson reporter once if he knew of any Harvard professors who blog. What a natural evolution this would be for them, to continue translating their thoughts and ideas from the lecture hall onto the webpage.

After a couple days of scouting, he reported back that he was able to find one—one!—blog written by a Harvard prof.

Now, I know that the colleges mentioned above whose presidents blog are modest in stature compared to Harvard. But perhaps this gives them greater freedom to experiment; perhaps they are, as the writer David Osborne once said of the states, laboratories of democracy.
And perhaps this is the kind of thing that, over time, will make them look innovative and Harvard out of date.

Here’s a thought: Why doesn’t Jeremy Knowles commence an initiative in which FAS sets up really powerful personal webpages, including blogs, for its professors?

In the Boston Globe, Marcella Bombardieri reports that Derek Bok is working for free.

“I just didn’t need the money,” Bok says. “I wasn’t doing this for compensation, but because the university needed help at a difficult time.”

However one feels about Bok—and most people feel pretty good about him these days—you have to tip your hat to the guy. To donate a year of your life, at age 76….. Sure, Bok is wealthy. But even so.

I can well imagine a conversation in which Jamie Houghton says, “Now, Derek, I know you don’t need the money, but the university insists—it wouldn’t be right not to compensate you.”

How many of us, no matter the state of our finances, would allow ourselves to be persuaded by that argument?

What is it they say about conscience—that it’s how you act even when you know no one’s watching?

Seems to me you could say the same about Bok and principle.

Because they cause skin cancer in white people.

Oh…wait. I already had skin cancer.

The Broad Institute, a joint Harvard-MIT venture, announced that it has won a $200 million grant from the federal government for DNA research, including research into genetic links between cancer and genetics.

The Broad Institute, which was a Larry Summers priority, is shaping up to be one of his real successes, and perhaps Summers’ most tangible achievement. And cancer was, of course, also a priority for Summers, who is himself a cancer survivor.

In general, I try not to highlight posts that rip into me, but since I also try to run this blog fairly, once in a while I’ll break with my policy of self-preservation.

For example…

An anonymous poster below writes:

You do realize that your obsession with Larry Summers is really weird, right?

Another thing - man, you have a huge ego. “I could have lived without” you, a relative nobody who didn’t even go to Harvard, passing judgment on a man who’s infinitely more qualified and accomplished than you ever will be.

A relative nobody who didn’t even go to Harvard. Ouch! That smarts.

It’s true that, like the last three presidents of Harvard, I didn’t go to Harvard College. I did, however, go to the graduate school, although I left (voluntarily) before finishing my doctorate. But I was there for three years and still have several good friends and lots of warm memories from that time. Though I wasn’t an undergrad, I did date one pretty seriously (though not, just so you don’t get the wrong idea, one of my students).

As to the matter of obsession, well…no. But thanks for reading the blog enough to think so.

Larry Summers is a very interesting character, and he’s hardly been laying low since leaving the presidency. So, since this blog is in large part about Harvard, I cover what he’s up to. Summers is also a powerful man, and the record of his use of power is deeply mixed—if you don’t believe me, read Joe Stiglitz’s book, Globalization and Its Discontents—which is another good reason to pay attention to him. Simple as that.

Do I have a huge ego? Nah. That’s one reason I post Monday Morning Zen—to remind myself that we humans are all small and insignificant creatures on this planet, no better and frequently worse than many of our fellow animals. (Also, seals are cute.) It’s a good way to start the week.

But because of my professional training, I do read pieces of writing from an editor’s point of view. Summers’ paragraph on why he cared more about social justice than Friedman did started to turn a warm remembrance into a piece that was more about Summers, and in my most humble opinion, that paragraph should have been trimmed or deleted.

Hutton Cliffs Weddell Breeding Colony, Antartica
Photograph by Henry Kaiser

Eric Keroack, the man whom President Bush just appointed deputy director of HHS, in charge of $280 million worth of family planning money, is the medical director of an antiabortion center that refuses to distribute contraception—even to married couples.

Because, you know, there’s no connection between birth control and pregnancy.

As the Washington Post puts it, “What comes next—a science adviser who doesn’t believe in evolution?”

Keroack is also the author of a “paper,” published by something called the National Abstinence Clearing House—boy, but they’re a lot of fun to hang out with—on “The Results of Non-Marital Sexual Activity.”

His conclusion? Too much sex causes brain damage.

And this man is in charge of $280 million in family planning money.

Did Bush learn nothing from the election?

Continuing his new career as an op-ed writer, Larry Summers eulogized Milton Friedman in yesterday’s Times. I could live without the last couple of paragraphs, in which Summers talks about how he’s a greater believer in social justice than Friedman was. (Not sure the citizens of various Asian countries would agree.) Nonetheless, it’s a nice piece of writing for Summers—a little more personal and heartfelt than he usually gets.

For the kind of thoughtful, measured exchange that I hope this blog can foster—even if yours truly isn’t always responsible for it—take a look at the debate below, in the comments section of the post “The Game Is In Trouble,” between Sam Spektor and Harry Lewis. The subject: collegiate athletics and the role of athletics in Harvard life. It’s good stuff.