The Crimson today editorializes that the Harvard presidential search committee should “make the bold choice.”

Harvard, the paper’s editorial board says, “needs a visionary president, not a consensus pick.”

In five short months, there will again be a new president, the institution is direly in need of change, and the faculty is entrenched in its ways and on the whole resistant to much needed progress….Harvard is, however, badly in need of another Eliot, a dreamer who will take risks and challenge the Harvard community to push itself to its limits. We hope that the presidential search committee has the courage to select such an individual rather than a “safe” choice who will kowtow to Harvard’s many and varied constituencies.

Well…sure. No one’s in favor of a president who will kowtow to Harvard’s many and varied constituencies. But let’s examine the premises. Is the institution really direly in need of change? (And if so, why do so many students want to go there?) Sure, there are things that need to be fixed at Harvard, but this editorial makes it sound as if the university is on the brink of a meltdown.

And what about that anti-faculty slag? “The faculty is entrenched in its ways and on the whole resistant to much-needed progress.”

Based on what, exactly? Under Derek Bok, the curricular review is moving along, and Theda Skocpol’s committee on teaching just proposed one of the most radical changes in Harvard history—linking teacher pay to the quality of teaching. Eliot never did that.

And yet, says the Crimson, the need for a bold and innovative president could hardly be more urgent.

I’m not convinced.

Partly, I think, because the Crimson’s argument sounds like the basis for another choice just like, well, Larry Summers. Bold…urgent…leap of faith….aggressive…controversial.….

These are all nice buzzwords, but they suggest the need for another Summers-style presidency, and that is exactly what Harvard does not need. The Crimson says the next president should not be a “consensus pick,” which was pretty much the case with Summers, about whom several members of the search committee had serious questions right down to the wire but whose candidacy was advocated by two strong personalities, Hanna Gray and Bob Rubin.

Maybe this time around, a little more consensus would be a good thing.

Moreover, there’s a kind of intellectual dishonesty to this editorial. Read between the lines, it sounds like an argument against Drew Faust, because she is well-liked within FAS, and we all know how the Crimson feels about the faculty.

The Faculty is set in its ways and content with its perch in the ivory tower so long as their personal fiefdoms are not intruded upon…

And then there’s this line:

An uncontroversial choice would be a prolific writer of open letters, a master fundraiser, and a pretty face who lacks an overall vision.

Which sounds like a criticism of Derek Bok, who fits at least two of those descriptions. (That, Mr. Bok, is what you get for coming out of retirement and working for a buck a year.)

Thanks to its own fine reporting, the Crimson knows more or less who the final candidates are. If it really wants to show some balls, it should just come out and endorse one, instead of casting implied aspersions.

After all, if you’re going to call for bold moves, why not take the first step?