Shots in the Dark

The Yale Daily News profiles Cambridge vice-chancellor Alison Richard, formerly Yale provost and professor. (Prince Phillip is technically the chancellor.)

Richard is, according to the Crimson, on the short list for Harvard’s top job.

Several Yale provosts have left New Haven to run other leading universities in recent years. Richard’s predecessor, Judith Rodin, served as president of the University of Pennsylvania from 1994 until 2004. Susan Hockfield, Richard’s successor, now heads the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In addition, Richard Brodhead ’68 became president of Duke University in 2004 after 11 years as dean of Yale College.

But here’s more suggestion that many top candidates don’t want the Harvard job.

Friends say she is having more fun at Cambridge than she ever would at Harvard. Anthropology professor Richard Burger said he thinks Richard is enjoying leading her alma mater and the near-celebrity status that goes with the job. After a minor collision with a cow while biking to work one day, Richard was surprised to see an article about the incident in The Times of London, Burger said.

Richard might just be too good for Harvard, Burger said.

“They don’t really deserve Alison,” he said.

More fun at Cambridge than she ever would at Harvard…that’s a hard thing to quantify, of course, but I think there’s something to that idea. People still want to have fun in their jobs, at least some of the time, and Harvard’s been a pretty joyless place lately. Moreover, its campus culture is resistant to fun, from top to bottom.

Whoever Harvard’s next president is, she or he should try to change that.

_____________________________________________________________

P.S. By the way, I have no idea if Elena Kagan’s decision to sign a letter of protest against the Bush administration will help or hurt her presidential chances, or neither, but good for her for signing it. (Though to be sure, it’s something of a no-brainer, and would have been more news if she hadn’t signed it than if she did.)

Aide Says U.S. Won’t Yield 2 to Iraq to Hang without a Plan
—The New York Times, January 15, 2024

Apparently the plan was to decapitate Saddam Hussein’s half-brother Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti.

Which begs the morbid question: What would we ever send 20,000 more troops and hundreds of millions of additional dollars to prop up a government so incompetent, it can’t even manage an execution—twice?

In the Globe, Marcella Bombardieri ponders the possibility that Harvard’s next president will be a scientist, and considers the arguments pro and con.

Some science advocates outside Harvard have their fingers crossed for one of their own because they believe a scientist would be best positioned to fulfill the university’s potential. In an era in which science is rapidly expanding human knowledge, Harvard’s priorities will set an example for universities across the country and even the globe.

But others take a counterintuitive view…..

Zzzzzzzzz.

There’s no news in this piece, which goes to show that sometimes, even the M-Bomb drops a dud.

“In an age when promises are cast away as quickly as yesterday’s newspaper, I believe a promise made should be a promise kept.”

—Colorado senator Wayne Allard, who had promised to serve only two terms, announcing his retirement at the end of his second term

…the Times ran a fascinating piece in its “Modern Love” section yesterday, called “I Fell for a Man Who Wore an Electronic Ankle Bracelet.” Written by a woman named Ashley Cross—a pseudonym? she’s not listed in the Columbia directory— the article tells the story of a woman who fell in love with a former Harvard student who’d been forced to leave the university after being accused of date rape. (The case is discussed on pages 178-185 in Harry Lewis’ Excellence Without a Soul.)

The relationship fell apart, Cross writes, but not because she thought her boyfriend was a bad guy; rather, he was so psychologically devastated by the experience that he could no longer experience desire without also feeling guilt and fear.

Rather than go to a trial in which anything could happen, the man in question accepts a plea bargain (according to Lewis, one count of indecent assault and battery) and receives 18 months of house arrest. He must wear an electronic bracelet. If he ventures back into Massachusetts, he must register as a sex offender.

Before his plea bargain, he was asked to submit to an evaluation process that was particularly distressing: he was shown lewd images of various kinds, including those of prepubescent girls, with his state of arousal at each image being measured, judged, dissected.

The evaluation determined that he was not a likely sexual predator, but he still faced rehabilitation as part of his sentence. These sessions, of which he spoke very little, clearly were intended to positively influence how he treated others. But the reality was somewhat more complicated.

Already he felt the shame of the charge and conviction. With the sexual evaluations, he was forced to question the normalcy of his impulses. Now the rehabilitation extinguished the remaining spark he had left, the irreverence I’d originally fallen in love with, replacing it with a generic “respect” for others that in reality was a kind of bland and suffocating politeness.

Nicely written, Ms. Cross, with shades of Orwell and Kubrick. “His state of arousal at each image being measured, judged, dissected.” And who was doing the judging, I wonder?

At the end of the story, Cross breaks up with her boyfriend because, she feels, his spirit has been broken. When he receives an invitation to talk about his experience on a television show, he declines, to Cross’ disappointment.

He refused, saying, “I just want it to be over.” He didn’t want to give ammunition to groups targeting him as the preppy rapist. He didn’t want his televised face to be connected with the night he suddenly became known as a monster.

Yet what alarmed me was not some sinister side of him I never saw but a passivity and retreat that I saw far too much of. In the end, I found it harder to love an emasculated boyfriend than one accused of rape.

But was her boyfriend’s choice passivity…or wisdom?

Because here comes Gawker—of course—mocking Cross, saying that “ lasting bliss with her rapey bf was not to be,” and adding, We totally understand Ashley’s point of view: a rape conviction can sort of impede a relationship, sure — but bad sex? That’s a dealbreaker.

First off, of course, the man in question wasn’t convicted of rape. Second, Gawker seems to think that this is a cut-and-dried matter, though neither in Cross’ piece nor in Lewis’ book does that appear the case.

All told, you can’t really blame the guy for not going public. Both Gawker and Steve Gilliard’s blog have details of the case, naming the accused. (To be sure, the account here doesn’t make this guy look good, but then, it would appear to be only the woman’s side of the story, and even that raises questions.)

Which brings one back to Duke. If that’s what an accusation of date rape did to a guy—with virtually no publicity, certainly not national headlines day after day—how will the Duke three be affected by their ordeal?

The North Carolina attorney general has taken over the investigation into the Duke rape case. Expect all charges against the lacrosse players to be quickly dropped—as they should be.

Meanwhile, here’s one of the more obvious headlines you’ll see in some time: “Duke Case May Hurt Prosecutor’s Career,” an AP story running in the Times. Truth is, Nifong will be lucky if he’s arguing parking tickets in traffic court after this.

Meanwhile, the evidence that the accuser is lying grows greater and greater. When will the mainstream media print her name? Of course, you can never prove that something didn’t happen, but this is about as close as you can come. If you can’t print the name of this false accuser, whose name could you print?

Other than, of course, those of falsely accused victims…..

What a shock: The accuser in the Duke rape fiasco has changed her story in a way that makes it better conform to the evidence (or lack thereof) in the case….

Drew Faust is profiled—rather fondly—in the Crimson. Apparently no one has anything even mildly critical to say about her…..

…despite the aspersions of a couple of posters below, who lament his eight-hour days and alleged fondness for vacations.

Yesterday, Harvard released its grand master plan for Allston. A few things strike me as notable: the inclusion of undergraduate housing; the environmental sensitivity; the addition of new “open space on land currently covered by asphalt” (although the phrase is vague); and the apparent support of Mayor Tom Menino.

“This plan offers tremendous opportunities for Boston. Over the next two decades, Harvard will become a major presence in our city,” said Mayor Thomas M. Menino. “It will not only enhance the Allston neighborhood, but it will strengthen Boston’s reputation as a world center for life sciences, create thousands of new jobs, and provide opportunities for new collaborations between Harvard and the community.“

In other words, Menino’s firmly on board. That will make life much easier for Harvard.

On the page linked to above, check out the links for the aerial view of Allston as it is today and Allston as Harvard planners envision it.

The first thing you realize is that Harvard is blessed that Allston is currently such a dump. What an ugly place! (Sorry, Allston residents, but it’s true.) You could doodle on a pad for five minutes and come up with something better than what currently exists.

The second most noticeable aspect is that a section of Storrow Drive has suddenly gone…underground. Well, why not? It’s a shame that that side of the river is so cut off from the water. But the severity of the transition looks a little odd—and why not extend that grass overpass east and west, to both bridges, which would look much better?

Also, this would appear to be the great bulk of the new “open space,” because there sure isn’t much anywhere else. Since it’s all between Harvard campus and the river, is this essentially private park land, funcionally privatizing a large section of the river? And what’s with the bizarre line of trees, breaking what should be a lovely view of the river, and chopping what should be relatively uninterrupted grass into aggressive, strangely angled sections? You folks already did this with the Yard, and it didn’t work there either.

A third thing is that the new plan greatly increases the density of development in Allston, which would obviously add to the traffic across the river going both ways. But other than some discussion of shuttle buses and better bike lanes (good luck with that in February), there’s no bold suggestion for how to deal with the increased traffic—no new bridge, for example, no monorail. That seems a problem. These bridges are a nightmare as is.

Fourth, that new building on the Allston side towards Boston, the one that looks something like a cement bench, is ugly now, and will still be ugly in 50 years.

Fifth, the new undergraduate houses, wherever they may be, don’t appear to be in the Georgian style—there doesn’t seem to be any new Georgian architecture on the Allston side—and they may not even be on the river, unless they’re to the east of the business school. In which case, boy, are they ugly. In fact, a lot of this architecture—and I know it’s early—looks deeply uninspired and generic.

Six, looks to me like some athletic facilities just disappeared…hmmm. We know Bok isn’t a big athletic booster. Is this part of a long-term anti-athetics conspiracy?

Huh. Now that I think about it, it seems this conversation needs to broaden. Harvard undergrads, athletes, and alums, as well as Allston residents, need to get involved….

Because Harvard’s plan essentially privatizes an entire neighborhood, and to the untrained eye—mine—there are some real questions here.

________________________________________________________

P.S. The Globe runs with an artist’s rendering showing Allston looking towards Cambridge, which gives the appearance of much more open space—and makes the Storrow Drive overpass far less noticeable—than the view looking toward Allston from Cambridge.

A poster below chastises me for not writing about the Crimson editorial blasting the faculty for blowing off their January meeting.

Okay, I’m writing about the Crimson editorial blasting the faculty for blowing off their January meeting.

I’m not sure that skipping one meeting in dreary January—let’s hope the faculty is off scuba-diving, where I ought to be—makes the Crimson’s case. But the paper certainly raises a worthwhile question. After Summers’ ouster, there was much talk of regaining momentum, increased faculty devotion and commitment to matters of teaching and governance, and so on.

Are the faculty living up to their promises? Or, now that Summers is gone, are they sitting back fat and happy, like a cat that just swallowed a mouse?