The Crimson Takes Aim at Theda Skocpol
Posted on March 29th, 2007 in Uncategorized | 42 Comments »
Ouch! What did Theda Skocpol ever do to the Harvard Crimson?
In one of the toughest pieces I’ve ever seen in the paper, Sam Jacobs and Javier Hernandez report that Skocpol’s resignation from the GSAS deanship….
…coincided with what appeared be a wave of uncertainty about her candidacy for the deanship of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), one of Harvardâs most powerful posts.
…In recent weeks, the prospect of Skocpolâs promotion has stirred strong opposition among professors advising President-elect Drew G. Faust in her search for a new dean of the Faculty, according to an individual close to the faculty advisory committee and a senior FAS faculty member. The criticisms of Skocpol have caused Faust herself to express skepticism, the individuals said.
Interesting. I haven’t sensed this myself, but Hernandez and Jacobs are good reporters, so if they write it, I’ll take them at their word.
The only quibble I would have is when they use the term “wave of uncertainty,” but base this on the accounts of only two anonymous professors.
All right, not the only quibble. I also think the two overstate their case when they suggest that Skocpol is Larry Summers in a skirt.
To some, Skocpol came to mirror the controversial president that she once opposed, in equal parts praised both for her brilliance as a researcher and derided for her authoritarian and divisive approach to leading.
Judging from what I hear, I’d tone this down. “Derided” is too strong; I’ve never heard of anyone who doesn’t respect Skocpol, and she’s never invited the kind of vociferous criticism that Summers attracted. And I’m not sure that it isn’t also going too far to say “authoritarian and divisive.”
To me, there are two very interesting suggestions in the piece.
First, that Drew Faust has cut Skocpol loose. (Does Drew Faust have a cold streak? Discuss.)
And second, that Skocpol “is considering significant leadership positions at other universities.” (Did this come from Skocpol herself? She is not quoted in the story, but neither do Jacobs and Hernandez say that she declined to comment.*) No one is irreplaceable, but her departure would be a real loss for Harvard.
Recently on this blog there was a discussion of objectivity, and I raised my doubts about its possibility. In that context, I wonder if it isn’t relevant that this article was written by two men. Consider their description of Skocpol’s tenure battle.
Hernandez and Jacobs characterize Skocpol’s ascent at Harvard as “defined by controversy.” They note that she was denied tenure in sociology, sued, and actually won when a Bok-led “investigation” found in her favor.
One could imagine this framed as a gutsy and inspiring story. It takes courage to fight a tenure fight like that. It’s no fun, there are real downsides, and virtually never does the plaintiff come out a winner. More often, her career is severely damaged. Particularly when the plaintiff is a woman, she may be forever characterized as “divisive” and “headstrong,” in the Crimson reporters’ words. (“Headstrong” is particularly unfortunate, I thinkâit’s insulting and probably sexist. “Oh, she’s a headstrong little lady, she is…”)
Might two female reporters have presented this episode differently? Couldn’t Skocpol’s battle also be written up as “courageous,” “principled,” and “valiant”? After all, Skocpol won, and how often does that happen?
Instead, Jacobs and Hernandez cite only an old quote from sociology prof Harrison White that “it was not a happy story,” with absolutely no context. Did White have anything else to add? (For example: “It was not a happy story, because Skocpol was right: the sociology department did discriminate against her.”) Was White involved in the tenure battle in some way? Whether he was or wasn’t, we should be told that by the Crimsonites.
I’m not saying that Jacobs and Hernandez are wrong; if they report strong anti-Skocpol feeling, then it’s there.
But it would be interesting to read a piece about what Skocpol has actually done as dean, before reading the “news analysis” casting doubts on her leadership style….
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*My mistake: Skocpol did decline to comment, and the article clearly says so.
42 Responses
3/29/2007 9:49 am
What a stupendous article. Jacobs and Hernandez show again that they are intelligent reporters and analysts, and that they have courage to take on even powerful Deans.
They are exemplars of the highest virtues of Harvard. A reassuring sign that the University is doing a good job selecting and educating people who will lead.
3/29/2007 9:51 am
Kelly Wu has her own blog to discuss her article on diversity challenges at Harvard
http://diversitynow.blogspot.com/
3/29/2007 10:19 am
I agree that the article may overstate the case against Skocpol (or overstate what Jacobs and Hernandez can back up on the record). I wonder if it isn’t a stretch to attribute that to the fact that they are both men,though. To take one of your examples, controversy is actually a much more neutral word than courageous, and I don’t think the suggestion that a female reporter would have replaced the first with the second holds water.
Headstrong, however, has a very specific, negative meaning, and it’s not backed up at all in the piece.
Skocpol did decline to comment, they report…
3/29/2007 10:25 am
So she didâthanks for pointing that out. My bad.
3/29/2007 10:27 am
Also, it’s not so much the word “controversy,” but the phrase “defined by controversy,” that troubled me a bit. I would have preferred something like “commenced in controversy,” so as not to suggest that her entire career has been “defined” by controversy.
3/29/2007 11:00 am
There’s that person again (9:51), has to be the same one, always posting about some diversity issue (almost always the “GSE controversy”) nevermind that he/she never bothers to put it in context or even read the thread. Do you realize that by slighting your research and the small amount of work required to put your thoughts into context you’re doing your subject a real disservice? It’s like SPAM.
3/29/2007 12:42 pm
The article on Skocpol is extremely destructive and purposefully so. The question is-who is behind it and are they going to be allowed to succeed in using such tactics to remove an effective, tough minded, and independent administrator. Whatever the skills of the Crimson reporters, the paper is being used to effect the outcome of the FAS Dean search. And this articles tarnishes the entire process. Drew Faust has not helped matters by dragging it out. She needs to show some backbone and some decisiveness. And she should start by making it clear she won’t be cowed by the tactics employed here. Just a couple of weeks ago the Crimson was praising Skocpol and her teaching report. Today it is nothing more, in their eyes, than a “soapbox” cynically used to promote her own candidacy. These dynamics leave many asking about Harvard: “Is there any moral center to the institution?” And the answer is: NO. No wonder they couldn’t find anyone who wanted to President of the place.
3/29/2007 1:25 pm
I’m looking at this from some distance, but why is the Crimson here “taking aim” at Skocpol, or changing its alleged views on her? Isn’t this news reporting, where they’re simply reporting what’s going on (or providing insightful analysis)? Crimson people always talk about how there’s a strong separation between their news and editorial coverage, and I think they mean it.
3/29/2007 1:27 pm
Look, the real achievement of the Crimson’s piece is in explaining the circumstances of Skocpol’s depature from the GSAS deanship. When Knowles’ letter arrived by email the other day, most professors were surely baffled as to why, after only two years and before the selection of a new FAS dean, Skocpol had bailed on her post. Her explanation that she had achieved what she set out to do as dean clearly obscured the real story. The Crimson arrives today with that story: Skocpol and Faust don’t get along, and her bid for the FAS deanship was dead in the water. In fact, doesn’t Skocpol’s own quote in the second paragraph on the article come pretty close to admitting this?
“It makes sense for incoming university and FAS leaders to recruit a new GSAS dean as an ongoing member of their future leadership team,” Skocpol said in a statement.
On the question of the Crimson’s treatment of her tenure battle, I would simply argue that it’s irrelevant to the rest of the piece and shouldn’t have been discussed at all.
3/29/2007 1:29 pm
Just for the record, I’m not questioning the Crimson’s right to perform “news analysis,” especially when it’s so clearly labeled as such. In this case, I’m just questioning some of the analysis. And now that I think about it, I suppose that this piece does fall into a bit of a gray areaâit’s analysis, but it’s also reporting. And I’m not sure how balanced the reporting is.
Perhaps this is a subject forâtaa-daa!âthe Crimson ombudsman.
3/29/2007 1:33 pm
Mass Ave is wrong. Absolutely no proof has been offered that there is any ill will between Faust and Skocpol. And there isnt. What is happening here is that people who don’t want Skocpol as Dean are floating the story. The game here is spread rumors and then say the person is unsuitable because of whatever is rumored. The same thing was done during the Presidential search. The search for the “real story” behind Skocpol’s step down is ludicrous. There’s no mention of all the work she did and all she achieved. It is just waved aside in the so-called “analysis.”
3/29/2007 1:35 pm
Mass, agreed that this presents one plausible explanation for Skocpol’s resignation. But do you think the piece quite nails that down? I’m not so sure there aren’t other possible explanations.
Anyone else have any evidence for the idea that Skocpol and Faust don’t get along?
3/29/2007 1:47 pm
First, speculating on how gender might hypothetically possibly perhaps change Hernandez’s and Jacobs’ analysis is silly. If you’re going to take issue with “headstrong,” take issue with it, but then don’t imagine how different (and imaginary!) people would have reported it differently: suggest a different word! Have a *real* argument!
This goes back to our argument about bias from before, RB… when you’re arguing about stuff for which there’s never going to be a definitive answer, it’s just a waste of time, and we might as well move on to issues of more substance.
I agree with a lot of what Mass Ave said. Also, 1:25. RB, you are right that Skocpol is well known for winning that tenure battle… but “defined by controversy” in this case refers to that tenure battle, her ascension to the deanship in a disgruntled Ellison’s wake, her participation in a criticized group (the “troika”), her campaign for the deanship, and now her resignation and relationship with Faust. The major turns in her career have, in fact, occurred at times of controversy…
Mass. Ave. is right that this piece is not functioning as a career retrospective. It is telling people the real story behind the resignation.
3/29/2007 1:54 pm
I’m operating on the assumption that the sources with whom the Crimson spoke have a finger of the pulse of FAS and are knowledgeable of administrative politics. That is, that they are not simply stating their own opinions. So, really, I’m just trusting Jacobs and Hernandez based on their prior reporting (including their stuff on the presidential search, which was excellent and ultimately proven correct, despite 1:33’s suggestion). But, yes, this is the problem with anonymous sources.
3/29/2007 1:56 pm
Waiting Emu,
Why is it silly to consider how gender might influence reportage? To me, it’s something to consider when evaluating the language and “angle” (sic) of an article. The kind of thing that scholars at, oh, the Radcliffe Institute might consider worthwhile, but many men are more inclined to pooh-pooh.
And just out of curiosity, while Ellison’s resignation may have been controversial, I don’t think that Skocpol’s appointment was. Or is that not true?
3/29/2007 2:00 pm
The Crimson doesnt have the “real story” behind the resignation. Skocpol knows why she resigned and she hasnt said any of these things. After all, it is HER resignation. So, surely, SHE knows why she resigned. Yet, you all seem very willing to believe the spin that others are putting on it—including the assertion she doesnt get along with Faust. And that is based on ….exactly….what???
3/29/2007 2:05 pm
It’s silly because you are speculating that Hernandez and Jacobs are sexist. You don’t know that, and it’s not really provable in this context. How is this different than the theory behind racial profiling? Hm, more men are sexist, Hernandez and Jacobs are men, they might be sexist… Let’s pull them over and check (and let me point out once again that in this context, there’s no way to check).
Scholars at the Radcliffe Institute (some of whom are men, btw) would expect more rigor in analysis of sexism.
And yes, I think it’s fair to say that *anyone* taking that job on the heels of Ellison would have dealt in some controversy.
3/29/2007 2:20 pm
WEâ
I am indeed suggesting that how a reporter covers an event is shaped by his or her experiences and world view, of which gender is a massive contributing factor.
It’s a larger conversation, but I think that any honest man would have admitted to surprise over the depth of outrage that women manifested over “women in science.” It was just harder for us men to get it. So, yeah, I think women might have portrayed that tenure battle in a different way. It’s not so much about Hernandez and Jacobs per se, as it is about how who we are contributes to the way we see and write about the worldâillusions of objectivity and professionalism aside.
The analogy to racial profiling is clever but wrong. A more honest analogy would be to say that many black people see the world differently from many white people, and might therefore report a race-related event differently.
And, yes, I know that there are men at Radcliffe. Obviously, I was generalizing.
3/29/2007 2:28 pm
mass ave 1:54 is assuming the anonymous sources have “a finger on the pulse of FAS and are knowledgeable of administrative politics”. If they do, then in my view they almost certainly have agendas, and seem not to care that they or at least one of them may be imperilling the process (“according to an individual close to the faculty advisory committee”). If that is so, the Crimson reporters have been duped, and used to further these agendas, and it is my opinion that that is what has occurred.
As a member of the advisory committee I myself told the Crimson I would not give any views on the matter, since the main aim here is the appointment of a good dean of FAS. Let’s hope that happens in spite of the (in my view) malicious manipulations and scheming of these courageous individuals who “were granted anonymity because their relationships with University officials would be compromised if they were named”.
One of them is presumably 12:23 from yesterday’s “Dizzy Deans” post. That’s the one who was so omniscient on these matters:
“as soon as Drew Faust was announced as president, all hope was lost (bad blood there, I hear), and Skocpol didn’t want to waste any more of her time in an FAS administrative post with no hope of the top job.”
12:42 and 1:33 and 2:00 from the current blog are on the mark.
3/29/2007 3:56 pm
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that even if the crimson’s sources have an agenda, what they say may well be true. It’s pretty much impossible for a reporter to talk to people who are in the know but don’t have an agenda. What the reporters have to do, of course, is consider the agenda, the history of their interactions with that source, what other sources tell them on and off the record, etc., and decide whether or not the information is accurate.
Whether or not the reason given in the story is accurate, I have no idea, but I certainly haven’t heard anyone on this blog suggest that the crimson’s sources are inaccurate in addition to manipulative…
3/29/2007 4:01 pm
RB-
I’ve already agreed that people’s experiences affect their reporting. That’s not what this argument is about. You simply cannot isolate that as the deciding factor in the use of “headstrong.” In this context, in this situation, which is what you are writing about, you said that headstrong is “probably sexist.” You also added an imaginary line about a “headstrong little lady”-your construction, and not Hernandez’s, or Jacobs’.
As for any honest man being surprised at the depth of women’s anger over “women in science”… Really? A perceptive man could concede that not being a woman, he would not have total access to that experience, but at the same time, not be *surprised.* I know men who fall into this category and I think this makes them MORE honest, not less. (In fact, it’s comforting-I know they really engage the world.)Regardless, if there were a degree of surprise, it would vary among the population of men.
You write, “So, yeah, I think women might have portrayed that tenure battle in a different way.” They MIGHT have, that’s true, but to isolate gender’s influence on reporting, you need some good social science. (That’s probably where the Radcliffe folk would come in.) ANY two people would have written that story differently. Even two other guys.
You also write, “It’s not so much about Hernandez and Jacobs per se.”
No, you wrote that the use of “headstrong” was “probably sexist.” *That* made it about Hernandez and Jacobs. Who were you implying was saying things along the lines of “headstrong little lady”?
It was in that context that I used the racial profiling analogy-which is a good one. Because you DID, in fact, write specifically about Hernandez and Jacobs. Who are excellent reporters.
I agree that overall, gender and other background relating to gender, like a number of other factors, could influence reporters. However, to take that generalization and apply it to a single story without some stronger evidence of the extent of the individual reporters’ biases is simply irresponsible.
As for generalizing… yes, I know: you’re big on it.
3/29/2007 4:17 pm
Waiting Emu,
Do you disagree that “headstrong,” especially when used by a man to describe a woman, is a word that generally has sexist connotations? Do you think you do the Crimson reporters any favors by denying that truism?
Useful social science to analyze the implications of gender as it relates to journalism and objectivity? Good luck with that. I’d happily read some study on the question, but I doubt it would be any more conclusive than these blog conversations, and if you’re expecting a blog to do social science, then you are misidentifying the purpose of the blog.
We will agree to disagree about the racial profiling analogy. Like most analogies, it confuses as much as it illuminates.
And finally, perhaps I do generalize. But you are awfully snarky and sure of yourself for someone who won’t actually sign his name to what he writes. Is your opinion of Hernandez and Jacobs based on your reading of their work? Or because you like what they have to say? (And perhaps suggest to them what they should say?)
As long as you are anonymous, Waiting Emu, no one can know the answer to that, and as long as no one can know the answer to that, your words must be taken with a substantial dose of salt.
3/29/2007 4:25 pm
3:56, I agree pretty much entirely with your first paragraph, but not so much with your second: Seems to me that people on this threat absolutely have questioned the accuracy of the suggestion that there is widespread discontent with Skocpol.
3/29/2007 4:39 pm
this is 3:56 again — i meant that no one has questioned the accuracy beyond saying that the crimson doesn’t back it up well enough or that the sources have agendas, or that skocpol did good things as dean, and none of these comments suggest that she didn’t step down because she and faust didn’t get along. i.e., no one has suggested that in fact faust and skocpol play tennis together every tuesday (or perhaps go shoe-shopping).
3/29/2007 4:40 pm
oh, you’re right — i suppose people have suggested the crimson was wrong on the widespread discontent issue. just not on the why she stepped down issue.
3/29/2007 4:42 pm
On 3:56. This is classic stuff. Rumors are printed in a newspaper. They instantly take on credibility, however wrong headed they are, and then it becomes the task of anyone in doubt to DISPROVE the rumors. Yes, even those with an agenda MIGHT be telling the truth. But the fact that they MIGHT be -doesnt make it the truth. And there is no evidence offered that is credible of anything other than that some faculty don’t like or want Theda. What makes it a big deal is the STORY that elevates these wishes, desires, feelings, beliefs to the level of FACT. i.e. that she has been ruled out by Faust. There is no evidence offered of this AT ALL.
3/29/2007 4:47 pm
4:42 — this is how newspapers using anonymous sources work. you either trust the reporters and the paper, or you don’t. i’m just saying that we should distinguish critiques about agenda from critiques about accuracy, and that people have been conflating them on this thread. i’m not asking anyone to disprove the crimson or suggesting that it’s right until proven wrong.
3/29/2007 4:57 pm
4:47, my gripe is not so much with the anonymous sources here; as I suggested before, where I think the article could have done better is in not drawing such large conclusions (“a wave of uncertainty”) based apparently on only two anonymous sources. When you use anonymous sources, you have to be very careful about not basing too broad a conclusion on their words. The story also fails to provide appropriate context (the tenure fight, e.g.); and lacks balance. You can’t tell me that *no one* was willing to stick up for Skocpol. Yea or nay, I’d have liked to have seen that question addressed.
3/29/2007 4:58 pm
When Bill Kirby resigned, he said it was just “the right time” (paraphrasing). It took the Crimson to reveal that he’d been fired. That certainly disrupted things, didn’t it? But at least it was the truth.
3/29/2007 5:04 pm
There is in fact widespread support for Skocpol, across the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Many of us believe she is by far the best candidate. She has been enormously successful as graduate dean, she has a deep understanding of the FAS faculty and an amazing ability to get things done. She is also extremely fair and truthful. This is what has really scared some people-Skocpol can’t be bought off or bribed. My guess is that FAS faculty with pots of money from Summers and deals that let them get away with far less teaching than their colleagues are frightened that Skocpol is a top contender for dean. So they fed these lies to the Crimson.
Hasn’t anyone noticed that Faust named Skocpol to be social science advisor at Radcliffe? That she invited Skocpol to be the speaker at the all campus lunch at Radcliffe a few weeks ago? That Faust and Skocpol talk frequently and are on very friendly terms? The Crimson reporters were played.
This is a smear campaign pure and simple and my guess is that it is being engineered by someone who either wants the job for him or herself or is busy pushing another candidate.
3/29/2007 5:55 pm
Richard,
Yup, I’m anonymous. If you have such an objection to that, why didn’t you set your blog up to require commenters to register? I trust the good sense of the majority of your readers-also anonymous-to see that I am attempting to be as logical as possible in my arguments. I am already much more accountable than most people here-I have to login to comment. If that’s not enough for you… shrug. Commonsense is commonsense, and this is a little bit of “last resort” rhetoric so that you don’t really have to engage my argument. For example, my point that you ARE writing specifically about Hernandez and Jacobs, and so did conjecture what was going on in their heads. You didn’t address that.
I’d also like to point out, AGAIN, that I am a woman. I’m starting to think it’s sexist that SITDers keep referring to me as a man!!! 😉 Women can be snarky and sure of themselves… I make no apologies for confidence.
And I’m not suggesting that SITD *conduct* social science. I’m asking you to cite stuff. Every once in awhile. And actually, in this case, I didn’t even really ask for that: speaking generally, I said (and repeatedly!) that I agreed that people’s backgrounds affect their reporting. But this is more complicated than sexism/not sexism, and more complicated than suggesting that men anre sexist and women are not. And speculating on individuals’ biases is not the way to address a sexist word. If you think the word is sexist, why don’t you just go ahead and explain why using the word and its connotations as the crux of the argument?
For what it’s worth, had you done that in the first place, minus the whole “imaginary female reporters” scenario, as an imaginary editor, I might have agreed with you that I would have liked to see either more backup for that or a word change. However, I wouldn’t link their gender to the request, as I personally have no way of knowing how, or even the extent to which, their backgrounds have affected their understandings of gender. I also (in this editorial hypothetical) would know any stuff that they couldn’t put in the article. And clearly there’s quite a bit there.
As I said before, in agreeing with Mass. Ave., my reading is based on Hernandez’s and Jacobs’ histories as reporters. I never had a strong opinion on Theda Skocpol.
Finally, you write, “(And perhaps suggest to them what they should say?)”
What *is* the purpose of a blog, RB? To sling around comments like *that*? That’s ridiculous, and you wouldn’t say that to Hernandez’s and Jacobs’ faces. I don’t think they are so easily manipulated.
-P.W. Emu
3/29/2007 6:10 pm
Waiting Emu,
I’d forgotten that you are a woman; my mistake.
I wasn’t conjecturing what was going on in Hernandez’s and Jacob’s heads; I was suggesting a context for the use of the word “headstrong” in which its sexist connotations were illuminated. I certainly don’t think they were consciously being sexist; I meant merely that, as men, they were perhaps less sensitive to the implications of their language than a woman writing about the same situation might have been. Scientific? No. Speculative? Yes. But way off base? I don’t think so. Why did I bring up their gender in the first place? (A reasonable question.) I raised it in the context of the discussion of the possibility of objectivity which took place on this blog not too long ago, and this was to my mind an example of its difficulty, if not impossibility. Honestly, I just can’t see a woman using the word “headstrong” to describe another woman in this context. Gender isn’t definitive, of course, but in terms of helping to construct our perception of events, it is of course formative.
I’m not sure what you want me to cite in the way of social science. Honestly, Waiting Emu, I’m not averse to it, but truth is, there’s only one of me, and there’s only so much time in the day.
And you’re rightâmy last was unfair. My apologies. But sometimes, WE, you are awfully personal, and this can be frustrating. Criticize my writing as you wish, but would you say the same things if you had to put your name to them?
By the way, I do appreciate that at least you have given yourself a name. At the very least, it helps the debate.
All of this still does not address the main issue: Was the Crimson piece fair and balanced? Or even right?
Judging from some of the posters on this board, there’s certainly agreement with the negative aspects of the article.
But also judging from some of the posters, there’s some strong support for Skocpolâand I don’t think today’s Crimson story reflects that.
3/29/2007 7:05 pm
Richard,
Apology accepted.
We will have to agree to disagree, because I can imagine another woman using “headstrong.” I can easily see how I myself might use it, and bet that I actually have. (Of course, a lot of women are unfortunately unconsciously sexist too!)
Re: social science, I don’t think this subject needs citation (that is, gender as formative and as a source/target of bias, pretty well established). But it does seem to me that sometimes you sling generalizations around fairly lightly when talking about individual cases; I’m trying to point out how hard that stuff is to prove. Then, to use these generalizations in individual cases without at least *VERY* carefully qualifying them may be unfair. Because if you don’t have to prove your point, then how is your opponent supposed to defend him or herself? They can’t. Which isn’t fair, and gets me going.
I do appreciate that you are only one person, with a lot of work. Part of my motivation here is that I don’t think it’s all that effective to fight sexism by saying *people* are sexist. I’m not saying generalizations are totally useless; sometimes they’re all we have. But they’re hard to pin down, so I tend to focus on language and/or actions instead.
That said, I should turn an eye on my own language. If I have snarked inappropriately or personally, I do sincerely apologize. Your point about my anonymity is taken; I have pulled back the veil as much as I reasonably can while remaining a commenter. I will say, anonymity helps this blog, helps its commenters, helps me, helps those Crimson sources…
Hm. And back to the story. Does it really matter who supports Skocpol if Faust doesn’t? Is that relevant to this story? I’m not sold (and I do believe that Faust doesn’t).
(RB, I do want to end by saying that obviously, I visit this blog a fair amount and appreciate the forum it provides!)
It’s almost the weekend,
-P.W. Emu
3/29/2007 7:43 pm
Personally I have found Skopcol to have many of Summers’ worst characteristics and few of his good ones, and the people I know in other fields aren’t that impressed by her either. So I’m surprised by the assertion that she has “widespread support,” though I’m quite prepared to believe she has many supporters.
3/29/2007 8:36 pm
“and the people I know in other fields aren’t that impressed by her either.” So: are you one of the political scientists who are showing so much courage - trashing their colleague anonymously while promoting their favorite sons (Dominguez) who has his own rap sheet and daughters (Rosenblum) - an out and out hysteric. Ain’t Harvard grand! I don’t work there but visiting is like going to the Zoo. You see weird stuff there and you are glad the inmates are in cages.
3/29/2007 10:27 pm
This thead is fascinating but not much about the central question that J and H tried to answer. Skocpol resignation is not what it seems on the surface. It is even more puzzling if her fans on this blog are right (that she did such a great job and had widespread support, Faust earlier relied on her for important assignments and Bok favored her). What happened? That is what, to their credit, these reporters tried to answer.
There are only a limited number of hypotheses. J and H get close the right one from what I know (and I am not an Skocpol opponent and dont have any other candidate). The Crimson didn’t create the puzzle, or the controversy about Skocpol.
The gender bias of reporters is a significant question (and Richard makes some good general points) but it is largely irrelevant to this story-or at least to the substance of the story (as distinct from some of the phrases). Unless the story is basically wrong, which I dont think it is.
Another interesting point that some of the posts bring up-and is often neglected for student newspapers-no story can provide all the evidence to support its “angle.” The reader has to rely to some extent on the track record of the reporter. That is why the previous stories on the presidential search and summers resignation (which as I recall were by Hernandez)are relevant. They have by Richard’s testimony proved more accurate than any other account (well — at least as accurate as Richard’s).
3/29/2007 11:07 pm
The problem with this post is that it discusses the Crimson story as if it is reportage rather than a “news analysis” -which is what the reporters offered it as. (They cited exactly two sources - both anonymous and one tied to the Advisory Committee.) The reporters did not try to find out “what happened.” We actually know what happened—Skocpol resigned. Rather, the story starts with the presumption being made that Skocpol’s resignation is not what it seems or what she says it is - i.e. that she has done what she can in the job, and is making way for the new FAS Dean to appoint a new GSAS Dean. Apparently, this just can’t be the case in the eyes of some but why that is I’m not entirely sure of. OK; so suddenly we’ve got a situation where people are saying there is a “REAL” story behind her resignation. And someone calls the Crimson to give the skinny to the reporters. The latter appear to have accepted what they were presumably fed by these sources - the line that Skocpol was out of the FAS Deanship race; that there was bad blood with Faust etc. - and then attempted to explain it. Undoubtedly they trust these sources. But once correct, doesn’t mean always correct. There is a new President elect and the table at Harvard is tilting in ways that are making some folks nervous (whether for good reason or not remains to be seen). The Crimson reporters then seek to analyze something that they are also “breaking” - i.e. there is a “real” story behind the Skocpol resignation and it has to do with opposition to her as a potential Dean of FAS that has derailed her and that Faust has weighed in also against her. They have no facts, of course, to substantiate the latter because none exist. There isn’t bad blood with Faust, and Faust has kept her cards on the Deanship close to her vest so far—this according to a member of the Advisory group who has said so on the record on this blog. So, I fear your post, 10:27.sounds to this reader as if you have the bellows out and are attempting to get the fire going again even in the face of counter-arguments and some pretty insistent commentary that the facts are in error. Let’s say for a moment that Skocpol was not eliminated, that Faust has not decided, that Skocpol stepped down because of the reasons she stated: the question remains: who floated the story against her and for what reasons?
3/29/2007 11:41 pm
If Skocpol were resigning because “she has done what she can in the job” and she “is making way for the new FAS Dean to appoint a new GSAS Dean,” as the poster above suggests, she’d wait until the appointment of the new FAS dean to announce. (I don’t have any inside knowledge, but this certainly seems logical to me.) Why stir controversy, particularly about your own potential candidacy, if you’re resigning for that reason. There’s no time advantage since the new FAS dean will have to choose the new gsas dean after s/he is named by Faust anyways. I think the timing itself is a strong argument that there’s more to this story.
3/30/2007 12:39 am
11:41—the reasons cited for Skocpol’s resignation (i.e. has done what she could; stepping down to make way) aren’t my reasons—they are HER STATED REASONS. Yet you insist they couldn’t possibly be so—can’t be taken at face value and again, I dont see why not. Your post resembles the Crimson article-you are suspicious and then your suspicion becomes the basis of the non-story. “The wave of uncertainty” the Crimson says Skocpol’s rsignation unleashed about her prospects for the Deanship was created by the story itself- which then fulfills its own prophecy or rather seeks to. Anyone got their thinking cap on in Harvard Square? Who is behind the campaign to throw her out of contention and WHY?
3/30/2007 8:51 am
11:07: “presumably fed”? I decline to presume that. And I’m with 11:41 #1.
By the logic (or lack thereof?) of 11:07, reporters should always just believe what people in power tell them. In the U.S., one of journalism’s primary functions is that of government watchdog. At Harvard, or at any institution with an insitution-specific publication, the analogy is constant assessment of how that institution is being run and the polit