Shots in the Dark

Writing in the New Republic, Adam Lior Hirst, a Yale 2010 grad and student at Yeshiva Law, chastises the various 9/11 commemorations held at Harvard as focusing more on post-9/11 politics than on the victims—and terrorists.

The events on the tenth anniversary of September 11 in Cambridge did little remembering of 9/11 and a whole lot of rehashing of the events in the post-9/11 world. Those people who did talk about 9/11 universalized it ad absurdum. Those people who talked about America’s response to 9/11, at home and abroad, spent little time memorializing the dead and a great deal of time admonishing Americans.

It’s always hard to judge from an account like this what really happened—honestly, if you’re a Jew who goes to Christian ceremonies four times in one day (as Hirst describes himself), you’re clearly looking for writing material, and no one’s going to publish an article about how wonderful Harvard’s celebrations were.

(Then again, I suspect that these were intended to be inter-faith events.)

But I was struck—and somewhat depressed—by this fact.

David Gergen, who, among other things, has served as an influential adviser to four Presidents, delivered the sermon. His remarks almost managed to avoid the actual events of 9/11, focusing almost exclusively instead on the political dynamics since that day: Iraq, Afghanistan, the Great Recession, economic inequality.

David Gergen was asked to deliver the sermon at the main service at Memorial Church on 9/11? I don’t get that at all. Nothing against David Gergen—well, a little bit, maybe, I’m fascinated by how Gergen has used the Kennedy School to brand himself as a statement, when, honestly, he’s a political operative, and there is a difference—but Gergen can deliver his message in, well, the Kennedy School. H’e s a very smart guy and good at many things, but I don’t think anyone, including Gergen himself, would consider him a spiritual leader. Asking him to deliver a sermon on 9/11 is bizarre.

Presumably Gergen was a “secular” choice because any ecclesiastic choice might not be “inclusive.” If that’s the thinking, why call Memorial Church a church at all? Call it the Center for Political-Spiritual Thought, or something.

But again—I only know what I’ve read in this article, and I’d be curious to hear other thoughts.

(Actually, you can hear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBU4grgEM8U. He begins it by apologizing for having to leave early to go to a grandchild’s soccer game. Which you may not or may find promising.)

And deep dissatisfaction?

Impossible.

The New York Times reports on a new book by former WSJ reporter Ron Susskind—the guy has good sources—reporting on the infighting among President Obama’s economic team—a good chunk of which seems to have been caused by, focused on or otherwise involved Larry Summers.

!

The book, by Ron Suskind…quotes White House documents that say Mr. Obama’s decisions were routinely “re-litigated” by the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers.

Mr. Summers, who has returned to a teaching position at Harvard, did not comment.

To be fair, we (meaning, “I”) have not read the book. But we (I) will!

Tina Brown, Newsweek/Daily Beast editor, has just announced that Newsweek is starting a foundation to help women and girls.

This from the DB:

We’re Launching a Foundation!
Sep 13, 2024 3:17 AM EDT
Building on the enthusiasm surrounding our groundbreaking Women in the World Summits, The Newsweek Daily Beast Co. is launching a new foundation aimed at advancing women and girls.

Remind me what this has to do with journalism again? Nothing—not with good journalism, anyway. This is a way for Brown to schmooze with powerful women and develop relationships with foundations as she prepares for Newsweek’s demise. (You think I’m cynical? Just wait a year, then we’ll talk.)

What happens if Newsweek has to report on any of the women (Hillary Clinton, Christine LaGarde) who also happen to be involved with its foundation?

…as the foundation grows, we will be able to do more than tell the vibrant stories of women in the journalism of Newsweek, [sic] and The Daily Beast and the live conversations at our summits. We will also be able to support the solutions.

Mmmm….no. The best way Newsweek can help women and girls is through thorough, professional, investigative reporting on the problems they face around the world.

Unless Brown’s secret plan is to transition Newsweek into a women-centric magazine underwritten by foundation grants, this is a bad idea. And if that is her plan, it’s also a bad idea.

The Winklevoss twins go nuts.

Diver and eco-activist Scott Cassell aims to set a world record by diving from Catalina Island to Los Angeles in under 24 hours, all of which, thanks to a rebreather, would be spent underwater.

He also plans to wear “an acoustic shark attractor” to attract as many sharks as possible—far fewer, sadly, than there would have been 10 or 20 years ago.

Very cool. Not sure I could do 24 hours underwater, though.

In other news, Filipinos caught a 21-foot saltwater crocodile. Big!

The Globe announces that it’s going to charge online readers, “betting that readers will be willing to pay for an online product that offers an innovative, inviting reading experience.”

I wouldn’t bet on that.

After all, when you click on the article to try to learn more about these “exciting” changes, you’re taken to a registration form sponsored by Coldwell Banker.

There are times when it seems that the Globe is run by morons. I’m sure that’s not true, though.

In any event, the deal is this: Boston.com will be free, BostonGlobe.com will cost $4 a week. That’s a lot of money for a digital newspaper. Especially a bad one.

That said, here’s one Globe story I like: “It’s ‘time to panic’ for Red Sox.”

Or, as the locals might say: Go Pats!

Fashion chain Forever 21 is selling a girl’s t-shirt that reads “Allergic to Algebra”….

Here’s one girl’s response.

The story of a ten-year-old with Tourette’s who came to believe that 9/11 was his fault.

A couple folks have wondered what I think of Drew Faust’s video welcome to the students.

(Or is it for the students. Hmmm….)

The answer is: Not much!

It’s not that I object to the idea in theory. A little video welcome isn’t inherently objectionable and could have some value.

And the problem isn’t that Drew Faust is pretty awful on video, though she is. It’s not her medium. Drew! Add a little punch to those words. Show some heart!

It’s that the format inevitably dumbs down the message. Faust’s exhortations to improve human health and boost economic growth, to “unlock solutions” to “consequential challenges” (consequential challenges?) in an “increasingly interconnected world” may be true enough, but they’re soundbites, and not only that, they are old and tired soundbites, which means that they are platitudes. This message could have been delivered in 2011—or 1911. Except for the shots of Harvard students doing wild and crazy things. They wear masks! They dress up as a moose! They play frisbee!

Wacky kids.

Perhaps even this banality wouldn’t be so bad if Faust was still writing the Derek Bok-style annual report—something ambitious and meaningful and personal that can’t be ghostwritten, as all of Faust’s stuff seems to be. (For her sake, one hopes it is.) Or if in other talks she delivered more challenging stuff.

But Faust hasn’t done that, and the Harvard community should probably start considering the possibility that she never will. That substance deficit makes this little bit of popcorn somehow more annoying.

One final point, which is subtle but, I think, important: All of Faust’s suggestions about Harvard’s raison d’etre involve practical, problem-solving work. The point of Harvard is to invent stuff, to boost the economy, to discover new breakthroughs, etc.

All of which is important.

But there’s really nothing about scholarship in Faust’s words—about the value of open-ended learning that does not have immediate practical relevance.

There’s an implicit vision of the university here, and it seems to me something like this: Why should you pay $50,000 or so to go to Harvard at a time when post-collegiate employment is down and post-collegiate wages are down? When the price of Harvard has far outpaced inflation over the last decade?

Because Harvard is practical.

Is the essence of Faust’s message, then, that Harvard is a very sophisticated and elite trade school?