Harvard News: A Round-Up
Posted on February 11th, 2006 in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
In addition to the Globe, the Crimson, and Reuters, here are some other news outlets reporting on the upheaval at Harvard:
Fox News, ProvidenceâHarvard President Again Facing Vote by Angry Faculty
Guardian Unlimited, UKâHarvard President Again Facing Criticism
The same story, an AP story by education writer Justin Pope, also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Forbes.com, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe (the Globe needs an AP writer to tell it what’s going on at Harvard?), the Ledger of Lakeland, Florida, New York Newsday, the Houston Chronicle, the Columbus (Ohio) Ledger-Enquirer, the Monterey Herald, the Akron Beacon-Journal, the Fort-Worth Star Telegram, the South Caroline State, the Biloxi Sun Herald…and, yes, the New York Times (though not, it seems, in the dead-tree versionâa big break for Summers, who surely wants to keep this out of the Times).
It’s an interesting compilationâI’ve omitted a fair number, because my fingers are getting tiredâ pretty much covering the country. Soon enough, I expect, English-language overseas papers will be getting into the act.
For those custodians of Harvard’s reputation, this should be a sobering concern. (That would be you, Jamie Houghtonâdo you want to be remembered as the Corporation senior fellow on whose watch Harvard stumbled and fell?)
One controversy linked to a specific speech will not inflict long-term damage upon an institution’s reputation. But controversy after controversy after controversy, and the general public starts to absorb an impression…and once impressions form, they are not easily undone.
The question then becomes, what to do, what to do? Is it better to stick it out and face an indefinite more of the same? Or to get all the controversy over with in one grand barrage of publicity and announce a fresh start?
I can’t help but wonder if the hardest part of all this for the Corporation members involved isn’t the simple admission of a mistake.
________________________________________________________________
P.S. The New York Times, by the way, really ought to be embarrassed for not having done anything on the Shleifer scandal. It’s a fascinating and important story about how the world really works. Then again, the paper didn’t do anything on the Harvard AIDS scandal either, in which dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Africans died while Larry Summers tried to wrest control of a federal grant from its legal recipients. I’m told that, after all the coverage of the 1/14 troubles, the Times felt it would be “piling on” to cover the AIDS scandal. That’s a novel type of news judgment, but the Times works in mysterious ways…
There’s still opportunity, of course. If I were pitching a Harvard piece to my editors there, I’d use the Shleifer scandal as the hook…something like this: “For the second time in a year, Harvard president Lawrence Summers is facing an unprecedented vote of no-confidence from his facultyâand his close relationship with a scandal-tarred professor is a major reason why.”
2 Responses
2/11/2024 2:23 pm
Dear Richard,
I think you fail to understand the rationale behind the leak that Bill Kirby was about to be fired and the role that the Crimson played in Kirby’s dismissal. Larry Summers appointed Bill Kirby because he was weak and likely to do the president’s bidding. Kirby was then in a difficult position. He carried out many unwise and unjust policies as directed by Summers, yet he was too weak, and basically too decent and honest, to do everything that Summers wanted. Furthermore, Summers constantly undermined him, blaming Kirby whenever one of Summers’ ideas turned out to have been stupid. All these made for an untenable working relationship between the two men, and Kirby had planned to resign in the spring in as decorous a manner as possible. He is concerned about his reputation and his career, and his instinct has always been to put as good a face on things as possible.
Summers, however, knew that he had a meeting of the Governing Boards (both the Corporation and Overseers) coming up on February 6th. He was aware that questions were likely to be asked about the parlous state of FAS finances, which are entirely Summers’ fault. It is Summers who was overenchanted with “big” science; Summers who insisted on an uncoordinated, rushed plan for science on both sides of the river (building Harvard’s most-expensive-ever science buildings in Cambridge while simultaneously starving FAS to pay for his science theme park in Allston); Summers who offended donors, spent money that he could not raise, and generated controversy that delayed a campaign indefinitely. Summers was aware that some Overseers were deeply discontented and were planning to ask questions about his leadership. In short, Summer was worried that the meeting would go down a dangerous path and might lead to his contract not being renewed for another five years.
Summers therefore decided to leak the information to the Crimson that Kirby was about to be fired. He thought that the timing was perfect. He was in Davos. Kirby was just returning from a trip to New York. The news of Kirby’s departure would occupy the entire meeting of the Governing Boards. Summers could lead a long discussion of how Kirby would be replaced and how the replacement would solve all of the problems in FAS.
It appears, from conversations with members of the Corporation and the Board of Overseers, that Summers’ plan worked at least in part. They were duped. Many of them went home on Monday night satisfied that Summers had a plan to replace Kirby and that, with his replacement, all would be well.
Back to the leak. The leak was given not only to the Crimson but also to the Boston Globe (Marcela Bombarieri). This happened at approximately 7 p.m. The Crimson and Marcela then went looking for confirmation. It appears that a second source called the Crimson, but possibly the Crimson found the second source on their own. Both of the Crimson’s sources were so close to Summers that they were indubitable. Marcela telephoned around on Friday evening trying to find sufficient confirmation to satisfy her editor, who probably has higher standards of journalism than the Crimson. Finally, at about 9 (time approximate), the Crimson telephoned Kirby and said they were going to run the story THAT EVENING that he was being fired. Kirby had a short time to give them a letter of resignation so that he could appear to have resigned. Kirby spent the short time at his disposal editing his letter (which may have been partly composed already). He was no given no time even to call his own deans. This was by design. If Kirby had had time, at least a couple of his deans would have advised him not to resign–to insist on being fired. They would have told him that, if Bill had the stomach for a fight, he would have the faculty’s support.
The Crimson, in short, was doing the dirty work of the President. It is not entirely clear to what extent they knew what they were doing and to what extent they were tools. What is clear is that the Crimson has largely been bought off by Summers. This happened sometime just before graduation last year when Lauren Schuker, then editor-in-chief, was given inducements to support Summers. It should be noted that, at about that time, Schuker changed her Facebook.com entry to include laudatory statements about Summers, including one extraordinary statement about being “fascinated” with Summers and finding him “SEXY”. From that time onwards, that some Crimson reporters have been largely in Summers’ employ.
2/11/2024 3:45 pm
So,based on the previous post, are we to conclude that Summers’ contract was indeed renewed for another five years at the Feb 6th meeting?