Is Larry the Leaker?
Posted on February 11th, 2006 in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
A poster below has written such a provocative postâand one that certainly sounds informedâthat I’m going to repost it in its entirety here. Draw your own conclusions.
- Anonymous said…
-
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 resignâto 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.
5 Responses
2/11/2024 4:39 pm
This is absurd (at least the last paragraph). What sort of “inducements” were given to The Crimson to support Summers? The things on Schuker’s facebook profile were jokes!
2/11/2024 4:45 pm
Additionally — what about the faculty? Did Summers simply fail to predict that if The Crimson printed that Kirby was being fired that the faculty would create such an uproar? This second vote of no-confidence seems profoundly dangerous to Summers. I would imagine it would have been avoided to a significant degree if Kirby had announced his resignation on his own.
2/12/2023 8:08 pm
The Independent gives the following account of the shakeup at the Crimson after the Kirby firing/resignation was leaked:
Shakeup at the Crimson
Managing Editor Zach Steward forced to resign.
By: Jon Liu
Issue date: 2/9/06 Section: News
The highest-ranking editor in charge of content at the Crimson, Harvard and Cambridge’s only daily newspaper, officially resigned this week after being asked by the College to take a mandatory leave of absence. Managing Editor Zachary M. Seward ’07-’08 had assumed leadership just last month as part of the Crimson’s 133rd Executive Board. In an editorial meeting on Tuesday, the Crimson selected Assistant Managing Editor Daniel J. Hemel ’07 as his replacement.
“Academic Requirements” Not Met
In an e-mail sent to the Independent Tuesday, Seward wrote, “I resigned as managing editor of the Crimson on Sunday, and I am taking time off from the College. Daniel Hemel, my good friend of 17 years, is the new managing editor, and I couldn’t be more excited to see the paper thrive under his leadership.”
Rumors of the impending leadership change emerged late last week. William C. Marra ’07, president of the Crimson, confirmed Seward’s resignation on Monday night, adding that “Zach was a fine journalist and his presence will be sorely missed.” Neither Marra nor Seward would comment further on the events behind the latter’s departure.
In an internal e-mail sent to the Crimson editors’ list, however, Seward acknowledged that his departure was due to academic shortcomings, and apologized to his staff. “On Wednesday [February 1],” he wrote, “I learned that I have been required to take a yearlong leave of absence from the College for failing to meet academic requirements. One condition of the leave is that I may not work for the Crimson. So under circumstances that I painfully regret, I must resign today as managing editor.” He added, “I am so sorry to everyone I have let down.”
A source close to Crimson leadership told the Independent that Seward, an English and American Literature and Language concentrator, was asked to leave the College for a year after failing a required tutorial in the fall semester. According to the source, Seward - who, as a candidate for managing editor, was then involved in the Crimson’s intensive “shoot” process of interviewing and vetting potential executives - rarely attended the tutorial, and was failed for that reason.
If Seward rejoins the Crimson upon his return to campus, Marra told the Independent, he would have to reapply for any leadership position.
A “Credit to the Organization”
The fate of Zach Seward seems a reminder that even Harvard’s most extracurricularly talented remain students first and foremost. Beyond presenting a major leadership challenge to an Executive Board still only a few weeks old, Seward’s abrupt departure leaves the Crimson without one of its most prominent and prolific writers. In recent semesters, Seward had covered stories ranging from President Larry Summers’ women-in-science comments to the controversy around Harvard’s stake in PetroChina to the departure of endowment manager Jack R. Meyer.
Seward’s best-remembered story, however, might ironically be one that went to print on the same day he learned that he would have to temporarily leave the College. First posted online during intersession and published in last week’s February 1 issue, Seward’s article - co-reported with Evan H. Jacobs ’08 - “scooped” the Boston Globe, among others, in revealing that Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby had been fired by Summers.
Edward B. Colby, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review weblog CJR Daily, said of the piece, “If the Crimson is right about all of the above, this is exemplary work - with Evan H. Jacobs and Zachary M. Seward’s reporting all the more impressive considering they were nominally on vacation with the rest of the university when the news broke. Their work is a reminder, in our fast-paced media environment, that nothing can beat relationships with trusted (and trusting) sources diligently cultivated over time.”
Marra echoed this praise in an e-mail to the Crimson staff. “A true credit to the organization,” he wrote, “Zach has led our coverage during some of the biggest stories we’ve had over the past couple of years…More than that, he has been an outstanding leader in the newsroom, even before he assumed the role of managing editor. His sense of fairness, his journalistic integrity, and his understanding of the issues facing our community are unmatched.”
As the Crimson prepares to recruit a new class of student-journalists at its open houses this week, Zach Seward, forced to depart campus Tuesday night, will, for the next twelve months at least, be present at 14 Plympton St. only as a remembered exemplar, and perhaps as a cautionary tale.
2/12/2023 10:01 pm
The poster’s effort makes for an interesting read: compelling, provocative, and clearly written by someone who has or has had access to what could reasonably be described as “sensitive” information, not only from Massachusetts Hall, but also the offices at 14 Plympton St. However, this insight is shadowed by no small amount of by bitterness and rancor.
Members of the faculty and other interested parties certainly need no motivation in directing their vitriol towards Summers, but who would have such an axe to grind with The Crimson?
2/14/2006 1:07 am
As someone who is intimately familiar with the inner workings of The Crimson, anyone who thinks that Seward’s resignation has anything remotely to do with The Crimson’s news staff’s handling of the Kirby resignation needs to stop sniffing glue and realize that, on occasion, students do flunk out of school.