After the Scoop Come the Denials
Posted on December 7th, 2006 in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan, has just denied any interest in the job of Harvard president.
Well…kind of.
Her denial comes through a spokeswoman, who says, President Coleman is not pursuing the Harvard position. She’s committed to staying here at the University of Michigan. The regents just recently renewed her contract.
There’s a bit of wiggle room in that, I’d say.
On another note, can someone please institute a ban on university presidents having spokespeople?
These people are supposed to be leaders, known for eloquence, candor, the ability to speak intelligently on a variety of topics. Does Harvard really want a president who issues non-denial denials through a spokesperson?
Especially considering that it just had one…..
7 Responses
12/7/2024 12:03 pm
Ms. McNeil must have really rubbed you the wrong way Richard.
12/7/2024 12:11 pm
If you’re interested, take a look at this:
http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/02/21/harvard2_21
But more than anything personal, I think that the idea of a presidential press secretary is highly problematic, whether at Harvard or anywhere else. I can see the value in having media folks generally…but a staffer to the president specifically to strategize regarding the press? That troubles me.
12/7/2024 12:44 pm
That’s just silly. These presidents are running big institutions, with thousands of employees and students, huge budgets and enormous expectations from outside constituencies — and what, they’re supposed to comment everytime some reporter calls? In Boston, I can imagine the Globe wanting a comment from the Harvard president every single day on almost any topic, if they thought they could get it.
12/7/2024 1:06 pm
Really. I might agree that presidents should comment directly on important issues, but the idea that they should never use a spokesperson is pretty silly.
12/7/2024 1:10 pm
You’ll note that I don’t say that the *institution* shouldn’t have press people, I say that the *president* shouldn’t have press people.
The difference matters.
12/8/2024 11:40 am
I can appreciate the distinction you’re trying to make, but when a president is effectively the highest-ranking representative of an institution, wouldn’t it make sense for there to be some protocols in place to ensure the integrity of the institution, especially when the institution is bigger than any one person, but where that one person can bring irreperable harm to the institution?
As refreshing as it might be to have unfettered access to a leader, and for a leader to offer unbridled opinion, commentary, etc., that can be exceedingly dangerous when speaking as the head of a major institution. One only need to Harvard and the United States to see how institutions have suffered when their leaders have spit the bit and broken free of their handlers.
12/8/2024 1:09 pm
An interesting post, that last one…though I think I agree with the first paragraph more than the second. The idea of presidents being “handled”…I mean, if that’s the case, then you’ve got the wrong president.