Harvard Dressed Down
Posted on August 12th, 2009 in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
In an article titled “Strapped Colleges Keep Leaders in Luxury,” the Globe takes Harvard and other universities to task for the lifestyle they afford their presidents.
Now the opulence risks standing out amid frozen faculty salaries, widespread layoffs, and slashed programs. While the houses often serve an important ceremonial role and it is questionable how much money could be saved by their elimination, the very mention of them has elicited low-level grumbling on campuses and anxiety among university officials over the Globe’s request to tour them.
“It seems terribly unfair that people who are being laid off can’t even afford to make their modest mortgage payments, while people at the top are living in luxury,’’ said Desiree Goodwin, a Harvard library assistant who has seen dozens of workers lose their jobs across campus…
The Globe doesn’t mention that Desiree Goodwin once sued Harvard and lost. Could the paper really not have known?
That’s horrible journalism. As is the line, “MIT and Harvard reported that their presidents simply were ‘not around.’’’
Really? MIT and Harvard both used the exact same words? (And…MIT and Harvard can speak?)
It’s a small point, but an example of biased writing and sloppy editing. As is the assertion, “the opulence risks standing out”—that’s pretty weak.
The presidents’ mansions are there for the duration, and I’m not sure what universities are supposed to do about that—move students into the presidents’ houses?
The reporter would have had a much better story if she focused on the compensation paid to university presidents, which doesn’t appear to be taking a hit even as their campuses are experiencing widespread layoffs.
But this article should never have seen the light of day.
7 Responses
8/12/2023 12:19 pm
The Globe had no less than 5 stories about the Goodwin lawsuit.
8/13/2009 10:33 am
[…] The Globe should have caught that, says Richard Bradley: “Could the paper really not have known?” […]
8/13/2009 3:14 pm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/chi-ap-huronconsulting-secin,0,5934394.story
8/13/2009 5:18 pm
As RB said, this Globe story should never have been published. There’s no news in it, and the writing is deeply dishonest.
But it did inspire me to look up the data about 33 Elmwood. And that made me wonder what Drew & Charles do with 8.3K sq. ft. of living space, including 6 full and 2 half baths.
(Despite the Globe’s suggestion that the various presidents’ houses are tax free, the annual property tax bill on 33 Elmwood is $92K.
Derek Bok did not live on campus because the times were too troubled, and he was particularly concerned about his children. He was right to have those concerns, in those years. I wonder whether Drew has thought about moving back to campus. It would make a great statement about the social compact being reinstated.
But perhaps I’m whistling in the wind, and we couldn’t expect today’s undergraduates to respect the president’s space. Not only no political demonstrations on the lawn of the house, but also no late night serenades. Do others who comment here have any intuitions (particularly SE and Harry, who know undergraduate culture better than I do at this point)?
P.S. I see no reason why the Office of the Governing Boards couldn’t be moved to some anonymous office building, freeing up the old presidential quarters at 17 Quincy. I once had to get a document to them, about 20 feet from my own office in Emerson Hall, and they preferred that I fax it.
8/13/2009 7:12 pm
Students might very occasionally get organized to demonstrate in front of a President’s house, but I see no likelihood that there would be systematic or sustained disrespect. The students have too much work to do! and HUPD knows its business.
The Living Wage sit-in was an extraordinary exception; moreover, having the President’s dwelling at the center of it would have made no difference, either to her or to the key players.
SE
8/13/2009 7:58 pm
My instinct, au contraire, is that the president would be a target if she moved back on campus. It’s too bad; I’m with Warren on that. But I suspect that even a well-liked president of Harvard is too big a symbol today. I am not sure why Sean thinks the Living Wage sit-in was one of a kind. For example, I could easily imagine that the SLAM protesters might have found the president’s house, were it 17 Quincy, a more photogenic site for protests than Forbes Plaza this spring. Intrusions are a devil to manage, as organized groups are fully lawyered in the 21st century. Better to minimize their likelihood. It’s absolutely true that HUPD knows its business, but I can tell you from personal experience that we have had at least one president recently who didn’t accept that and thought he knew their business better. This is not an area in which to mess around in some ill-founded hope that we could restore a garden-of-eden Harvard with the boss living among us.
I also think the president should be granted a modicum of privacy if she wants it. Surveillance technology has improved a lot. I can imagine somebody pointing an always-on webcam or telescopic microphone at the bedroom window, etc.
Warren, as for how Faust uses the space, the fact that this president has no children living at home doesn’t mean the next one won’t. And while I don’t know about the upstairs space, unless the world has changed a lot since I was dean, I imagine the downstairs is used for events almost continuously.
Anyway, I agree this was not Jan’s best work. I just can’t get excited about this issue, by comparison with other issues of expense (administrative growth, what whole offices may be inessential, etc.). Interesting, at least the early comments on the Globe site, which often are full of anti-Harvard venom on stories mentioning Harvard, were in pretty much the same place as far as this story not making a lot of sense.
8/16/2009 4:33 pm
If someone wanted to do some real reporting in this vein, they should look into what Harvard paid to remodel and redecorate House Masters’ residences this year. At a time when there’s very little money for all sorts of academic priorities, it’s a crime that so much was spent to replace perfectly good appliances and furnishings that didn’t suit some Masters’ tastes.