Goodbye, Larry Summers...

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
1

<p>We hardly knew ya ... but at the same time, we knew you far too well.</p>

<hr>

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/02/16/summers_should_go_ex_harvard_dean_says/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/02/16/summers_should_go_ex_harvard_dean_says/&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511399%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511399&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511396%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511396&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511361%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511361&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511270%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511270&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511253%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511253&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511201%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511201&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511200%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511200&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Ouch.......ouch.........ouch</p>

3

<p>From the WSJ also:</p>

<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114023372391777798.html?mod=home_whats_news_us%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114023372391777798.html?mod=home_whats_news_us&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>requires a paid subscription. Says that the Harvard Corporation may ask him to resign before Feb 28 to avoid another vote of no-confidence from the faculty.</p>

4

<p>I don't see how Summers can possibly survive the forcing out of Kirby and the Ellison interview. Too bad. I thought he was a very smart guy with essentially progressive values, but it's become increasingly clear that he's not interpersonally equipped to be an effective Harvard president.</p>

5

<p>do you think this is due to Summer's actual incompetence or mostly from political reasons? From the reasons described in the articles, I can't help but be suspicious that there are some unseen political reasons behind this move.</p>

6

<p>I think this partially answers your question:</p>

<p>"[Summer's critics are angered by] what they described as a slowdown in the hiring of new faculty members in disciplines not favored by Mr. Summers ..." </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/college/coll14harvard.html?pagewanted=all%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/college/coll14harvard.html?pagewanted=all&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Summers has been quite emphatic about the key role of the sciences in a liberal arts education (not that Harvard, ranked top 3 in every core science area by U.S. News, is a slouch in the sciences to begin with). In addition, he has launched an ambitious plan to double Harvard's Engineering Department. Yes, some departments are feeling left out.</p>

<p>Also:</p>

<p>"Alan M. Dershowitz—the Frankfurter professor of law who went on ABC’s “Nightline” last year to defend Summers—noted, like many of the president’s supporters, that FAS[Faculty of Arts & Sciences -- where the critics reside] is just a part of Summers’ constituency.</p>

<p>"I think he has very widespread support around the Law School,” Dershowitz said. “I think a lot of people at the Law School think of Arts and Sciences as unrepresentative of the faculty of Harvard University in general.” </p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511391%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511391&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p>

7

<p>The underlying reason is his determination (at the express direction of the corporation) to get a handle on the tenure process. Ostensibly, the Harvard president has the last word on any tenure decision. Trouble is, his bovine predecessor basically ceded this authority to the departments, where faculty barons got used to running their own little empires - often relying on their own standards and preferences and biases to the detriment of the college as a whole. </p>

<p>When Summers began to second guess the recommendations of the barons, they went ape*hit and vowed to bring him down. It is very disturbing to think that they may succeed, by pouncing on every grievance - real or imagined - and cynically exploiting the "women in science" flap. More than 100 faculty members have been added during Summers tenure, and he pushed to end insular practices, and to ensure both competence and relative youth, while adding faculty where he deemed it necessary, rather than as departmental politics might inefficiently decree. The FAS faculty departments apparently care more about preserving their piece of the pie than about adjusting resources to match the needs of the students and the realities of a changing world.</p>

<p>The problem (and its not exclusive to Harvard) is that since federal retirement law changed, you can't get rid of these characters at 65 or 70, and they end up hanging onto their fat salaries and cushy office long after many of them can't even tell which side of the bagel to put their butter on.</p>

<p>It will be a terrible loss to the future of Harvard - and to other schools watching to see if Harvard would succeed in figuring out how to rid itself of tenure-protected dead weight - if the rebels interpret their success in undermining and destroying Summers as giving them licence to seize the appointing power in order to protect and perpetuate themselves.</p>

<p>Indeed the lunatics will be running the asylum if that happens - and many will soon be recalling the wry declaration by W.F. Buckley, Jr. that he'd rather be governed by the first 200 names in the telephone boo than by the Harvard faculty.</p>

8

<p>4thfloor,</p>

<p>True enough that Harvard ranks highly in basic sciences but not so in engineering. They can not really compete with MIT in computer science and EE but they certainly can in bio-tech. Based upon the expansion plans and the recent announcement of the stem cell research initiative I would expect that the expansion would be biased in that direction.</p>

<p>There is probably a little bit of Stanford envy in that one particular area and it is important and admirable that Summers and the corporation appear to want to address it.</p>

<p>Byerly, sounds like a good analysis based upon why Kirby and Ellison left. It does sound like the underlying tone of the requested letter.</p>

9

<p>While only anecdotal, the fellow alums I know, as well as the fellow Harvard parents I know, are pretty uniform in their support of Summers. I think it will truly be a shame if the faculty dissidents on whose toes he has stepped succeed in forcing him out.</p>

10

<p>Neither Ellison nor Kirby (both nice men) were prepared to crack the necessary heads to change the system as it clearly needed (and still needs) to be changed. Passing out professorships on the basis of departmental logrolling is a wasteful and expensive process that simply has to be ended.</p>

11

<p>I have occasion to speak to hundreds of alumni, and they are generally mystified , as Summers seems to be doing good things and initiating long overdue reforms.</p>

12

<p>Exactly. From reading the articles, I couldn't really find a solid reason that would warrant Summers' resignation. All the complaints about him revolved on him not giving enough attention to a specific department. How is that even a reason to force a president to step down? And the articles were written in a way so that those "complaints" actually appear valid. The whole comparison between Harvard and Washington was just completely pointless.</p>

13

<p>Summers isn't gone yet. It's not over till it's over.</p>

14

<p>I'd like to make an analogy... when Gavin Newson barely won the mayorship of San Francisco, he had very, very little support among the various progressive blocks that dominate SF local politics... but in one incredibly grand gesture (decreeing that gays could marry), he easily won over all of his liberal critics, storing up a huge amount of good-will... which allowed him later to get tough and crack-down on areas that needed it...</p>

<p>Larry Summers did the opposite... literally his first week, he picked fights with famous scholars (including the entire Af-Am studies dept), and then announced that he wanted to overturn the ROTC ban... in other words, he wanted to prove he was the MAN on campus, alienating much of the faculty... now whenever he tries to do good and needed reform, he has no stores of trust or goodwill with the faculty.</p>

<p>The alumni I talk to are mystefied at how brilliant, yet completely tone-deaf Summers has been... </p>

<p>Also a bit of history... prior to Rudenstein, the president immediately preceeding Summers, there was literally no Af-Am studies left at Harvard... Rudenstein literally built the department up from scratch by wooing the very best scholars to Cambridge... so when Summers came in and picked a fight with the faculty of that department first... really within his first week... it was seen as some sort of attack on the faculty as a whole. I mean, why did he pick a fight with Cornel west as his first act as president?</p>

<p>I think everything since then has followed from the tone he set in those first few weeks... the faculty have never been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he seemed to be on the attack from day one.</p>

15

<p>"I'd like to make an analogy ... when Gavin ..."</p>

<p>Completely agree with this, and with the implication that Summers lacks the personal characteristics necessary to lead a major university. Most of the alumni I've talked with, and there are many, feel that Summers is a complete buffoon despite his supposed "intelligence."</p>

<p>"Summers isn't gone yet. It's not over till it's over."</p>

<p>He has single-handedly caused a tremendous amount of damage within the university. If the Harvard Corporation has any understanding of what is "good" for Harvard, they will stop the bleeding and politely force him aside.</p>

<p>"There is probably a little bit of Stanford envy in that one particular area..."</p>

<p>IMO, this would benefit Harvard tremendously. Summers was exactly right in recognizing that Harvard needs to greatly expand its science, enginieering, biotechnology, and other interdisciplinary research (i.e. learn something from Stanford) in order to stay relevant in the 21st century. Hopefully his successor will be able to continiue this work without all of Summers' baggage.</p>

<p>"Trouble is, his bovine predecessor basically ceded this authority to the departments, where faculty barons got used to running their own little empires..."</p>

<p>In universities (Harvard and otherwise), the President is <em>always</em> nominally the ultimate authority in the tenure process. However, the <em>reality</em> is that the departments have the power to make this determination. In other words, Presidents acknowledge that it's the faculty peers (ad hoc committees consist of experts both within <em>and</em> outside one's university) are the true experts to determine the merits of somebody's work. IMO, Summers completely abused his power by interfering with this process at the outset, in order to support his personal agenda. You can argue whether he was "right" or "wrong" (i.e. in his judgment of the merits of Cornel West's scholarship). But the bottom line is that he picked too many fights where he didn't belong ... and he's about to lose his job as a result.</p>

16

<p>The previous poster is entirely incorrect in assuming that the role of the Harvard president in tenure decisions is the same as it is elsewhere. It is most definitly NOT the same. And strong presidents such as Eliot, Lowell and Conant exercised their power forcefully. The problem at Harvard is that the lunatics got used to running the asylum during the languid presidency of Rudenstine - who couldn't bear conflict of any kind - and during the latter half of Derek Bok's regime, when he lost interest and essentially mailed it in.</p>

<p>In short, you don't know what you're talking about.</p>

<p>The "damage" to Harvard has largely been inflicted by a selfish, self-centered group of turf-protecting professors - more interested in their own comfort and perks than in what's good for the College as a whole. They don't give a damn what happens to the school as long as their tenure status, salary, office space and right to do and say what they damn please is not interfered with.</p>

17

<p>To Byerly:</p>

<p>1) The Harvard President's nominal role is the same as at virtually every other major university -- he has the ultimate authority on tenure decisions. However, the question is whether he chooses to exercise it. That power is rarely exercised by anybody these days -- for good reason, IMO. Have you actually worked at any other major research university, or are you a "scholar" who has any actual experience with the tenure process?</p>

<p>2) You describe "forceful" practices at Harvard during the glory days of Eliot et al, which occurred in a different era that was 50-100 years ago. That's very nice (and I'm actually aware of that history as well). But why should that have the least bit of relevance in today's world? Teachers used to spank kids in school ... should we re-adopt those practices as well?</p>

<p>3) During the "women in science" flap last year, you made numerous posts vehemently predicting that Larry Summers would have a long, prosperous presidency that would go down as "one of the greatest in Harvard's history." I suppose you think YOU know what you're talking about??? :)</p>

18

<p>"Eliot, Lowell and Conant" were a long time ago. Let's talk about the present and the recent past. I cannot imagine Summer's problem is challenging the tenure system itself, there is nothing he can do about it. </p>

<p>He has interjected himself into individual tenure decisions, infuriating faculty who are experts in the fields in which he has overruled their judgement. Of course, it is only a matter of opinion who was right, but he seems to have assumed that everyone would accept his decisions, only to discover how wrong he was.</p>

<p>He does have some good ideas, but he lacks the political skills to carry them out. Apparently he assumed he had far more authority as president than he does. The president's role is limited by the highly independent nature of the faculties- something he managed to overlook when he took the job. Presents are not primarily responsible for running this or similar universities. That is largely left to the schools and the deans. The presidents worry about money, donors, government and public relations, and huge big picture issues. His determination to be involved in the internal details is a large source of the problem. He sticks his nose in where he isn't needed, tries to act like an expert when the real experts know that he is not, and gives an air of arrogance that does not sit well with people all of whom are world's authorities in their fields.</p>

<p>On the other hand, he will not necessarily have to go. Part of the strength of the independence of the schools is that it insulates them from the central administration. There may be a lot of people mad at him, and a lot whom he would like to see leave, but ultimately, it just does not matter. He does not have to like them, and they do not have to like him. Because of tenure, faculties turn over slowly. Most of the people who will be tenured professors at Harvard ten years from now are tenured professors now. That will be true whether he resigns tomorrow, or stays for another 10 years.</p>

<p>So however long he remains, and whatever else he may do, he can have only limited effect on most of the schools. Even Arts and Sciences, which have born the brunt of his engagement, will stay pretty much where it is in faculty composition, wealth and influence. He may get edged out if his personality remains too much of a distraction, or if he cannot get anyone in Arts and Sciences to cooperate with him, but there is very little at stake.</p>

<p>Harvard has endured a long time, some leaders are more important or effective than others, but everyone can be replaced.</p>

19

<p>Snack,</p>

<p>While what you say is often true about deferring to the judgement of the faculty matters of tenure, it is not uniform from college to college. You only need to look across the river to the long tenure of John Silber to see similar behavior.</p>

<p>Silber had preferences in hiring and allocation of resources. He often picked fights with the faculty. Though BU is not the same institution as Harvard, Silber's autocratic style did raise the profile of the school. As an outsider it appears to me that Summers has a strong personality and is a bit tone deaf. However, components of these traits is often what is needed if you want to institute change.</p>

<p>As noted earlier, I think the move to expand the engineering department with a particular focus on bio-tech is the right thing to do. It should bear fruit within the next generation. I expect this effort will proceed with or without Summers.</p>

20

<p>Byerly said:
"The "damage" to Harvard has largely been inflicted by a selfish, self-centered group of turf-protecting professors - more interested in their own comfort and perks than in what's good for the College as a whole. They don't give a damn what happens to the school as long as their tenure status, salary, office space and right to do and say what they damn please is not interfered with."</p>

<p>And please name exactly one major research university where this isn't true? Give me a break...</p>

<p>Byerly, you're living in the past... true, all presidents have final say over tenure decisions, but wise presidents wield the power to overturn the faculty only in exceptional circumstances. The problem with Summers is he thinks he really is an expert in everything... and his arrogance has ****ed a lot of people off...</p>

<p>That said, the one thing I agree with is the move into bio-technology.
The funny thing is, when they were looking for a new president after Rudenstein, it was widely believed they were going to pick a scientist... Harvard hasn't had a scientist as a president in quite a long time.
I hope Summers resigns soon... and I hope Harvard picks a scientist to lead in this new millenium.</p>