<p>Well... I think we will have to agree to diagree.
As I said... I agree with the need for reforms.</p>
<p>Lets hope the Corporation sticks by its guns. If "reform" depends on faculty-generated initiatives, it will never happen.</p>
<p>The corporation is keeping mum, but around here and at 14 Plympton St, I'm starting to get the impression that corporation members are losing faith as well.</p>
<p>Why not submit a draft editorial, or op ed piece, Sunglasses, following up on the Crimson's most recent effort, reiterating student support for the embattled chieftan? I'll be watching for your byline!</p>
<p>H<em>and</em>B, I generally find your posts to be interesting and rational. One question for you or others:</p>
<p>I absolutely agree that there is some need for reform, and that one of Summers' good initiatives was the expansion of science, engineering, and biotechnology. One of the faculty complaints seems to be that the sciences (perhaps one of the fields where Summers feels that "smart" human beings tend to congregate) are being favored over the humanities. By my reading, there may be some fear that he's trying to make Harvard less Yale-like and more Stanford-like.</p>
<p>Could a scientist successfully serve as the next Harvard president, given the mess that has occurred recently? Perhaps it's a question of finding somebody with the "right" personality for this type of thing...</p>
<p>snack,</p>
<p>Harvard has ALWAYS been incredibly strong in the pure sciences...
However, there has been resistance to expand into engineering ever since the Harvard-MIT merger failed back in the 1900's... there was a belief, I think, that with MIT literally just next door, there was no need to duplicate. Part of me thinks that maybe Harvard should not try to expand into all areas of engineering, but perhaps in special niches where they can have the most impact... like bio-engineering, biomedical engineering, genetic engineering, protein engineering, etc.. especially with the amazing resources at Harvard Med. </p>
<p>another emerging area of engineering is nanotechnology... i think harvard could make moves in this field given its strengths in physics, applied physics, and engineering physics... </p>
<p>I don't think faculty resistance to Summer was over the science/engineering vs. humanities issue... so I don't think the faculty will be upset or resistant to a scientist at the helm... of course, a scientist in charge is still going to have a difficult time...
my opinion is that you need a scientist who ALSO has the right political skills to finesse the faculty...</p>
<p>I do think Stanford is an excellent model... they were lucky in that when they were founded, engineering was pretty much on equal footing from the start... and I think Stanford and Harvard are, institutionally, the most similar. So maybe they should tap the dean of the Stanford engineering to be president... i think that would go a long way to showing how serious harvard is in terms of expanding engineering.</p>
<p>In any case, I think its clear that Summers is now a lame duck... the faculty will not work with him on anything now... the blood is in the water.</p>
<p>snack: "One of the faculty complaints seems to be that the sciences (perhaps one of the fields where Summers feels that "smart" human beings tend to congregate) are being favored over the humanities."</p>
<p>Not only faculty, but also some heavy-hitting, big dollar alums [would that I were so wealthy!] share this concern. Perhaps that's prejudice against the MIT kid, but his leadership style has been a huge public relations disaster, which is damaging the Harvard brand, which the Corporation members no doubt must view as the one unpardonable sin</p>
<p>Crimson: "Poll: Students Say Summers Should Stay"</p>
<p>I was polled.</p>
<p>My man MATT!</p>
<p>More from today's Boston Globe. The article seems to support the earlier comments by Byerly:</p>
<p>Maybe a younger male will beat his chest, charge from the undergrowth and silverback Summers will retreat into the forest. But why would any ape seek to lead such inevitable feces-throwers? Having to guard yourself every moment against becoming unpopular,...</p>
<p>All the Cassius types among the FAS barons are hoping for a Brutus to do the dirty work for them.</p>
<p>Exactly, Byerly, though they might be fishing around for some last words of latin flavor. Following the leader seems to involve eventually clubbing him on the head. Then the chorus of complainers wonder why only the thick-skulled volunteer,..</p>
<p>Oh please... poor, poor Summers... victim of PC run amok... he had absolutely nothing to do with his downfall... boo hoo...
Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhht.</p>
<br>
<p>Summer's actual incompetence or mostly from political reasons?</p>
<br>
<p>That's just it. He's having political problems because of a lack of political skill. So those two issues are really one and the same.</p>
<p>I don't think it matters what his agenda is or whether it's right or wrong. Great leaders get the troops behind them.</p>
<p>For an example of how to do things right, look at Elena Kagan, the Harvard Law dean. She's brought radical change to the law school in just a few years -- because she didn't start out by rolling heads. She reached out to everyone in the beginning, so when her agenda was rolled out, the whole faculty was willing to stand behind it. If you want to achieve larger goals, don't get into the business of knocking people off their pedestals until you have won over a LOT of friends.</p>
<p>re the ROTC issue: this is one of the reasons I like Summers. It is inconscionable that Harvard does not allow ROTC on campus. I hope he stays there so that maybe by the time I graduate, it will be back on campus. At least they get commissioned there now. I know that for a while, ROTC students weren't even allowed to put "ROTC" in their yearbooks...wonder if this has changed.</p>
<p>Hanna... I agree.</p>
<p>And I will say it again, because it needs repeating...
You cannot run Harvard the same way you run the Treasury Department.
Summers behaved as if he had way more power than he actually did...
in the Treasury Department, you can make heads roll, and order your troops to march in lock-step with your vision... not so at a university such as Harvard which is incredibly decentralized.</p>
<p>boston usmc... the ban is not just on ROTC...
that is, ROTC was NOT singled-out in any way.</p>
<p>Harvard has a GENERAL rule that says ANY organization that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is not allowed on campus.
If you do not like this policy, there are at least 3000 other colleges & universities out there to choose from.</p>
<p>It is that state of being "incredibly decentralized" that simply has to change, and the Corporation charged Summers with initiating such change. </p>
<p>The FAS faculty barons are passionately dedicated to resisting change of any kind.</p>
<p>And when it comes to allowing the armed forces to recruit on campus in exchange for billions in federal aid, Summers (and most Alumni, in addition to Congress and most Americans) think the FAS is the true hotbed of bigotry.</p>
<hr>
<p>To BostonUSMC: do not give up on Harvard. The faction who hold to the shameful views typically voiced here by "harvard<em>and</em>berkeley" will, hopefully, be put in their place by the United States Supreme Court before very long</p>
<p>ROTC is singled out, unfairly. Harvard has no right to ban an organization which is training students to defend the "rights" that they are so fond of. The students who are part of ROTC are being unfairly discriminated against; Harvard should be welcoming this diversity on campus, and be thankful for the scholarships it provides (which are full tuition, by the way). This just further contributes the cultural gap between the military and academia. </p>
<p>And you know what? I just might not attend Harvard for this reason. In addition to my EA acceptance to Harvard, I have an Appointment to the Naval Academy which I might accept instead. It's a shame that Harvard could lose students over such a thing.</p>