<p>From the Harvard Crimson, Monday, February 27, 2006</p>
<p>" ... The central lesson of this sordid story is that Harvard is a place of its owna tender, delicate place where perceived offenses are clamored upon with professorial cattiness. It is not the efficient outside world, where open, honest talk is not only encouraged, but is essential because the greatest danger is that something will be left unsaid, not that something unpleasant will be uttered..." </p>
<p>From the current New Republic...</p>
<p>" ...Summers was brought down not because he was politically incorrect or bad at soothing academic egos, though those things contributed far more than they should have. The core problem is that he wanted to shake up the comfortable world of higher education. Most Americans think of universities as a bastion of the political left, and in one sense they are. But in a deeper sense, institutions like Harvard embody a particularly blind sort of conservatism: All change causes discomfort, and so must be resisted. In this deeper sense, Summers was and is very much a man of the left--the best kind of left. Good for him. Harvard's governing board has now chosen, publicly and emphatically, the status quo. Bad for them, and before long, bad for all of us. A friend of mine who runs a small business likes to say that the last move of a failing enterprise is to fire all those who want change. It's hard to imagine another such reform-minded president in a top university anytime soon. From now on, the forces pushing change will all come from the outside. Inside, we will see only denial and resistance, in equal measure. The downward spiral will accelerate.</p>
<p>Not just in Cambridge. The health of any single university is no large matter. But in this market, the top players set the terms for everyone else. If the Ivies and Stanford and the top state universities continue to do things the old-fashioned way, schools farther down the food chain have to do the same, or risk losing their best faculty members. It's a little like the early stages of a Ponzi scheme: Everyone wants to keep it going as long as possible, and the odds are it won't end just yet. My generation of academics (I'm 47) will get ours and then, probably, get out before the crash--just as GM's managers in the 1950s got theirs, then went on to rich retirements. But woe to those who come after us..."</p>
<p>Enough. </p>
<p>Harvard had a president. He could not get along with the FAS, and was fired. Harvard will get a new president. Larry Summers will get a new job. </p>
<p>The free world does may fall, but not because of the identity of the Harvard president.</p>
<p>"Harvard's governing board has now chosen, publicly and emphatically, the status quo."</p>
<p>That assessment really can't be made until Harvard's new president has been selected. I predict they'll choose a more successful change agent. Summers was simply ill-suited for this job, and the "governing board" had no choice but to replace him.</p>
<p>I am of a contrary mind. </p>
<p>Summers was ideally suited for the job.</p>
<p>It remains to be seen who will replace him. I am not optimistic, however, that a change agent will be selected.</p>
<p>The tendency is to lurch back and forth, avoiding the perceived weaknesses of the prior incumbent.</p>
<p>Bok was high profile, flexible and relaxed, after Pusey was withdrawn, rigid and uptight, but stayed too long and got bored with the job; Rudenstine seemed engaged and didn't mind raising money; after 10 years of intellectual drift under Rudenstine, who was congenitally unable to deal with problems, a tough guy was needed.</p>
<p>Now, presumably, another wimp will be sought - or, more likely, an affirmative action pick - to appease the leftist elements within the faculty.</p>
<p>Hope I'm wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hope I'm wrong
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly what Summers said, when he surmised that gender discrimination and different socialisation were ' only secondary ' factors for uneven representation of the genders among tenured science professors :D</p>
<p>"My January remarks substantially understated the impact of socialization and discrimination, including implicit attitudes - patterns of thought to which all of us are unconsciously subject. The issue of gender difference is far more complex than comes through in my comments, and my remarks about variability went beyond what the research has established. These are dynamic areas of inquiry, which will no doubt continue to engage scholars in the years ahead. </p>
<p>"For now, if any good can come out of the recent controversy, I hope the intense attention on issues of gender can provide us with an opportunity to make concrete progress in the time ahead. It is vital that we aggressively implement policies that will encourage girls and women to pursue science at the highest levels, and that we welcome and support them in our faculty ranks."</p>
<p>Mea maxima culpa.</p>
<p>But prostrating himself, and throwing $50 million of Harvard's money into a specially created AA effort, wasn't enough to soften the hearts of those whose sensibilities he so grieviously offended.</p>
<p>If anything, it only gave them a taste of blood.</p>
<p>Summers had also made MAJOR efforts to repair his relations with Harvard's African-American community:</p>
<p>I think the resignation probably had as much to do with concern over the Shleifer matter as anything else. That problem was certainly the source of outrage at the 2/7 meeting. </p>
<p>Books* will be written.....</p>
<p>*Harry Lewis has one in press that at least touches on this:</p>
<p>EXCELLENCE WITHOUT A SOUL -- How a Great University Forgot Education</p>
<p>Dean Gross has been a huge improvement over Lewis as Dean of the College, IMHO, and I believe most undergrads would agree.... but he is certainly entitled to his revenge.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, I suspect Summers problem with the faculty had relatively little to do with his challenge of Cornel West or his public ruminations about women and the sciences. Those were sideshows. The real tensions were around university goverance, academic standards, and accountability. </p>
<p>I do take exception, however, to Byerly's dismissive characterization of a potential successor who might be a woman or person of color as an "affirmative action pick." There are many managers and leaders from those groups who are tough and effective. There are also many from the pool Byerly might consider more "typical" who are achingly incompetent. </p>
<p>Actually, I'd love to see Harvard select a top-flight woman President (the first in Harvard's 370-year history) who could kick a little butt. In fact, Byerly, that might be the Corporation's and Summers' ultimate revenge on the faculty: send them a Summers-like President who happens to be a woman. Think about it: what would the guardians of political correctness do then?</p>
<p>If we think of professors like Judith Ryan or Lorand Matory on one hand and maybe Alan Dershowitz, Benedict Gross and Ruth Wisse on the other hand:</p>
<p>Is it legitiamte to state that Summers had his most vociferous opponents among women and afro-americans in the humanities and his staunchest supporters among the Jewish community and most of the sciences?</p>
<p>Has the Jewish community - who has given Summers several warm welcomes, like at Shabbath 1000 the other day - ever claimed that his ousting had anti-semitic undertones?</p>
<p>Can the pro and con camps generally be described along certain characteristics? Or at least, what Byerly keeps calling the "FAS turf protectors"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, Byerly, that might be the Corporation's and Summers' ultimate revenge on the faculty: send them a Summers-like President who happens to be a woman.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>... Amy Gutman may decide there is more merit in turning around her alma mater and that Penn's a lost case anyhow :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
much to do with concern over the Shleifer matter as anything else
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Didn't Ryan say she filed the motion because of Kirby?</p>
<p>But it was the Shleifer mess that cost him Putnam and many other former supporters.</p>
<p>Its all a battle over who's going to control the grant of tenure, and whether certain departments are going to be guaranteed a certain slice of the pie. Summers' predecessor had virtually ceeded control of tenure decisions to the faculty barons; Summers' biggest offense was actually choosing to exercise his nominal powers in this area.</p>
<hr>
<p>I'd be very happy to see Condi Rice in the job - and she actually has relevant experience at Stanford.</p>
<p>Won't happen, however - particularly if the FAS is allowed to stick their noses into the process. A party line academic leftist is virtually assured.</p>
<p>The Shliefer thing is a total red herring - simply a way to smear Summers' name after he's gone in order to disguise the assassins' less noble, more selfish motivations.</p>
<p>"The Shliefer thing is a total red herring - simply a way to smear Summers' name after he's gone in order to disguise the assassins' less noble, more selfish motivations."</p>
<p>Not so. It was brouht up repeatedly at the 2/7 meeting -- before he was gone -- by former suppporters of his, one a professor of mechanical engineering and another, Robert Putnam, who is an extremely highly esteemed former head of the Kennedy School, former head of the American Political Science Association, etc., etc.</p>
<hr>
<p>Dr. Summers' recusal, said Robert D. Putnam, a former dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, was a turning point. </p>
<p>"When the president responded in a manifestly untruthful way to questions that were asked about the Shleifer case," Mr. Putnam said, "it had a devastating effect on the views of people who were to that point uncommitted, people who, like me, were strong supporters of his agenda."</p>
<p>Oh, I know all that, but its still a red herring - a guilt by association thing passed around in anonymous plain brown envelopes. I had read it when it was first published (by a classmate, as it happens.) Interesting stuff, but only added to the pot here by turf-protectors trying desperately to find something they could play up as a smoking gun - disguising their real, baser motivations.</p>
<p>Actually, I second Condi Rice... she used to be Provost at Stanford and has the right experience for the job... and as an added bonus we relieve her of the damage she inflicts on the U.S. on the global stage... </p>
<p>Hey... a win-win... something for both conservatives and liberals...</p>
<p>"I second Condi Rice... she used to be Provost at Stanford and has the right experience for the job... and as an added bonus we relieve her of the damage she inflicts on the U.S. on the global stage..."</p>
<p>And just imagine what would happen if the folks in Allston had the nerve to resist Harvard's growth into that territory -- she could draw on her experience from the past few years and simply invade it!</p>