<p>The Crimson chronicles the Corporation's growing dissatisfaction with Summers, widespread unhappiness in various grad schools beyond the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the Faculty's growing perception of "integrity" issues. Sounds like he came close to being fired outright.</p>
<p>No comments?</p>
<p>I suppose it pretty well puts to rest Summers' self-serving spin, blaming his downfall totally on the arts and sciences faculty for being troglodytes. Holding the President to basic ethical standards isn't particularly praiseworthy - because it's the least any one would/should expect - but given the way Summers' and some of his supporters were trashing the faculty, it's good to see the Crimson story give some credit to the faculty.</p>
<p>Having heard him speak a week or two after he resigned, I felt it was almost a Greek tragedy. Accomplished, at times almost eloquent, but clueless about the use of his examples (four males out of five students lifted up and the only female student exemplar was praised for a traditional female "caretaker "role - powerful, good story but the women students no doubt have done some good things in arts, science or politics, etc, like their male counterparts). Obviously he's very smart, felt personally comfortable in his role, but sadly could not move beyond a brooding hubris, without humility or wisdom.</p>
<p>Nice bump. ;)</p>
<p>Classic case of reading into a story what you're looking to find.</p>
<p>I read the series of articles in the Crimson.
Summers alienated members of FAS and of some other schools as well.
I believe he had the support of many, perhaps most, of the FAS faculty about his vision for Harvard and Allston. Remember that Allston was acquired under Rudenstine's watch and that discussions about its use had already been underway when Summers took over. Rundenstine, for example, was not able to persuade the Law School to move to Allston, though it would have been closer to the B-school. His attempt to do so provoked such a backlash that it took the appointment of Elena Kagan, a close friend of Summers and also a consumate coalition-builder, to calm things down.
Summers was a in a better position to push through an ambitious agenda than Rudenstine was. But Summers was asking for FAS to be willing to set aside payout on a large chunk of endowment for the Allston development for a long period of time; that had an impact of a whole host of issues,including hiring more faculty and thus reducing faculty:student ratio.
The curricular review itself was bound to be contentious. Even under the most optimal conditions, the faculty would be in a state of constant debate and probably disagreement over one thing or another. The combination of Allston planning and curricular review was particularly fraught with tension.
When you launch very large-scale change, you need buy-in from the people who will be most affected by it and will have to implement most of the change. In order to do so, you need to build trust. The Crimson article suggests that the FAS faculty did not trust him. The Dept. Chairs, in particular, seem to have had their own examples of reasons for mistrust; but they were held by confidentiality from publicizing these reasons. Peter Ellison's public explanation for his resignation was one such example that strenghtened the case of the Dept. Chairs.<br>
The Shleifer affair was perhaps the decisive factor. No one ever suggested that Summers was implicated in the wrongdoings of Shleifer and Hay; but obviously, some were troubled by Summers continued support of Shleifer, the total lack of disciplinary action against Shleifer who cost $26 millions to the university and damaged its reputation. Shleifer may be Nobel-prize materials; he may deserved the named chair he was awarded. But that obviously did not sit well with many members of the faculty (and with outsiders who know about the case). When Summers declared that he did not know enough about the case to comment, he lost the confidence of many of his supporters.
I suspect that, if he had been more forthright on that issue, he might have survived a vote of no-confidence.
Summers rightly earned the support of the students. He spent a lot of time cultivating them. I'm told he charmed the students at Wellesley when he went there to give a talk. Would that he had spent more time cultivating the faculty.
I could not help but reflect how inappropriate Gergen's advice to Summers was: "Act presidential." But a university president is not the same as the POTUS. It was a mistake to confuse the two positions.</p>
<p>I've long wondered about the Law School's not moving, if not to Allston then to the Quad & Cronkite (?) so that it still has a Cambridge address. Or are there too many Law school students for the Quad? </p>
<p>For the College, it seems a no-brainer for it to expand there and keep Harvard Yard in the center of things. </p>
<p>How is it the Law School has more power than the College? Does it "own" its land and buildings</p>
<p>I have no idea why the Law SChool refused to move. In some ways, it would make a lot of sense for it to be closer to the B-school and to KSG also. Perhaps the faculty thought it would be too disruptive? Instead, it seems like cash-poor HGSE will be the one to move. </p>
<p>I also think that the graduate student dorms could be turned over for undergraduates instead of having undergraduates move to Allston and having to rely on shuttles. Yale students have been complaining about the unreliable shuttles from the Colleges to the science buildings on top of the hill. And Harvard proposes to house undergraduates across the river. Oh well...</p>
<br>
<p>I have no idea why the Law SChool refused to move. In some ways, it would make a lot of sense for it to be closer to the B-school and to KSG also.</p>
<br>
<p>It would make complete sense, much more sense than moving the undergrads. I was totally in favor of this move, as were some of my fellow alumni. The faculty wouldn't budge. Their goal is what's best for their OWN school, not what makes sense for the university. The HLS campus has a lot of history, and they'd just spent some insane amount of money renovating the library, etc. I think they perceived being moved to Allston as a symbolic move down the totem pole. None of the other schools want to acknowledge the primacy of the College. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the Harvard admin can't force any of the faculties to move. Law dug in its heels; FAS cooperated. So that's why the College is (in part) moving instead of the law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no idea why the Law SChool refused to move. In some ways, it would make a lot of sense for it to be closer to the B-school and to KSG also. Perhaps the faculty thought it would be too disruptive?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HLS senior faculty have optimized their housing locations with respect to the current location of HLS. Some have very nice houses within walking distance of HLS. Others commute in from the west (Belmont, Lexington, etc.) in locations such that heading to Allston would involve significant additional traffic hassle. HLS current location is also far more convenient to the subway than Allston.</p>
<p>It will NOT be more convenient to public transportation after the Allston Project is completed. In fact, transportation improvements may come in an early phase.</p>
<p>I agree with Byerly. Transportation improvements are absolutely needed to make this work.</p>