Links
Archives
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A friend sends... ... this editorial, in this morning’s Washington Post: UNIVERSITIES EXIST to pose tough questions, promote critical thinking, and generally challenge complacency and prejudice. When he became president of Harvard five years ago, Lawrence H. Summers determined that the university was not living up to this mission: It was infected by its own complacencies and prejudices, and he did not shrink from saying so. This outspokenness won Mr. Summers support across the university: A new online poll conducted by the Harvard Crimson found that 57 percent of undergraduates supported him -- only 19 percent thought he should resign -- and the deans of several faculties praised his leadership. But Mr. Summers alienated a vocal portion of the Arts and Sciences faculty, which pressed last year for a vote of no confidence in him and recently forced a second such vote on to the schedule for next week. Yesterday Mr. Summers preempted that second vote by announcing that he would step down in the summer. Because of the prestige of Harvard, his defeat may demoralize reformers at other universities. Couple of things to note here. The editorial is very short. That’s because it overlooks some things. I agree with it on the women and science thing - he said nothing objectionable, and shouldn't have been hounded about it. But on West - West is an actual intellectual, or was for enough years that I've learned a lot reading some of his essays in philosophy, etc. I think Summers misplayed that one. West has done some trivial things lately, but he has a solid history of scholarship. As to Summers changing business as usual: The editorial says nothing about the fact that Summers allowed the yearly salaries and other compensation of Harvard's money managers to rise as high as $30 million for each of them until alumni outrage forced him to stop doing that. That wasn’t shaking things up. That was Harvard arrogance and entitlement as of old. And Summers, the Post editorial fails to point out, allowed his crony in the economics department, Andrei Shleifer, to go without any institutional punishment at all, even though his illegal money dealings in Russia forced Harvard to pay the largest legal decision against it in its history ($44 million) to the federal government, and also screwed up Harvard's relationship with the government and generated terrible publicity. Instead of punishing Shleifer, the university, under Summers, gave him a named chair. Again, hardly anti-establishment. Summers may have spoken of reform and shaking things up, but because of his management style he actually, in five years, accomplished little. Yes, Harvard undergrads whose families make less than $40,000 a year can now attend the university admission-free. But note that yearly income. Harvard, with its $25 billion plus endowment, can afford to pay virtually everyone's full tuition into the distant future. Why set the income figure so ridiculously low? |