Whose Corporation Is It?
Steve Bailey of the Boston Globe adds his
voice to a growing number of thinkers raising doubts about the Corporation's role in Harvard's governance.
The key quote: "Summers can try to run the place like a top-down chief executive. But Harvard also needs a board that's up to the job of the 21st century. Harvard's president just lost an astounding vote of confidence by the faculty. Would its board have fared any better?"
The answer, I think, is that the Corporation would have fared even worse.
As I've suggested before, Harvard has a fundamental, structural governance problem. The powers of the Board of Overseers have been increasingly diminished. Meanwhile, the secretive, answerable-to-no one Corporation has grown stronger and stronger—and less and less diverse.
Three members of the seven-member board (Summers is one, ex officio) have left since Summers became president. One, Hanna Gray, is leaving, to be replaced by Nan Keohane, former president of Duke. (The token woman leaves to be replaced by--yes!--a token woman.)
Which means that four members of the board essentially owe their appointments to Summers. Plus the president makes five of seven.
If you were inclined to be paranoid, you could say that Summers has fundamentally taken control of the university governance structure.
If not, you could just ask whether the Corporation could possibly be an independent voice. Will it act in the best interests of the university? Or the man who appointed 56% of its members?
