Can We Talk?
A website named "Spiked Liberties" has
this report on Larry Summers' address to the Harvard Club of New York last week. Well, actually, it's not much of a report because Summers' remarks were off-the-record. As blogger George Blecher writes, "the President of the Club announced: 'This is a private gathering. All working press - Harvard grads or otherwise - should be advised that President Summers' remarks are completely off the record.'"
Blecher happens to be a supporter of Summers, arguing that he's a victim of a public fear of controversial ideas. But I wonder if even he isn't a little disturbed by the idea of the president of Harvard speaking at a large gathering on an off-the-record basis. Has there ever been a Harvard president before Larry Summers who routinely declared his remarks off-the-record? Isn't there a contradiction between saying that you want to spur public debate and refusing to be quoted? Doesn't that suggest that you want to make "provocative" remarks, but don't want to take responsibility for them?
Back in January, Summers' defenders repeatedly used the argument that his remarks at the NBER conference were supposed to be off-the-record and, therefore, it was unfair to hold him accountable for them. I'm not sure I understand the logic, but I'm more worried about the implications. Under what conditions should the president of the world's most important university insist upon speaking off the record?
Of course, I'm not the president of Harvard, and don't have the bully pulpit that Larry Summers does—fewer people care what I say. But as a point of principle, I don't speak off the record except in very rare circumstances. When you know that you can be quoted, you hold yourself to a higher standard, and avoid the low road.
Politicians speak off the record. Press secretaries, publicists, and spies speak off the record. Professors, journalists, writers, and university presidents...shouldn't.
