Shots In The Dark
The Dignity of Life, Part 2
News flash: the Pope has a urinary tract infection.
Exodus....
Another African-American scholar is leaving Harvard. Tenured political scientist
Michael Dawson, a graduate of Berkeley with a Ph.D. from Harvard, says farewell in this e-mail:
<<
Subject: With regrets
Dear Colleagues,
I'm sad to say that for a variety of reasons--including some important
familial ones--[my wife] and I have decided to return to the University
of Chicago. I regret that I didn't get to work with many of you more
closely than I have been able to, but know that the future of the
department is extraordinarily bright and it will be my loss that I will
be unable to join you in the coming years.
With all my best wishes,
Michael>>
Is this a sign of things to come?
Sloppy Journalism for You
This Reuters article about the anti-Semitism debate at Columbia contains the following egregious lines: "The Columbia controversy is one of several freedom of speech issues to hit U.S. college campuses. Harvard University President Lawrence Summers was criticized for comments about women's aptitude for science..."
The controversy over Summers' remarks was
not a controversy over free speech, despite the attempts of a number of conservative commentators to frame it that way. It was a debate over a university president saying that women in science are held back by genetic shortcomings, which in turn fueled a debate over that president's leadership style.
No one was saying that President Summers' 1st Amendment rights have been impaired—no one serious, anyway. This Reuters journalist is editorializing by presenting the Summers controversy that way...
It's Not Just Harvard's Problem
The
Yale Daily News reports on
a contentious faculty meeting at which women and minorities (in particular, though not exclusively) lamented a lack of diversity on the Yale faculty. The story shows just how complicated this issue is, and how the specific issues can break down differently for women, as opposed to people of color. For example: It may be relatively easy to recruit women in the humanities, but not in the sciences. The challenges for minority faculty seem even greater: they appear to be more scarce across the board.
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology chair Stephen Stearns explained that "
his department recently hired four new faculty members, two of whom were women, and although the department's senior faculty helped search for minority candidates, they were unable to find any candidates of color whom they believed would have reasonable chances of attaining tenure. Also, Stearns said it is difficult to identify minority candidates because candidates often do not indicate their ethnicity in their applications."
It is an irony that, while Larry Summers' clumsy remarks back in January have been extremely damaging to him, and at least in the short term damaging to Harvard, there's no doubt that Summers has brought enormous attention to a serious problem at campuses across the country. As he might put it, this wasn't his intent, but it certainly was his effect.
Summers' story, like that of the challenge of recruiting female and minority professors, defies simple conclusions....
The Finn Brothers Take the Stage—Sadly
Neil and Tim Finn, two of the three remaining members of Crowded House, played a gig at London's Royal Albert Hall the other night,
as described by the
Financial Times.
Key quote: <
And so the masters of catchy tunes and feelgood chord changes found themselves in improbably melancholy mood, one that Neil Finn in particular managed to shake off only during an extended and poignant encore. For the rest of the time, he looked listless and uninspired, while brother Tim took over most of the big stage numbers.>>
The encore was, fittingly enough, "Don't Dream It's Over."
UC-Berkeley Weighs In
The
Daily Californian, the newspaper of the University of California at Berkeley, has
this take on the women in science issue. You won't find this article in the "Harvard in the News" wrap-up, but it's representative of a genre I've seen quite a bit of in the past few weeks: college newspapers using Larry Summers' remarks on women in science to demonstrate how much more progressive their institution/president is than Harvard/'s.
Two thoughts:
1) Individually and collectively, these articles damage Harvard's reputation. It's a subtle thing, but Harvard is becoming better known for the off-base remarks of its controversial president than for all the amazing scholarship and remarkable graduates the university produces.
2) One of the striking things about Harvard's culture is how masculine it is. In ways small and big, obvious and subtle, from the number of female tenured faculty, the coolness of much social interaction, the macho, competitive culture—even the fact that out of something like 42 portraits in the faculty room, only two are of women. And don't even get me started on the subject of Hanna Gray...
I can't help but think that this gender-construction at Harvard is unhealthy, and it's one of the ways in which Larry Summers was a problematic choice for president. He was steeped in masculine cultures from the time he went to college, if not before. More, he'd scorn the intellectual genres—women's studies, for example—that would provide some insight into this state of affairs.....
Harvard: We're #27!
Even though Harvard College is on spring break at the moment, the
Crimson follows up the
Globe with this
story about Harvard's abysmal ranking in a poll of student satisfaction. I suppose because the students are gone, the
Crimson interviews a number of professors—Steve Pinker, Harvey Mansfield, et al—about their opinions on the survey. The professors' comments are, with one or two exceptions, inadvertently hilarious, as they merely reflect the prejudices of the person being interviewed and they show just how little Harvard professors know about undergraduate life. Steve Pinker, for example, uses the opportunity to talk (yet again) about what a great humanitarian Larry Summers is, while Mansfield blames the problem on—what a shock—the faculty. (I'm surprised he didn't specify "feminists.")
Here's something I've wondered: Who leaked this document to Marcella Bombardieri in the
Boston Globe in the first place? Was it a Summers opponent who wanted to keep the heat on?
Pope Dope
So unlike
Terri Schiavo, the Pope now has a
feeding tube. "Frail Pope Supports Dignity for the Ill," headlines the
Drudge Report. "Wants Life Support to the End."
It's dangerous to overinterpret a headline, of course, but since Matt's take on the Pope seems supported by consensus, let's parse that. The Pope apparently can't speak, so he wanders over to a window for a brief moment to show his believers that he's still alive. On Easter Sunday, his image is beamed to the masses, but shown only from behind. His illness has become a morbid spectacle watched the world over. He's being fed through a tube.
This is dignity for the ill?
Given that the Pope apparently can't speak for himself, it's hard not to wonder how much this situation is being manipulated by high-ups in the Vatican. Who knows what power struggles and intrigues are taking place behind the scenes?
I'm not a Catholic, but I've always had tremendous respect for this pope, a remarkable and inspiring man. Lately, though, I'm just feeling sorry for him. Where is the dignity in having a tube inserted into your stomach just to keep the body functioning past the point where the Lord is calling you home? I don't find this death-watch inspiring; I find it tawdry.
From a journalist's perspective, this is a book one would love to write. I'm not qualified to, but someone should: the behind-the-scenes story of what's happening inside the Vatican during the last months of the Pope's life. It'd read like
The Da Vinci Code....
Pipes Down
Students and faculty at the University of Toronto are protesting a lecture by pro-Israeli academic Daniel Pipes. They're not trying to stop him from speaking; they just don't want people to go hear him.
I was skeptical—is this just another example of pro-Palestinian radical chic—until I read this
letter in the University of Toronto newspaper...sounds to me like the protesters have a point.
Don't Dream It's Over
That's the name of a song by the New Zealand band
Crowded House, a group I've loved for two decades and still listen to frequently, even though they broke up in 1994. Crowded House created bright, catchy pop music that sounded easy but was exquisitely crafted. And on many of their songs, their playful quality was tempered with a dark and subversive take on life, so typical of the art produced by musicians and filmmakers from that part of the world. Plus, they wrote some of the most heartbreakingly honest and beautiful love songs you could ever hear, like the aforementioned "Don't Dream It's Over."
The first Crowded House album came out in 1986, as I was graduating college and moving to Washington, D.C., to start a career in journalism, making $25 a week as an intern at the Center for Investigative Reporting. When I hear Crowded House now, I can't help but think of those days...the wonderful stale popcorn and cheap beer at Mr. Egan's, the fire department coming after my roommate and I lit our Christmas tree on fire (on purpose), bailing the aforementioned roommate out of jail after he decided to take his unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured motorcycle for a spin on the Washington Mall....
That year or the next, I got the chance to see Crowded House play at
the Bayou in Washington, and they were just fantastic—playful, fun, warm. An extremely likable bunch of guys. But perhaps the one having the most fun was drummer Paul Hester, who, even from behind his drum kit, appeared to be having the time of his life. He was the jester of the group, and he made everyone in the audience laugh along with him. (A friend reminds me that at one point he used his whisks to play bandmember Neil Finn's guitar.)
Some months after the death of my boss, John Kennedy, in 1999, I traveled to Australia, where Crowded House is hugely popular. I listened to the group all throughout that recuperative journey. You couldn't really help it; Aussies love their local heroes. Crowded House helped bring some light to that dark period of my life.
But things are not always what they seem. Yesterday the
New York Times reported that
Paul Hester took his own life at the age of 46, leaving behind two daughters. He hanged himself from a tree in a park near Melbourne, Australia.
This one is tough. Only Crowded House fans will get this, but without Paul Hester, there is a hole in the river. Like the song says, I hope he was dreaming of glory/miles above the mountains and plains/free at last....
Bulldoggery
I had a great visit to Yale yesterday, although I do have one pointer for aspiring lecturers: try not to give your talk at the exact same time as a much-publicized lecture by
New York Times columnist David Brooks. Nonetheless, thanks to all those people who came to the Branford College master's tea and to the Yale Bookstore for some terrific conversation. And much appreciation to Branford master Steven Smith and writing tutor Fred Strebeigh for setting up the event. It's always nice to make a return visit to Yale, and New Haven certainly looks much spiffier than when I was a student....
The Natives Really Are Restless
A group of students at Columbia is
circulating a petition calling for the resignation of Lee Bollinger because his speech the other day was, apparently, an insufficiently strong defense of free speech for them.
I'm off to Yale to speak, but more later...
If You Happen to be in New Haven--
—and why wouldn't you be?—I'll be speaking at the Yale Bookstore at 6:30 PM tonight...and would love to see you there.
Like Some Sort of Ivy League Tranny?
Shocking news: Larry Summers is
becoming a transvestite. You read it here first. Or maybe second.
Shocked, Shocked (Part 2)
Three political scientists have
surveyed 1, 800 university professors and concluded that—yes—academics really are more liberal than the general population.
According to the
Washington Post's Howie Kurtz, "
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative."
There are some hints that this study should be taken with a grain of salt: the data is six years old, the study was funded by a conservative group called the
Randolph Foundation, and the political characterizations are self-descriptions by the academics surveyed.
I'm sure that this report will have conservatives such as David Horowitz, author of the Academic Bill of Rights, hollering that campuses need affirmative action for conservative professors.
But should anyone really be surprised by these numbers? To the extent that being liberal in today's United States means being open-minded, non-moralistic, and non-judgmental, then of course you're going to find that academics tend to be liberal.
The real problem for conservatives is the deep strain of anti-intellectualism inherent in much of modern conservativism. (See, for example, the conservative fight against the teaching of evolution.) How, for example, could you go into science when you don't believe in the scientific method? How could you become, say, an anthropologist when you're more interested in judging other people's behavior than understanding it?
It's also possible that this story misses the larger point: that while university faculties may be liberal, universities themselves are not—and at universities across the country, faculties have a smaller and smaller role in governance and decision-making. The number-crunchers rule. And guess what? They're conservative.
The Hue-Manity
Thanks so much to the good people at
Hue-Man bookstore in Harlem for hosting the event with Cornel West and me last night—and thanks to everyone who braved an absolutely miserable night of cold and pelting rain to come hear us. Sometimes book-writing can seem like a good way to play a cruel joke on oneself. In Boston, my reading at the Old South Meeting House took place on the coldest March 9th in the city's recorded history. Last night, the reading began after it had been pouring rain for around 17 consecutive hours, until New York looked like something out of
Blade Runner.
But then you get a warm and welcoming group of people in a fantastic and important bookstore like Hue-Man, and people who ask smart and thoughtful questions, and welcome you into their community, and writing books for a living suddenly seems like not such a crazy idea after all.
If you weren't able to make it, C-SPAN recorded the event for posterity, or at least for "Book Notes." I'll keep you posted on the airtime as soon as they tell me....
We're Shocked, Shocked (Part 1)
According to an
internal Harvard memo reported by Marcella Bombardieri of the
Boston Globe, Harvard students have such low levels of satisfaction with their college experience, Harvard ranks 27th out of a group of 31 elite universities, including the entire Ivy League.
Key quote: <<''Harvard students are less satisfied with their undergraduate educations than the students at almost all of the other COFHE schools," according to the memo, dated Oct. 2004 and marked ''confidential." ''Harvard student satisfaction compares even less favorably to satisfaction at our closest peer institutions.">>
That's basically a fancy way of saying that Harvard students don't like their university.
Or—forgive me while I toot my own horn—as I write in
Harvard Rules, "A startling number of Harvard students will tell you that they don't like their school. They appreciate it. They respect it. They are thankful for the opportunities it provides them. But they don't
like Harvard."
The question is why. I think it has something to do with the established culture of the institution: hurried, competitive, over-achieving, and individualistic. This is not a warm and nurturing place. It's not a
fun place.
But it's not just the institution's fault. So many kids at Harvard have worked since kindergarten to get into the university, you'd sometimes think that they wouldn't know fun if it hit them on the head. They've put the university on such a pedestal, they don't realize that once you're there, it's all right sometimes just to play. College may be the last time in life when you can have fun without guilt...but at Harvard, some kids feel guilty whenever they're not doing the same things that helped them get in in the first place: over-achieving like mad.
Women in Pictures
Cartoonist Sage Stossel has this
entertaining take on a women in science panel discussion held at the Radcliffe Institute on March 21st...
Perhaps the most interesting part: Nancy Hopkins, the MIT biologist who walked out of Summers' NBER talk, got a standing ovation. She said that she regretted having walked out, though. Who could blame her? She's been pilloried as a hysterical woman for having done so...and called a feminist by Harvey Mansfield. Perhaps sometimes it takes an overreaction to draw attention to something that merits greater scrutiny.
Harvard Rules...USA Today
This
USA Today piece by Harvard grad Alvin P. Sanoff talks about why events at Harvard attract so much attention in the larger culture....and discusses
Harvard Rules and Ross Douthat's book
Privilege.
My theory: "It is seen as a way station to the American dream in the same way that Ellis Island is," Bradley says. "The idea that any kid can grow up in the United States and go to Harvard and become successful is as ingrained in the American imagination as the idea that any kid can grow up to be president."
Harvard Rules the Times
Despite a few snarky lines, this
review in the New
York Times Sunday Book Review is smart and thoughtful.
I don't agree with all the points made by reviewer Rachel Donadio, but one never does, and I don't want to quibble.
A few people have mentioned that the piece is sort of an odd hybrid of book review and essay. That's something new to the Times Book Review under new editor Sam Tanenhaus, and I have to say that I like it. The NYTSBR used to be dry as dust; Tanenhaus is livening it up immensely.
The Makings of a Hot Monday Night
I'll be speaking tonight at 7:00 at the
Hue-Man Bookstore in Harlem. (For more information, see the link.)
Special guests will include
Cornel West and C-SPAN....
Hue-Man is at 125th Street and 8th Avenue, easily accessible by the A/C/D/B subway....
Ward's no Winston
U-Colorado professor Ward Churchill may not get fired for his controversial remarks about 9/11...but he might get the boot for being a plagiarist, according to an
article in
InsiderHigherEd.com.
It also turns out that Churchill may not be of Native American descent, as he has claimed.
Key quote: "The report also examined an unusual allegation that has been raised: That Churchill is not an American Indian.... Churchill has always identified himself to the university as an American Indian, and the university received complaints from Indian leaders 10 years ago that Churchill was being untruthful. At the time, the university concluded that self-identification was an appropriate way for Churchill to declare himself an Indian, so the matter was dropped."
This question of self-identification has become an issue at Harvard as well. If a student applies to the school and identifies him or herself as a minority—presumably creating some small advantage in the application process–does Harvard have any obligation to verify the claim?
I am reminded of an old friend of mine, a TV reporter with just about the WASPiest face and name you could imagine. She wanted to get out of her small market station, but despite being a terrific reporter, couldn't get hired anywhere. So she changed her preppy surname to a Hispanic one, and got a job offer within days—no matter that she couldn't have looked less Hispanic. Thus breeding cynicsm all 'round.
Two thoughts:
1) Winston Churchill shouldn't get fired for saying something political and stupid...but these other allegations are definitely firing offenses, if true.
2) The debate over "self-identification" is going to heat up....
Hours Later...
The NBER transcript has been re-posted on President Summers' website....
Apparently You Can't Teach An Old Dog
Remember how, in a spirit of openness, Larry Summers posted the transcript of his NBER remarks on his website? Well, glasnost didn't last long. Now, if you click on the site, you get a
message saying that if you want a transcript, call the president's office.
Where I'm sure they'll take your name down very carefully.....
The Struggle for the Soul, Redux
A fascinating
piece in the
Times looks at how New York governor George Pataki has privatized and politicized the state university system. Harvard afficionados will note the byline on the story belongs to Pat Healy, who used to cover Harvard for the
Boston Globe. This is a thorough and nuanced piece of reporting. Not to mention a good read.
Why Bollinger's Talk Matters
The ubiquitous David Horowitz promotes his "Academic Bill of Rights"
here. Horowitz worries that lefty professors have taken over the academy, and so his bill aims to promote "intellectual diversity."
Key quote: <
Why do we need legislation? There are too many people like Ward Churchill—the University of Colorado professor who compared 9/11 victims with Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann—on faculties across the nation. They confuse their classroosm with a political soap box.>
Horowitz then gives a whopping two examples, both at small schools in Colorado. (What is with Colorado professors, anyway? It's not exactly a blue state.) At least one of those examples—a professor who asked students taking a criminology exam to argue that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal act—sounds defensible to me.
(Although better if the professor had said: "The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Agree or disagree." But who knows? Maybe he did.)
Legislators need to get involved, Horowitz concludes, to ensure that schools are "educating our kids, not brainwashing them."
Mmmm. Because there's so much intellectual diversity in our legislatures these days, right?
(Sorry. That was a cheap shot.)
The point is, the kind of political sermonizing Horowitz is up in arms about just isn't widespread. And when it does occur, universities can address it on their own, without any help from politicians.
What Horowitz really wants is affirmative action for conservative professors...
Harvard: We're #2!
According to a
survey by the Princeton Review, more American students consider New York University their "dream college" than any other.
Harvard was ranked second, followed by Stanford, Yale and Princeton.
The Review interprets this as evidence that students are choosing an "urban" college experience, largely because of the internship and employment opportunities New York provides.
Let's hope that this is indeed the case, and it's not just that the Olsen twins go there....
The 2nd Choice Speaks Out
Lee Bollinger, who lost the Harvard presidency to Larry Summers, talks about free speech at universities
here.
Bollinger was specifically addressing the allegation that the department of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia is a hotbed of anti-Semitism.
The Columbia president, a First Amendment scholar, strikes a reasonable balance. Just because they have tenure and the right to free speech, he said, professors can't say anything they want, and shouldn't use their classrooms to promote their own political agendas.
Then Bollinger adds this very important caveat: "When there are lines to be drawn," he said, "we must and will be the ones to do it. Not outside actors. Not politicians, not pressure groups, not the media. Ours is and must remain a system of self-government."
People at Columbia tell me that Bollinger's agenda is very similar to Larry Summers' at Harvard: centralizing the president's authority, expanding the campus, building up the sciences, etc.
And yet, for some reason, the Harvard president is embroiled in controversy while Bollinger looks like the public intellectual Summers was supposed to be....suggesting that it's not necessarily Summers' agenda that has gotten him into trouble, but his personality.
Harvard Hits the Big 4-0
And then some.
The College has announced that tuition will rise 4.5% next year, going up to $41, 675, once again outpacing the rate of inflation. Simultaneously, Harvard says that it will increase its college scholarships to $84.6 million. As much as that sounds, it's still less than a third of total revenue from tuition. My rough estimate: assuming that Harvard has 6, 400 undergraduates, they pay $266, 604, 800 in tuition every year.
I know that many students who want to go to the nation's finest colleges think that such exorbitant amounts of money are well-spent. The reward is economic success in later life.
I can't help but wonder, though, if the very purpose of college isn't being warped by such prices. The higher the price of tuition, the less likely students can afford to do anything but go into high-paying fields like law and finance after they graduate....
Struggle for the Soul, continued
Dormaid's "general counsel," a sophomore economics concentrator named Joseph T.M. Cianflone, makes the case for Dormaid in this Crimson
op-ed.
Key quote: <<
The most important issue at hand is economic freedom. The principles of free enterprise and the right of every citizen in a just and fair society to decide how and when to purchase what they will are the cornerstones of any democratic meritocracy. Dorm life is not a mandatory egalitarian process imposed upon us by the College to distort our view of how societies run best. Nor is it a system designed to paternalistically decide what is fair and unfair consumption based upon income brackets.>>
Well, there you have it: For today's students, the most important right is the right to purchase whatever they want. That's the "cornerstone" of meritocracy.
Kudos to Cianflone for stating the case so forthrightly. But I couldn't disagree more. Harvard College should not simply be a luxury mall at which shoppers purchase the services they want--courses, maids, a diploma, whatever--and then depart, prepped for success in the outside world. Any college that means something should aspire to educate its students outside the classroom as well as inside. Who really wants to attend a college which teaches that money is everything?
Wait a second—don't answer that question.
It's not fashionable to say that a college should teach values, I know. But Harvard should—and Dormaid doesn't.
A Culture of Life?
The New York Times reports on the latest in the heartbreaking case of Terri Schiavo. I say "heartbreaking" not just because of the sadness of Schiavo's condition, but because of how Congress has exploited Schiavo for political gain. (And not just Republicans—a lot of Democrats voted for the ghastly "Palm Sunday compromise.")
Here's something I don't understand: why all the people who want Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted are so appalled at the idea of her passing.
Don't get me wrong: I don't worship death, and I'm not exactly looking forward to my own moment of reckoning with the Grim Reaper.
But it seems to me that part of honoring life is accepting that death—preferably death with dignity—is a part of the human narrative. And the Schiavo protesters want to deny her that death.
Anyway, don't these folks believe in heaven? After all, they're the same people who don't want evolution taught in schools....
Observing Summers
Tom Scocca has a smart
piece on the Summers presidency in this week's
New York Observer (and not just because he quotes yours truly). Scocca looks skeptically at some of the much-touted Summers "accomplishments"—Allston, the curricular review—and compares his management style to that of Howell Raines, late of the
New York Times.
Key quote: "Mr. Raines lamented 'the destructive power of a change-resistant newsroom.' What he—and Mr. Summers—overlooked was the constructive power already in place. The procedures, structures and habits of Harvard or the Times had been built up by generations of smart people, trying to figure out the best way to do their jobs. They worked."
I think Scocca's on to something: All the talk about how Summers was supposed to "shake things up" has obscured any meaningful discussion of what, exactly, needed shaking up, and whether shaking up was really the best means of effecting whatever change was required. There are lots of smart people at Harvard—not just the president.
The Votes Are In...
...and it's Summers by a nose. As the
Crimson reports, Harvard graduate students rejected the vote of no-confidence by 699 to 608.
Tough to know what this vote means, if anything, which was part of the reason why some students were not entirely supportive of having it. Ninety students abstained, and 146 said they "need more information."
But certainly, when you're down, you take your victories where you can, and Summers should be pleased by this outcome.
My prediction: It won't be a day before a conservative pundit uses this vote to proclaim that the professors are more out of touch than the students, just a bunch of aging '60s radicals....
It's worth noting that the grad students also voted on the second resolution, the milder censure originally proposed by Theda Skocpol. They passed that overwhelmingly, by a vote of 945-362, with 149 abstaining and 87 saying they needed more information...
Not Prozac Nation—Harvard Nation!
Last night I watched the long-delayed film "Prozac Nation" on Starz (how I hate to write those five letters), and this morning I read Dana Steven's
review of it in
Slate. I liked the movie less than Stevens did, but I agree with her that the movie's fundamental problem is that protagonist Elizabeth Wurtzel is wholly unlikeable.
(Full disclosure: I know Elizabeth and don't find her wholly unlikeable at all. Yes, she has a penchant for saying things that get her in trouble, but she's also a very talented writer; I published an excerpt from her book,
Bitch, in
George because it was the most insightful essay about Hillary Clinton I'd ever read.)
Part of the movie's problem is that the impact of Wurtzel's collegiate environment is absent. There's no sense of why being at Harvard was such an important part of her story. (There are some shots of the campus in the film, but most of it is set at some other bucolic university.)
An important element of
Prozac Nation was the contrast of feeling like a train wreck at a place filled with overachievers....a feeling that many Harvard students can still understand.
Harvard in the Modern Era
Here's my favorite part of today's Crimson
story on Ellen Lagemann's resignation:
<
Lagemann said she left yesterday's faculty meeting 25 minutes early to discuss public relations strategy with University Provost Steven E. Hyman.>
Oh, my. Where does one start with that?
The Crimson also points out that the five ed school deans preceding Lagemann each served at least eight years, rather than Lagemann's three.....
Sweep Dormaid Under the Carpet
The Times runs
its take on the Dormaid story—"At Harvard, An Unseemly Display of Wealth or Merely a Clean Room?"
The article hinges on whether Dormaid is a legitimate campus business or a way of reinforcing class distinctions at Harvard.
Key quote from a Dormaid founder: <<"There's so many ways in which on our campus you're able to display wealth in so much more obvious a fashion than having someone quietly clean your room," said Mr. Eisenberg, 20, a psychology major from Westfield, N.J.. He said class differences were evident in clothes, cars and entertainment, even in a campus laundry service that would wash, fold and place students' clothes in a "very noticeable" yellow bag.>>
I love the use of the word "quietly" there. Doesn't he actually mean "meekly"?
Harvard has made a huge mistake in sanctioning Dormaid. Everything about it appalls: that it allows students to pay others to pick up after themselves; that if one roommate can afford it and the other can't, Dormaid will happily accept money from the former and leave the latter's room untouched (as co-founder Michael Kopko hilariously puts it, "
to avoid stratifying people, if one roommate does not want the service, DormAid will clean only the rooms of those who do"); that one reason Dormaid was approved was that the founders agreed to appoint one student to "oversee" the adult cleaning crews.
Forgive my class consciouness, but this is exactly how Harvard students are trained to oversee the workers of the world.
If you don't believe me, just look at the picture that accompanies the article.
The photo shows a white male student—it's an unfortunate bit of symbolism that he happens to be German—happily striding through his (filthy) apartment, while below him two women, one black and one Latina, are literally on their knees cleaning.
But Harvard is not the only elite institution which has a problem with classism. Guess which participants in this debate the
Times didn't think important enough to interview?
It's almost too easy: the people doing the cleaning.
Or were they afraid that their boss, the Harvard sophomore, would fire them if they spoke to the press?
More on the Summers Brothers
The Daily Pennsylvanian's
article on Larry Summers advances the story with quotes from Richard Summers, one of Larry's younger brothers.
Key quote: "There is a national, increasing tension in large universities between [the] corporate needs of a complex institution and the old-style university governance, a community of scholars," Richard Summers said. "Larry's found himself in the crosshairs of that kind of conflict. The faculty at Harvard want to be in charge."
Some caveats: Richard Summers neatly skips over the role of his brother's personality and leadership style. And I think he overstates the case. The faculty at Harvard doesn't want to be "in charge." Go to any faculty meeting and see how low the attendance is, and you'll see just how involved in university governance the faculty wants to be. They don't want to run the place...but they do want to be
involved in running the place. The difference may be subtle, but it's real.
Still, Richard Summers does put his finger on something that's true at Harvard and elsewhere: the corporate model versus the community of scholars model. You might even call it the struggle for the soul of a university.
Is Larry Summers' Brother Reading This?
Shots in the Dark, March 16, 2005: "In a year or so, once the dust settles, Summers [may resign] in a way that allows him to claim some measure of success as a 'change agent.'"
The
Daily Pennsylvanian, March 22, 2005: "I think he was asked to be president of Harvard to be a change agent," said Richard Summers, the president's brother and associate director of the psychiatry residency program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.
The Education of Ellen Condliffe Lagemann
Marcella Bombardieri in the
Boston Globe picks up on Ellen Lagemann's departure. Bombardieri writes that tensions with Larry Summers might have had something to do with it. Howard Gardner, a friend of Lagemann's and a Summers' critic, tells the Globe that "by all accounts their relationship was very rocky."
But Lagemann denies it. Key quote: "[Summers] is more interested in K-12 education than possibly any president of Harvard has ever been," she said in a phone interview. "No dean of the education school before me has had the kind of support I've had from Larry. We have a wonderful time arguing about issues in K-12 education, and I would say he has been very supportive of this school."
Lagemann adds that she's 59, she's "not going to live forever," and she has a book she wants to write.
Hmmm. Let's parse this.
It's my impression that Lagemann is right: Summers is indeed interested in K-12 education. He talks about it frequently, often using his daughters as examples of educational phenomena. (What their textbooks said about the Industrial Revolution, for example.) And he knows that for Harvard to find low-income students who are truly capable of doing the work there, public schools around the country have to improve.
However, it's also my impression that Gardner is also right. Stories about an argumentative relationship between Summers and Lagemann have been floating around campus for her entire 2.5-year tenure.
It wouldn't surprise me if Summers' interest in lower education (is that the right term? sounds too politically incorrect, but I like it) were, in fact, the reason for Lagemann's departure. When Larry Summers takes an interest in your subject, it's a mixed blessing. On the one hand, you have the president's interest. On the other hand, you have the president's interest. And when Summers is watching over something, he's not shy about telling you what you should do.
It's worth noting that Lagemann's politic statements might have something to do with the fact that she'll now be teaching at the ed school while she writes her book.
As she put it, she's almost 60. If she makes nice now, she can comfortably teach at Harvard for five years while she writes—a nice transition into retirement. At the same time, she knows that people in the community will suspect that there's more to the story than the fact that she wants to write a book.
Saying the gracious thing in public seems like the smart play here.....and who knows? Maybe it's even true.
The Plot Thickens....
A high-profile woman at Harvard is on her way out. Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, dean of the school of education,
has announced that she will leave at the end of the school year. The timing is curious, to say the least. With just about two months to go before commencement, Lagemann's not exactly leaving a lot of time to find a successor—these searches take time. Also, you'd think that Larry Summers would do everything in his power right now to keep one of his three female deans (the others are at the law school and the Radcliffe Institute) from leaving.
Somehow I have a feeling there's more to this story....
The Bulldog Barks
The Yale Daily News offers its take on goings-on at Harvard
here.
(Think folks in New Haven are enjoying this much?)
The most interesting part is this contribution from Yale history professor John Morton Blum, a former member of the Harvard Corporation, who spoke about the impossibility of knowing where the Harvard Corporation truly stands.
<
<"We don't know what the feeling in the corporation is," Blum said. "I don't know whether Mr. Houghton is speaking for himself or for a majority of the corporation or for the whole corporation."
Even if the corporation fully supports Summers now, its support may be tentative, Blum said. But chances are slim that the corporation would fire Summers outright, due to a "tradition of civility" that exists among institutions of higher learning, Blum said.
"What they would do would be to go to the president and say, 'We no longer support you, you've got to resign,'" he said, noting that former Harvard President Nathan Pusey, unpopular among students and faculty alike for his handling of a riot during the 1960s, was ousted in this way.>>
Blum indirectly touches upon a crucial point: that "tradition of civility" in institutions of higher learning. That's exactly what the faculty is saying has been lost under Larry Summers. Ironic that the very tradition he has scorned may keep him from getting fired.
Harrummph, said the Alums
A fascinating
trio of letters in the Harvard Crimson.
The first, by J. Robert Moskin, class of '44, is almost a parody of the grouchy old alum.
"Enough of this disgraceful public bickering by teachers who are expected to know better." And so on.
The second, by Samuel S. Robinson, class of '54, isn't much better. Robinson talks about how Harvard once protected its professors from McCarthyism, and now is turning on its own president. "Who would want to succeed University President Lawrence H. Summers, or indeed even teach at or attend a place so disconnected from its glorious past?"
Not quite sure I follow the logic there.
David G. Winter, class of '60, sounds like a man who graduated just a little ahead of his time. "The Harvard Corporation—one of the oldest absolute oligarchies in the Western Hemisphere, and a bastion of the American ruling class—is in no way bound to act on the faculty’s views," he writes. "And so as expected, it has announced its continued confidence in Summers."
Isn't it remarkable how all these letters seem not just reflective of the men who wrote them, but the era in which they graduated?
And again, a point I've made repeatedly in this space: People outside the university simply do not understand that, particularly at Harvard, it is customary for the faculty to have a say in the running of the place. Not necessarily a decisive one, but a voice that is taken seriously and considered with respect.
The Satire Problem, Cont'd.
Here's Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at the St. Patrick's Day breakfast, an annual and venerable Bay State rite. (Spirits were, um, high, so the translation is loose.)
"I know I need to reach out to other constituencies, so I thought about the chances of organizing a 'Democrats for Romney' group....About as good as starting a 'Female Mathematicians for Larry Summers' group."
The Unbearable Whiteness of Being...at Harvard
Having said that...
I am surprised that race has not become a bigger part of the discussion at Harvard. Because if women are concerned about their lack of visibility in the university's higher echelons, African-Americans and other minorities have even more reason to be angry. Look around at the Summers administration—it's not exactly the Rainbow Coalition. In fact, "not exactly" is giving Summers too much credit. This group is whiter than a doily.
Summers sometimes seem to think that the rules which apply to everyone else don't apply to him. Even as he talks about diversity and its importance to the student body—even as he co-authors
New York Times op-eds in favor of affirmative action—he has not appointed a single minority to a high level post in his administration. Not one African-American, Latino/a, or Asian-American. So while I have no idea if Desiree Goodwin's lawsuit has merit, I do think that, unless things change, sooner or later Summers is going to get hit with a discrimination lawsuit in which he'll be the named defendant.
The declining numbers of female faculty members at Harvard is a scandal. So is this.
Let's Talk About Race
I have no knowledge of Desiree Goodwin's situation, but I should say that she came to my reading at the Old South Meeting House and asked what I thought was a smart question.
In James Traub's August 2003 profile of Larry Summers in the
New York Times Magazine, there's a curious anecdote. While meeting with a group of students, Summers was asked about the incident of the snow penis, the sculpture built by some male Harvard undergrads and knocked down by some female students. Was the sculpture's destruction justified or an unacceptable violation of free speech?
Summers responded by challenging students to think about the issue. What if a student had written "nigger" in the snow? he asked. Would that change your feelings?
Goodwin wanted to know my reaction to that story and whether I thought Summers was racist.
Tough question.
Because when I first read Traub's profile, I was a little shocked by Summers' use of the n-word. For one thing, because he didn't actually need to say it—he could have done what I just did, and said "the n-word."
But then, that isn't his style.
Summers was clearly using the word in a context aimed at showing its offensiveness. Still, it's risky to throw out that word in a crowded room. Especially when you don't really need to; when your use of it has more to do with an instinctive dislike for euphemisms, or perhaps the sense that it was so obvious that he was using the word in a critical way, no one could find fault with him.
Still...this is the kind of thing that gets Summers in trouble. Because not everyone will understand his intention. And his almost casual use of the word opens him up to the charge that he's racist in effect, if not intent.
My answer to Goodwin: I don't think Summers is racist. But I do think that incident is an excellent example of how Summers can be so clinical, he doesn't realize when he's playing with fire.
Harvard Rules In the News
The book's mentioned in two news stories today,
this one from the
Boston Herald and
this one from the
Baltimore Sun.
The
Herald reports on the ongoing lawsuit of Desiree Goodwin, a former Harvard librarian who is suing the university, claiming that a supervisor told her she was "too sexy" to be taken seriously. Goodwin, who is black, also claims that she was repeatedly passed over for promotion while less qualified whites were advanced. She and her lawyer were hoping to call Larry Summers to testify. The judge ruled against Goodwin on the grounds that Summers had no direct knowledge of her situation and that his appearance "would only be for the purpose of harassment and publicity."
The Herald also reports that Goodwin's lawyer wants to introduce Harvard Rules as evidence.
Key quote: <<Goodwin's attorney Richard D. Clarey wants to show jurors a new book, "Harvard Rules—The Struggle for the Soul of the World's Most Powerful University," whose author claims Summers oppossed Condoleeza Rice as a graduation speaker by saying he would not let "affirmative action" dictate his choice.>>
More on this momentarily.
The Baltimore Sun piece is called "Tell-All Books are a Dose of Poison in Harvard's Ivy," which is the kind of title that gets you irritated at newspapers. The article is about the campus reaction to Harvard Rules and Ross Douthat's book, Privilege, and neither work really falls into the tell-all category. But never mind. Here's the key quote in Ellen Gamerman's story.
<With a faculty fight over Harvard's leadership resulting in the largest faculty group's no-confidence vote against President Lawurence H. Summers last week, as well as two new tell-all books offering an unflattering glimpse behind Harvard's red-brick walls, the university with a seemingly unassailable brand name is finding itself on the defensive.>
Gamerman has a point: Whatever side you take in the Summers controversy, there's no doubt that it has tarnished Harvard's reputation. The left sees Summers as a tyrannical, sexist caricature; the right sees the faculty as a politically correct mob. What impact will this have when students receive their acceptance letters in a couple of weeks? Or will the youth of America simply base their decisions on the great soul-killing force of our era— celebrity?
Maureen Dowd Goes Crazy...Over Genes
Maureen Dowd writes about the scientific differences between men and women in this
column. Does anyone, including herself, have the slightest idea what she's talking about? Or was she just really, really hard up for a column topic?
It's Kind Of Like the Middle East
Democracy is spreading. On Monday and Tuesday students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) will vote on the same resolutions that the faculty just approved. Here's the e-mail that's sent around by the Graduate Student Council, a group of about 50, including representatives from each academic department. (The website URL has been changed to protect the innocent voters.)
<<
The Faculty have spoken, now it's your turn.
Last Tuesday the FAS faculty voted "lack of confidence" in President Summers. On Monday and Tuesday GSAS students will have the chance to vote on the same question. Harvard and the world want to know what thousands of graduate students think about their university president.
Polls will open from 7am Monday (March 21) and close at 5pm Tuesday (March 22). Log on to the weblink below between these hours to cast your anonymous vote.
It's a quick and easy process.
http://www.xxxx.yyy.zzz
The two questions are those offered to faculty at their vote last week.
The results are vital to the ongoing debate, and graduate student opinion is of great interest to faculty and the press.
Yours,
The Graduate Student Council>>
So It's the Left that's Closed-Minded, Is It?
This New York Times piece raises an issue that I've been trying to follow lately: the conservative attack on Darwin and the theory of evolution. (I say trying to follow because the attack is so ubiquitous, stories about it are increasingly commonplace.) Key quote: <<Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject [of evolution] - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.>>
Yup, there go those liberals again—waging war on Christianity.
Sarcasm aside, this is a truly ominous trend. It challenges the very notion of intellectual progress. In schools all over the country—not just in red states— children are being taught that evolution is just one theory among many, no better and maybe worse than creationism.
I have a suggestion for Larry Summers: This is the perfect subject for him to address. He's a great advocate of science; he's a leading public intellectual; and he's a university president.
Summers erred in January by relying on shaky science to draw dubious conclusions. He could do the country a great favor by speaking out in favor of real science.
Rush Limbaugh Has a Brother?
Just like the National Organization for Men—who knew?
In any event, he too is on Larry Summers' side. His
defense of Summers is subtly titled "Lawrence Summers and the Left's Thought Gulag."
It's worth considering the argument Limbaugh makes, not so much because it's serious, but because conservative pundits make this case so often that the sheer repetition of it may convince many.
First, Limbaugh dismisses the idea that Summers' leadership style is the source of faculty discontent. Instead, he says, it's all about Summers' remarks on women in science.
Key quote: "The FAS just could not abide the suggestion that
women might have different intellectual strengths from men. It not only wouldn't accept Summers' apology, it virtually demanded his head and permanently tarnished his reputation."
(It virtually demanded his head? Well, did it or didn't it?)
The faculty reacted this way because it is politically correct, closed-minded, intolerant and liberal—which, according to Limbaugh, is thrice redundant.
Limbaugh then extrapolates from the Summers situation to attack not just Harvard, but "the Left" in general.
As he concludes, "The Left is increasingly intellectually bankrupt and delusional. But worse, it has become boorishly dictatorial, not even sparing would-be allies, like Clintonite Lawrence Summers, from its hellish wrath, if they not just to disagree with its dogma, but to express a willingness to consider ideas the 'code' forbids."
I like that—"the code." As if liberals all sign their names in blood in a secret book.
In high school, I took a class in logic which taught me to look out for such debate techniques as the straw man, the reductio ad absurdum, the false conclusion. Limbaugh uses all of these and more; the argument is so intellectually dishonest that anyone trying to take it on can get bogged down by all the little lies.
More important, I think, is the big lie: That there is such a thing as The Left—in a country with a Republican president, a Republican Congress, and Republican-dominated governorships and statehouses—and that it is powerful, intolerant, and politically correct.
Limbaugh's argument really doesn't have anything to do with Harvard. But it says a lot about how conservatives debase political discussion in order to gin up hysteria and rally their supporters.
Oh, and by the way, David Limbaugh is also an author. His book: Persecution—How Liberals Are Waging Political War Against Christianity. I'm sure it's equally convincing.
There's a National Organization for Men?
Apparently, and it's
sticking up for Larry Summers. (Remember, a couple months ago the National Organization for Women called on Summers to resign.)
Key quote: <
National Organization for Men (NOM) co-president Warren Farrell said, "Harvard's action reflects a new double standard: Nearly any negative statement can be made about men, but only positive statements can be made about women. Just imagine what would have occurred if Summers asserted that 'Men are just plain better human beings than women.'">
The mind reels.
And A Second Thought
It occurs to me that one fallout from the Summers era might well be a reexamination of the Harvard Corporation and changes in its structure.
Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if the man appointed by the Corporation to "shake things up" wound up toppling the Corporation?
Or will the Corporation conclude that survival in its current form requires cutting Summers loose?
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?
Goodbye, Good Reverend
Sometime after the publication of my last book,
American Son, I received a letter from a North Carolina pastor named Stan Easty, of St. Peter's Episcopal Church. The reverend Easty had read the book, and wanted to tell me how much he liked it. I had remembered John Kennedy well, he said, and he wished me luck in the future.
I try to write back to people who write me, and so I did with Reverend Easty. In the years since, we'd correspond from time to time via e-mail, usually around the holidays. We talked generally about politics and faith; Easty was a member of that seemingly shrinking but oh-so-important group, the religious left. Not long ago, he co-signed a letter to President Bush expressing doubt on the president's faith-based initiative plan.
The letter read, in part, "Partnerships between religion and government must be undertaken with great caution so as not to undermine the very integrity and freedom that allows both the followers and the institutions of religion to practice and keep faith in our nation.
"We urge you to protect the sacred role of religion in our nation by rejecting this avenue of infusing government funds into America's religious institutions."
This morning I received an e-mail from Rev. Easty's e-address informing me that Stan Easty had passed away, at home, with his wife of 60 years by his side.
I'm left with a feeling of deep sadness that I won't be hearing from S
