Shots In The Dark

The Columbia Journalism Review slags its own university for its attempt to manipulate the media.

Key quote: "PR is PR, we concede, but Columbia is the home of the Pulitzers, a top journalism school, and CJR itself. It should know better. Even its flacks should know better."

Writing like that takes some guts. Good for CJR. I wonder if such in-house honesty would be tolerated at Harvard, where media manipulation is standard operating procedure.

Two bizarre stories of prominent journalists screwing up.

In the first, Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom—yes, he of Tuesdays with Morrie fame—wrote a column on Friday for publication Sunday in which he described events that were supposed to have happened Saturday. (Got that?) The only problem is the events didn't happen, and the Free Press is now looking into the matter.

This is an old newspaper trick. I remember, almost 20 years ago, as an intern at the New Republic, reading a wire service copy of a column by a famous columnist (who shall remain nameless, just in case memory betrays) about what she did on New Year's Eve. The only problem was that I was reading the column on December 30th.

As Bill Maher would say, new rule: Journalists can't write columns about things that supposedly happened until after they've happened.

But this would explain why Tuesdays with Morrie always felt a little too perfectly sentimental....

Second bizarre story: The New York Times has fired Susan Sachs, its Iraq bureau chief, after she allegeldy sent incriminating letters and e-mails to the wives of correspondents John Burns and Dexter Filkins, detailing alleged infidelity on the part of those two men.

You have to read this story to believe it.

And as for the idea of war correspondents with bad marriages? I'm shocked. Shocked.

Well, what do you know? Larry Summers gave a talk last night at a Harvard symposium on women in science and reversed course 180 degrees from his January remarks at the NBER conference. This time, Summers spoke about the "implicit bias" that many women face, referring to studies that show journal articles are more accepted when they come with a man's byline rather than a woman's. He also spoke of how female musicians have done better in auditions when performing behind a screen, so that the judges did not know their gender. (That example appears to suggest that Summers has read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, which would make sense—he loves pop-science like Steve Pinker and Michael Lewis' Money Ball.)

The speech has been picked up by the Boston Globe (see link above), Reuters, and InsideHigherEd.com.

Is Summers' conversion genuine? It may not matter. Summers changed his public attitude towards affirmative action a couple years ago, and even though his private opinion didn't change, the public stance he took made a difference. Regarding the status of women at Harvard, the proof of Summers' sincerity will be, as they say, in the pudding.

Meantime, I hope that Summers' words get widespread distribution. It's only fair. Since his January comments were reported all over the world, this new perspective should get equal time.

Harvard isn't the only university with a no-tuition plan for students from low-income families. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill actually kicked off its similar plan before Harvard did, and InsideHigherEd.com reports that the UNC program is a smash.

Key quote: "The results so far suggest that the lowest-income students are well-prepared academically, and can succeed at top universities. And the economic analysis of these students shows just how stratified top public universities have become by income, and how out of reach those universities can become without ambitious outreach efforts by universities."

Two points on that.

First, that the low-income students are succeeding academically is a huge point. The question about low-income students has never been whether universities should help pay for them, but whether they've had the preparation to succeed at places like Harvard and UNC. Perhaps the strength of their motivation makes up for any gaps in their prior schooling?

And second, it is sad but important to note that even public universities have become stratified by income. One possible reason: As the federal government has cut its support for education, state universities have been forced to raise their tuitions....

Novelist Jack Engelhard defends Larry Summers in this opinion piece in "Chronwatch," a conservative website devoted largely to monitoring the San Francisco Chronicle.

(I know—weird.)

Key quote: "Lawrence Summers, Harvard’s president, is on the ropes for remarks taken to be anti-feminist. Foaming-at-the-mouth feminists want his scalp and members of his faculty want his blood (libel). His real trouble began when, some time ago, he mentioned anti-Semitism, that it is real, and that it is all over the place. He’s been a marked man ever since..."

He's been a marked man ever since? Surely this is a bit much.

One of the interesting challenges Summers faces is that many of his defenders outside the walls of Harvard Yard are people he ordinarily would have no patience for—and who are even more divisive than Summers himself....

A curious story: The New York Sun reports that Columbia University brokered an arrangement with the New York Times by which the Times would receive an advance copy of its report regarding allegations of professorial anti-Semitism. The Times received the report a day before it was made otherwise public on the condition that it not seek comment from any interested parties.

That, of course, would have made it very difficult for the Times to write about the report early. So the paper asked the university's permission to call one professor named, unfavorably, in the report, for comment; Columbia granted the exception, the Times made the call, and published its early story, which was given major play in the paper and was generally considered good for Columbia.

Is there anything wrong here? Well, yes and no. These sorts of deals happen all the time, of course. The advantage for the Times is obvious. The advantage for Columbia: Well, the exclusive quid pro quo will generally guarantee the story greater prominence and, possibly, a favorable spin for Columbia. And then other papers will follow the Times' lead....

What jars is the idea of a university engaging in such media manipulation. We don't like to think of such realpolitik existing in a place of such idealism. But of course it does, and perhaps it's time to readjust our sense of how universities function. Harvard, Columbia, Yale, whichever—these are powerful institutions with huge amounts of money and prestige at stake.

But on the other hand, haven't we lost something when we concede that our finest universities labor to manipulate the press just as Microsoft or the United States government would?

England's The Independent delivers its take on the Summers matter. The author's conclusion? That Summers' fate is in the hands of alumni—more specifically, in their check-writing fingers. If donations tail off, he's in trouble. "I'm not alone in being disappointed with the ridicule Summers has brought against this university," said Benjamin Levy, class of '69.

The question is, how many more like Levy are there?

Political scientist Michael Dawson's departure from Harvard is being widely covered. I've seen stories on CNN.com and in the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, the Chicago Sun-Times, Reuters, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Typical headline: "Troubled Harvard Loses Another Faculty Member."

Typical quote from Dawson: "The research environment has changed since I first accepted the offer to Harvard,'' said Dawson, who added personal reasons also influenced his decision. ``I thought I would be able to work with, among others, [departed black scholars] Cornel West, Anthony Appiah, Lawrence Bobo and Marcyliena Morgan.''

The departure of a professor from Harvard—especially one who's relatively unknown—would not ordinarily be a subject for mainstream journalism. But the problems at Harvard have achieved a kind of critical mass in the public arena, so that every new development is covered as part of a larger and ongoing drama. This can not be good for the university.

Yankees 4, Red Sox 3.

I was at the Stadium yesterday—it's telling about the differences between the two cities that Boston has a "park" and New York has a stadium—and the day showed just how glorious baseball can be. The first real day of spring in New York brought a pitchers' duel to the Bronx, Carl Pavano versus Matt Clement, and each pitched terrifically well—Pavano just pitched a little better. The Red Sox, who are always dangerous, tied the score in the top of the 9th against reliever Mariano Rivera, who looks less and less superhuman with every passing season. Then Derek Jeter homered on a 3-2 fastball from Kurt Foulke, and the game was over, silencing the obnoxious Red Sox fan a few rows in front of me who insisted on standing up and shouting, "This is my house! This is my house!" (Where were the Bleacher Creatures when you needed them?)

Nine innings of excellent pitching, solid hitting, and pretty good defense (at least from the Yankees). A full house in the Stadium, a blue sky, a Yankees victory—who could ask for more?

Well, I could.

The experience of going to a Yankee game could be improved immensely by taking the following steps immediately:

1) End the playing of "God Bless America" between the top and bottom of the 7th. The act has become more a forced exercise than a demonstration of passion and solidarity. It's like forcing people to stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance. Plus, that Irish tenor is dreadful, and reminds one of Rudy Giuliani, which causes stomach pain. Forcing people to listen to "God Bless America" is, well, un-American.

2) Do something about the terrible quality of the food vending. If fans have to pay outrageous sums for food—$26 for two hot dogs and two beers—at least get better beer, healthier food, and more outlets. There's no reason any fan should have to miss an entire inning just to get something to eat.

3) The Yankees have now put crowd control barriers along both sides of River Street. This must end. It is the Yankee fan's God-given right to cross the street at any point he wishes. Getting from the exit of the "D" train to The Bat now takes about 15 minutes to walk two blocks.

4) Immediately eject all fans walking around typing on their Blackberries.

5) Enough with the Red Sox fans. I see a suspicious amount of brand-new Sox caps on the heads of New Yorkers these days. It's irritating. This is not your house, you Johnny [Damon]-come-latelies.

Ah, well. Maybe the Queer Eye episode featuring the Red Sox, or the nauseating Drew Barrymore-Jimmy Fallon movie, will finally show that after just one victorious season, this Sox team has jumped the shark....

Author Seth Michael Green is traveling around the Ivy League, hanging out with students, for a new book tentatively titled, "What I Learned in College: My Year with the Ivy League."

“I have a definite bias against really shoddy, fly-by-night operations calling themselves colleges,” Green tells the Harvard Crimson. “I am really all about the Ivy League schools.”

Those already curious about the seedier side of Ivy League student life might want to take a look at Ross Douthat's Privilege.

John Cassidy reviews Jeffrey Sachs' new book, The End of Poverty, in this week's New Yorker. Sachs is a fascinating character with good intentions, an enormous ego, a flair for publicity, and a decidedly mixed track record in international economics. That said, he's also trying to focus attention to the problem of poverty around the world, and agree or disagree with his proposals, how can you argue with that?

Sachs, by the way, was in the Harvard economics department until Larry Summers' return to the university. The two men have long been rivals, and the general consensus was that Harvard wasn't big enough for the two of them. So Sachs is now at Columbia....

Harvard economics professor Martin Weitzman has been arrested for trying to steal a truckload of manure.

That would explain why his students leave class with—oh, never mind. You know where I'm going....

Since I rarely scoop the Crimson, I'm going to go ahead and post its story on the departure of political scientist Michael Dawson...which you read about here, um, last Thursday.

Granted, the Crimson was on spring break...

Despite what Skip Gates suggests, the Af-Am department at Harvard does appear to be in precipitous decline.

Technical difficulties kept me from posting this morning, and now I'm headed off to Yankee Stadium to see an early season Yankees-Red Sox match-up. Lots of stuff to come as soon as I'm back....

Yankees 9, Red Sox 2. Read all about it here.

...that after reading the Harvard Crimson, those accepted students might not want to come to Harvard.

This story reports that the curricular review's committee on general education has abandoned its plans to release a report this year, because the response to the report it had planned to release ranged from disbelief to disdain.

(How curious that two of the committee members, Steve Pinker and Luke Menand, are proteges of Larry Summers, recruited specifically by him to come to Harvard. They have, collectively, about three years of Harvard institutional knowledge.)

Meanwhile, this story reports further on Harvard's 27th-place ranking out of 31 peer institutions. Key quote: <<Despite Harvard’s reputation as the gold standard of education, the University in many ways fails to meet the needs of its [undergraduates].>>

The question is will these pieces of substantively bad news affect whether all those newly admitted students decide to come to Harvard? My guess: probably not. The brand is still too strong.

But it's also possible that I'm wrong, and that this bad news, coupled with Larry Summers' controversy, creates an aura of decline for the university....

Harvard has just released its admissions statistics for the upcoming year, and they are impressive as always—and maybe a little more so.

The number of applicants rose to 22, 796, a new record, and after losing out to Yale last year, Harvard recaptured its status as the most selective college in the country, accepting only 9.1 percent of applicants.

And Harvard says that those applicants will benefit from the financial aid initiative Larry Summers has promoted, reducing tution for families with incomes from $40,000 to $60,000 and eliminating it for families with incomes under $40,000.

The number of students likely to be eligible for what's known as the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative is around 360, a 22% increase from last year.

If the Harvard admissions office really found some 60 new students from low-income families who qualified for admission, good for it....