Shots In The Dark

An occasional series of captions from photographs printed in the New York Times. Because sometimes, the Times is more zen than it realizes.

What's the difference between Larry Summers and other notoriously unpopular executives such as Howell Raines, Carly Fiorina, and Phil Purcell, the just-ousted chief of Morgan Stanley?

Simple: All four people were widely disliked for their brusque and abrasive top-down management style. But Raines, Fiorina and Purcell got fired. And as far as we know, Summers never came close to losing his job.

I was thinking about why that was so as I read a piece on Purcell by James J. Cramer in this week's issue of New York magazine. There are some interesting similarities between Purcell and Summers—and between Morgan Stanley and Harvard.

As Cramer writes, "In the end there is a Willy Loman factor on Wall Street that Purcell either forgot or never learned. Although it is not as simple as 'be liked and you will never want,' as Loman says, the corollary is true: You can't be hated by everyone and prosper. By all accounts, Purcell was hated for his intense arrogance by almost everyone who worked for him. His lack of people skills, Wall Street gibberish for 'he thought he was better than everyone else,' ate him."

It would be too strong to say that Larry Summers is hated by "everyone." But he's certainly hated by enough people at Harvard to make his management of the institution profoundly difficult and, perhaps, fatally flawed.

So why, after the faculty vote of no-confidence, did Summers keep his job?

There are many answers, but the primary one has to do with management structure. Purcell was fired by the Morgan Stanley board of directors, which has some independent figures (one of whom, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, is a former colleague of Summers, and would make a great university president herself).

The Harvard Corporation, the seven-person board with the power to fire Summers, has been stocked by Summers. In hip-hop terms, the Corporation is Summers' bitch. (Though I'm told that newcomer Nan Keohane is a strong and independent figure. We'll see.) It has abdicated a meaningful checks-and-balances role.

Moreover, Morgan Stanley had tangible results that showed that Purcell's leadership was not working: departures of top execs, poor earnings, massive payouts to prevent other departures, etc.

At Harvard, "results" are difficult to quantify. Some people have left under Summers, but not enough to prove anything (Harvard's a tough place to walk away from). And Summers has paid out substantial sums to alleviate discontent—$1 million to Skip Gates, $50 million to women—but few people know about the former, and the latter is couched as an investment in the future.

Of course, I'd argue that you can see disastrous results in, say, the conduct of the curricular review. But on this subject and others, one gets the feeling that the Corporation knows only what Summers tells them.

(Cramer on Purcell: "...Purcell never managed down, just up, catering to the board in a way that made many people...think that he would have to commit a homicide to lose the support of these mostly handpicked bakcers. ...They knew only what he told them, and he told them that all was well and the people who were departing were just sore white-shoe losers—and not of the tough-guy, Notre Dame ilk that spawned Purcell.")

One could argue, I suppose, that Harvard is the world's leading university, so the structure of its corporate governance must be doing something right.

But I'm not so sure that we aren't entering into a phase where Harvard is going to be challenged by other universities as never before—an era where the unresponsive, uncommunicative, insular and secretive Harvard Corporation will appear increasingly anachronistic. And, more importantly, less well-equipped to lead Harvard in the 21st century.

It's a great story. Can't wait to see what happens.

So far, I can't complain: the technology giants upon which I am dependent have, by and large, come through for me.

Time-Warner cable guys quickly set up my cable television and cable Internet access. (I use Earthlink via Time-Warner.) So far, cable Internet access is considerably faster than my old DSL service from Verizon—and every few weeks, that service would mysteriously go down for no apparent reason, usually just when I was on some sort of deadline for which I required Internet access and e-mail.

I've also switched my phone service from Verizon to Vonage. Since I work at home, I make a lot of phone calls, and I had an unlimited phone plan from Verizon for about $70 a month. I have the exact same plan with Vonage, which transmits telephone calls over the Internet, for $25 a month. If I were you, I'd sell your Verizon stock. (I did.)

Surprisingly, the one company I had trouble with was Apple, whose customer service is generally first-rate. A bizarre thing happened on my way to setting up here in Soha/NoCo (south of Harlem, for long-time residents; north of Columbia, for real estate brokers selling to latecomers like me): I lost the ability to receive e-mails. I could find them on the web, at the page Earthlink uses for web access to e-mail; but my computer was not grabbing them from the Internet.

So I called Apple and spoke with one of those tech guys you sometimes encounter who seems to be thinking out loud as he walks you through a repair process. Or maybe making it up as he went along. Suddenly—after over an hour on the phone—several thousand saved e-mails mysteriously vanished from my computer. At that point, the tech guy mumbled something about getting a product specialist on the line, and after a very lengthy hold, he handed the phone call off to someone named Daniel.

Instant relief. Daniel knew exactly what he was doing, and in about ten minutes we fixed the problem and my e-mails were restored. He and I then had a nice chat about Apple's switch to computer chips made by Intel, whether I should buy a new iMac, whether I should buy a new iPod, and the virtues of a home wireless system. (It'll be a good thing in the long run, yes, they're amazing machines, yes, they're amazing machines, and yes, it's very cool to play music from your computer wirelessly through your stereo.) A disastrous experience was salvaged.

The conclusion? Verizon is the big loser, and I have to say, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving company. As anyone who's ever tried to get Verizon on the phone knows, this is probably the most user-hostile of all the conglomerates/monopolies that grip us in their velvet claws. Their customer service is lousy, their products mediocre, and their prices far higher than a free market would support. (If you don't believe me, Google "Verizon sucks" and enjoy some of the 216,000 hits that come up, including the aptly named website, Verizon Sucks.) I love that Vonage has popped up to exploit a niche in the technology—and tons of customers who've taken abuse from Verizon for so many years finally have a choice. Vonage takes a little bit of tech savvy to set up. But so far, it's a lifesaver.

Now if we could only get those cable bills down....

I've often suggested that, under Larry Summers' leadership, Harvard is adopting the style, norms and culture of Washington, D.C. Now there's even more proof of that—a fact so bizarre that even I'm startled by it.

Let's start with a pop quiz.

Which of these things is not like the others?

a) The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee
b) The Association of American Railroads
c) The Nuclear Energy Institute
d) The American Association of Airport Executives
e) The Confederation of Indian Industry
f) Harvard University

And the answer is: None. At least in one important matter they're all the same.

(Sorry, it was kind of a trick question.)

According to USA Today, these groups were among the ten largest sponsors of privately funded travel for members of Congress. That is to say, they paid congresspeople and senators to fly around the country on junkets—the same thing for which Tom DeLay is now on the hot seat.

And yes, that's Harvard, right up there at #6, between the Association of American Railroads and the Nuclear Energy Institute. Between 2000 and 2005, Harvard spent about $313, 000 on travel for members of Congress. (I'd bet the amounts increased after 2001, when Larry Summers became president.)

To which one can only say: Huh? What is Harvard doing on a list of Washington influence-buyers?

Possibly some of this money was spent flying MOCs to the Kennedy School for "panel discussions." But I'd really like to know who Harvard was flying around and why....

Perhaps the Crimson's Zachary Seward or Mary Habib can find out.....

...and about twelve percent of the man I used to be (which was about 70% of the man I ought to be, probably). I have carried and unpacked dozens of boxes, painted like I was getting paid by the brush stroke, and tried to make sense of a kitchen. I have received services from Time-Warner Cable (they were great) and FreshDirect (thank God, they deliver to 122nd Street). The e-mail's a little spotty and the phone service just bizarre—I can call you, but you can't call me, at least not without going into voicemail. But slowly, slowly, I'm getting back on my feet.....

There'll be lots of news to come in the forthcoming days, so please, keep tuning in—and thanks for your patience. As soon as the place is presentable, you're invited to the housewarming.

Tomorrow I'm moving from the apartment I've been living in for ten years now. (Holy cow, how did that happen?) This computer is virtually the only thing working in my current digs; everything else is shoved into a box and wrapped with tape like when Frodo met Shelob. The point being that posting may be a challenge for the next day or so.

It's sad to leave this apartment, which has been the home for twenty-five percent of my life. (Holy cow, how did that happen?)

But if I think or write about it now, I'll get maudlin. Or depressed. (It's never a good idea to tackle a tough subject in an empty apartment surrounded by boxes. Don't try it at your home.)

The movers come in nine hours. Wish them luck!

The Denver Post reports on the first "Aspen Ideas Festival" (i.e., pointless junket) that's about to take place.

I quote: "The first Aspen Ideas Festival kicks into gear for six sold-out days of brainstorming July 5-10. Brainiac Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute organized the think party in a move to jazz up the joint. Speakers at the fest will include Queen Noor, Gen. Wesley Clark, Dr. Jane Goodall, Rick Warren ("Purpose Driven Life"), Chris Matthews, Colin Powell, Toni Morrison, Cokie Roberts, Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Arthur Schlesinger, controversial Harvard boss Lawrence Summers, Mort Zuckerman, NPR prexy Kevin Klose, AOL's Stephen Case, Kurt Anderson, William Bennett, Amazon founder Jeffrey Bezos, David Brooks, Patricia Hannaway ("Shrek" animator), Nina Totenberg, Ken Auletta..."

Controversial Harvard president Lawrence Summers.

Other than Rick Warren, whose book is mentioned, Summers is the only person described—and the description is probably not the one he wants. I think we can safely assume that "controversial Harvard president" is now the implicit description of Summers even where it's not explicit....

A side note: Summers loves to go to these celebrity—pardon the langugage—clusterfucks. He is received less critically than he is by academics, and he likes these media-ready intellectuals-lite more than he does professors. If he had made his remarks on women in science with this group, they would have come away genuflecting....

The Los Angeles Times reports that all six members of CalTech's 2005 chemical engineering class are female. The group, says reporter Valerie Reitman, "makes a strong case against Harvard President Lawrence Summers' controversial hypothesis that men are innately more proficient in math and science."

She adds: "Interest in math- and science-related majors among women is on the rise at universities across the country. They earned 58% of the undergraduate degrees in life sciences, such as biology and chemistry, 47% in math and 40% in physical sciences, according to 2000 figures, the latest available from the National Science Foundation."

Do you sometimes get the feeling that, in about two years, Larry Summers' theory on the innate differences between men and women explaining the shortage of women in science is going to look not just wrong, but like something out of another era entirely....

This week in the Times Magazine, Patrick Filbin, of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, writes The Ethicist, a.k.a. Randy Cohen.

His question: "My wife and I traveled to the Caribbean with our chidlren, ages 9, 7 and 1. Before the vacation, I went to a local coin dealer and bought several old and strange coins. We buried these coins on the beach so our children could find "buried treasure." Our kids mark it as a highlight of the trip, but now I feel like a fraud. Have we crossed a line?"

The Ethicist's answer is, in my humble opinion, less than clear.

"It's a fine thing to play with your kids"—(Re-Ethicist's interruption: Unless you're Michael Jackson!)—"but a dubious thing to lie to them. One way to distinguish bentween playing and lying is that play occurs with the understanding and consent of all involved."

Sounds like The Ethicist is about to lay down the law, doesn't it? But no...

"Thus you must figure out what your kids believe about buried treasure, something that will almost surely be different for the one-year-old and the nine-year old. Ask yourself how they would greet candid information.... This is not an easy question, but it's one on which ethical conduct relies, and nobody is better positioned to answer it than you and your wife."

With waffles like that, the Ethicist should open an IHOP.

The Re-Ethicist says: Wrong!

Mr. Filbin, you have some issues. You are lying to your children. Not only that, you're lying to them without even a good reason. Okay, if their dog died and you told them that Rover was chasing rabbits in doggie heaven, that might be okay. But to create an experience for them that will lead to happy memories—yet one that is based on a lie—you are screwing with their heads. You are a parent, sir. Not God. You exist to help your children understand reality, not to create it.

Now, it's certainly true that parents must sometimes be complicit in a lie—Santa Claus, the Easter Egg bunny, etc. The simple fact is that they don't have a lot of decision in such matters; the culture has forced their hand. On the other hand, going out of your way to turn your children into basket cases—that's just sick.

When I was a child, Mr. Filbin, my parents also took me to the beach. While there, I searched for interesting shells and seaglass. I also swam and learned to skip stones. Stuff like that. Once I picked up a crab, only to find that it wasn't nearly as dead as it looked. Ouch!

There's plenty of actual real life—and real living— on the beach, Mr. Filbin. No need to turn it into Fantasy Island. In fact, your question suggests that you have become so dependent on mass-produced "entertainment" that you somehow find nature insufficient by itself. I bet you took your Blackberry to the beach, didn't you? Time for a little soul-searching.

The Ethicist: Wrong again!