Shots In The Dark
Friday, March 30, 2007
Chocolate Jesus
A New York artist has fashioned a sculpture of Jesus on the cross—made entirely out of chocolate. He's calling it "My Sweet Lord." As NY1 reports, "He's inviting people to have a taste of it before it's taken down on Easter Sunday."
Catholics are shocked, outraged, and so on.
Actually, I think there are a lot of potentially interesting messages one could derive from such a work. A satire of Easter's weird affiliation with candy? A statement on Christians and temptation? (On priests and temptation?) A reflection on the sensuality of spirituality?
Here's my litmus test: Would Jesus be offended? Somehow, I don't think so. So if Jesus can live with it, why can't we?
Catholics are shocked, outraged, and so on.
Actually, I think there are a lot of potentially interesting messages one could derive from such a work. A satire of Easter's weird affiliation with candy? A statement on Christians and temptation? (On priests and temptation?) A reflection on the sensuality of spirituality?
Here's my litmus test: Would Jesus be offended? Somehow, I don't think so. So if Jesus can live with it, why can't we?
Two More Decanal Candidates
Robert Sampson
Chair, Dept. of Sociology
Interests include "crime, deviance, and stigma"
(where to start?)
Michael Smith
Assoc. Dean for Comp. Sci.
and Engineering
Involved in the Center
for Research on Computation
and Society
(i.e, pro-blogger, highly qualified
to be dean)
Also: quotes Dr. Seuss on his homepage
Robert Sampson
Chair, Dept. of Sociology
Interests include "crime, deviance, and stigma"
(where to start?)
Michael Smith
Assoc. Dean for Comp. Sci.
and Engineering
Involved in the Center
for Research on Computation
and Society
(i.e, pro-blogger, highly qualified
to be dean)
Also: quotes Dr. Seuss on his homepage
The Deanship
Well! Yesterday's post about the Crimson article certainly sparked a vigorous discussion. Thanks to all for participating.
Meantime, some new names have cropped up in the race for the deanship. To wit....and in no particular order....
Stanfield Professor of International Peace
Is interested in Brazil
Vice-provost for international affairs
Yale-educated
Recently spoke at "Harvard in Canada," following Drew Faust
Nancy Rosenblum
Chair, Department of Government
Currently working on a theoretical study of political parties
(possibly useful knowledge in an FAS dean)
James Engell
Professor of English and Comp. Lit.
Co-author, Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money
Member, every committee at Harvard
Henry Louis Gates
Director, W.E.B. DuBois Institute,
etc., etc., etc.
Yale-educated,
apparently knows a lot of people
Allan Brandt
Professor of the history of medicine at HMS
and the department of the history of science
Author, No Magic Bullet: A Social History
of Venereal Disease, also potentially useful
for an FAS dean (i.e., the spread of disease/rumor)
Charles Rosenberg
Professor of the History of Science
Reportedly in bed with president-elect Drew Faust
Lawrence Summers
Former Treasury secretary
University professor
(On leave, 2006-2007)
Meantime, some new names have cropped up in the race for the deanship. To wit....and in no particular order....
Stanfield Professor of International Peace
Is interested in Brazil
Vice-provost for international affairs
Yale-educated
Recently spoke at "Harvard in Canada," following Drew Faust
Nancy Rosenblum
Chair, Department of Government
Currently working on a theoretical study of political parties
(possibly useful knowledge in an FAS dean)
James Engell
Professor of English and Comp. Lit.
Co-author, Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money
Member, every committee at Harvard
Henry Louis Gates
Director, W.E.B. DuBois Institute,
etc., etc., etc.
Yale-educated,
apparently knows a lot of people
Allan Brandt
Professor of the history of medicine at HMS
and the department of the history of science
Author, No Magic Bullet: A Social History
of Venereal Disease, also potentially useful
for an FAS dean (i.e., the spread of disease/rumor)
Charles Rosenberg
Professor of the History of Science
Reportedly in bed with president-elect Drew Faust
Lawrence Summers
Former Treasury secretary
University professor
(On leave, 2006-2007)
Deval Patrick Reveals the Existence of Brain Cells
Deval Patrick just announced that he wants to overturn the restrictions on stem cell research promulgated by his predecessor, Mitt Romney.
It may be the first smart thing Patrick has done since he became governor.
The Democrat has not exactly impressed to date. He's gotten mired in mini-scandals over his use of government funds to redecorate his office and his phone call to Bob Rubin on behalf of a mortgage lender on whose board he sat.
And he's also been sidetracked by his wife's serious struggle with depression.
For Patrick supporters, it's all been disheartening.
Patrick needs to remind those loyalists that, for all his problems, he could be worse; he could be...Mitt Romney. The former governor's approval ratings were in the low 30's when he left office a couple months ago.
So this move to junk Romney's ideologically-motivated restrictions on stem cell research is a smart one. It's right on policy, and it's right on politics—and it's the first thing I've seen Patrick do that suggests there's a functioning brain in his head.
Let's hope the new governor is beginning to get his sea legs....
It may be the first smart thing Patrick has done since he became governor.
The Democrat has not exactly impressed to date. He's gotten mired in mini-scandals over his use of government funds to redecorate his office and his phone call to Bob Rubin on behalf of a mortgage lender on whose board he sat.
And he's also been sidetracked by his wife's serious struggle with depression.
For Patrick supporters, it's all been disheartening.
Patrick needs to remind those loyalists that, for all his problems, he could be worse; he could be...Mitt Romney. The former governor's approval ratings were in the low 30's when he left office a couple months ago.
So this move to junk Romney's ideologically-motivated restrictions on stem cell research is a smart one. It's right on policy, and it's right on politics—and it's the first thing I've seen Patrick do that suggests there's a functioning brain in his head.
Let's hope the new governor is beginning to get his sea legs....
Rudy Giuliani Starts to Smolder
...because soon he's going to go up in flames.
First, it emerges that he actually knew that his top cop, the dirtball Bernie Kerik, had ties to a Mob-owned construction company before he nominated Kerik to be New York police commissioner.
Kerik would later cloak himself in glory by bedding not-yet-disgraced book publisher Judith Regan—cheating on both his wife and another mistress—in an apartment near the fallen World Trade Center that was supposed to be used for on-site workers who needed a rest. Kerik had actually solicited use of the apartment from a local real estate firm.
Later, the owner of the apartment crushed a woman to death with his Ford Expedition. What a shock! Police decided not to file charges. The driver, real estate exec Anthony Bergamo, told the cops that he couldn't see her, even though she was directly in front of him when he ran her over.
So that's one Giuliani issue. The other is that he just told the New York Times that if he were elected president, his wife would sit in on cabinet meetings. Even Bill Clinton never said that Hillary would attend cabinet meetings....
Rudi, no one's saying that your wife can't have a valuable role. But no one elected her to the White House...
Giuliani sounds like J. Howard Marshall or Jack Welch—an old man whose combination of lust for a younger woman and fear of the loss of his own virility cause them to abandon all judgment and start acting like silly old fools. Not the best quality in a president.
First, it emerges that he actually knew that his top cop, the dirtball Bernie Kerik, had ties to a Mob-owned construction company before he nominated Kerik to be New York police commissioner.
Kerik would later cloak himself in glory by bedding not-yet-disgraced book publisher Judith Regan—cheating on both his wife and another mistress—in an apartment near the fallen World Trade Center that was supposed to be used for on-site workers who needed a rest. Kerik had actually solicited use of the apartment from a local real estate firm.
Later, the owner of the apartment crushed a woman to death with his Ford Expedition. What a shock! Police decided not to file charges. The driver, real estate exec Anthony Bergamo, told the cops that he couldn't see her, even though she was directly in front of him when he ran her over.
So that's one Giuliani issue. The other is that he just told the New York Times that if he were elected president, his wife would sit in on cabinet meetings. Even Bill Clinton never said that Hillary would attend cabinet meetings....
Rudi, no one's saying that your wife can't have a valuable role. But no one elected her to the White House...
Giuliani sounds like J. Howard Marshall or Jack Welch—an old man whose combination of lust for a younger woman and fear of the loss of his own virility cause them to abandon all judgment and start acting like silly old fools. Not the best quality in a president.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Dollar Bills
Wow—Bill Gates and Bill Clinton will be speaking at Commencement this year.
Is that a capital campaign I smell?
Is that a capital campaign I smell?
The Crimson Takes Aim at Theda Skocpol
Ouch! What did Theda Skocpol ever do to the Harvard Crimson?
In one of the toughest pieces I've ever seen in the paper, Sam Jacobs and Javier Hernandez report that Skocpol's resignation from the GSAS deanship....
...coincided with what appeared be a wave of uncertainty about her candidacy for the deanship of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), one of Harvard’s most powerful posts.
...In recent weeks, the prospect of Skocpol’s promotion has stirred strong opposition among professors advising President-elect Drew G. Faust in her search for a new dean of the Faculty, according to an individual close to the faculty advisory committee and a senior FAS faculty member. The criticisms of Skocpol have caused Faust herself to express skepticism, the individuals said.
Interesting. I haven't sensed this myself, but Hernandez and Jacobs are good reporters, so if they write it, I'll take them at their word.
The only quibble I would have is when they use the term "wave of uncertainty," but base this on the accounts of only two anonymous professors.
All right, not the only quibble. I also think the two overstate their case when they suggest that Skocpol is Larry Summers in a skirt.
To some, Skocpol came to mirror the controversial president that she once opposed, in equal parts praised both for her brilliance as a researcher and derided for her authoritarian and divisive approach to leading.
Judging from what I hear, I'd tone this down. "Derided" is too strong; I've never heard of anyone who doesn't respect Skocpol, and she's never invited the kind of vociferous criticism that Summers attracted. And I'm not sure that it isn't also going too far to say "authoritarian and divisive."
To me, there are two very interesting suggestions in the piece.
First, that Drew Faust has cut Skocpol loose. (Does Drew Faust have a cold streak? Discuss.)
And second, that Skocpol "is considering significant leadership positions at other universities." (Did this come from Skocpol herself? She is not quoted in the story, but neither do Jacobs and Hernandez say that she declined to comment.*) No one is irreplaceable, but her departure would be a real loss for Harvard.
Recently on this blog there was a discussion of objectivity, and I raised my doubts about its possibility. In that context, I wonder if it isn't relevant that this article was written by two men. Consider their description of Skocpol's tenure battle.
Hernandez and Jacobs characterize Skocpol's ascent at Harvard as "defined by controversy." They note that she was denied tenure in sociology, sued, and actually won when a Bok-led "investigation" found in her favor.
One could imagine this framed as a gutsy and inspiring story. It takes courage to fight a tenure fight like that. It's no fun, there are real downsides, and virtually never does the plaintiff come out a winner. More often, her career is severely damaged. Particularly when the plaintiff is a woman, she may be forever characterized as "divisive" and "headstrong," in the Crimson reporters' words. ("Headstrong" is particularly unfortunate, I think—it's insulting and probably sexist. "Oh, she's a headstrong little lady, she is...")
Might two female reporters have presented this episode differently? Couldn't Skocpol's battle also be written up as "courageous," "principled," and "valiant"? After all, Skocpol won, and how often does that happen?
Instead, Jacobs and Hernandez cite only an old quote from sociology prof Harrison White that "it was not a happy story," with absolutely no context. Did White have anything else to add? (For example: "It was not a happy story, because Skocpol was right: the sociology department did discriminate against her.") Was White involved in the tenure battle in some way? Whether he was or wasn't, we should be told that by the Crimsonites.
I'm not saying that Jacobs and Hernandez are wrong; if they report strong anti-Skocpol feeling, then it's there.
But it would be interesting to read a piece about what Skocpol has actually done as dean, before reading the "news analysis" casting doubts on her leadership style....
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*My mistake: Skocpol did decline to comment, and the article clearly says so.
In one of the toughest pieces I've ever seen in the paper, Sam Jacobs and Javier Hernandez report that Skocpol's resignation from the GSAS deanship....
...coincided with what appeared be a wave of uncertainty about her candidacy for the deanship of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), one of Harvard’s most powerful posts.
...In recent weeks, the prospect of Skocpol’s promotion has stirred strong opposition among professors advising President-elect Drew G. Faust in her search for a new dean of the Faculty, according to an individual close to the faculty advisory committee and a senior FAS faculty member. The criticisms of Skocpol have caused Faust herself to express skepticism, the individuals said.
Interesting. I haven't sensed this myself, but Hernandez and Jacobs are good reporters, so if they write it, I'll take them at their word.
The only quibble I would have is when they use the term "wave of uncertainty," but base this on the accounts of only two anonymous professors.
All right, not the only quibble. I also think the two overstate their case when they suggest that Skocpol is Larry Summers in a skirt.
To some, Skocpol came to mirror the controversial president that she once opposed, in equal parts praised both for her brilliance as a researcher and derided for her authoritarian and divisive approach to leading.
Judging from what I hear, I'd tone this down. "Derided" is too strong; I've never heard of anyone who doesn't respect Skocpol, and she's never invited the kind of vociferous criticism that Summers attracted. And I'm not sure that it isn't also going too far to say "authoritarian and divisive."
To me, there are two very interesting suggestions in the piece.
First, that Drew Faust has cut Skocpol loose. (Does Drew Faust have a cold streak? Discuss.)
And second, that Skocpol "is considering significant leadership positions at other universities." (Did this come from Skocpol herself? She is not quoted in the story, but neither do Jacobs and Hernandez say that she declined to comment.*) No one is irreplaceable, but her departure would be a real loss for Harvard.
Recently on this blog there was a discussion of objectivity, and I raised my doubts about its possibility. In that context, I wonder if it isn't relevant that this article was written by two men. Consider their description of Skocpol's tenure battle.
Hernandez and Jacobs characterize Skocpol's ascent at Harvard as "defined by controversy." They note that she was denied tenure in sociology, sued, and actually won when a Bok-led "investigation" found in her favor.
One could imagine this framed as a gutsy and inspiring story. It takes courage to fight a tenure fight like that. It's no fun, there are real downsides, and virtually never does the plaintiff come out a winner. More often, her career is severely damaged. Particularly when the plaintiff is a woman, she may be forever characterized as "divisive" and "headstrong," in the Crimson reporters' words. ("Headstrong" is particularly unfortunate, I think—it's insulting and probably sexist. "Oh, she's a headstrong little lady, she is...")
Might two female reporters have presented this episode differently? Couldn't Skocpol's battle also be written up as "courageous," "principled," and "valiant"? After all, Skocpol won, and how often does that happen?
Instead, Jacobs and Hernandez cite only an old quote from sociology prof Harrison White that "it was not a happy story," with absolutely no context. Did White have anything else to add? (For example: "It was not a happy story, because Skocpol was right: the sociology department did discriminate against her.") Was White involved in the tenure battle in some way? Whether he was or wasn't, we should be told that by the Crimsonites.
I'm not saying that Jacobs and Hernandez are wrong; if they report strong anti-Skocpol feeling, then it's there.
But it would be interesting to read a piece about what Skocpol has actually done as dean, before reading the "news analysis" casting doubts on her leadership style....
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*My mistake: Skocpol did decline to comment, and the article clearly says so.
Can Fred Thompson Run?
Current actor and former senator Fred Thompson is strongly considering running for president as a Republican.
This can only be seen as good news for Democrats. But it's also good news for Republicans.
The same reason for both: It's a reflection of how unhappy Republican voters are with their current choices. John McCain is being dragged into oblivion by the war; Rudy Guiliani and his wife have been married six times between them; Mitt Romney flip-flops more than a dolphin at Sea World.
In that context, Thompson is as strong as anyone.
But his entry wouldn't address the real issue: Everyone hates President Bush. And no Republican presidential candidate dares acknowledge that truism.
The GOP needs an insurgent candidate—which the party traditionally frowns upon, preferring to anoint the tried-and-true—who can position himself as reclaiming the conservative mantle. And that ain't Fred Thompson; he is an inside-the-Beltway figure if ever there was one.
So I encourage Thompson to get into the race. He won't be prepared for it, not even close, and for any devoted politics-watcher, the inevitable train wrecks are always entertaining.
This can only be seen as good news for Democrats. But it's also good news for Republicans.
The same reason for both: It's a reflection of how unhappy Republican voters are with their current choices. John McCain is being dragged into oblivion by the war; Rudy Guiliani and his wife have been married six times between them; Mitt Romney flip-flops more than a dolphin at Sea World.
In that context, Thompson is as strong as anyone.
But his entry wouldn't address the real issue: Everyone hates President Bush. And no Republican presidential candidate dares acknowledge that truism.
The GOP needs an insurgent candidate—which the party traditionally frowns upon, preferring to anoint the tried-and-true—who can position himself as reclaiming the conservative mantle. And that ain't Fred Thompson; he is an inside-the-Beltway figure if ever there was one.
So I encourage Thompson to get into the race. He won't be prepared for it, not even close, and for any devoted politics-watcher, the inevitable train wrecks are always entertaining.
Summers on the Economy (Kinda-Sorta)
Larry Summers' most recent column in the FT is not the most vivid op-ed you'll ever read. When talking to the world of finance, Summers adopts a far more sober tone than when lecturing to academe. Truth is, if you didn't see that famous byline at the top of the column, you probably wouldn't get very far into prose like this....
While it would be premature to predict a US recession, there are now strong grounds for predicting that the US economy will slow down very significantly in 2007. Whether in retrospect 2007 will prove to have been a “pause that refreshed” a nearly decade-long expansion like the growth slowdowns in 1986 and 1995 or whether it will see the end of the expansion is not yet clear.
Tough sledding, eh?
Summers' main argument is that a number of events prophesied by economic naysayers are now coming to fruition: mortgage crises, diminished foreign lending to the U.S., lessened consumer confidence and spending. These and other phenomena could lead to "further downward pressure on investment in plant, equipment, and commercial real estate."
In other words, a recession.
Not much new there; people have been saying this for weeks if not months.
But Summers' more original point is the question of how to respond to such a potentiality—and I wonder if, as he writes, he isn't also talking about events in Cambridge.
Good economic policies operate counter-cyclically, slowing booms and mitigating downturns. It follows that when the dominant risk changes from complacency and overheating to risk aversion and economic slowdown, the orientation of policy must change as well.
Economic policymakers who seek to correct past errors by doing today what they wished they had done yesterday actually compound their errors. They are in their way as dangerous as generals fighting the last war. We do not yet know how much economic conditions will change or whether current concerns will prove transitory. But if recent developments mark a genuine change, let us hope that policymakers look forwards rather than backwards.
In warning of fighting past battles, is he talking about the economy...or is he giving advice to Harvard?
After all, the choice of Drew Faust is generally seen as a response to FAS complaints with Summers, and her leadership style is seen as a 180-degree reversal from his. As Morton and Phyllis Keller write in their history, Making Harvard Modern, the choice of each Harvard president seems to be a reaction to his (now her) predecessor. If that cycle is now coming true again, Harvard needs to be careful not to go too far.
Summers' FT column may be dryly written...but embedded within that dryness is a dramatic warning to Harvard: Don't turn your back on what I was doing. Don't fight the last war.
He's using the economy as an allegory and the FT as a Trojan horse. Clever man!
Only a few more months till Summers is back at Harvard full-time....
While it would be premature to predict a US recession, there are now strong grounds for predicting that the US economy will slow down very significantly in 2007. Whether in retrospect 2007 will prove to have been a “pause that refreshed” a nearly decade-long expansion like the growth slowdowns in 1986 and 1995 or whether it will see the end of the expansion is not yet clear.
Tough sledding, eh?
Summers' main argument is that a number of events prophesied by economic naysayers are now coming to fruition: mortgage crises, diminished foreign lending to the U.S., lessened consumer confidence and spending. These and other phenomena could lead to "further downward pressure on investment in plant, equipment, and commercial real estate."
In other words, a recession.
Not much new there; people have been saying this for weeks if not months.
But Summers' more original point is the question of how to respond to such a potentiality—and I wonder if, as he writes, he isn't also talking about events in Cambridge.
Good economic policies operate counter-cyclically, slowing booms and mitigating downturns. It follows that when the dominant risk changes from complacency and overheating to risk aversion and economic slowdown, the orientation of policy must change as well.
Economic policymakers who seek to correct past errors by doing today what they wished they had done yesterday actually compound their errors. They are in their way as dangerous as generals fighting the last war. We do not yet know how much economic conditions will change or whether current concerns will prove transitory. But if recent developments mark a genuine change, let us hope that policymakers look forwards rather than backwards.
In warning of fighting past battles, is he talking about the economy...or is he giving advice to Harvard?
After all, the choice of Drew Faust is generally seen as a response to FAS complaints with Summers, and her leadership style is seen as a 180-degree reversal from his. As Morton and Phyllis Keller write in their history, Making Harvard Modern, the choice of each Harvard president seems to be a reaction to his (now her) predecessor. If that cycle is now coming true again, Harvard needs to be careful not to go too far.
Summers' FT column may be dryly written...but embedded within that dryness is a dramatic warning to Harvard: Don't turn your back on what I was doing. Don't fight the last war.
He's using the economy as an allegory and the FT as a Trojan horse. Clever man!
Only a few more months till Summers is back at Harvard full-time....
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Dizzy Deans
In the Crimson, Johannah Cornblatt reports on Theda Skocpol's decision to step down as GSAS dean. A very fine article, but one line caught my eye:
Skocpol was widely considered a candidate to replace Knowles, who is serving as interim dean until July 1, but her announcement suggests that she will no longer vie for that post.
Really? Why? That's an important assertion, but it lacks context and supporting evidence. Why, exactly, does the move suggest that Skocpol will no longer vie for the deanship? (After all, we can all think of a certain Harvard figure who said no to one deanship because she was interested in a bigger job.) Tell me more, Johannah.....
Who will be the next FAS dean? Here are the three candidates whose names occasionally drift downwind from Cambridge to Manhattan.....
Theda Skocpol
Gov/sociology prof
Current GSAS dean
Senior adviser at
the Radcliffe Institute
Jeremy Bloxham
Geophysicist,
computational scientist
Dean for the physical sciences
John Huth
Physicist
Chairman, Dept. of Physics
These are the names I hear. What about you?
Just to sweeten the pot a little...let me announce a contest. The first person to correctly guess (i.e., post) Drew Faust's pick for FAS dean will receive from me, in the mail, a silver pen with "Harvard" inscribed on it. (They were giving 'em away at the "Harvard in Canada" conference last weekend.) It's a lovely pen with a Yale-blue grip (I know, weird) and it comes in a nice box with a little red string around it.
Vote now! And when the time comes, e-mail me and identify yourself (we'll have to use the honor system here). I'll send you this top-quality Harvard pen, value at least ten bucks, yours free for the simple matter of being right and being first....
And don't let this stop you from voting, because as am employee of this blog, I can not enter the contest, but...my guess? Jeremy Bloxham.
Skocpol was widely considered a candidate to replace Knowles, who is serving as interim dean until July 1, but her announcement suggests that she will no longer vie for that post.
Really? Why? That's an important assertion, but it lacks context and supporting evidence. Why, exactly, does the move suggest that Skocpol will no longer vie for the deanship? (After all, we can all think of a certain Harvard figure who said no to one deanship because she was interested in a bigger job.) Tell me more, Johannah.....
Who will be the next FAS dean? Here are the three candidates whose names occasionally drift downwind from Cambridge to Manhattan.....
Theda Skocpol
Gov/sociology prof
Current GSAS dean
Senior adviser at
the Radcliffe Institute
Jeremy Bloxham
Geophysicist,
computational scientist
Dean for the physical sciences
John Huth
Physicist
Chairman, Dept. of Physics
These are the names I hear. What about you?
Just to sweeten the pot a little...let me announce a contest. The first person to correctly guess (i.e., post) Drew Faust's pick for FAS dean will receive from me, in the mail, a silver pen with "Harvard" inscribed on it. (They were giving 'em away at the "Harvard in Canada" conference last weekend.) It's a lovely pen with a Yale-blue grip (I know, weird) and it comes in a nice box with a little red string around it.
Vote now! And when the time comes, e-mail me and identify yourself (we'll have to use the honor system here). I'll send you this top-quality Harvard pen, value at least ten bucks, yours free for the simple matter of being right and being first....
And don't let this stop you from voting, because as am employee of this blog, I can not enter the contest, but...my guess? Jeremy Bloxham.
More Bush Madness
Had trouble getting a car loan lately? Or a mortgage?
It could be because your name is similar to a name on a list of suspected terrorists that the Bush administration is circulating to private businesses which, afraid of incurring a government fine for dealing with terrorists, are saying no to any potential customer who even sounds like a match.....
Has it ever occurred to the Bush administration that, in the name of protecting freedom, they are doing far more to destroy it?
It could be because your name is similar to a name on a list of suspected terrorists that the Bush administration is circulating to private businesses which, afraid of incurring a government fine for dealing with terrorists, are saying no to any potential customer who even sounds like a match.....
Has it ever occurred to the Bush administration that, in the name of protecting freedom, they are doing far more to destroy it?
The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Harvard
41 varsity coaches; not one of them black. Fourteen top athletic administrators—none of them black either.
Ouch.
The Boston Globe's Bob Hohler exposes the lack of diversity in Harvard's athletic hiring in today's paper, and he's right on target: There's no excuse for the sheer whiteness of the university's athletics coaching and administration.
"We're obviously disappointed that we lack significant racial diversity in the athletic department, in particular at the senior level," said James S. Hoyte, assistant to the president and associate vice president for equal-opportunity programs at Harvard. "The new president has made clear she is very concerned about seeing a more diverse senior management team throughout the university, including athletics."
When did she make that clear, I wonder? At about 4 PM yesterday?
Because chances are that diversity within the athletic administration never even crossed Faust's mind (to be fair, why would the dean of Radcliffe think about the issue?) until a reporter for the Globe dialed her number....
And here's another problem, tucked away within the story:
In the last academic year, the school reported paying its male full-time head coaches an average of $89,614, while female full-timers earned an average of $69,496.
Will Harvard's first female president address the problem of gender-related pay inequity?
(I think it's Evelyn Hammond, and it is slightly dismaying that the top African-American within the university administration is, basically, the diversity dean, rather than some position that has nothing to do with race...)
Ouch.
The Boston Globe's Bob Hohler exposes the lack of diversity in Harvard's athletic hiring in today's paper, and he's right on target: There's no excuse for the sheer whiteness of the university's athletics coaching and administration.
"We're obviously disappointed that we lack significant racial diversity in the athletic department, in particular at the senior level," said James S. Hoyte, assistant to the president and associate vice president for equal-opportunity programs at Harvard. "The new president has made clear she is very concerned about seeing a more diverse senior management team throughout the university, including athletics."
When did she make that clear, I wonder? At about 4 PM yesterday?
Because chances are that diversity within the athletic administration never even crossed Faust's mind (to be fair, why would the dean of Radcliffe think about the issue?) until a reporter for the Globe dialed her number....
And here's another problem, tucked away within the story:
In the last academic year, the school reported paying its male full-time head coaches an average of $89,614, while female full-timers earned an average of $69,496.
Will Harvard's first female president address the problem of gender-related pay inequity?
Floyd A. Keith, executive director of the Black Coaches' Association, cited Harvard's historic rival, Yale University, as faring reasonably well in fostering racial diversity in its athletic department. African-Americans serve as head coaches of Yale's men's basketball team and men's and women's soccer teams, as well as holding at least one senior administration position.
....In the Ivy League, Princeton is the only other school that has no black leadership in its head coaching or administrative ranks. Princeton also is searching for a men's basketball coach.
Here's a suggestion for the Globe: a three-part series on the lack of racial diversity within the Harvard administration. Who, after all, is the highest-ranking black academic official at Harvard? You have to think about it for a while, don't you?(I think it's Evelyn Hammond, and it is slightly dismaying that the top African-American within the university administration is, basically, the diversity dean, rather than some position that has nothing to do with race...)
Meet the Real Mitt Romney
My 02138 profile of former Massachusetts governor and current presidential candidate Mitt Romney is now online.....
Sticking up for Larry Summers
What's wrong with this, the first sentence of Robert Drago's essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education, titled "Harvard and the Academic Glass Ceiling"?
Drew Gilpin Faust's appointment as president of Harvard University has seriously dented the academic glass ceiling.
Well, the assumption that there is an academic glass ceiling, of course—the existence of which, given the number of female university presidents in office before Drew Faust came along, seems questionable.
And that's just the start of Drago's problematic argument, in which he alleges that the real sexism at universities pertains to adjunct faculty members.
Recall the 2005 event that triggered Faust's appointment. The university's president at the time, Larry Summers, suggested, among other claims, that relatively few young women were prepared to make the "near total commitments to their work" required of successful academics. He also suggested that men may hold a biological advantage in the pursuit of science and engineering careers. The anger generated by those comments almost certainly contributed to his resignation.
About the biological comment, yes. But Summers' remarks on the challenges of juggling work and family manifested, by his standards, Oprah-like sensitivity, and I don't recall anyone being particularly upset by them.
Drago, a professor of women's and labor studies at Penn State, has a new book coming out, Striking a Balance: Work, Family, Life, which is certainly an important topic. But he loses me when he writes,
...Norms surrounding our ideas about motherhood...[lead] us to expect women to bear and rear children, to take care of the ill, elderly, and those with disabilities, and to do so for low or no pay, and without public recognition.
Without public recognition? Really? Has there ever been a time in history when mothers were more fussed over, talked about, and self-congratulatory than they are now?
What Summers missed are [women's] sacrifices. Indeed, the way he broached the subject of family commitments represented a significant threat to the careers of female faculty members everywhere -- an accusation that women are really "just moms."
In fact, that's just not true. As I recall, Summers detailed the challenges facing women in academia, and suggested that the greatest challenge was balancing work and family. He may not have waxed empathic about the difficulties of being a mom, but that wasn't Summers' topic.
Drago's heart is in the right place, but his solution—a part-time tenure track—doesn't really address the question of how you can maintain Harvard's standards of excellence and make a balanced life viable for women (and men) who have children.
Drew Gilpin Faust's appointment as president of Harvard University has seriously dented the academic glass ceiling.
Well, the assumption that there is an academic glass ceiling, of course—the existence of which, given the number of female university presidents in office before Drew Faust came along, seems questionable.
And that's just the start of Drago's problematic argument, in which he alleges that the real sexism at universities pertains to adjunct faculty members.
Recall the 2005 event that triggered Faust's appointment. The university's president at the time, Larry Summers, suggested, among other claims, that relatively few young women were prepared to make the "near total commitments to their work" required of successful academics. He also suggested that men may hold a biological advantage in the pursuit of science and engineering careers. The anger generated by those comments almost certainly contributed to his resignation.
About the biological comment, yes. But Summers' remarks on the challenges of juggling work and family manifested, by his standards, Oprah-like sensitivity, and I don't recall anyone being particularly upset by them.
Drago, a professor of women's and labor studies at Penn State, has a new book coming out, Striking a Balance: Work, Family, Life, which is certainly an important topic. But he loses me when he writes,
...Norms surrounding our ideas about motherhood...[lead] us to expect women to bear and rear children, to take care of the ill, elderly, and those with disabilities, and to do so for low or no pay, and without public recognition.
Without public recognition? Really? Has there ever been a time in history when mothers were more fussed over, talked about, and self-congratulatory than they are now?
What Summers missed are [women's] sacrifices. Indeed, the way he broached the subject of family commitments represented a significant threat to the careers of female faculty members everywhere -- an accusation that women are really "just moms."
In fact, that's just not true. As I recall, Summers detailed the challenges facing women in academia, and suggested that the greatest challenge was balancing work and family. He may not have waxed empathic about the difficulties of being a mom, but that wasn't Summers' topic.
Drago's heart is in the right place, but his solution—a part-time tenure track—doesn't really address the question of how you can maintain Harvard's standards of excellence and make a balanced life viable for women (and men) who have children.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Theda Skocpol Calls It a Day
Theda Skocpol, dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, has resigned the position effective the end of this school year. (See Jeremy Knowles' e-mail below.)
A few things about Skocpol:
1) She is generally thought to have done a good job as GSAS dean.
2) She is considered a candidate for the FAS deanship, and is said to want the job.
3) She has been GSAS dean for two years, an unusually short term.
4) She is a senior adviser in the social sciences at the Radcliffe Institute, and last week gave a talk at its annual luncheon for women faculty, hosted by Drew Faust.....
How does Skocpol's move affect the question of who Faust will chose as her FAS dean? Does it mean that she's willing to walk away from Harvard if she doesn't get the job? Or that she already has another offer? Or just that she wanted to step down and, if she didn't get the FAS post, didn't want it to look like sour grapes by resigning immediately afterward?
Got me. All I know is, the timing is curious and the plot thickens.....
Dear Colleagues,
I am writing to let you know that Theda Skocpol has today announced her
intention to step down as Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences, effective at the end of this academic year. This is, of
course, unwelcome news to those of us who know first-hand of the skilled
and energetic leadership she has brought to this role, and of the many
improving initiatives that she has launched to strengthen the Graduate
School.
Since becoming Dean in July 2005, Theda has arranged for virtually all
graduate students in the humanities and the social sciences to receive
dissertation completion fellowships, she has helped to institute a new
innovation prize and seed grant program to honor and reward improvements
in graduate education, she has launched secondary fields for those in
Ph.D. programs to promote interdisciplinary research, she has created
the Graduate Policy Committee to involve faculty in the formulation of
GSAS policy, she has overseen the move of the Graduate School from
Byerly Hall to Holyoke Center, and she has encouraged coordination
amongst our science graduate programs. Her well-known zeal for
gathering and sharing data, her outreach to departments and centers, and
her gently unambiguous approach, have made the assessment and
improvement of our graduate programs and policies both more transparent
and more successful.
Most recently, Theda has served as chair the Task Force on Teaching and
Career Development, which issued in January a “Compact to Enhance
Teaching and Learning at Harvard.” She also served as a member of the
Harvard University Planning Committee for Science and Engineering. In
these, and many other ways, she has made important contributions to the
Faculty and to the University, as well as to the Graduate School.
I must now, for the benefit of my successor, begin to gather your
thoughts on the challenges and opportunities ahead for the Graduate
School, as well as your confidential suggestions of colleagues who might
succeed Theda as its dean. I trust that you’ll write to me in the
coming weeks about these matters.
With my best wishes and thanks,
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy R. Knowles
_______________________________________________________________
Blogger's P.S. I can not resist: Crimson, consider yourself scooped.... .
A few things about Skocpol:
1) She is generally thought to have done a good job as GSAS dean.
2) She is considered a candidate for the FAS deanship, and is said to want the job.
3) She has been GSAS dean for two years, an unusually short term.
4) She is a senior adviser in the social sciences at the Radcliffe Institute, and last week gave a talk at its annual luncheon for women faculty, hosted by Drew Faust.....
How does Skocpol's move affect the question of who Faust will chose as her FAS dean? Does it mean that she's willing to walk away from Harvard if she doesn't get the job? Or that she already has another offer? Or just that she wanted to step down and, if she didn't get the FAS post, didn't want it to look like sour grapes by resigning immediately afterward?
Got me. All I know is, the timing is curious and the plot thickens.....
I am writing to let you know that Theda Skocpol has today announced her
intention to step down as Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences, effective at the end of this academic year. This is, of
course, unwelcome news to those of us who know first-hand of the skilled
and energetic leadership she has brought to this role, and of the many
improving initiatives that she has launched to strengthen the Graduate
School.
Since becoming Dean in July 2005, Theda has arranged for virtually all
graduate students in the humanities and the social sciences to receive
dissertation completion fellowships, she has helped to institute a new
innovation prize and seed grant program to honor and reward improvements
in graduate education, she has launched secondary fields for those in
Ph.D. programs to promote interdisciplinary research, she has created
the Graduate Policy Committee to involve faculty in the formulation of
GSAS policy, she has overseen the move of the Graduate School from
Byerly Hall to Holyoke Center, and she has encouraged coordination
amongst our science graduate programs. Her well-known zeal for
gathering and sharing data, her outreach to departments and centers, and
her gently unambiguous approach, have made the assessment and
improvement of our graduate programs and policies both more transparent
and more successful.
Most recently, Theda has served as chair the Task Force on Teaching and
Career Development, which issued in January a “Compact to Enhance
Teaching and Learning at Harvard.” She also served as a member of the
Harvard University Planning Committee for Science and Engineering. In
these, and many other ways, she has made important contributions to the
Faculty and to the University, as well as to the Graduate School.
I must now, for the benefit of my successor, begin to gather your
thoughts on the challenges and opportunities ahead for the Graduate
School, as well as your confidential suggestions of colleagues who might
succeed Theda as its dean. I trust that you’ll write to me in the
coming weeks about these matters.
With my best wishes and thanks,
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy R. Knowles
_______________________________________________________________
Katie Couric Gets Reamed
The CBS anchor-bot is taking a ton of grief for that interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards she did.
I'm no Katie fan, so I'm kind of enjoying this moment. But I will say that she probably did the Edwardses a favor by asking very difficult and blunt questions. (Though I agree with critics who slam her for repeatedly using the "some say" construction. It is lame.)
I do think that a big problem for Couric is the amount of botox and plastic surgery she's had in order to look wrinkle-free on hi-def TV. She can no longer move her muscles into a sympathetic expression....
I'm no Katie fan, so I'm kind of enjoying this moment. But I will say that she probably did the Edwardses a favor by asking very difficult and blunt questions. (Though I agree with critics who slam her for repeatedly using the "some say" construction. It is lame.)
I do think that a big problem for Couric is the amount of botox and plastic surgery she's had in order to look wrinkle-free on hi-def TV. She can no longer move her muscles into a sympathetic expression....
Elena Kagan Ups the Ante
Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan just landed a $25 million donation from the Wasserstein family, whose best-known member is probably financier Bruce Wasserstein.
The timing of this announcement is interesting: Kagan recently lost the presidency to a woman whose ability to raise large sums is uncertain.
That $25 million gift, by the way, is about 50% larger than the entire endowment of the Radcliffe Institute.*
It's possible to consider this gift as another show of support for Kagan. (The first, a week or so after Faust was named, came in the form of a party thrown by law students in her honor.)
Faust is said to have terrific relationships with Radcliffe alums, but one of the question marks about her announcement is how the mega-rich finance guys like Wasserstein will respond to her.
Rumor has it that the development folks are worried....
______________________________________________________________
* Mea culpa: A poster points out an egregious mistake on my part. The Radcliffe Institute endowment is more like $400 million; it's the annual budget that's about $15 million.
The timing of this announcement is interesting: Kagan recently lost the presidency to a woman whose ability to raise large sums is uncertain.
That $25 million gift, by the way, is about 50% larger than the entire endowment of the Radcliffe Institute.*
It's possible to consider this gift as another show of support for Kagan. (The first, a week or so after Faust was named, came in the form of a party thrown by law students in her honor.)
Faust is said to have terrific relationships with Radcliffe alums, but one of the question marks about her announcement is how the mega-rich finance guys like Wasserstein will respond to her.
Rumor has it that the development folks are worried....
______________________________________________________________
* Mea culpa: A poster points out an egregious mistake on my part. The Radcliffe Institute endowment is more like $400 million; it's the annual budget that's about $15 million.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Blog War: Harvard vs. Stanford
Someone sent me a list of Harvard blogs to prove that there are, in fact, more than two Harvard profs who blog.
Here it is:
Econ prof Greg Mankiw
Jeffrey Nesson's cyberlaw blog
John Palfrey's Berkman Center blog
Jonathan Zittrain's blog (arguably doesn't count, as it is Oxford-branded)
Toby Stock's HLS admissions blog
The Kennedy School Library blog (last updated, last November)*
That's six. Blogs. At Harvard.
Surely there must be more. (And in fact there are.)
Just out of curiosity, I Googled "Stanford university" and "blog" and got a ton of relevant hits—and the blogs there are really interesting.
For example:
The World Association of International Studies economics blog
The Stanford University Libraries Blog
The Stanford Social Innovation Review blog
A whole bunch of blogs at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society
Lawrence Lessig's blog
The Stanford University Press blog
A whole bunch of blogs at the Stanford School of Medicine
I could go on and on, but you get the point. The institution of the blog seems to have taken deeper root at Harvard's west coast rival than it has in Cambridge.
Why are so many more people blogging at Stanford than at Harvard? Is it because Stanford appreciates the Net in a way that Harvard does not? Because Harvard's professors are older than Stanford's and don't get this newfangled technology? Is it because Harvard doesn't foster a climate where the free exchange of opinions and ideas is encouraged, but is instead discouraged and punished? Is it because Harvard's culture resists change?
Not to pat myself on the back, but why is it that the most topical blog about life at Harvard is written by someone who neither goes there nor works there?
_______________________________________________________________
* A poster informs that the Kennedy School library blog can be found here, and has been recently updated. Thanks for the info.
Here it is:
Econ prof Greg Mankiw
Jeffrey Nesson's cyberlaw blog
John Palfrey's Berkman Center blog
Jonathan Zittrain's blog (arguably doesn't count, as it is Oxford-branded)
Toby Stock's HLS admissions blog
The Kennedy School Library blog (last updated, last November)*
That's six. Blogs. At Harvard.
Surely there must be more. (And in fact there are.)
Just out of curiosity, I Googled "Stanford university" and "blog" and got a ton of relevant hits—and the blogs there are really interesting.
For example:
The World Association of International Studies economics blog
The Stanford University Libraries Blog
The Stanford Social Innovation Review blog
A whole bunch of blogs at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society
Lawrence Lessig's blog
The Stanford University Press blog
A whole bunch of blogs at the Stanford School of Medicine
I could go on and on, but you get the point. The institution of the blog seems to have taken deeper root at Harvard's west coast rival than it has in Cambridge.
Why are so many more people blogging at Stanford than at Harvard? Is it because Stanford appreciates the Net in a way that Harvard does not? Because Harvard's professors are older than Stanford's and don't get this newfangled technology? Is it because Harvard doesn't foster a climate where the free exchange of opinions and ideas is encouraged, but is instead discouraged and punished? Is it because Harvard's culture resists change?
Not to pat myself on the back, but why is it that the most topical blog about life at Harvard is written by someone who neither goes there nor works there?
_______________________________________________________________
* A poster informs that the Kennedy School library blog can be found here, and has been recently updated. Thanks for the info.
"You Push On...Or You Start Dying"
Elizabeth and John Edwards hugely impress with their candor and their strength in this "60 Minutes" interview. It is impossible not to watch this without coming to the conclusion that these are serious, thoughtful and responsible people. And gutsy: I admired hearing both of them saying "We're all going to die," without feeling like they had to say "pass" or "we're all going to be called to the Lord" or some such euphemism.
Elizabeth Edwards said of their choice to continue campaigning: "You have tow choices. Either your push on with your life...or you start dying."
Tough stuff.
Katie Couric did not impress so much.... She comes across as cold and callous.
To be fair, Couric lost her husband to cancer, and I highly doubt that she is insensitive to the Edwardses.
My guesses? One, she's trying to look like a serious newsperson, and show no signs of bias because of her own loss.
Two—and you can judge this one for yourself—She's had so much work done to her face that she can't actually look sympathetic.
Elizabeth Edwards, by contrast, has aged, and has wrinkles. Somehow, though, she looks much more beautiful than does Couric.....
Elizabeth Edwards said of their choice to continue campaigning: "You have tow choices. Either your push on with your life...or you start dying."
Tough stuff.
Katie Couric did not impress so much.... She comes across as cold and callous.
To be fair, Couric lost her husband to cancer, and I highly doubt that she is insensitive to the Edwardses.
My guesses? One, she's trying to look like a serious newsperson, and show no signs of bias because of her own loss.
Two—and you can judge this one for yourself—She's had so much work done to her face that she can't actually look sympathetic.
Elizabeth Edwards, by contrast, has aged, and has wrinkles. Somehow, though, she looks much more beautiful than does Couric.....
The Shame of Japan
Japan's main whaling ship returned to port yesterday with its haul of 508 slaughtered whales.
Japan claims that its whaling is for "scientific" purposes, but has not explained what scientific knowledge is gleaned from the carcasses of over 500 whales, which are instantly carved up to be sold in Japanese supermarkets. (Under a government subsidy, by the way.)
Until Japan stops its massacres of whales and dolphins, consumers should boycott Japanese-made goods.....
Japan claims that its whaling is for "scientific" purposes, but has not explained what scientific knowledge is gleaned from the carcasses of over 500 whales, which are instantly carved up to be sold in Japanese supermarkets. (Under a government subsidy, by the way.)
Until Japan stops its massacres of whales and dolphins, consumers should boycott Japanese-made goods.....
A Note to the Harvard News Office
You guys should check out BU Today—it's a really clean, well-designed site unlike anything that Harvard has. And it doesn't shove the promotional element down your throat quite so much as—sorry—you folks do.
It even has a link to a page featuring campus blogs....such as "A Yankee Fan Living in Boston."
It even has a link to a page featuring campus blogs....such as "A Yankee Fan Living in Boston."
Another Quiet University President
In the Globe, Marcella Bombardieri profiles Robert Brown, the new president of Boston University.
Brown is following in the wake of the high-profile and highly controversial John Silber, Bombardieri points out.
See if this sounds familiar...
Brown, many observers say, is trying to be the un-Silber, transforming the university's culture so that faculty, students, and alumni feel that their opinions are heard and they have a stake in the university's future. Former president John Silber took BU to new heights of success, but was accused of sowing fear among faculty and ignoring concerns of students and alumni.
Not all professors are yet convinced, but here's one idea that a certain other university across the river might want to consider.
Under Brown, BU created a blog inviting feedback on the university's goals....
So far, I have heard of only two Harvard professors who write blogs. By contrast, when BU Today asked members of the BU community to submit nominations for best campus blogs, they got 150 nominations. What does this say about the popular willingness to speak freely at Harvard?
I feel about this the way that the Crimson feels about poor attendance at faculty meetings: There's just no excuse.
So here are some questions I'd like to hear Drew Faust's responses to:
1) As a historian, you depend on free and unfettered access to historical documents in order to pursue your scholarship. Do you support the Corporation's 50-year-rule, which keeps secret the records of the Corporation for 50 years after they are created?
2) Do you support the ouster of students from Massachusetts Hall?
3) Do you believe that blogs are an important part of creating a forum for intellectual discussion and debate at Harvard? Do you read any blogs, and if so, which ones? Would you create a blog similar to the one Robert Brown has created at Boston University? And what measures would you recommend to your incoming FAS dean to encourage Harvard faculty to write blogs of their own?
Brown is following in the wake of the high-profile and highly controversial John Silber, Bombardieri points out.
See if this sounds familiar...
Brown, many observers say, is trying to be the un-Silber, transforming the university's culture so that faculty, students, and alumni feel that their opinions are heard and they have a stake in the university's future. Former president John Silber took BU to new heights of success, but was accused of sowing fear among faculty and ignoring concerns of students and alumni.
Not all professors are yet convinced, but here's one idea that a certain other university across the river might want to consider.
Under Brown, BU created a blog inviting feedback on the university's goals....
So far, I have heard of only two Harvard professors who write blogs. By contrast, when BU Today asked members of the BU community to submit nominations for best campus blogs, they got 150 nominations. What does this say about the popular willingness to speak freely at Harvard?
I feel about this the way that the Crimson feels about poor attendance at faculty meetings: There's just no excuse.
So here are some questions I'd like to hear Drew Faust's responses to:
1) As a historian, you depend on free and unfettered access to historical documents in order to pursue your scholarship. Do you support the Corporation's 50-year-rule, which keeps secret the records of the Corporation for 50 years after they are created?
2) Do you support the ouster of students from Massachusetts Hall?
3) Do you believe that blogs are an important part of creating a forum for intellectual discussion and debate at Harvard? Do you read any blogs, and if so, which ones? Would you create a blog similar to the one Robert Brown has created at Boston University? And what measures would you recommend to your incoming FAS dean to encourage Harvard faculty to write blogs of their own?
Grammatical Error of the Day
As a writer, words matter to me, and I spend an inordinate amount of time making sure I'm using the right ones.....
—Dashka Slater, in the first sentence of her Salon story, "It's all fun and games."
—Dashka Slater, in the first sentence of her Salon story, "It's all fun and games."
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Another Giuliani Shocker
His son can't stand him...his second wife hates his guts...and now, out of the blue, his third wife reveals that she was, contrary to public perception, actually married twice before, rather than once.
Whoops!
Here's a question: Can a Republican presidential candidate succeed when his personal life is a farce?
Whoops!
Here's a question: Can a Republican presidential candidate succeed when his personal life is a farce?
A Moment for Elizabeth Edwards
I find it incredibly sad that Elizabeth Edwards will have to continue her struggle against cancer; for some reason it's affected me even more than such hard news usually would.
Maybe it's the way the Times describes the cancer as "incurable but treatable."
Maybe it's because breast cancer has struck two members of my own family, and the mother of a close friend is fighting it even now.
And maybe part of it is that the Edwards family has always struck me as particularly decent and warm and loving. They just seem like nice people, and I can't help but feel for them.
This is a family that has already endured tragedy. Let us hope they don't have to again.
The Edwardses, by the way, are the 2nd family in this presidential race in which one spouse has a very serious illness; Ann Romney has MS, and how campaigning could affect her health is a real question for the Romneys.
If there is any silver lining here, it is that perhaps these circumstances will bring some added attention to these illnesses, and maybe even introduce elements of humanity and humility into this presidential campaign.....
Maybe it's the way the Times describes the cancer as "incurable but treatable."
Maybe it's because breast cancer has struck two members of my own family, and the mother of a close friend is fighting it even now.
And maybe part of it is that the Edwards family has always struck me as particularly decent and warm and loving. They just seem like nice people, and I can't help but feel for them.
This is a family that has already endured tragedy. Let us hope they don't have to again.
The Edwardses, by the way, are the 2nd family in this presidential race in which one spouse has a very serious illness; Ann Romney has MS, and how campaigning could affect her health is a real question for the Romneys.
If there is any silver lining here, it is that perhaps these circumstances will bring some added attention to these illnesses, and maybe even introduce elements of humanity and humility into this presidential campaign.....
Another Faust Move
President-elect Drew Faust has persuaded Harvard's v-p for government, etc., Alan Stone, to stick around for another year, even though Stone had previously tendered his resignation.
“It was a very plausible decision at the time, but on reconsideration I was delighted to stay,” Stone said. “You make decisions based on your latest information.”
I think you can chalk this up as a wise move on Faust's part.
In my experience, Stone has not impressed; in my dealings with him, he's been—how can I put it?—shadowy.
On the other hand, a number of people whose opinion I respect say that Stone is really talented and a huge asset to the university. They tell me that he really does excellent work with community relations and that he's a savvy adviser to the university's higher councils.
So with that in mind, I think you have to consider this a third consecutive smart personnel move by Drew Faust. The consensus opinion seems to be: Good move to keep Steve Hyman, good move to let Donella Rapier go, and Alan Stone is important to keep on to help with the transition, if not beyond.
Which indicates something interesting about Faust, I think: She doesn't feel an inherent need to "shake up" the university, which was one of Summers' mandates from the Corporation. She's making her decisions on a case-by-case basis. Smart. There's still no sign of her doing anything bold, but perhaps when the appropriate time comes, we'll see that.
And it's also possible that boldness is overrated....methodical, steady progress could be just what Harvard needs right now.
“It was a very plausible decision at the time, but on reconsideration I was delighted to stay,” Stone said. “You make decisions based on your latest information.”
I think you can chalk this up as a wise move on Faust's part.
In my experience, Stone has not impressed; in my dealings with him, he's been—how can I put it?—shadowy.
On the other hand, a number of people whose opinion I respect say that Stone is really talented and a huge asset to the university. They tell me that he really does excellent work with community relations and that he's a savvy adviser to the university's higher councils.
So with that in mind, I think you have to consider this a third consecutive smart personnel move by Drew Faust. The consensus opinion seems to be: Good move to keep Steve Hyman, good move to let Donella Rapier go, and Alan Stone is important to keep on to help with the transition, if not beyond.
Which indicates something interesting about Faust, I think: She doesn't feel an inherent need to "shake up" the university, which was one of Summers' mandates from the Corporation. She's making her decisions on a case-by-case basis. Smart. There's still no sign of her doing anything bold, but perhaps when the appropriate time comes, we'll see that.
And it's also possible that boldness is overrated....methodical, steady progress could be just what Harvard needs right now.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Clarification of the Year
Zach Seward's piece about Larry Summers' speech at Tufts, in which he reported Summers criticizing the curricular review, now has this appendage:
Clarification: The March 15 news analysis "With Book on Horizon, Summers Sharpens His Critiques of Harvard and its Faculty" did not completely represent the former University president's views on the undergraduate curricular review. He also said in an interview after the speech, "Much of it reflects things that were my focus during my presidency," and praised half a dozen initiatives, including faculty-student contact, the empirical reasoning requirement, the attention to pedagogy, secondary concentrations, and the emphasis on actual knowledge rather than ways of knowing.
Hmmmm. I wonder what former university president called up Seward and reamed him out?
I love that line, "Much of [the curricular review] reflects things that were my focus during the presidency," which rather conveniently ignores what a disaster the review was during Summers' presidency, and how it only began to cohere once he was gone.
Clarification: The March 15 news analysis "With Book on Horizon, Summers Sharpens His Critiques of Harvard and its Faculty" did not completely represent the former University president's views on the undergraduate curricular review. He also said in an interview after the speech, "Much of it reflects things that were my focus during my presidency," and praised half a dozen initiatives, including faculty-student contact, the empirical reasoning requirement, the attention to pedagogy, secondary concentrations, and the emphasis on actual knowledge rather than ways of knowing.
Hmmmm. I wonder what former university president called up Seward and reamed him out?
I love that line, "Much of [the curricular review] reflects things that were my focus during the presidency," which rather conveniently ignores what a disaster the review was during Summers' presidency, and how it only began to cohere once he was gone.
Summers at Tufts, Redux
There is much to discuss regarding Larry Summers' recent speech at Tufts on the subject of higher education, which may be the basis for a Summers book on the same topic.
I keep thinking, though, about one line in that speech, as reported by Crimsonite Zach Seward.
Pedagogy was a key theme of Summers’ speech last night. He said that while other universities constantly attempt to poach accomplished researchers from Harvard, “I can’t recall a single case when an effort was made to raid Harvard for a candidate who was an outstanding teacher.”
Summers' general point (I think): Harvard professors aren't outstanding teachers. To be fair, it could also be that universities don't hire away other universities' profs based on their teaching skills. But in the context of the news story, it sounds like Summers is saying the former.
In any case, the suggestion that Harvard profs stink at teaching is a bold claim. And while it may be broadly true—I just don't know—there is one dramatic exception: Cornel West.
You will remember West, who was summoned to Mass Hall by Summers in the fall of 2001 and asked to justify his political views, his spoken-word recordings, and more.
West was one of Harvard's most dynamic and popular teachers. But, as Summers pointed out, West hadn't written a deeply scholarly book in several years. (His recent books were more popular.)
For Princeton, that wasn't an issue. Upon hearing that West was deeply unsettled from the encounter, Princeton, which prioritizes undergraduate teaching, successfully lured him away from Harvard. Why? Because West is an inspiring presence on campus and a great teacher. (Whose CUE Guide ratings, by the way, were higher than Summers' were when he was first a Harvard professor.)
Now, I can understand why Summers would omit this glaring example, and maybe West is the exception that proves the rule.
But if Summers is really going to write a book on these issues, he needs to confront some of these contradictions. Sometimes great teachers are not great scholars—it is very rare to find someone who is both, there is only so much time in the day—and sometimes great teachers are unusual personalities.
Perhaps it is even time for Summers to admit that he was wrong about Cornel West.
I keep thinking, though, about one line in that speech, as reported by Crimsonite Zach Seward.
Pedagogy was a key theme of Summers’ speech last night. He said that while other universities constantly attempt to poach accomplished researchers from Harvard, “I can’t recall a single case when an effort was made to raid Harvard for a candidate who was an outstanding teacher.”
Summers' general point (I think): Harvard professors aren't outstanding teachers. To be fair, it could also be that universities don't hire away other universities' profs based on their teaching skills. But in the context of the news story, it sounds like Summers is saying the former.
In any case, the suggestion that Harvard profs stink at teaching is a bold claim. And while it may be broadly true—I just don't know—there is one dramatic exception: Cornel West.
You will remember West, who was summoned to Mass Hall by Summers in the fall of 2001 and asked to justify his political views, his spoken-word recordings, and more.
West was one of Harvard's most dynamic and popular teachers. But, as Summers pointed out, West hadn't written a deeply scholarly book in several years. (His recent books were more popular.)
For Princeton, that wasn't an issue. Upon hearing that West was deeply unsettled from the encounter, Princeton, which prioritizes undergraduate teaching, successfully lured him away from Harvard. Why? Because West is an inspiring presence on campus and a great teacher. (Whose CUE Guide ratings, by the way, were higher than Summers' were when he was first a Harvard professor.)
Now, I can understand why Summers would omit this glaring example, and maybe West is the exception that proves the rule.
But if Summers is really going to write a book on these issues, he needs to confront some of these contradictions. Sometimes great teachers are not great scholars—it is very rare to find someone who is both, there is only so much time in the day—and sometimes great teachers are unusual personalities.
Perhaps it is even time for Summers to admit that he was wrong about Cornel West.
The Truth about Ruth Wisse's Housekeeper?
Regular readers of this blog will remember a recent discussion over Professor Wisse's commentary involving her Brazilian housekeeper; Wisse explained to the woman that she was wrong to believe that Drew Faust's appointment was a good thing.
Now the Boston Globe has done a piece about a Brazilian woman who is trying to make the housecleaning business more equitable.
Coincidence? Or...was this woman inspired by Drew Faust's example?
Now the Boston Globe has done a piece about a Brazilian woman who is trying to make the housecleaning business more equitable.
Coincidence? Or...was this woman inspired by Drew Faust's example?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Mass Hall to Students: Drop Dead
Or, at least, get out: Mass Hall's days as a dorm are numbered.
"It is too small and doesn't have enough critical mass," says Harvard College dean Dick Gross.
Huh?
The truth, of course, is that the presidency is expanding, and when bureaucrats want offices, students become expendable.
Jeremy Knowles—clever man!—tries to lay the blame for this anti-student move in Larry Summers' lap....
“I believe that if President Summers had remained in post, the intention was that Mass. Hall would have been renovated for the administration during this academic year,” Knowles said.
....but I wonder if Summers, so careful to present himself as pro-student, would have committed such a symbolic blunder.
Harvard students, I have one word for you: sit-in.
(What, did you think I was going to say "toga!"? Although, now that I think of it—a sit-in with a toga party, nonstop....)
And where does Harvard's new president stand on the abrupt termination of a grand Harvard tradition?
"It is too small and doesn't have enough critical mass," says Harvard College dean Dick Gross.
Huh?
The truth, of course, is that the presidency is expanding, and when bureaucrats want offices, students become expendable.
Jeremy Knowles—clever man!—tries to lay the blame for this anti-student move in Larry Summers' lap....
“I believe that if President Summers had remained in post, the intention was that Mass. Hall would have been renovated for the administration during this academic year,” Knowles said.
....but I wonder if Summers, so careful to present himself as pro-student, would have committed such a symbolic blunder.
Harvard students, I have one word for you: sit-in.
(What, did you think I was going to say "toga!"? Although, now that I think of it—a sit-in with a toga party, nonstop....)
And where does Harvard's new president stand on the abrupt termination of a grand Harvard tradition?
The Vice-President We Need
It's instructive to compare our last vice-president (currently helping save the world, and I think that isn't an exaggeration) and our current one (currently trying to destroy it, and ditto).
Al Gore has spent seven years after the White House doing good works. Assuming that Dick Cheney lasts that long, does anyone believe that he'll actually do anything socially beneficial? Or will he instead spend the rest of his days trying to justify the war he instigated?
Anyway, Mark Leibovich and Patrick Healy team up to write a nice piece on Al Gore's visit to Congress.....
Healy, you will remember, got his start covering Harvard for the Globe....
Al Gore has spent seven years after the White House doing good works. Assuming that Dick Cheney lasts that long, does anyone believe that he'll actually do anything socially beneficial? Or will he instead spend the rest of his days trying to justify the war he instigated?
Anyway, Mark Leibovich and Patrick Healy team up to write a nice piece on Al Gore's visit to Congress.....
Healy, you will remember, got his start covering Harvard for the Globe....
Cheney, Animal House, Etc.
Dick Cheney is having leg problems again, which makes me wish he would resign, again. And I think to myself (again) that the only way he will be dragged from the Oval Office is like the horse in Animal House...
The Crimson's New Cop
The Crimson has an ombudsman! The Crimson has an ombudsman!
The only problem is, he seeems to have adopted that sage-but-reasonable tone of ombudsmen everywhere.
For example...in his first column, he picks a juicy topic: an article about students who participate in medical experiments, which highlighted one particularly curious example of a student forced to live in a room in Mass General for five days with "dim, unchanging light."
The ombudsman, an HLS student and former reporter named Michael Kolber, sniffs a rat .
Kolber points out that the student says he was paid $250, or $50 a day, for his participation, which is obviously absurd, if only for the reason that when you figure what it costs him to go to Harvard for five days, he (or his parents, anyway) would be losing a substantial amount of money. Which would make the student in question an idiot, who therefore could not have gotten into Harvard.
Kolber called the student, who answered evasively and then hung up the phone.
Kolber writes:
The trouble with the article is the complete credence The Crimson gave to a story that had some fairly far-fetched sounding elements. The reporter should have attempted to contact the hospital or the researcher to verify the story.
At minimum, the story should have contained some context for the experiment, perhaps a doctor discussing the potential health impacts of repeatedly being a test subject. Or, The Crimson could have discussed the review process that all experiments involving human subjects must undergo.
The reporter did none of this, nor did his editors ask him to.
Well...yes. But no. The trouble with the article is that this part of it is obviously complete bullshit. Kolber should have explicitly stated his concern that this anecdote is fraudulent. Obviously, I think it is, and I suspect he does too. Doesn't the ombudsman have the obligation to come out and say that he thinks a story is fake?
_______________________________________________________________
P.S. As a favor to the new ombudsman—because that's the kind of blogger I am— I offer this constructive suggestion: When critiquing a specific article, add the relevant hyperlink to the online version of your column so that readers can read the article in question....
The only problem is, he seeems to have adopted that sage-but-reasonable tone of ombudsmen everywhere.
For example...in his first column, he picks a juicy topic: an article about students who participate in medical experiments, which highlighted one particularly curious example of a student forced to live in a room in Mass General for five days with "dim, unchanging light."
The ombudsman, an HLS student and former reporter named Michael Kolber, sniffs a rat .
Kolber points out that the student says he was paid $250, or $50 a day, for his participation, which is obviously absurd, if only for the reason that when you figure what it costs him to go to Harvard for five days, he (or his parents, anyway) would be losing a substantial amount of money. Which would make the student in question an idiot, who therefore could not have gotten into Harvard.
Kolber called the student, who answered evasively and then hung up the phone.
Kolber writes:
The trouble with the article is the complete credence The Crimson gave to a story that had some fairly far-fetched sounding elements. The reporter should have attempted to contact the hospital or the researcher to verify the story.
At minimum, the story should have contained some context for the experiment, perhaps a doctor discussing the potential health impacts of repeatedly being a test subject. Or, The Crimson could have discussed the review process that all experiments involving human subjects must undergo.
The reporter did none of this, nor did his editors ask him to.
Well...yes. But no. The trouble with the article is that this part of it is obviously complete bullshit. Kolber should have explicitly stated his concern that this anecdote is fraudulent. Obviously, I think it is, and I suspect he does too. Doesn't the ombudsman have the obligation to come out and say that he thinks a story is fake?
_______________________________________________________________
P.S. As a favor to the new ombudsman—because that's the kind of blogger I am— I offer this constructive suggestion: When critiquing a specific article, add the relevant hyperlink to the online version of your column so that readers can read the article in question....
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Could TR Win in Iraq?
In Slate, David Silbey argues that as we fight the war in Iraq, we could learn from the lessons of Teddy Roosevelt and the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902.
In the Philippines, the United States won with relatively few casualties. A little more than three years after the start of the war, President Theodore Roosevelt could declare victory and, unlike George W. Bush, not be undercut by a continuing insurrection. America succeeded less by waging war and more by waging politics, politics that co-opted much of the Filipino population and isolated the revolutionaries. That victory offers a central lesson for our current involvement in Iraq: Counterinsurgency is less about conquest and more about persuasion.
It's a fascinating piece, and it suggests that a crucial difference between the two conflicts is the men in the Oval Office. GWB, in short, is no TR.
It also suggests at least one disturbing continuity: the use of torture. Now, we water-board. Back then, we used the "'water cure'—in which a captive was forced to drink gallons of water and then vomit it back up...."
And, of course, it raises the question of whether either war was really necessary....
In the Philippines, the United States won with relatively few casualties. A little more than three years after the start of the war, President Theodore Roosevelt could declare victory and, unlike George W. Bush, not be undercut by a continuing insurrection. America succeeded less by waging war and more by waging politics, politics that co-opted much of the Filipino population and isolated the revolutionaries. That victory offers a central lesson for our current involvement in Iraq: Counterinsurgency is less about conquest and more about persuasion.
It's a fascinating piece, and it suggests that a crucial difference between the two conflicts is the men in the Oval Office. GWB, in short, is no TR.
It also suggests at least one disturbing continuity: the use of torture. Now, we water-board. Back then, we used the "'water cure'—in which a captive was forced to drink gallons of water and then vomit it back up...."
And, of course, it raises the question of whether either war was really necessary....
Harvard's Hubris
02138 has a list of Harvardians who've fallen because of their own hubris, and the Herald writes it up. (Kudos to the Harvard News Office for listing it on Harvard in the News.)
I still don't think that we've yet heard the true story of what really happened with Kaavya, though.....
I still don't think that we've yet heard the true story of what really happened with Kaavya, though.....
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Crimson Bashes the Faculty
In another sign of the synergy between its editorial and its news pages*, the Crimson today blasts the faculty for its low turnout at last week's FAS meeting.
Faculty members are eager to ensure students are required to take their classes but show considerably less interest in encouraging quality teaching. Or at least that’s the message being sent by professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), who turned out in droves to make sure their department’s classes had a place in the new general education system, but who last week failed to even show up to talk about a much heralded report on pedagogy. Such apathy from professors is appalling.
The Crimson has this partly right: Many professors probably are quick to blow off a meeting to discuss pedagogy, especially one where nothing's going to come of it.
But isn't there more to the issue? A poster on this board raised the issue that faculty meetings have become less substantive because that's the way the central administration wants it, and as a result faculty members have become less engaged, and thus more likely to skip faculty meetings.
This strikes me as a serious argument which the Crimson dismisses too hastily. (The paper seems to have an affinity for centralized power, probably because Larry Summers presented himself as a student advocate and probably because it's easier and more interesting to cover.)
Truth is that the faculty's recent assertion of power—ousting Larry Sumers— was notable not because it was representative of the course of power at Harvard, but because it was exceptional. The last half century has seen a steady decline in the power of the faculty and a growth in the power of the Harvard presidency and various anonymous bureaucrats. It's easy to bash the faculty, but the real culprit may be the increasing bureaucratization of the university....
__________________________________________________________________
* I am now bracing myself for the inevitable Crimson "how dare you say such a thing?" protests.....
Faculty members are eager to ensure students are required to take their classes but show considerably less interest in encouraging quality teaching. Or at least that’s the message being sent by professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), who turned out in droves to make sure their department’s classes had a place in the new general education system, but who last week failed to even show up to talk about a much heralded report on pedagogy. Such apathy from professors is appalling.
The Crimson has this partly right: Many professors probably are quick to blow off a meeting to discuss pedagogy, especially one where nothing's going to come of it.
But isn't there more to the issue? A poster on this board raised the issue that faculty meetings have become less substantive because that's the way the central administration wants it, and as a result faculty members have become less engaged, and thus more likely to skip faculty meetings.
This strikes me as a serious argument which the Crimson dismisses too hastily. (The paper seems to have an affinity for centralized power, probably because Larry Summers presented himself as a student advocate and probably because it's easier and more interesting to cover.)
Truth is that the faculty's recent assertion of power—ousting Larry Sumers— was notable not because it was representative of the course of power at Harvard, but because it was exceptional. The last half century has seen a steady decline in the power of the faculty and a growth in the power of the Harvard presidency and various anonymous bureaucrats. It's easy to bash the faculty, but the real culprit may be the increasing bureaucratization of the university....
__________________________________________________________________
* I am now bracing myself for the inevitable Crimson "how dare you say such a thing?" protests.....
The Fog of War
The Washington Post reports on how the Bush administration uses numbers to present the rosiest possible view of the war. As the article points out, the numbers are impossible to verify, and therefore close to meaningless. Or they're just fundamentally artificial. For example:
According to a chart in last week's Pentagon assessment, the number of "Trained Iraqi Security Forces" now totals 328,700. A disclaimer noted that "the actual number of those present-for-duty soldiers is about one-half to two-thirds of the total due to scheduled leave, absence without leave, and attrition."
Hilarious, if it weren't so Orwellian. How can you count a soldier who's left due to "attrition"? (Apparently, without blinking an eye.) Next thing you know the Pentagon will modify that statistic to include soldiers who are, in fact, dead.
But here's a more meaningful statistic: estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war range from 21, 000 to 60,000 to 600,000. It would seem an important number to know. Doesn't our seriousness (or lack thereof) about quantifying—and minimizing—this statistic reflect the nature of the war itself?
According to a chart in last week's Pentagon assessment, the number of "Trained Iraqi Security Forces" now totals 328,700. A disclaimer noted that "the actual number of those present-for-duty soldiers is about one-half to two-thirds of the total due to scheduled leave, absence without leave, and attrition."
Hilarious, if it weren't so Orwellian. How can you count a soldier who's left due to "attrition"? (Apparently, without blinking an eye.) Next thing you know the Pentagon will modify that statistic to include soldiers who are, in fact, dead.
But here's a more meaningful statistic: estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war range from 21, 000 to 60,000 to 600,000. It would seem an important number to know. Doesn't our seriousness (or lack thereof) about quantifying—and minimizing—this statistic reflect the nature of the war itself?
Friday, March 16, 2007
Summers at Tufts
You can watch the video of Larry Summers speaking at Tufts here.
Ain't the Internet grand?
_______________________________________________________
P.S. What's with that weird fire warning? "Once outside, please move away from the building...."
P.P.S. Lawrence Bacow, in his introduction: "To the current generation of Harvard students, Larry was a beloved president."
And so history takes shape....
Ain't the Internet grand?
_______________________________________________________
P.S. What's with that weird fire warning? "Once outside, please move away from the building...."
P.P.S. Lawrence Bacow, in his introduction: "To the current generation of Harvard students, Larry was a beloved president."
And so history takes shape....
How Harvard Does PR
A poster below brings an absolutely hilarious aside in a Crimson piece to my attention.
Reporter Rachel Pollack apparently came into possession of a Harvard report on a new system of advising undergraduates.
The report says advising could vary significantly between Houses, resident deans may be overburdened with other responsibilities, and the House tutoring staff might need to be reorganized.
Nothing scandalous, right? Just a little honesty about the potential liabilities of the new system.
But the Harvard administration finds the disclosure of such candor threatening....
Presented with the report in an interview with The Crimson, Associate Dean of Advising Programs Monique Rinere asked to see the original document several times, then refused to return it.
FAS spokesman Robert P. Mitchell, who was present at the interview, said at the time that Rinere had the right to keep the document because she said it originally belonged to her. According to the report, one option under consideration was to hire a new residential dean for each House assigned exclusively to first-semester sophomores. This plan was eventually abandoned, perhaps for its cost; in total, the College would pay an estimated $1 million in salaries.
Oh, dear. You people....
Okay, here's what happens now.
Dean Riners, you make a personal apology to the Crimson, saying that you were caught off-guard and you overreacted. (This is a really cool thing—it's called "the truth.")
Then you sit down and give the paper an honest interview in which you say, look, advising is a really tough challenge, everyone knows that, and we think this new program is a good approach, but we also want to be fully prepared for anything and everything that can go wrong. This report doesn't mean that those things will happen, it means that we take every possibility seriously enough to examine it in writing, because we think that's the best thing for the students.
Robert Mitchell...first, untie the knots from your tongue. Then report for your new job with Alberto Gonzalez.
Honestly, Harvard—Larry Summers is gone. (Well, kind of.) You don't have to act like this any more....
Reporter Rachel Pollack apparently came into possession of a Harvard report on a new system of advising undergraduates.
The report says advising could vary significantly between Houses, resident deans may be overburdened with other responsibilities, and the House tutoring staff might need to be reorganized.
Nothing scandalous, right? Just a little honesty about the potential liabilities of the new system.
But the Harvard administration finds the disclosure of such candor threatening....
Presented with the report in an interview with The Crimson, Associate Dean of Advising Programs Monique Rinere asked to see the original document several times, then refused to return it.
FAS spokesman Robert P. Mitchell, who was present at the interview, said at the time that Rinere had the right to keep the document because she said it originally belonged to her. According to the report, one option under consideration was to hire a new residential dean for each House assigned exclusively to first-semester sophomores. This plan was eventually abandoned, perhaps for its cost; in total, the College would pay an estimated $1 million in salaries.
Oh, dear. You people....
Okay, here's what happens now.
Dean Riners, you make a personal apology to the Crimson, saying that you were caught off-guard and you overreacted. (This is a really cool thing—it's called "the truth.")
Then you sit down and give the paper an honest interview in which you say, look, advising is a really tough challenge, everyone knows that, and we think this new program is a good approach, but we also want to be fully prepared for anything and everything that can go wrong. This report doesn't mean that those things will happen, it means that we take every possibility seriously enough to examine it in writing, because we think that's the best thing for the students.
Robert Mitchell...first, untie the knots from your tongue. Then report for your new job with Alberto Gonzalez.
Honestly, Harvard—Larry Summers is gone. (Well, kind of.) You don't have to act like this any more....
Sometimes, This Country Scares Me
In South Carolina, state reps are pushing a law mandating that any woman considering having an abortion would first be required to view an ultrasound of her fetus.
Jesus, you people are sick.
And lest you think it's just our scary brethren to the south pushing such anti-female legislation, similar laws exist in...well...other Southern states.
Pro-choice advocates often want reporters to ask anti-abortion Republicans the question, "If abortion is murder, how should women who have abortions be punished?"
Because it's a trick question and all, designed to make these candidates look heartless, which, to be sure, they generally are.
Seems to me that such laws are the answer to the question—except that they're actually trying to punish a woman before she has an abortion; to suggest that, simply for considering that option, she's a shameful person who hasn't for a second considered the implications of that decision.
Sometimes you wonder if the (almost invariably) male lawmakers pushing such legislation have actually ever spoken to a woman who's had an abortion. I know a few, and for every single one of them, it was an excruciating, agonizing decision, one that they knew would live with forever. Women making that decision casually? I'm sure they exist—statistically, they'd have to—but that has to be a tiny minority.
And then, of course, there's always the simple—but to me, incontestable—truism that if it were men who got pregnant, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
The debate about abortion isn't really a debate over human life; it's simply a fight over power, and whether men will continue to enjoy the dominion over women's bodies that they have possessed throughout history. As is usually the case with fights over power, morality is merely the wrapping paper.
Jesus, you people are sick.
And lest you think it's just our scary brethren to the south pushing such anti-female legislation, similar laws exist in...well...other Southern states.
Pro-choice advocates often want reporters to ask anti-abortion Republicans the question, "If abortion is murder, how should women who have abortions be punished?"
Because it's a trick question and all, designed to make these candidates look heartless, which, to be sure, they generally are.
Seems to me that such laws are the answer to the question—except that they're actually trying to punish a woman before she has an abortion; to suggest that, simply for considering that option, she's a shameful person who hasn't for a second considered the implications of that decision.
Sometimes you wonder if the (almost invariably) male lawmakers pushing such legislation have actually ever spoken to a woman who's had an abortion. I know a few, and for every single one of them, it was an excruciating, agonizing decision, one that they knew would live with forever. Women making that decision casually? I'm sure they exist—statistically, they'd have to—but that has to be a tiny minority.
And then, of course, there's always the simple—but to me, incontestable—truism that if it were men who got pregnant, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
The debate about abortion isn't really a debate over human life; it's simply a fight over power, and whether men will continue to enjoy the dominion over women's bodies that they have possessed throughout history. As is usually the case with fights over power, morality is merely the wrapping paper.
Friday Pick of the Week
It's been a tough 12 months for rock musicians who left their glory days behind. Crowded House drummer Paul Hester hanged himself from a tree almost exactly a year ago; Grateful Dead keyboardist Vince Welnick slit his throat with a knife last June.
Now Brad Delp, the lead singer for the band Boston, has also committed suicide. He locked himself inside his bathroom with two gas grills, apparently on but unlit. A note he left behind read, J'ai une ame solitaire. I am a lonely soul.
Lonely enough to translate, just to make sure whoever read it would know.
Lines from stories about his death are unintentionally poignant.
A lifelong Beatles fan, Delp also played with the tribute band Beatle Juice....
Why is that sad? Because for a while there back in the late '70s, Boston was huge. Founded in the mid-70s by Tom Scholz, an MIT engineering student who worked at Polaroid, the band restored the vitality of arena rock at a time when disco and punk were ascendant and rock icons like the Stones and Led Zeppelin were starting to suck. Their first album, Boston, came out in 1976 and, well, it rocked. (It also sold 17 million copies.) It is humanly impossible not to listen to Foreplay/Long Time without wanting to sing along and wave a lighter over your head. Don't tell me you don't remember.....
Well I'm takin' my time, I'm just movin' on
You'll forget about me after I've been gone
And I take what I find, I don't want no more
It's just outside of your front door
It's been such a long time....
It's easy to make fun of Boston now; they certainly had their Spinal Tappish qualities. The eponymous first album, cheesy graphics, control freak songwriter, synthesizer intros, prog rock overtones, record company lawsuits, replaced drummer, intra-band fighting.... And the scary thing is, I could go on.
But why make fun? I'd prefer to remember how great it was to hear those opening notes of Long Time, even on an eleven-year-old's clock radio, or the power chords of "More Than a Feeling".... Go back and listen to that first record. It is still surprisingly good, and far better than most of the generic corporate pop the music biz currently churns out.....
Now Brad Delp, the lead singer for the band Boston, has also committed suicide. He locked himself inside his bathroom with two gas grills, apparently on but unlit. A note he left behind read, J'ai une ame solitaire. I am a lonely soul.
Lonely enough to translate, just to make sure whoever read it would know.
Lines from stories about his death are unintentionally poignant.
A lifelong Beatles fan, Delp also played with the tribute band Beatle Juice....
Why is that sad? Because for a while there back in the late '70s, Boston was huge. Founded in the mid-70s by Tom Scholz, an MIT engineering student who worked at Polaroid, the band restored the vitality of arena rock at a time when disco and punk were ascendant and rock icons like the Stones and Led Zeppelin were starting to suck. Their first album, Boston, came out in 1976 and, well, it rocked. (It also sold 17 million copies.) It is humanly impossible not to listen to Foreplay/Long Time without wanting to sing along and wave a lighter over your head. Don't tell me you don't remember.....
Well I'm takin' my time, I'm just movin' on
You'll forget about me after I've been gone
And I take what I find, I don't want no more
It's just outside of your front door
It's been such a long time....
It's easy to make fun of Boston now; they certainly had their Spinal Tappish qualities. The eponymous first album, cheesy graphics, control freak songwriter, synthesizer intros, prog rock overtones, record company lawsuits, replaced drummer, intra-band fighting.... And the scary thing is, I could go on.
But why make fun? I'd prefer to remember how great it was to hear those opening notes of Long Time, even on an eleven-year-old's clock radio, or the power chords of "More Than a Feeling".... Go back and listen to that first record. It is still surprisingly good, and far better than most of the generic corporate pop the music biz currently churns out.....
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Summers at Tufts: Wow
In the Crimson, Zach Seward reports on Larry Summers' speech at Tufts, where his impending appearance had generated some mild controversy.
If my reading of Seward's article is correct, Summers' appearance should generate far more controversy at Harvard than at Tufts.
Seward notes that there is also a long Harvard tradition of deposed administrators taking up the role of pesky gadfly.
That may be true, though I don't know Harvard history well enough to say so. (Citing Harry Lewis hardly constitutes a long tradition, and I wonder if it wouldn't be more accurate to call this a "recent phenomenon.")
But whatever is the case with "deposed administrators" becoming gadflies, there is no precedent that I'm aware of for a former president directly criticizing the Harvard faculty.
When Derek Bok left the Harvard presidency in 1991 and took an office in the Kennedy School, he made a scrupulous point of not speaking out on current Harvard affairs. It was unfair, he thought, to his successor, to have the old president lingering on campus and making life difficult for Neil Rudenstine.
Larry Summers is clearly not going to follow that model.
As Seward tells it, Summers...
...criticized the Harvard faculty and the curricular review.
“When university faculties are unwilling to take a stand on what constitutes the undergraduate experience for students, on what, if anything, somebody needs to function in today’s world, they license a position that all ideas are equally valid,” he said.
...criticized the final General Education report, saying...
“I would have liked a somewhat better defined sense of what the crucial issues were that students needed to grapple with, and I would have welcomed a deeper commitment to faculty-student contact.”
...criticized Harvard professors' teaching ability, saying,
“I can’t recall a single case when an effort was made to raid Harvard for a candidate who was an outstanding teacher.”
Well, he does speak his mind, doesn't he? (There's more in Seward's article.) I'll have some thoughts on the specifics of Summers criticisms, but all I can say is that if this is going to be Summers' approach to his post-presidency, then look out, Drew Faust!
Things around 02138 just got a lot more interesting.
If my reading of Seward's article is correct, Summers' appearance should generate far more controversy at Harvard than at Tufts.
Seward notes that there is also a long Harvard tradition of deposed administrators taking up the role of pesky gadfly.
That may be true, though I don't know Harvard history well enough to say so. (Citing Harry Lewis hardly constitutes a long tradition, and I wonder if it wouldn't be more accurate to call this a "recent phenomenon.")
But whatever is the case with "deposed administrators" becoming gadflies, there is no precedent that I'm aware of for a former president directly criticizing the Harvard faculty.
When Derek Bok left the Harvard presidency in 1991 and took an office in the Kennedy School, he made a scrupulous point of not speaking out on current Harvard affairs. It was unfair, he thought, to his successor, to have the old president lingering on campus and making life difficult for Neil Rudenstine.
Larry Summers is clearly not going to follow that model.
As Seward tells it, Summers...
...criticized the Harvard faculty and the curricular review.
“When university faculties are unwilling to take a stand on what constitutes the undergraduate experience for students, on what, if anything, somebody needs to function in today’s world, they license a position that all ideas are equally valid,” he said.
...criticized the final General Education report, saying...
“I would have liked a somewhat better defined sense of what the crucial issues were that students needed to grapple with, and I would have welcomed a deeper commitment to faculty-student contact.”
...criticized Harvard professors' teaching ability, saying,
“I can’t recall a single case when an effort was made to raid Harvard for a candidate who was an outstanding teacher.”
Well, he does speak his mind, doesn't he? (There's more in Seward's article.) I'll have some thoughts on the specifics of Summers criticisms, but all I can say is that if this is going to be Summers' approach to his post-presidency, then look out, Drew Faust!
Things around 02138 just got a lot more interesting.
For Journalism Wonks
Would the editor of the New York Times allow an article in the paper to be partially covered by an advertisement, until you ripped it away? I don't think so. But that's exactly what's going on on the Web, and it's raising some weird questions about the nature of church/state separation in journalism.
The other day, I clicked on a Times article. Above it was a banner ad for General Electric's "Ecomagination." A small frog was perched on the corner of the ad. As soon as the page filled, the frog hopped across the screen and perched on the first paragraph of editorial type. Eventually it hopped back, but still...infuriating.
You've probably seen variations on this—new pop-ups that superimpose themselves over text and won't go away till they're clicked, shadow ads that bounce back and forth across the page like the ball in Pong; ads that speak to you, not when you click on them, but when you load a page. I just saw an ad that deliberately obliterated one line of a paragraph of an article and only moved after I clicked a forward arrow on my browser.
As web ads get more aggressive and invasive, the editorial experience deteriorates. Articles are obviously harder to read; but more importantly, the distinctive and important separation between editorial and advertising becomes blurred in ways that old media types don't really get. (It's the 20-somethings who are creating these web pages, and the ads that corrupt them; the Bill Keller types are, I'm sure, clueless.) Ultimately, what we're heading toward is some Internet version of product placement, except in news articles rather than half-hour sitcoms.
So many media companies are now depending on the Web to attract readers and improve their bottom line. But this is a sure bet to scare readers away.
The other day, I clicked on a Times article. Above it was a banner ad for General Electric's "Ecomagination." A small frog was perched on the corner of the ad. As soon as the page filled, the frog hopped across the screen and perched on the first paragraph of editorial type. Eventually it hopped back, but still...infuriating.
You've probably seen variations on this—new pop-ups that superimpose themselves over text and won't go away till they're clicked, shadow ads that bounce back and forth across the page like the ball in Pong; ads that speak to you, not when you click on them, but when you load a page. I just saw an ad that deliberately obliterated one line of a paragraph of an article and only moved after I clicked a forward arrow on my browser.
As web ads get more aggressive and invasive, the editorial experience deteriorates. Articles are obviously harder to read; but more importantly, the distinctive and important separation between editorial and advertising becomes blurred in ways that old media types don't really get. (It's the 20-somethings who are creating these web pages, and the ads that corrupt them; the Bill Keller types are, I'm sure, clueless.) Ultimately, what we're heading toward is some Internet version of product placement, except in news articles rather than half-hour sitcoms.
So many media companies are now depending on the Web to attract readers and improve their bottom line. But this is a sure bet to scare readers away.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007