President Ruth Simmons is in hot water for making millions “serving” as a board member for Goldman Sachs--and no one’s very happy about the fact that, in return, she helped dole out millions and millions and millions of dollars in bonuses.

It is a remarkable reversal for Dr. Simmons, 64, and, indeed, for the stature of corporate directorships. A spot on a board, particularly at a moneymaker like Goldman, used to be considered a plum job. The demands were relatively modest compared with the rewards. Dr. Simmons, for instance, was paid $323,539 last year for her work on the board, and will soon leave her position at Goldman with stock that is currently worth about $4.3 million. That was on top of her salary at Brown, which was $576,000 this year.

Simmons told the Times that she was stepping down from the board, but not because of any controversy related to her Goldman Sachs-digging.

Dr. Simmons, whose ascension at Brown, part of the Ivy League, was seen as a triumph for African-Americans and women, defended her role at Goldman. In a telephone interview, she said she was used to lively debate around the university and that the public controversy surrounding Goldman had no influence on her decision to withdraw from the board. Instead, she said, she stepped down after 10 years because the job was taking up too much of her time, particularly in the wake of the financial collapse….

This explanation invites a raised eyebrow. Because, you know, for $4 million bucks, Ruth Simmons would make the time. She has, after all, been on the board for a decade.

I’ll admit a bias here: I’ve never bought into the “isn’t Ruth Simmons great?” parade, largely because a) I never seen sign of said greatness, and b) when I tried to interview her for Harvard Rules, her staff was strikingly rude and arrogant, and as any journalist will tell you, the staff is invariably a reflection of the leader.

But beyond that, it’s stories like this that challenge one not to be cynical. Why did Goldman Sachs want Simmons, a humanist who likely couldn’t tell the difference between a derivative, a credit swap, and a checking account, on its board?

Let’s just say that Goldman Sachs can probably use—and I do mean use—all the African-American women in visible positions it can get. Because it doesn’t have very many of them.

And until recently, Ruth Simmons was happy to cash the checks.

Simmons could make the case that Brown, which is chronically (if relatively) poor compared to its Ivy League cousins, needs all the financial  connections it can get. Strangely, she doesn’t. She could also point to financial benefits Brown has accrued from the relationship (as opposed to those she herself has accrued). But she doesn’t do that either. And when asked about Goldman’s role in the financial crisis, she sounds downright bought and paid for.

Dr. Simmons, a professor of French and a former president of Smith College, said history would judge Goldman and Wall Street. But she declined to comment on whether outsize pay on Wall Street contributed to the crisis, as some have suggested, by giving banks and traders the incentive to seek short-term rewards at the expense of long-term prosperity.

“There are going to be lots of books written. I think people will make their own decisions,” Dr. Simmons said. “It’s easy to look back and say, ‘Gee, that was a lot,’ but you have to look forward and see how people react.”

You have to look forward and see how people react?

Really? Why? And what does that even mean?