No Confidence in ‘No Confidence’

The decision by Weary Professor of German and of Comparative Literature Judith Ryan to place yet another no-confidence motion on the docket of the Feb. 28 Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) meeting is an unfortunate, though not unanticipated, one. At best, such a vote will be a dilatory and untimely distraction from more vital issues facing the Faculty—a dean search, the curricular review, and the Allston expansion among them; at worst, the motion can be seen as a crass power grab in the wake of the Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby’s resignation.

It is no secret that members of FAS want a bigger say in choosing their dean. By pronouncing for a second time an enduring lack of confidence in Summers, some Faculty members hope to strip the president of powers that his office has always enjoyed in selecting an FAS dean. But “confidence” does not subsist in a grasp for power, and instead of using the no-confidence vote as a ruse, they should make plain their unorthodox case to exclude Summers from a role the president has always enjoyed. Should they succeed, the Faculty will have severely crippled the likelihood of finding a dean who can effectively liaise between themselves and Summers.

More broadly, there has been a lack of conspicuous wrongdoing on Summers’ part in the intervening time between last March’s no-confidence vote and the impending one at the end of this month. Last year, we argued that the president was wrong to make his infamous, dozen-word comment on women in science. We suggested that he stay mum on subjects likely to compromise his more important, presidential initiatives. As far as we can tell, he has.

The two incidents Faculty members have cited as damning cause for another no-confidence resolution strike us as underwhelming. The first is Kirby’s resignation, which is significant but not necessarily a catastrophe. At the heart of the matter, his departure seems to be an honorable parting of ways over managerial differences between Kirby and his boss, Summers. The other issue is whether or not Summers shielded his friend, Jones Professor of Economics Andrei Shleifer, from repercussions after he was named a defendant—and ultimately found liable—in a lawsuit which accused him of defrauding the U.S. government in an economic reform mission to Russia.

The Shleifer affair is indeed a serious matter, but Faculty members’ propriety in bringing it to the scene now is questionable. The lawsuit was filed in 2000 and settled in 2004. It has been covered comprehensively by this newspaper and in other sources for the duration. True, a recent Institutional Investor article on Summers’ role in the incident does raise concerns about his handling of the events, but the facts of the situation remain at best unclear and are not deserving of a renewed firestorm.

If the Faculty does have other legitimate, timely concerns with Summers, it needs to enumerate them in the resolution it chooses to consider, rather than continue to blast the president in the face with water that was long ago under the bridge.

For the time, Faculty animosity is codified in a tellingly ambiguous, 18-word proposed resolution. What those leading the push for a no-confidence resolution appear to want is Summers’ resignation or removal from the office of University president. Calling on Summers to resign would be a far more courageous and honest course of action for Faculty dissidents.

And while we advocate a clear-worded resolution that addresses the Faculty’s specific concerns and possible wishes for Summers to resigns, the passage of such a resolution does not imply that Summers ought to pack up his Mass. Hall office. This university is not a democracy, and FAS is neither a fully representative nor authoritative body.

Beyond FAS, there are eight other faculties of the University, none of which have joined FAS in expressing displeasure with Summers. There are, furthermore, tens of thousands of students and alumni who have opinions of their own. But chiefly, Harvard’s governance is set up in a way that makes plain that professors, who are ultimately employees, do not hold the reins of power. That function is left to the Corporation, who can appoint and remove a president, and who consider all relevant inputs of opinion. So far, neither its members nor the alumni Board of Overseers have found cause to bring Summers to task.

Moreover, when a governing body votes “yes” to a no-confidence motion, there exists a presumption that confidence can be attained once more. Yet the Faculty appears to be forever unsatiated. In his bid to regain its confidence last year, Summers appointed one of his loudest critics, Thomas Professor of Sociology Theda Skocpol, as dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), and he established a new deanship to promote Faculty diversity.

The Faculty, like the president, must be held to account. As much as discontented Faculty members may lack confidence in Summers, we would modestly submit that, at this point in time, we lack confidence in them. It is the Faculty’s job to stay focused on issues that have a greater bearing over this university’s future. As Faculty members consider how they will vote on Feb. 28, they should ask what the no-confidence resolution is intended to accomplish. They should search their hearts and minds, asking whose interests they have in mind—is it merely theirs, or is it the whole University’s?

The time has come to move past the melodrama that plagued last year. Summers has done his part; Faculty members must do theirs.