Faculty Uproar Led To Ouster

The Faculty and the president have struggled for control of Harvard’s largest arm for much of the four years, seven months, and 21 days since Lawrence H. Summers took office.

Yesterday, it appeared, the Faculty won.

“It’s extraordinarily sad that it came to this,” said McKay Professor of Mechanical Engineering Frederick H. Abernathy, one of the Summers critics who emerged from the woodwork to confront the president at an explosive meeting of the full Faculty two weeks ago.

“At long last, this is over,” Abernathy said yesterday.

While public spats between prominent professors and the president captured media attention, many of the key moments in Summers’ fight with the Faculty occurred behind closed doors.

For instance, a technical dispute over doctoral degrees last year does as much to explain the rift as do the splashier headlines of the last half-decade.

Certainly, Summers lost some support in the early months of his presidency when he sparred with an African-American Studies professor, Cornel R. West ’74, who soon departed for a post at Princeton.

And Summers’ remarks on women in science last January further eroded his popularity.

But the relative calm that prevailed publicly after Summers lost a Faculty no-confidence vote last March disguised a deeper rift.

The real roots—and the full extent­—of the Faculty’s continued discontent with the president are only now becoming clear.

“It’s been hard for the professors to explain the problem,” said Andrew Gordon ’74, chair of the History Department. “A lot of it has to do with decisions that are made in confidence and probably should remain in confidence.”

In the wake of Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby’s forced resignation on Jan. 27, professors’ calls for Summers’ resignation grew exponentially louder over the past two weeks. So did criticism from students, alumni, and some Faculty dissenters who castigated Summers’ opponents for fostering a “culture of grievance, intemperance, and ill will,” as Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature Ruth R. Wisse wrote in an e-mail last week.

But those relieved by Summers’ resignation—by all appearances, a large majority of the Faculty—hope that history will remember this month’s uprising as one for the good of the University.

“The thing that would make me most sad is if Harvard students felt that there had been some assault on them and their interests and their priorities,” said historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, the 300th Anniversary University professor. “That is surely not the case, although it may certainly look that way.”

As Diana Sorensen, the Rothenberg professor of Romance languages and literatures, put it, “Our main concern has not been with exerting power, but with Harvard.”

THE ROOTS OF CRISIS

The Faculty’s uproar was fed as much by unhappiness with Summers’ leadership style as with particular issues of policy.

Some professors point to the circumstances under which the then-dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) departed a year ago as an example of the internal disputes that fed their discontent.

In early April, that dean, Peter T. Ellison, met with the Caucus of Chairs, an informal group of department heads. He described how earlier last year, Summers had considered shifting some of the graduate school’s power over Ph.D. programs to the Office of the Provost, in the central administration.

Summers later decided to drop the idea, which Faculty members saw as an encroachment on their authority. In Harvard’s administrative structure, GSAS lies within the Faculty’s control.

Ellison said that Summers pledged to release a letter stating that the Ph.D proposal would not be carried out. That letter never appeared.

In protest, Ellison resigned last February.

After being briefed by Ellison, a member of the Caucus—Classics Department Chair Richard F. Thomas—asked Summers at the April 12 Faculty meeting whether the president had “been contemplating or conducting even preliminary discussions” about shifting control of Ph.D. programs.

“No and no,” Summers replied.

Gordon and James J. McCarthy, chair of the committee on environmental science and public policy, said yesterday that department chairs saw Summers’ denial as a sign that the president wasn’t trustworthy.

Gordon and McCarthy are now coordinators of the Caucus of Chairs.

“There were 30 people in that room who heard the president be dishonest,” said Gordon. “How can we trust other things?”

But despite the potentially explosive nature of the issue, Ellison did not go public with his grievances until last week, in an interview with the Boston Globe. Gordon said Ellison initially “wanted to give the president a chance to fix things.”

Ellison’s interview with the Globe caused a stir among Harvard observers last week. Yet McCarthy said it hardly came as a shock to most professors, who felt it illustrated their grievances with the president.

“This is but one of many, many examples, and someone had to put one out there that was unassailable,” he said. “This is why the word trust comes up repeatedly.”

Still, McCarthy and Gordon both acknowledged that for those observing the conflict with Summers from outside the Faculty, their problems could be difficult to understand.

“I think it’s hard for people who aren’t in these meetings...to see why it’s been hard to work with [Summers],” McCarthy said.

‘EMOTIONALLY EXHAUSTED’

Faculty members yesterday struck a somber but relieved tone as they expressed hope that the University would move past the divisive battles of this month and last winter.

“Hopefully this is the end of a string of unfortunate events that started over a year ago,” said Eric N. Jacobsen, the Emery professor of chemistry. “I’m optimistic about what the future holds, but I’m also emotionally exhausted.”

Summers’ announcement changed the tone of some of his most vehement critics, including J. Lorand Matory ’82, who introduced the no-confidence motion that passed last March.

“I admire him for the humility and the dignity that it took to step down,” said Matory, who is professor of anthropology and of African and African American studies. “In stepping down he deserves our collegiality and support.”

Another critic of Summers, Weary Professor of German and of Comparative Literature Judith Ryan, called Summers’ move “very appropriate” and said that she hoped the Faculty would move forward with its business.

“With this clean break, we will be able to do it,” she said last night. “I think things will improve quickly. I think there is a lot of goodwill.”

Ryan had called for a second vote of no confidence at the upcoming Feb. 28 Faculty meeting, but said she was glad that the vote was now “moot” and likely would not be held.

As professors looked to the legacy of Summers’ presidency, one supporter said he would be remembered in a positive light.

“I think it’s entirely possible, in 30 years, that oddly, despite all this mess, this will be seen as a very successful presidency,” said Professor of Economics Edward L. Glaeser.

Summers “led us into the right direction in terms of renewed commitment to undergraduate education, in terms of setting the stage for Allston construction, and in terms of making Harvard a major player for the life sciences in the 21st century,” Glaeser said.

Ulrich, meanwhile, called the past month’s controversy “a small thing in the long scope of a university.”

“These things happen,” she said. “I don’t think we should overdramatize.”

—Staff writer Evan H. Jacobs can be reached at ehjacobs@fas.harvard.edu.
—Staff writer Anton S. Troianovski can be reached at atroian@fas.harvard.edu.