Co-Opt and Discredit

Pundits the world over reacted to University President Lawrence H. Summers’ resignation two weeks ago in typical fashion. They stereotyped, and they oversimplified.

But they all can’t be right. The sheer number of diametrically opposed morals that columnists drew from Summers’ resignation means that some were actually trying to understand the political situation at Harvard, and some were merely writing on a deadline.

Two of the country’s premier opinion pages made the same contention, attributing Summers’ ouster to the political correctness of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Wall Street Journal focused on Summers’ encounter with Cornel West, his support of the military, and his comments on the “intrinsic aptitude” of women in science as the causes of Faculty discontent. The Journal portrayed the Faculty as “largely left-wing” with “about as much intellectual diversity as the Pyongyang parliament.” Arguing from the same viewpoint, The Washington Post wrote that Summers “refused to rubber-stamp appointees chosen by the faculties, blocking candidates who seemed insufficiently distinguished and pressing for diversity in political outlook.” Opinion columns by Summers supporters Alan Dershowitz, who is Frankfurter professor of law, and New Republic Editor-in-Chief and Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz agreed. Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature Ruth Wisse questioned whether Summers’ resignation was due to anti-Semitism.

Other pundits centered their explanations on Summers’ management style. Long-time Summers critic Richard Bradley, author of “Harvard Rules,” wrote that Summers’ “Washington-style politics” sealed his fate. Financial Times columnist Lucy Kellaway painted a memorable picture of the management landscape of a successful, large university like Harvard. “Universities,” she wrote, “function adequately enough when everyone is left to their own devices. Incompetent management seems not to matter, the ship goes on sailing. The trouble comes when drastic change is needed.” By her reckoning, Summers’ attempts at any change put him in the Faculty’s sights.

Where Harvard professors missed the board altogether, Kellaway, and, to a lesser extent, Bradley, hit the bullseye. Pundits who used Summers’ ouster to score political points—either against political correctness, the Left, or Harvard faculty proper—were blinded by their own prejudices to what has always been a case of clashing management styles. Eugene Robinson of the Post summarized these wrongheaded opinions brilliantly: “Summers came to be seen as the champion of those who believe that elite American campuses are under the evil sway of a smug, leftist, feminist, multi-culti, Brie-eating, Chablis-swilling, Prius-driving professoriate that’s hopelessly out of touch with mainstream America.”

Summers never was this kind of “champion.” Summers' managerial failing was not that he tried to empower the Right or defeat political correctness; rather, it was that he wasn’t afraid to say he knew best to a collection of entrenched, intelligent professors. Students loved this facet of Summers because we agreed with what he was saying for the most part, especially about the improvement of undergraduate education. But even the most visionary leader has to be willing to compromise and play the political game some of the time. It’s easy to fault the Faculty as a body for necessitating this. But Summers also deserves some blame for not conceding enough to see his vision through.

In this game of academic chicken, neither side blinked. The Faculty was just lucky enough to be driving an SUV, while Summers was stuck with the aforementioned Prius. Now, as history professor Laurel Thatcher Ulrich said in a Crimson article last Thursday, “It’s done, and the question is, ‘What do we do now?’”

Here’s where students like me start to get righteous. Ulrich, the 300th anniversary university professor, and her fellow Faculty members need to begin by responding to their critics. Throughout this tidal wave of punditry about Summers’ resignation—punditry that has effectively dragged my university through the dirt for two weeks—professors have said zilch about Summers’ managerial failings. They have failed in defending the image of Harvard, allowing critical and inaccurate opinions to run rampant.

To the rest of the world, I’m now being taught by flag-burning, Communist draft-dodgers. Pundits have co-opted Summers’ resignation to discredit one of the world's best undergraduate educations.

To explain their silence, Faculty members cite their unwillingness to discuss confidential academic matters in public. In other words, they have all the information to convince us, but for reasons of university security they can’t reveal any of it. Isn’t that what the Bush administration is saying about its illegal wiretapping?

Here’s what I say, Faculty. Those of you in the vocal minority who opposed Summers vehemently enough to convince the rest of FAS that the impasse was impossible to breach, you'd better start talking publicly. Students like me may not agree that Summers was kicked out because of your political correctness, but our trust in your good judgement is fading. We want the Curricular Review on the fast track. We want smaller, better-taught classes. We want a workable Allston plan. We want continued improvement of Harvard’s financial aid awards. And we want a Faculty that innovates, not decays.

One columnist called Harvard students too careerist to care about Summers’ ouster. We do care. But our faith in the Faculty’s reasons for throwing Summers out has, so far, muted any protest. Unless Faculty members speak up soon, that faith will be put sorely to the test.



Alex Slack ’06 is a history concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.