Coda

Why should I be surprised? I open the NY Times today, and found this:

Professors, in Close Vote, Censure Harvard Leader
By SARA RIMER

Published: March 16, 2005


AMBRIDGE, Mass., March 15 - The Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard approved a resolution on Tuesday expressing a lack of confidence in the leadership of the university's president, Lawrence H. Summers, citing longstanding dissatisfaction with his management style and, to a lesser extent, his remarks in January about women in math and science.

The vote was 218 in favor and 185 opposed, with 18 abstentions.

At an intense and sober meeting, Dr. Summers's supporters accused his opponents of political correctness while his critics emphasized that their concerns had nothing to do with political correctness but were about Dr. Summers's leadership, as well as his remarks concerning a lack of women in science.

Passage of the resolution was largely symbolic because only the Harvard Corporation, which governs the university, has the authority to dismiss the university's president.

The corporation reaffirmed its support for Dr. Summers in a statement released after the meeting by James R. Houghton, senior fellow of the corporation. "The members of the Corporation fully support President Summers in his ongoing efforts to listen thoughtfully to the range of views being expressed by members of the university's faculties, and to work collegially and constructively with them to address the important academic matters facing Harvard," Mr. Houghton said in the statement.

The vote of no confidence, believed to be the first in Harvard's history, was a blow for Dr. Summers, who has been trying for weeks to repair relations with his faculty.

Dr. Summers spoke briefly at the end of the meeting on Tuesday, saying he had been trying to learn from people at the university in the last few weeks and would keep trying.

At a statement released after the meeting, Dr. Summers said he had done his best "to hear all that has been said, to think hard, to learn and to adjust."

"I will continue to do that," he said. "I am committed to doing all I can to restore the sense of trust that is critical to our work together, and to re-engage our collective attention with the vital academic issues before us."

The vote was taken by secret ballot, and when the results were announced, about halfway through the meeting, "people gasped," said Prof. Mary C. Waters, chairwoman of the sociology department.

"Everyone was in shock," said Professor Waters, who said she voted for the no-confidence resolution. "People did not expect it." At that moment, Professor Waters added, "I felt sorry for Larry."

But others took a harder line. J. Lorand Matory, a professor of anthropology and African and African-American studies, told reporters after the meeting that Dr. Summers should step down. "There is no noble alternative for him but resignation," said Professor Matory, who introduced the resolution.

As a possible compromise, some members of the faculty had put forth a second resolution, expressing regret at Dr. Summers's management style and his remarks about women. But the faculty passed the harsher no-confidence resolution first. It then approved the second measure, with a larger majority, 253 to 137.

"This is not even about just style anymore," said Professor Waters, who has criticized Dr. Summers for what she describes as a pattern of intimidating faculty members and squelching debate. "There is widespread dissatisfaction with his substantive decisions as well as style."

Dr. Summers, an economist and a former United States Treasury secretary, has been meeting individually with faculty members throughout the Faculty of Arts and Sciences over the last several weeks, apologizing for his remarks about women and for any other offense he might have given and asking for their support so he could move forward.

Now in his fourth year as president, Dr. Summers has ambitious plans to expand the campus to Allston, across the Charles River; to reinvigorate the undergraduate curriculum; and to put a new emphasis on big science.

Claudia Goldin, an economics professor who is a strong supporter of Dr. Summers, said she was disappointed by the vote but added that it represented a "bare majority of those who were there" among the 802 voting members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

"I still think he's taking the university in the right direction," Professor Goldin said. "There are clearly people who don't like the direction for one reason or another. Some feel threatened."


David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, a nonprofit advocacy group of college presidents and chancellors, expressed astonishment at the vote of no confidence.

"It is such an unprecedented event that it's very hard to anticipate the immediate consequences," said Mr. Ward, former chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "It indicates perhaps a level of seriousness that I had not anticipated. I knew there was a problem. I thought people would have a little more patience to see if this could be worked out."

Mr. Ward said he could not answer the question of whether Dr. Summers could continue to govern effectively. "That really depends on how he feels about the vote and the degree to which other parts of the university share the feelings that are expressed at this time," he said.

Professor Waters and other professors have said in recent weeks that they had been concerned about Dr. Summers's leadership for some time and that his remarks in January suggesting that "intrinsic aptitude" might be an explanation for women's lack of success in science had brought the concerns out.

Despite differences of opinion over Dr. Summers, faculty members took pains to talk with one another after the meeting in a demonstration of collegiality, Professor Waters said.

The article speaks pretty much for itself. Some of the sentiments voiced there clearly support my decision to nominate the Summers story for the "Witch Hunt" category, rather than for "PC". Yet, it also raises several interesting questions.
For instance, I didn't realize that Summers was a former U.S. Treasury secretary. Did his history affect the way people felt about him? In other words, can plain old envy be a factor in the excessively harsh reaction? It probably can, just like anything else. But how MUCH of a factor it was, is the real question.

The reaction of Professor Goldin clearly demonstrates that not all women were insulted by the "villain's" words. So how to account for the discrepancy? Is it the simple fact that some women are more sensitive than others? If someone's sensitivity is the sole factor in determining what counts as acceptable and what doesn't, we're all in trouble. I recall a while ago, back in high school, one of my teachers defined "sexual harrassment" in the following terms: it's only harrassment if the woman gets insulted. Very objective. Very fair.

For those of you still not convinced, let's look at it differently. Let's suppose, the President of Harvard was a woman, who said that men have less of an innate ability in verbal skills than women. What do you suppose the public reaction would have been? Sure, a few people might have voiced their outrage, but others would either have laughed it off - or didn't say anything at all. That's my prediction. Now, if any female President of a college wants to take on my challenge and say this in public, I'll be very grateful, and am sure to mention her on my blog. But truthfully, I doubt anyone will care for any such experimentation.

According to the article, the professors blamed the no-confidence vote more on Summers' style than on the latest episode. It's interesting that until he said what he did, everyone kept silent. Yet the incident is completely unrelated to the idea of "stiffling debate". Moreover, not a single specific instance of Summers' supposedly outrageous behavior as a President is given as an example to support these sentiments. Why didn't the journalists ask for a specific example, and found these ambiguous generalizations sufficient?

Media bias? Oh no, we are not supposed to say these things. Certainly, it's interesting to entertain the notion that maybe Summers was not such a horrible President after all, and maybe people simply disliked him personally. He was a bone stuck in *their* throats. One can draw very interesting political parallels, which ended in a relatively close vote, with the results unparalleled in history, and which demonstrated a similar rage of passions, not always supported by concrete grievances. However, such parallels would probably be counterproductive, and so I will restrain and leave it to my readers' imaginations.

It's very clear that at least in some cases, these professors find that no punishment is too harsh for such a diabolical, Machiavellian figure as the democracy-stiffling Dr. Summers. It is not sufficient for these liberal minds (very far from the bleeding-heart stereotype in this instance, mind you) that the President of the Univesity spends weeks going around and apologizing, promising reform, and trying to make up. Some of them, as the article shows, want him to step down. Such a reaction seems to be unreasonable to someone like me.

It goes beyond restorative justice into the gray area of revenge. It is not enough for these people to gain a benign climate and a humbled President. They want to get rid of his very person. Sure tells you something about them, doesn't it? Apparently they care more about their personal sentiments than about what is the right and the logical thing to do under the circumstances. They want their pound of flesh. And it is to their greatest of disappointments that the Harvard Corporation backs this man.

Now, let's look at it a little closer. Summers has two options before him now. Either he steps down or he doesn't. If he steps down, his enemies... er, pardon me, *opponents* will be satisfied, even gloating. Their sense of self-righteousness and *security* will be restored. It's all about feeling secure, isn't it? They fear Summers, he's a threat to them. I don't know WHY, maybe it's all in their imagination. But that's the only reason I can give to explain their ridiculous reaction not only to the much-discussed incident, but to his plans for Harvard and tenure overall. What will happen to Summers' career will be then open for speculations. The second option is for him to remain "in power".

Somehow I have a bad feeling about that. I would be all for Summers' asserting himself, if even for a moment I thought that's what he'd do. So far, however, he has shown himself to be more than humble apologizing to people who clearly didn't need it, and who showed disdain for his attempts to restore good relations. So he'll have to deal with more than half the faculty hating his guts. Now, if someone like *me* were in his place, that person would probably relish the idea of antagonizing this jackals. I, for instance, would enjoy the idea of pushing my plans through, and the inward humiliation of those who were counting on getting me kicked out or at least under their heel. But something's telling me that's not the case with Summers. He will continue his tenure in the shadow of the utter humiliation which was this vote of no-confidence.

If he hadn't asserted himself yet, he probably never will. He will continue trying to make good with his colleagues, only to earn more disdain. No matter what he does, it will be viewed in the setting of the preceding events. He can only restore his respect if he acts in a very determined, even aggressive manner, but I doubt this will happen. My guess is, IF Summers remains in place, he'll be more stooge-like than anything else. Or at least, it's going to be very, very difficult to get anything accomplished, and whatever he does get done, probably wouldn't really be worth all the efforts wasted. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Does my pessimistic prognosis mean that I advocate for Summers to leave, holding on to the last shreds of dignity? No. I think it would mean he's giving in to these people, who clearly weren't acting in good faith. Then again, unless he's planning to make a brilliant, assertive come back, the next few months at least, will probably be a torturous ordeal.

So what do you think: will he go or stay? And if he stays, will we see a good little boy catering to the faculty or a decisive President who does what he thinks is the best for the university?

Glum,
Irina