Summers's Time Round-up

The coverage of Larry Summers at Harvard continues to grow, as the faculty met to chew over its options (and the beleaguered president) and bask in the media spotlight. The media smells blood in the water, although Summers has the backing of Harvard's board. As with all political struggles, and this is nothing if not political, the underlying issue is raw power. And the question that remains to be answered is, can anyone, even a brilliant and direct man like Summers, force a professoriate accustomed to doing as it pleases rebuild a culture of service to the nation and the world? Summers's opponents will be satisfied if he's weakened sufficiently so that he no longer poses a threat to their comfortable, solipsistic lifestyles. Whether they'll succeed remains to be seen.

Here is some recent reaction to and commentary on his talk.

Yesterday's New York Sun ran two pieces on Harvard, an editorial and a news article. (There's another article today, but they've restricted it to subscribers.) Yesterday's editorial compares Summers's plight with that of the late Nathan Pusey, who led Harvard during some of the violent opposition to the Vietnam War (violence is OK if you're chic, you see).

Like Pusey, Summers has opposed some entrenched radical interests, including professors such as Everett Mendelsohn, much-quoted in the press of late and author of a 1982 tract calling for reduction in aid to Israel and warm relations with the PLO. Summers also took on Cornel West, perhaps the university's most famous prima donnas, and asked if he could be bothered to do some rigorous scholarship in between his rap recordings and work for the Al Sharpton campaign. Additionally, he opposed divestment of Harvard's endowment from companies that do business with Israel and stated that those who advocated such moves were "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent."

So Summers had plenty of enemies before his recent remarks on women in science. That subject is treated in Anne Applebaum's column today, which notes that most women (and men) aren't in line for tenure at Harvard, and that the argument over women in the work force stretches far beyond Harvard Yard:

Another woman, Amy Doolittle, looked at the science behind sex differences in yesterday's Washington Times, while Arnold Kling argued that the whole imbroglio is important and deserves the attention it's getting. He says that Summers's talk in January was "as near a perfect example of judicious, thoughtful speculation as any imperfect human being might produce."

Kling uses his daughter's experience in college to illustrate the anti-intellectualism of some academics:

Kling uses two quotes from Summers's talk to illustrate better just what he said, and what he meant by it. Here's the first:

The second:

Kling discusses two other potential factors that contribute to the problems Summers addressed: male-dominance behavior and self-regarding attribution bias. But he returns to the anti-intellectualism of Summers's critics as the principal problem.

Today's Harvard Crimson carries a report on yesterday's faculty meeting. The essence of their story is that Summers promised to restore the faculty's powers that, they say, he has drained since becoming president. And after all, that's what much of this is about, as the Sun editorial above notes. Faculty at Harvard, as at all universities, are unaccustomed to being held to account for their actions. An administrator like Summers, in questioning their perquisites, defiles holy ground upon which only the anointed may tread.

At least he's leaving himself some wriggle room with that last comment. The Crimson story makes it clear that the atmosphere at yesterday's meeting was less volatile than at last week's, and that there no move was made for a vote of no confidence. If they're correct, and it's a well done story you should read if you're following this drama, Summers will weather this storm.

The tone of this morning's NYT coverage is somewhat different; it begins:

The Crimson also discusses the scuttling of this plan, which was doubtless a setback for Summers and his allies. But the student reporter seems to have less of an axe to grind than do the Times's duo of Sara Rimer and Patrick D. Healy. The Times notes, for example, that the poll conducted by Crimson staff, which I noted here, revealed that faculty disapprove of Summers's leadership 52% to 40%. Yet it fails to note that the same poll showed that 55% percent do not believe he should resign, while 32% believe he should.

Jonathan Finer's article in this morning's Washington Post reports that "about half of the speakers defended the president, several professors said," something not mentioned by the Times.

Today's Boston Globe carries much of the same material, but it alone among the papers I've checked quotes this statement in support of Summers:

Surely Prof. Melton has it right. Advancing knowledge, not screaming foul and shouting down unorthodox offenders, should be the business of a great university. With academic freedom comes intellectual responsibility, and those Harvard professors who find Larry Summers so threatening that they'll stop at nothing to weaken him reveal themselves as intellectual cowards who'd rather banish their opponents than debate them. Children of privilege needn't be spoiled brats, but some of them in Cambridge haven't bothered to grow up.