ACTA's Must-Reads
« The good faith graduate program | Main | Summers postmortem continues »
No confidence in Harvard faculty and trustees
In the wake of Harvard president Larry Summers' decision to resign rather than face a second showdown with the Harvard faculty, one thing is clear--a vote of no confidence is in order, but not for President Summers. Rather, it's the faculty who deserve a vote of no confidence--along with members of the Corporation who would rather run than fight.
During his tenure, Summers had become the unmistakable target of the humanities faculty, who in 2005 voted no confidence in the highly-accomplished professor and administrator.
From press accounts, the earlier vote was all because of Summers' off-the-record remarks regarding women in math and sciences. But a look at the actual list of faculty grievances reveals a more troubling subtext, one that offers penetrating insight into the problems of the modern academy.
Since taking office, Summers has done just what the Corporation wanted. He has challenged many of the sacred cows of the academic left and he has also addressed key issues affecting Harvard University and institutions across the country--the lack of intellectual diversity and academic freedom, the dissolution of general education, the academy's pervasive hostility to the military, to name only a few. In speech after speech, Summers was willing to take on the PC orthodoxies of the day, offering contrasting perspectives that, at least until recently, were understood to express the very essence of a liberal education.
But there's the rub. Diversity, and the conviction that it will foster open-minded exchange and free inquiry, has been a shibboleth of American higher education for upwards of three decades. But, as Summers' remarks about women so clearly emphasize, higher education's commitment to "diversity" only goes so far. The avatars of political correctness are only interested in an exchange of ideas when all involved already agree with the party line. Last year's kerfuffle over Summers' comments not only provided a sad commentary on the intellectual rigidity of many faculty at Harvard and elsewhere, but also clearly showed why Larry Summers should have been more outspoken, rather than less.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg. President Summers dared to speak the unspeakable when he noted the divide that separates university elites and mainstream America. He acknowledged at a press conference that "The post-Vietnam cleavage between coastal elites and certain mainstream American values is a matter of great concern." And he implicitly drew attention to the Harvard community's negative attitude about the military by noting, "It is all too common for us to underestimate the importance of clearly expressing our respect and support for the military and individuals who choose to serve in the armed forces of the United States."
While these observations surely are within the purview of a university president, and while they would seem to have little bearing on the classroom, that's not what the Harvard faculty thought. Indeed, when Harvard's faculty passed its "no confidence" vote last year, Summers' support for ROTC was cited as one of the three main objections to his leadership. Faculty stridency on this issue, of course, has nothing to do with academic responsibility, and everything to do with the political and social agenda of faculty activists.
In the latest battle, the faculty is up in arms because of the resignation of Arts & Sciences Dean William Kirby. Kirby led the widely-ballyhooed faculty review of Harvard's core curriculum--an exercise that was watched with considerable attention by institutions across the country. Early on, Summers outlined his hopes that the faculty would "think more rigorously about the level of mastery we ask of our students," noting that "achieving knowledge in key areas would be a crucial element in the general education component."
Despite clear and commonsense guidance--made, it should be noted, in response to substantial student discontent about the inadequacy of the existing curricular core--Kirby and the faculty produced virtually nothing. The final sorry report was justly ridiculed by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and the Carnegie Foundation for being more of a faculty wish list than a thoughtful curricular framework that--it hardly needs saying--would mean more work for the faculty.
Is it any wonder, then, that when the Crimson polled students this week, three out of every four Harvard undergraduates said they wanted Summers to remain as president? In a comment that is striking in its honest analysis of realpolitik, Derek J. Horton '08 outlined the real rub: "I know the faculty hates him, but I think he's kind of running Harvard like a business--and I respect that."
At a time when the public is increasingly concerned about the value of higher education, the sorry state of student learning vis a vis international competitors, and the coercive atmosphere in the classroom, President Summers has been willing to take on these issues at the highest level. What Summers has been saying, and what the faculty dislike, is the not-so-secret fact that colleges and universities have lost their way, and that this has much to do with the fact that too often, faculty activists have put perks and politics ahead of their primary responsibilities, teaching and research.
Academic freedom and the special autonomy that faculties are granted are premised on the condition that professors perform according to professional scholarly standards. But the sad reality is that at places like Harvard, PC ringleaders-- most of them with lifetime tenured positions--are more interested in focusing on their own personal agendas than their academic obligations.
Rather than collapsing before the activists, whose views are not uniformly shared by everyone in the university, the Corporation had an opportunity to take a stand. But by cutting and running, by listening to the academic critics whose self-indulgence and corruption Summers well recognized, the Corporation has made one thing eminently clear. As Harvard begins its search for a new president, reformers need not apply.
--Anne Neal, President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni
Posted by acta online at February 21, 2006 03:25 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/114
Comments
Hear ! Hear!
Well said
Posted by: vic at February 22, 2006 07:17 PM
As a long-time observer from a distance of the academic scene and the parent of a soon-to-be college freshman, I whole-heartedly agree with the thrust of your remarks. A minor quibble however: in paragraph 4 "to name only a few" is not quite accurate: what you touch on are the major issues, not just a sample. It would be better if you came right out and said so.
More importantly, your argument would be stronger if you had skipped the cliche'd reference to "the sorry state of student learning vis a vis international competitors." That refers to math and science achievement at the secondary level.
The problem here is in history and the humanities and the humane sciences, including psychology and political economy, and takes place mainly at the undergraduate level; it concerns the decay of the ideal of a liberal education in an open society -- including, most especially, our committment to the critical and unbiased search for truth.
To my knowledge none of the leading colleges and universities in any of the liberal Western-style democracies anywhere in the world is doing a good job in this department. That's why this Harvard thing is so depressing; we need leadership and aren't getting any.
I can't begin to tell you how upset I am.
thanks for listening,
Posted by: Luke Lea at February 23, 2006 12:28 AM