Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Segal's avatar

While it is strange for the federal government to be micromanaging Harvard, I see the 9 demands of the Trump administration to be steps I would take on my own accord if I were making decisions for Harvard: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25879226/april-3-harvard-preconditions-letter.pdf

President Summers' objections seem to be colored by other concerns about President Trump, but they ring a bit hollow when Summers leads the list by citing the Fine People Hoax that claims that Trump supported the White Supremacists in Charlottesville. He didn't. He explicitly condemned them. And the fine people Trump was talking about were indeed in Charlottesville, and the NYT seems to have forgotten that it interviewed them: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/trump-republicans-race.html

Back when many thought that the demands for Harvard would be mainly about antisemitism my advice to Harvard was to broaden the issue to intersectionality, and oppose it. But 36 hours later the Trump administration did exactly that, and Harvard has missed the opportunity to seize the initiative and the moral high ground by announcing opposition to identity-based policies.

Summers' talk is of resistance, but it is not clear what in these proposals merit gambling Harvard's financial stability.

Let's have some talk about conductance, the inverse of resistance. Let's hear about what steps are needed to "make meaningful governance reforms to improve its organizational structure to foster clear lines of authority and accountability, and to empower faculty and administrative leaders who are committed to implementing the changes indicated in this letter." The inability to have meaningful discipline for rules violations makes it clear that improvement is needed.

No posts

Ready for more?