There needs to be cultural change at the university. If those who believe in Veritas had courage to be as outspoken as the Editors, we’d be half way there
Some have proposed having discipline for rule breaking the responsibility of the administration and having judgments about academic matters the responsibility of the faculty. It is becoming apparent that if Harvard gets serious about punishing rule breaking that we may see some people suspended by the administration and honored by the faculty.
It is a bad look for the faculty, and won't play well in most parts of the country.
The power of yesterday's discussion of the Ibrahim Bharmal case was that Bharmal broke Harvard rules and external laws, yet got rewarded by the Harvard Law Review, which at least so far has Harvard faculty involvement and various Harvard perks.
Which of those people listed today broke rules or laws?
Part of the problem at Harvard is there is internal disagreement about what the rules are. Some of the above were subject to sanctions delaying their graduation that the faculty then reversed and then the corporation unreversed the reversal of…who can keep track of it the place has become such a circus?
Specifically there is disagreement about whether the faculty or the administration sets and interprets the rules.
My understanding is that the faculty has the upper hand. I don't know whether the Harvard Corporation has the power to change that, or whether such a change needs to be via the Massachusetts legislature changing Harvard's charter.
It may seem like a circus, but it is a power struggle. But apparently the worst problem is not the tenured faculty - it is the nontenured faculty and teaching fellows. They have a shorter dwell-time, but that is still not rapid enough for Trump time.
I can't predict how we are going to get to a soft landing on this issue, but that doesn't mean I won't try.
There needs to be cultural change at the university. If those who believe in Veritas had courage to be as outspoken as the Editors, we’d be half way there
Some have proposed having discipline for rule breaking the responsibility of the administration and having judgments about academic matters the responsibility of the faculty. It is becoming apparent that if Harvard gets serious about punishing rule breaking that we may see some people suspended by the administration and honored by the faculty.
It is a bad look for the faculty, and won't play well in most parts of the country.
The power of yesterday's discussion of the Ibrahim Bharmal case was that Bharmal broke Harvard rules and external laws, yet got rewarded by the Harvard Law Review, which at least so far has Harvard faculty involvement and various Harvard perks.
Which of those people listed today broke rules or laws?
Part of the problem at Harvard is there is internal disagreement about what the rules are. Some of the above were subject to sanctions delaying their graduation that the faculty then reversed and then the corporation unreversed the reversal of…who can keep track of it the place has become such a circus?
Specifically there is disagreement about whether the faculty or the administration sets and interprets the rules.
My understanding is that the faculty has the upper hand. I don't know whether the Harvard Corporation has the power to change that, or whether such a change needs to be via the Massachusetts legislature changing Harvard's charter.
It may seem like a circus, but it is a power struggle. But apparently the worst problem is not the tenured faculty - it is the nontenured faculty and teaching fellows. They have a shorter dwell-time, but that is still not rapid enough for Trump time.
I can't predict how we are going to get to a soft landing on this issue, but that doesn't mean I won't try.