The Harvard Throne

Cradled in the posh elegance of Loeb House, the secretive Harvard Corporation officially introduced us March 10 to the University's new "president-elect." Yet the democratic connotations of the term "elect," used by search committee chair and Senior Fellow of the Corporation Robert G. Stone '45, are belied by the intense secrecy surrounding the process and the narrow constituency that catapulted Lawrence H. Summers from his current position at the Brookings Institution to the Harvard throne.

We have repeatedly criticized the search committee for its refusal to involve the entire Harvard community in what is perhaps the most important decision a university can make. Students had a profound interest in participating in this vital discussion on Harvard's future--it seems unrealistic to believe that Harvard students would have had nothing to contribute to the selection of the president of their University.

Yet the presidential search committee has been woefully unresponsive to student concerns. In an e-mail message sent recently to alumni, Stone praised the search as an "inclusive" process that sought and received advice from "alumni, faculty and staff," conspicuously omitting any mention of student input the committee might have received. Lip service is no substitute for meaningful involvement, but the absence even of lip service shows a more fundamental disregard.

The secret deliberations of the search committee seemed specifically designed to avoid student comment. The letter Stone sent last fall to many members of the Harvard community asking for nominations and suggestions for the presidency was hardly a substitute for real discussion. Neither were the small, closed-door meetings with student leaders and members of the Phi Beta Kappa academic honor society in October. As the search committee narrowed its focus, the influential voices seem to have come not from students but rather from prominent alumni, administrators, faculty members and individuals who worked with Summers in Washington.

Although no company would allow its customers to choose its CEO, the Academy has more exalted and diverse ends than simply turning a profit. Given that six of the nine members of the search committee come from the business world, our "president-elect" was chosen by the smallest of constituencies. Harvard professors, the group that may be most impacted by the presidential choice, had no seats on the search committee. The alumni-elected Board of Overseers, which voted 18-0 to confirm the choice a week ago Sunday, was alerted of its emergency Manhattan meeting only days before it occurred and certainly had no opportunity to mull the ramifications of the search committee's choice.

To gain the confidence and trust of Harvard's students, the Corporation must undertake two fundamental reforms. First, the Corporation should give students a formal role by including their representatives on the search committee. Other universities have included students on their search committees without incident and have produced stellar candidates, most recently in Stanford's John L. Hennessy. The Corporation should not view students as barbarians at the gates, to be shunned at all cost lest they corrupt the process.

Second, the search committee must release both the "long" and "short" lists in each presidential search to allow for open discussion of the candidates. We recognize the desires of candidates to conceal their interest from their current employers and to avoid the embarrassment of not being chosen. But these concerns do not outweigh the University's need for substantive debate among students, faculty, staff and alumni. A public discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate could only assist the search committee in its decision.

News of the search will become public, no matter how tight the attempts at secrecy. The less information the search committee releases, the greater the potential for damaging speculation based on insufficient information--as was recently seen in the premature anointing of University of Michigan President Lee C. Bollinger.

Moreover, a climate that encourages participation would also have improved the quality of the search. In 1970, when lists were released, the search committee received 1,200 names of possible candidates. In this search, when outside input was largely shunned, only 400 names were sent in. We do not doubt Summers' qualifications, but it is clearly in the University's interest that the search be as wide-ranging as possible.

We may have misjudged the Corporation's commitment to student welfare and its members' interest in student input. For all we know, every question the candidates faced concerned the welfare of undergraduates. But the process the Corporation has overseen smacks more of a fear of what students might say if included meaningfully in the process--a fear that perhaps should be expected from Stone, who has been publicly dismissive of the "kids" the University aims to educate.

We wish Summers the best and have high hopes for his time as president. The secrecy of the search should not detract from the important goals he has already outlined for the future of Harvard. Indeed, some reports have suggested that he was chosen because of his commitment to a better undergraduate experience, a larger faculty and greater tenure odds for junior faculty--all causes close to our hearts. But it is a shame that he must begin his tenure--no matter how strong his qualifications--under a cloud of secrecy and of suspicion.

The intellectual life of a great university rests upon openness and trust. We should like to see these virtues a decade or more from now, when a new search committee returns to Loeb House to choose the next Harvard president.