How to Heal Harvard

On Sunday evening I sat down with twenty-two of my classmates and president-elect Larry Summers to discuss the future of Harvard University. Gathered around a banquet table at the Charles Hotel, we broke bread and at the same time broke ground on the issues that are most vexing for undergraduates at the College: advising, student/faculty interaction, the core curriculum, the “living wage.” During the course of our two-and-a-half hour conversation pedagogical ideals were debated and moral standards called to task. For a brief moment, students’ voices found a direct route to a respectful and seemingly receptive future administrator. For a small segment of the Harvard population, the faceless man who will soon take the helm of the University was humanized.

Set against the backdrop of a two week standoff in which the current administration’s unwillingness to engage in substantive and balanced dialogue with the student body has been shamefully exposed and openly critiqued, the anomalousness of having been offered a seat at the future president’s table was striking. Somewhat heartened, but equally perplexed I found myself wondering whether this type of event was just the type of discourse that students have been asking for.

The Rudenstine administration has elicited widespread condemnation for the arrogance and aloofness with which it has approached the subject of student/ administrative dialogue, and rightfully so. During the course of his tenure, Rudenstine has made a habit of holding office hours only once a month for a mere 60 minutes, and even with this limited time commitment, that hour is often cancelled. Meetings with students groups happen rarely, and when they do it is usually because organizations like the PSLM have solicited Rudenstine’s time, not vice versa.

Admittedly, Rudenstine has shown his face more over the past eight months, agreeing to accept questions at an Undergraduate Council town hall meeting in the fall and sporadically showing up at house dining halls, albeit to dine at separate tables replete with fine linens, china and a list of invited guests. These acts, however, were the calculated moves of a lame duck president, a man who had completed his job without the distraction of student input and now had luxury of casually listening to student complaints to which he knew he would not have to respond. Lack of genuine interest in student opinion was and is a defining feature of the Rudenstine administration, as has been repeatedly shown by his closed door and equally closed mind.

It is in the shadow of this legacy that Summers will enter office, and it is against Rudenstine’s dismal record that he will be judged. With the living wage campaign having successfully put the spotlight on dialogue, Summers’ willingness to talk may make or break his administration.

On trips to campus over the past two months, Summers’ actions have been encouraging. His recent visits to the Annenberg and Lowell House dining halls as well as his discussion with the Undergraduate Council and last Sunday’s dinner with new members of Phi Beta Kappa all represent a willingness to get to know the student body and to solicit student opinion. However, Summers’ actions to date are by no means sufficient to bridge the student/administration rift that currently divides our campus.

Summers has made himself accessible to students, but only a handful—those lucky enough to be passing through a dining hall when he stopped to eat or those fortunate enough to be members of an organization whose opinion he chose to solicit. The vast majority of undergraduates have had no contact with Summers, nor will they unless he chooses to start hosting events that are made public in advance and open to any student who wants to attend. Taking an accurate pulse of the University will require that Summers avail himself to the student body as a whole; this is something he has yet to do.

Moreover, if Summers is to foster a community of dialogue, his interaction with students cannot stop once his administration settles into Mass Hall. If, five months or five years down the road Summers’ recent outreach is to be thought of as more than a Hillary Clinton listening tour, then these whistlestops must be followed up by a sustained effort to engage in substantive discussion with the student body. Summers has already stated that he will hold office hours, but he must do so more frequently than Rudenstine; an hour a week for conversing with students is not too much time for a university president to spare. Additionally, Summers must continue dialoguing with student groups, but he must do so on a proactive, rather than a retroactive basis. A president that actively engages in soliciting students’ concerns rather than stamping out the fires caused by University stonewalling will go much further in creating an environment of openness and mutual respect.

Ultimately, though, Summers must do more than talk and listen; he must act. Dialogue itself is a worthwhile exercise, but it succeeds in fostering a community of peace, free interchange and mutual respect only insofar as it proves effective as a means initiating tangible change. This is not to suggest that the new administration must acquiesce to every student demand and recommended reform brought to the table, but it is to suggest that the administration must treat every student demand and recommended reform with seriousness and actually take steps to act on those issues where student and administrative interests are able to converge.

Summers, to date, has put his best foot forward, but healing a fractured University and reestablishing an environment of trust is going to take more than a few carefully planned dinners, a firm handshake, and a toothy grin. Moving to a community of dialogue requires abandoning rhetoric for respect and administrative apathy for action. Summers can change the ethos of this community, but to do so he must exert more effort than he currently is expending.

Lauren E. Baer ’02 is a social studies concentrator in Dusnter House. Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.