Faculty’s Influence Doubted

Measurable disapproval of University President Lawrence H. Summers among members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) may have little impact on his ability to do his job, according to professors and historians of higher education.

They said that such faculty discontent is typical of universities, and Summers’ situation is not serious unless his broader constituency—the Harvard Corporation, alumni, and parents—disapprove of him and believe that he is hurting Harvard’s reputation.

Professors interviewed for this story said it was difficult to tell whether this broader group shared the concerns of some members of FAS. A member of the Harvard Corporation released a letter last Thursday in support of Summers.

“The current situation may be one where the president may be in trouble with that larger constituency, but the faculty response may be independent of that larger problem,” Michigan State University Professor of Teacher Education David Labaree said.

Respondents to The Crimson’s poll of FAS members were divided on the questions of whether they approve or disapprove of Summers’ leadership, whether they thought Summers should resign, and whether they would vote “confidence” or “no confidence” in a vote on Summers’ leadership. (See related story, page A1).

Of the 272 faculty members who responded to the question of whether they approve of Summers’ leadership of Harvard, 40 percent said they approved, 52 percent disapproved, and eight percent did not know.

According to Labaree, a historian of education, professors’ disapproval has little force in the question of whether a president will remain in office.

“Faculty are much less willing to hop to the command of the president, but it’s not clear that the Faculty have much ability to dislodge a president,” Labaree said.

The Crimson poll showed that of 270 respondents to the question about what effect Summers’ leadership has had on Harvard’s image, 17 percent responded “Improved,” 56 percent “Diminished,” 10 percent “No Effect,” and 17 percent “Don’t Know.”

William Damon, professor of education at Stanford University, said that a widespread belief that Summers is damaging Harvard’s image could be a particular problem for him.

“Universities are so competitive now,” Damon said. “Public reputations for universities are the whole ballgame, and they last for a long time.”

Michigan State University Professor of Educational Administration Roger G. Baldwin said that The Crimson’s poll results suggest that Harvard faculty members’ relationship with Summers is no worse than most professors’ relationships with their university presidents.

“I’d say they’re pretty consistent with how faculty in a lot of places would respond, and academics tend to be fairly critical of administrators. We inhabit two different worlds, and sometimes our priorities are quite different,” Baldwin said.

According to Michigan State University Professor of Academic Administration James T. Minor, faculty and administrators traditionally have very different views of the way a university is operating.

“Administrators tend to be much more optimistic about how things are going than faculty,” said Minor, who conducted a national survey about faculty governance.

Damon said that even though faculty have little power to change Harvard’s governance, faculty discontent so early in a president’s tenure is a dangerous sign.

“After a period of time, a great leader, even the greatest, has...used up his good will by making hard decisions,” Damon continued. “If it happens after two or three years, it’s a sign that there’s an absence of that kind of great leadership.”

“If a significant portion [of faculty]—which I would call 25 percent or up—feel alienated at a high-standard university, you have a lack of inspirational leadership,” Damon said.

—Staff writer Sara E. Polsky can be reached at polsky@fas.harvard.edu.