Summers, Faculty Brace for Meeting

University President Lawrence H. Summers will once again face strong criticism from professors who disapprove of his presidency at today’s Faculty meeting, although his supporters are expected to take a more vocal stand today than they did last week.

It is unlikely that a vote of “no confidence” in Summers will be held because of time constraints due to the large number of professors who have requested to speak at the meeting, professors say.

“I don’t think there’s going to be any ‘no confidence’ vote on Tuesday,” said Classics Department Chair Richard F. Thomas. “I think the time period is presumably to get through as many questions as possible.”

A vote would also be procedurally difficult to call because 80 percent of faculty in attendance must approve holding one—and Summers’ supporters say they will vote against such a motion.

“I don’t see how a vote that splits the Faculty down the middle on this issue, which will create divisions which will be remembered for years to come, is in Harvard’s best interest,” said Professor of Economics Edward L. Glaeser.

One senior professor, who asked to remain anonymous, said Summers’ opponents intend to move forward with a vote of no confidence—and that if a vote is not held today, they will put the vote on the docket for the March 15 meeting.

“I think it’s almost definite” that a professor will place a vote of no confidence on the agenda for the March meeting should it not take place today, the professor said. “Things could change because that’s a long time from now and something major could happen, but I think given the information that we know right now, it’s very likely.”

A number of other professors who have been critical of Summers declined to comment on the possibility of holding a vote of no confidence in March.

But Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature Ruth R. Wisse, the only professor who spoke openly in support of Summers at last Tuesday’s faculty meeting, hinted that if professors put a vote of “no confidence” in Summers on the docket for the March 15 meeting, they might face another docket item aimed at them.

“I would hope that there would be a condemnation of those who seek to condemn [Summers],” Wisse said. “I think the direst thing that one could do on campus would be to inhibit speech.”

TAKING SIDES

No calm has followed last Tuesday’s storm amongst the faculty.

Rather, the world behind Harvard’s ivy walls has been transformed into an intensely political landscape, with professors on all sides trying to galvanize support going into today’s meeting.

Lee Professor of Economics Claudia Goldin and Professor of Economics David I. Laibson drafted a letter last week in support of Summers and informally distributed it to other tenured professors, requesting that they sign the letter and pass it on to more colleagues. As of last night, 186 professors have signed the letter. (Please see page A15 for the full text of the letter.)

The letter concedes that Summers “has made mistakes during his tenure” and that “his personal interactions sometimes feel confrontational,” but nonetheless expresses confidence in Summers because of the belief “that his decisions are guided by a fundamental commitment to the ideals of scholarship and teaching that define this institution.”

Goldin said in an interview that the complaints most people have about Summers concern his style of leadership rather than with the direction in which he is leading the University. She said one possible solution is to surround Summers with older, more seasoned advisors who would “remind him how to be presidential.”

Goldin and Laibson requested signatures only from tenured professors, they said, because they did not want the letter to be subject to suspicion that junior faculty, who could one day have their tenure applications come before Summers, were coerced into signing it.

Summers’ supporters were not well represented at last week’s meeting. Only Wisse spoke openly in support of Summers, while the eight professors who criticized him had their comments met with loud applause.

But those who want Summers to stay on as President say they intend to show up in numbers today.

“At this point we cannot be apathetic. We have to be involved,” Glaeser said. “We need to speak up and speak up in a way that does not diminish the fear and concerns of our colleagues, There will be far more members of the economics department [at today’s meeting] than we have seen in recent memory.”

Professors who are more critical of Summers—many of whom wish to see him resign as President according to a poll conducted by The Crimson—say they have remained in constant contact via e-mail throughout the week, though they have not released a letter of their own.

DRAWING tHE LINES

While the landscape is politically charged, the political fault lines themselves are not so easy to draw.

Some professors are openly and forcefully in support of Summers, while many others feel his presidency is beyond salvation and are intent to see him go.

There is also a large group of professors who lie somewhere in between, both critical of Summers but unsure if his resignation is in the best interest of the University.

According to Porter Professor of Medieval Latin Jan Ziolkowski, today’s meeting could potentially exacerbate divisions along several fronts.

“I’m frankly worried about the kind of divisions that have been created already, and I get the sense that the faculty may well end up splitting partly along divisional lines, partly along political lines, and for all I know, even along other lines as well,” Ziolkowski said.

“I think the chances of divisions growing less are much, much smaller than of divisions growing bigger, and I regret that,” he added.

Weary Professor of German and Comparative Literature Judith Ryan said she suspects many professors do not want Summers to resign but have nonetheless refused to sign Goldin and Laibson’s letter.

“I believe that [some professors who did not sign the petition] want the outside world to know that they don’t agree with Summers’ position and that they want to see proof of substantive change,” said Ryan, who herself did not sign the letter. “I myself feel that it is important to make sure that Summers hears this message clearly and that he doesn’t end up thinking that the whole affair was merely a storm in a teacup.”

Ryan said she has not yet decided if she believes Summers should resign.

Glaeser added that while many professors are critical of Summers, he is “surprised by how many people have expressed a desire for a more moderate solution that involves President Summers staying on rather than leaving.”

—Staff writer William C. Marra can be reached at wmarra@fas.harvard.edu.