Rebuilding Our Ivory Tower

A Faculty divided against itself, its Dean, and its President cannot be expected to maintain its position at the forefront of academia. Consequently, we see the more civil tone at Tuesday’s emergency meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) as an overwhelmingly positive sign that circumstances are beginning to improve for the entire University. Yet deep divisions remain, and steps must be taken to ensure that faculty discontent does not rear its ugly head in another dramatic explosion.

University President Lawrence H. Summers told the Faculty that, “I want to state in the clearest possible terms my commitment to the polis model as a basis for our interaction going forward.” Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences William C. Kirby echoed that sentiment, insisting that “we must continue to work together… we cannot emerge divided.” Based on their unequivocal rhetoric and the record faculty turnout at the meeting, it seems that the Faculty has sent its message, and its message has been heard. Now, it is time to fix the rifts and move forward.

Holding a no confidence vote at this juncture would be antithetical to this crucial end. No matter the outcome of this vote, President Summers has the support of the Harvard Corporation, and he’s not going anywhere. We hope that all professors will realize that this is a tremendous moment of opportunity to reshape faculty-administration relationships that must not be overshadowed by the staging of such an irrational and emotional vote.

But as the Faculty discussion moves to mending fences and improving relationships with Massachusetts Hall, it is clear that many of the problems that contributed to the recent outburst of discontent cannot be fixed by mere changes in attitude and tone. The presence of systemic flaws in the channels of communication between the administration and the Faculty demands an institutional rethink. The first logical step should be centered on the creation of conduits for professors to voice concerns and blow off steam. What the Faculty needs is a reliable safety valve.

One proposal to address this issue was vetted at Tuesday’s meeting. Former Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles, Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology Theda Skocpol, and Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba ’53 offered to form a three-person mediation committee that would serve as an intermediary between the Faculty and the administration. However, the proposal was shot down by professors who believed the poorly communicated, last-minute solution was an orchestrated and pre-planned easy way out for the administration (which in turn claimed no knowledge of the plan) that would terminate further faculty input. We understand the concerns of these professors and feel that any solutions must not be hastily assembled.

Yet the Faculty outcry against Knowles, Skocpol, and Verba’s plan leaves the Faculty, at least for now, without three of its most respected leaders. The responsibility for fixing this leadership vacuum falls squarely on Kirby. As Conant University Professor Stephen Owen pointed out at the meeting, “it is the Dean who leads his or her Faculty.” None of Harvard’s other eight Faculties is having such drastic problems, which points to a lack of leadership on Kirby’s part. Kirby needs to step up and be a more effective and credible intermediary between the Faculty and Summers.

This will not be easy, as Kirby is seen by many professors as Summers’ henchman. If Knowles, Skocpol, and Verba cannot quench the fire, it is unlikely that Kirby will be able to do so immediately. Nevertheless, Kirby must realize that the ball is in his court and use this opportunity to establish himself as a more independent faculty advocate. Kirby’s planned small, informal, and frequent group meetings with faculty members and Summers “to discuss issues of common concern” are a step in the right direction, but these meetings should only be the beginning.

This process must eventually involve exploration of other solutions to institutional communication problems. One possible fix would be the establishment of a faculty advocate—a single person or a small committee of respected professors from across the departmental spectrum. Unlike the Dean of the Faculty, such an advocate would not participate in funding, salary, and tenure decisions and would be solely focused on the Faculty-administration relationship. Of course, such a proposal would require extensive input from both sides, especially in light of the response to Knowles’ somewhat similar, but last-minute proposal.

In the end, all the task forces, committees, small group meetings, and even Faculty meetings in the world will not completely fix this complex problem. The Harvard College Curricular Review, for instance, was filled with faculty on different committees. Still, many complained about a lack of responsiveness from Harvard’s administration. Creating committees and planning future action is no silver bullet.

There must be more than an illusory solution, and that means that Summers, Kirby and the Faculty must work together to mend their strained relationship. Both sides have said that they have extended the proverbial olive branch. Now both need to stop talking and actually do something.