Scrutiny Gone Too Far

Innate differences. Though never actually uttered by University President Lawrence H. Summers in his remarks on Jan. 14 at a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) conference, a newspaper could not be opened or a television channel changed without confronting these two words in the early part of the year. Indeed, Summers’ actual comments soon swirled from a media storm to a full-on faculty hurricane. As public scrutiny of Summers—and Harvard—has finally started to die down, we hope that the University can return to truly important concerns like the number of tenured female professors and the Harvard College Curricular Review.

While Summers’ remarks were overblown by the mainstream media, the claims he made certainly merited some controversy. At the conference—which was on women and minorities in the sciences and engineering—he suggested some possible reasons for why there are fewer women in the sciences, ranging from women’s focus on family to the possibility that women’s brains are wired differently, giving them a disadvantage in science and math. These suggestions were taken from the studies of other scientists, but the potential veracity of the statements does not make the address any less controversial. We firmly support academic discourse on controversial subjects and would not want to limit this freedom. However, Summers has a dual role—as an academic, and, more importantly, as president of Harvard University. The choices Summers makes in regard to such discussions come across as official positions of the University, not just as his personal views.

The problem runs deeper than potential offense. Since Summers has taken office in 2001, the number of new tenured women faculty has dropped each year. Last year, only 12.5 percent of new tenured faculty were women. The crisis is especially severe in the fields of science and math. In Harvard’s history, only one woman has ever been tenured in the Chemistry Department—Richards Professor of Chemistry Cynthia Friend. With such a dearth of women faculty, Summers’ comments do not simply seem offensive; they seem like excuses. When addressing a problem of this magnitude, it is important for the president of the University to consider carefully the remarks he makes.

The Faculty’s outrage at Summers’ remarks this past semester suggested that discontent with his administration ran deeper than a few ill-conceived statements on women in science. Indeed, the Faculty meetings following the controversy were by in large dominated by professors with qualms about Summers’ leadership style and the overall structure of power in the University. It was and is important for Summers to bridge the gap between the presidency and the Faculty—taking extra steps to increase communication and to repair some of his mistakes in the past few years with regard to faculty interaction.

Even though we sympathized with the Faculty’s concern, we never supported a “no confidence” or “lack of confidence” vote, the latter of which ended with 218 faculty voting a lack of confidence in Summers. Not only were these measures ineffective—members of the Harvard Corporation were unlikely to fire Summers, whom they supported throughout the ordeal—they were unnecessary. Summers needs time to finish many of his initiatives such as Allston, and the grievances raised by the Faculty do not make a compelling enough case for his resignation.

In the midst of these negative Faculty meetings, one proposal for addressing the issue stood out at the March 15 Faculty meeting. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology Theda Skocpol presented a proposal that stated regrets over Summers’ action, but a desire for reconciliation. The greater number of faculty members who voted for this proposal as opposed to the no confidence vote hinted that relations between the two sides had the potential to improve. Summers took the first steps towards regaining Faculty trust, and the Faculty showed that though they still had concerns, they were willing to move forward for the good of the University. Ultimately, the discussion provoked by Summers’ remarks on women in science was cathartic—and as tensions calmed both sides sought to seal the obvious cracks in our Ivory Tower.

Looking beyond the current state of measured reconciliation between the president and the Faculty, other measures can be taken to ensure future peace. When Faculty antipathy toward Summers was highest, Skocpol, former Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles, and Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba ’53 offered to form a committee to serve as an intermediary between the president and the Faculty. Unfortunately, the idea was shot down, since many of the Faculty claimed no knowledge of the plan. While not effective as presented, the idea of an intermediary is a positive one. Though Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby would seem to fulfill this function, many faculty are distrustful of Kirby, presuming him to be more on Summers’ side than their own. While it is important for Kirby to continue to work to build trust amongst the Faculty, a Faculty advocate purely focused on the Faculty-administration relationship could help smooth communication problems in the future.

While steps like that are being explored, Summers must be allowed to move on and get back to business. As of yet, he is still facing unfair scrutiny. In April, attendees of a September 2004 symposium on Native Americans came forward with more “offensive” remarks that Summers had uttered. Not only did these remarks not deserve such concern, the reappearance of these comments several months after the fact suggested that Summers would have to face more hurdles, ex post facto and otherwise, now that the Jan. 14 incident had gained such prominence. This is certainly an unfair standard to hold. As we remarked in April, “…no public figure can operate effectively under such intense scrutiny.” Now that “Innate-Gate” is receding into the past, we are hopeful that spotlight-grabbers will take a backseat to legitimate, constructive criticisms of Summers and his administration.

Recently, Harvard announced the establishment of a $50 million fund to be spent over the next decade with the goal of increasing the number of women and minority faculty. While we understand that this figure is merely a number—one that guarantees more newspaper headlines than real progress—it does show that Harvard takes the promotion of female faculty serious enough to pledge a substantial monetary commitment. Fifty million dollars cannot improve entrenched sexism within academic departments (that demands intense lobbying by Summers and his administration), but it can improve just about everything else.

Just as Summers’ academic freedom must be weighed against his responsibilities as president, so too must the Faculty’s discontent be weighed against the necessary responsibility of giving students the best education possible. Criticism and discussion provokes change, and often this change is necessary. Yet at some point, one must move forward toward other obligations. The Harvard College Curricular Review is just one example of a highly crucial matter that was shelved during the Summers’ controversy. Summers must continue to learn from this situation, but it is time to set eyes on other goals. True closure on this conflict will help route faculty and administration efforts away from old arguments and toward initiatives that benefit students and the College as a whole.