Attack of the Clones

Over the summer, Conrad K. Harper—a chivalrous dissenting voice on the Harvard Corporation—resigned. While we are glad that Harper found the courage to resign when his disagreements with the other members of the Corporation reached such a point that no common ground could be found, it is profoundly worrying that the Corporation may soon be swallowed up in a morass of groupthink.

A governing body like Harvard’s does not thrive on the type of open debate, rousing speeches, and out-and-out polemics that are held to be a valuable tonic to democratic institutions. The Fellows of Harvard College need consensus, good faith, calm deliberation, and open minds. It would not be sensible to recommend putting a radical firebrand on the Corporation. But the amicable consensus that permits the Corporation to run the University as it judges fit, out of the harsh glare of the public eye, need not be a rigid unanimity that threatens to blind the Corporation to the nature of the many problems that Harvard has faced, does face, and will face again.

What the Corporation needs now is not another member who has all the same interests and areas of expertise as the others. It needs a member who can bring wholly new perspectives to old problems, while simultaneously being ready to compromise, acquiesce, and respect the judgment of the majority. He or she must not allow the University’s governing body to become complacent.

It is always worrying when a secretive, self-perpetuating body converges on a single viewpoint. This is not to challenge the Corporation’s secrecy or self-perpetuation; rather, it is to note that such insular conditions of operation, which impede external critique, make vigorous internal critique imperative. Especially now that University President Lawrence H. Summers has had a role in appointing the majority of the current members of the Corporation, each new member must be selected with an eye to shaking off the sluggish haze of groupthink that can so easily envelop and consume groups of people.

As we saw last semester, many in the University community lack confidence in Summers’ leadership. It will be impossible for these people to trust the direction of a governing body which has absolutely no sympathy for their deep antipathy to President Summers. Only someone who does not see eye-to-eye with President Summers will force his colleagues to examine and reexamine the President’s every move. Only someone who can reach out to Summers’ detractors can glue together a splintered university community. This person will be a necessary bridge between the simmering resentment of faculty and students and the forward-looking confidence of the Corporation.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences as well as other Faculties have raised grievances about the management of the University. Rather than take Harper’s resignation as a chance to consolidate its power, we hope that the Corporation takes the path of wisdom and chooses someone who will probe weaknesses, ask questions, and champion viewpoints that the other members of the Corporation, all somewhat similar in their backgrounds and orientations, have neglected.