Unveiling Discontent

In the aftermath of University President Lawrence H. Summers’ resignation, a range of theories has been offered to explain what went wrong. Generating much heat but little light, every media outlet blamed a different culprit, from a hard-left faculty of “feminazis” to structural problems in Harvard’s system of governance. Unfortunately, with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ continued silence on the issue, what Pforzheimer House Master James J. McCarthy called “uninformed and/or misinformed” speculation may be the best explanation that the Harvard community gets.

The Faculty is right to want to put this issue behind the University, but reluctance to see “dirty linen” washed in public is misguided and does little to help Harvard move on. Harvard has hardly been spared the barbs of our nation’s commentators; our “dirty linen” has had a very public airing already. For the good of the University, it’s time to hear the faculty’s side of the story. The only interest served by allowing speculation to continue to trump substance is that of Harvard’s many vocal detractors.

A more complete picture of February’s happenings would provide much needed closure on the issue for the many students, Faculty, and other onlookers unsatisfied by the explanations—or lack thereof—currently offered.

Setting the record straight on the events of this spring should have a significant impact on the search for a new president. Whoever takes over in Mass Hall will have the formidable task of setting Harvard back on course, and lessons from posterity cannot but help. Our next president must smooth over the difficulties that plagued Summers and marshal the full support of the Faculty for projects such as bringing to a conclusion and implementing the Harvard College Curricular Review and forging ahead with the Allston Expansion which will define the Harvard experience for decades. Without full and honest disclosure from the Faculty of why this presidency was unsuitable, his successor may well founder on the same rocks Summers did.

Washing its dirty laundry will also allow the Faculty to finally wash its hands of the extraneous concerns that have possessed it for the past year. Closing shop on the acrimony of the Summers years will keep it from coming back to once again obscure the Faculty’s more pressing concerns. The crucial issues of improving undergraduate teaching, reforming the curriculum and overhauling advising continue to demand the full attention and authority of the Faculty, as well as the confidence of the students and administration. The Faculty cannot start over on a blank slate without first wiping it clean.

Hearing the Faculty’s version of events will not only help restore political capital for future dealings with the administration, it will also give a valuable indication of the Faculty’s priorities for the future of the university.

A faculty that stridently demands accountability and transparency from the administration must be willing to place the same burden on itself. The truth will eventually trickle out; we hope the Faculty will act for the good of the university by telling it sooner rather than later.