 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
All the President's Sins?
Thursday, March 2, at 2 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
Last week, facing the possibility of a second motion of no confidence from his faculty, Lawrence H. Summers announced the end to his troubled tenure as president of Harvard University. Some faculty members expressed relief, still angry over statements Mr. Summers made last year about women in the sciences, or about his criticisms in 2001 of Cornel West, then a Harvard professor. Others were shocked, and said Mr. Summers had been unfairly treated by a small group of very vocal professors.
Do presidents need to use their freedom of speech more carefully than faculty members? How could Mr. Summers have challenged what he calls "complacency" at Harvard without angering so many professors?
What does his resignation say about faculty members' ability to oust a president? Will his departure embolden parochial interests at Harvard and elsewhere? Finally, what will be the main task of Harvard's interim president, Derek C. Bok? Of Mr. Summers's eventual replacement? Is Harvard, by its nature, ungovernable?
» The Power of Professors (3/3/2006)
Roger W. Bowen is general secretary of the American Association of University Professors.
Robin Wilson (Moderator):
Hi -- I'm Robin Wilson, a senior writer at The Chronicle, and I'm glad that Roger Bowen has agreed to help us sort out the role of the faculty in the recent events at Harvard, and contemplate how it may influence the rest of academe. Mr. Bowen, thanks for being here with us this afternoon.
Roger W. Bowen:
The lead story in the Chronicle has the title, “The Power of Professors,” suggesting a self-interested faculty brought down the Harvard president with little or no regard for his “vision,” student support, or his accomplishments. Was this in fact the case? Or was it instead that President Summers’ failings as an academic leader gradually cost him the support of key members of the Harvard faculty? Was it a faculty rebellion or failed leadership that brought down Mr. Summers? Or was it failed leadership that sparked the faculty to rebel?
I am pleased to participate in this discussion, yet recognize that in the absence of testimony from members of the Harvard Corporation, the very people having the authority to sustain or end Mr. Summers’ tenure as president, our discussion will necessarily be incomplete.
Robin Wilson (Moderator):
Ok -- Let's get to the questions.
Question from J. H. Carbolne, Ph. D, MBA 57:
President Summers attributes his decision to resign to the “extent of the rancor” with faculty members. This decision has been misunderstood as an escape from rancor causing personal discomfort, rather than resignation in Harvard’s interest. I think the resignation wastes an extraordinary opportunity to clean the faculty Augean stable on behalf of the students. Is the resignation in Harvard’s interest? Short term interest? Long term interest?
Roger W. Bowen:
"Augean stable" strikes me as harsh and uninformed, particularly when you suggest that faculty may be responsible for the filth and corruption referenced by this notion. Is the resignation in Harvard's interest, however, is a fair question. If the president and key elements of the faculty are permanently at war, then, yes, it makes sense for the president to step aside. If a general has lost the respect and confidence of the soldiers, then battles will be lost. But over the long term, perhaps Harvard should re-examine its governance system, creating a university-wide faculty Senate. This might counter the feudalistic governance structure that currently characterizes Harvard. It might also help faculty develop a stronger identity of interests with their profession.
Question from Archie Cubarrubia, The George Washington University:
Should faculty have a role in the administration and management of 21st century higher education? If so, what is that role and how will faculty be equipped to fulfill it?
Roger W. Bowen:
The faculty should and must have a role in governance. The AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which ACE and AGB helped craft, is the definitive statement on the faculty's role in shared governance. The role for the faculty is to hold sway over curricular matters, the hiring of colleagues, and working with the administration in areas of overlap.
Question from Jim, research university professor:
Please clarify. I have heard that Cornel West had a professorship that reported directly to the president. Hence, Pres. Summers was not singling him out for a call to the carpet, but simply exercising his responsibility to communicate with a direct report. Reporting to the president is a huge perk, but if one accepts such a perk one must then live with its results. The president was simply doing his job; a professorship at Harvard so senior that the incumbent reports directly to the president would, reasonably, carry the expectation that the individual would pursue serious scholarship on a fairly regular basis. The mainstream media, however, have reported the event in a way that suggests that the president was somehow out of line. Apologies to Professor West, if that was not the nature of his appointment.
Roger W. Bowen:
Whether West reported directly to the president or not--I do not know either--the issue is whether President Summers exercised his powers of persuasion well, or instead resorted to laying down his law without regard for the prestigous chair held by West. That Professor West chose to leave Harvard, very publicly and very angrily, suggests that the President naively or arrogantly assumed he had the power to remake Professor West in his (Summers' own) image. Presidents have at best authority, not power, and if they do not know the difference, they eventually find it out!
Question from Jennifer Ruark:
Some commentators have painted Harvard professors as spoiled brats who threw tantrums when Summers questioned the rigor of their scholarship. Putting Harvard aside for a moment, are "star" scholars somehow immune from criticism-- whether from their department chairs, provosts, or presidents?
Roger W. Bowen:
Of course not. But any administrator who takes to task a "star"--someone who enjoys the respect of the experts in his/her field--better do it with tact and diplomacy. Just because you are president does not mean that you are expert in all fields and hence able to make judgments about performance in that field.
Question from John K. Wilson, Illinois State University:
Howard Crosby Warren wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in 1914, “It would appear axiomatic that the college president or university rector should be chosen by the faculty.” What is wrong with the idea of a college president serving the faculty (rather than the trustees) and being chosen by them? And if this president is unable to work with the faculty, orders them to stop being involved in politics (as he did to Cornel West), and otherwise insults and abuses them, what's wrong with putting pressure on this president to voluntarily resign in favor of a better president taking his place?
Roger W. Bowen:
In 1914 such axioms were not uncommon. But governance has changed. At private universities the governing board has ultimate authority in selecting a president and the AAUP's position on shared governance supports this. But, as the Summers case shows, it is not possible over the long run for a president to succeed unless he/she has the support of the faculty. Presidents, like it or not, must answer to the governing board--indeed, they derive their authority from the governing board--but they are answerable to the faculty in academic matters. Presidents must serve at least two masters, more if you add alumni, students, donors, and a public that is easily aroused.
Question from Jack, midwestern university (Harvard alumnus):
Larry Summers oversaw the elevation of Andrei Shleifer in the economics department to a chair during the time that Shleifer was being investigated for conflict of interest and fraud (subsequently settled out of court). To what extent is Larry culpable of cronyism? Should the faculty react with the rancor they showed at their last faculty meeting for Larry's position that because he recused himself from the court case, he was prevented from being able to comment on the Shleifer scandal?
Roger W. Bowen:
Alan Dershowitz claims that the Shleifer affair was an added rationale for critizing a president whom they already were intent on scuttling, while the piece in Institutional Investor, and memorialized in the New York Times earlier this week, suggests that the decision by Summers to protect Schleifer not only cost Harvard a pile of money but also damaged its reputation. For Summers not to comment gives the appearance of condoning the misbehavior of an ally. It strikes me that for faculty to raise this as an issue they want addressed is entirely fair.
Question from R.A. Shaw, independent scholar:
Sir: One might think there to be much turmoil in higher ed (HE) today. In addition to the Summers matter, on Sunday, The New York Times, in essance, agreed with Mr. Bush on high-stakes testing and accountability measures in HE, viz. NCLB. When The Times and Mr. Bush actually agree on something -- does that mean that there is a problem with "complacency" in HE? If so -- what are faculty groups doing about it? Thank you.
Roger W. Bowen:
If I recall the Times editorial correctly (and I assume it was written by Brent Staples), it made the point that students were graduating from college without having developed certain skill sets. What the editorial did not make clear is that many students are entering university without adequate preparation, forcing colleges and universities to spend time and valuable resources helping students catch up. In brief, we need to focus on fixing problems in K-12; higher education cannot along fix the problems of K-12. I do not think "complacency" is the problem. Faculty groups, such as the AAUP, would like to play a more central role, but, in fact, the Secretary of Education's National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education chose NOT to involve faculty groups in its deliberations. How can we assist if we are not given a seat at the table?
Question from Robin Wilson:
Is there any reason to think that what happened at Harvard will embolden professors elsewhere to challenge presidents who are not respected or well-liked? What is the possible spill-over into the rest of academe?
Roger W. Bowen:
What happened at Harvard has happened elsewhere and will happen again in the future, but perhaps not always with the same outcome. At private institutions where the governing board strongly supports the president, and may be disdainful toward faculty, even a poorly performing president or an unpopular one can remain in office. Think about American University. Like it or not, presidents are responsible to their faculty and the faculty would be remiss if they did not indicate their displeasure.
Question from David, Harvard University:
As a grad student, I have followed President Summers' challenging tenure very closely. Yet undergrad and grad students receive a limited picture of the troubling relationship between the FAS faculty and the president, especially when much of the criticism focuses on his manner of communication and decision-making--traits that I do not get to see. I would therefore like to ask what lesson this event needs to have for a grad student like me, who is interested in learning more about the necessary skills of a University president, who must constantly communicate with the faculty, yet make tough decisions, who must bravely face criticism, but without souring relationships.
Roger W. Bowen:
Being a grad student at most any university is like have the worst seat in a basketball arena--you're fortunate if you can see the ball. University politics, even to the players, is not a game with clear rules, especially when a president is under seige. Most always out of the picture is the governing board, the group with ultimate authority. But more directly, it is hard to follow the game if neither the players, the ball, or the referee(s) can be seen and the rules are made up as the play proceeds.
Question from Glenn Showalter:
Has the college teaching profession gone the way of corporate greed looking to take as much money as possible, teaching as few weeks as possible, establishing the average American family with a mortgage for a college education?
Roger W. Bowen:
I must assume from your question that are not a university professor. Greed?! Hardly. The average full professor, someone who has been teaching for, say, fifteen years or longer, is making five times less than the average president at most institutions; works 60 - 70 hour weeks, uses holidays to do research, and tries desperately to find time to be a good spouse, father, mother, or partner. The life of the mind may seem cushy, but it is not. College professors, by the way, have mortgages and like you face financial difficulty when the kids go off to college.
Question from Jim McClymer, U of Maine:
Concerning faculty shared governance- The popular press certainly doesn't understand it and I suspect many faculty members don't fully understand the responsibility it entails. Any thoughts on how to educate the public, our peers and other administrators so that we can minimize the disruptions evident at Harvard and occurring at many other institutions?
Roger W. Bowen:
As you say, many inside the academy do not understand (nor take advantage of) shared governance, so educating the public will be a formidable task. But I liken it to an appropriate division of labor, with each constituency respecting the expertise and authority of their fellow constiuencies. Governing boards have ultimate authority, but cannot administer the affairs of the university on a day to day basis, hence the need for an administration; faculty have ultimate authority over matters academic, because they have the expertise. If the three groups share information, communicate regularly, and respect each's competency and authority, it should work; and does work, well in fact, at many colleges and universities.
Question from John, emeritus faculty member:
How did Larry Summers ever survive the search process for the Harvard presidency? Was there any due diligence whatsoever involved in that process? LS was well known; his personality was a matter of public record. He is, after all, an economist, not a practitioner of cultural studies. What you see is what they got. How do these things happen? Note the recent Chronicle column on William E. Cooper, the president at the U of Richmond, who compared the university's students' brains to mush. How do these kinds of people ever get hired in the first place? Cooper spawned an entire website (firecooper.com) and he's still (temporarily) in the job.
Roger W. Bowen:
I have no insider information, but if you are asking in general about presidential searches in general (and not Harvard's in particular), the process begins with generating an internal consensus on what kind of person is needed at this particular juncture in a university's history. A search firm is then hired to advertise and attract a candidate pool. The search committee reviews the applications, narrows down, and interviews are conducted. Summers certainly had the credentials! As to judging his personality, I leave that task to those who actually know him.
Question from jannet marj, American College:
Has this been Mr. Summers first academic position?
Roger W. Bowen:
No. He was a tenured professor of economics at Harvard when he was in his late twenties.
Question from Becky, U. of Washington:
Why do you think there was such a large split in the attitude of Summers' resignation, with most of the faculty supporting it and most of the undergraduate students not wanting him to leave?
Roger W. Bowen:
Faculty respect competence, students idolize "names." How many presidents autograph dollar bills with their names printed on them? Summers had star power, hence some students' adoration of him. But faculty tend to care about reputation but care more about performance, management style, and intellectual leadership.
Question from Elizabeth, Graduate Student:
I have no affiliation with Harvard, but I believe this story will be taken as representative of the academe as a whole. Many university professors (particularly those at large and/or prestigious institutions) come across as far more resistant to free expression of ideas than they claim. See also what goes on inside the Chron. where essays that criticize "the establishment" are almost always penned under a pseudonym, as I admit I am doing now. How are those outside the academe going to respond our cries of "intellectual freedom" when we seem so closed, even persecutive, amongst ourselves?
Roger W. Bowen:
I agree that we do not always practice what we preach. But it is nonetheless important that we do preach, based on the standards of our academic area of expertise. Done well, and with an open mind, this is called teaching; learning should follow. I recommend that every faculty person begin every course every semester with a 10 to 15 minute overview of the meaning of academic freedom, laying out the faculty member's and the students' rights and responsibilities. This can serve as a helpful reminder of the value of academic freedom and also set the tone for the course that follows.
Question from Jim McClymer, U of Maine:
Concerning faculty shared governance- The popular press certainly doesn't understand it and I suspect many faculty members don't fully understand the responsibility it entails. Any thoughts on how to educate the public, our peers and other administrators so that we can minimize the disruptions evident at Harvard and occurring at many other institutions?
Roger W. Bowen:
I answered this question earlier. But assuming a bug has attacked the system, briefly: everyone understands division of labor, which is what shared governance is about. Governing boards govern, administrators administer, and faculty teach and conduct research. Let each do what it is empowered to do, respect the division, and communicate between the divisions as often as needed.
Question from A.C. Smith, student:
Should the higher education consumer--students, families, and the public--be concerned about these kinds of developments? At least Harvard enjoys a solid reputation and will most likely thrive despite the Summers fiasco, but will a similar event fare well at other institutions?
Roger W. Bowen:
Between questions I received a phone call from a reporter announcing that the faculty at Case Western voted no confidence in both the president and the provost! Like Harvard, Case Western has an excellent reputation and it too should thrive, however the governing board decides to act on these votes. But, yes, at smaller, less well endowed institutions, the very public fall of a president could have negative consequences. Although lest I go too far in this direction, I noted that applications increased following my departure as president at the university where I once served.
Robin Wilson (Moderator):
Thanks to all of you who signed on today, to ask questions or just to see what Roger Bowen had to say. Dr. Bowen, thank you very much for fitting this into your busy schedule.
Roger W. Bowen:
University presidencies are nightmare jobs for the stressful demands they place on the occupant, but they may be the most rewarding of all jobs in the academy for the opportunities they provide to influence the common good. Every constituency within the university, including the faculty, has a vested interest in helping a president succeed—he or she is, after all, the public face of the university and the fortunes of universities rise or fall in part because of how well or how poorly the president performs. Faculty have every reason to expect their president will be an intellectual leader, someone having come up through the academy, who appreciates its peculiar culture, and who can represent its best features to the external world and explain away its worst features, and do so with a smile, a reassuring calm, and with words reaffirming the importance of academic freedom. I doubt that any Harvard faculty member wanted Larry Summers to fail; I doubt too that Larry Summers could imagine he might lose the support of his faculty members. Yet his treatment of Cornell West, his uninformed speculation about why women are underrepresented in the sciences, and his silence on the Shleifer case had the cumulative effect of undermining faculty confidence in his leadership. Despite this, Harvard remains Harvard, Summers’ failures having no enduring standing. Indeed, it is safe to predict that Harvard’s next president will be generously and sincerely welcomed by its faculty and will work hard to demonstrate his/her sensitivity to faculty concerns—and that is the way it should be.