lol.
No school in history had been defended more often on CC and simultaneously having it appear as they need no defense.
It would behoove grads and apologists alike to offer up more cogent responses than “you guys are all just jealous”.
Maybe try “I know you are but what am I”?
Also you have no idea if the Dean cares about what HL grads think.
Maybe you’re right and he would skip the call from President Obama or Michelle.
@collegedad13 That’s twice now you’ve said people here are just jealous of Harvard. Your superiority complex is quite becoming.
I’m not jealous of Harvard. Actually I never even think of Harvard at all except on this site. Or unless I run into the girl from my class who went to Harvard. Of course 30 years later she still mentions it several times in a short conversation.
I guess I’m supposed to be jealous of her too!
I really don’t think that the naysayers are getting the role of the Dean. You are supposed to be innocuous and uncontroversial. You want to appeal to as many people as possible. If there’s a demonstration every time you host a tea, you can’t do your job. It’s a job where tact, sympathy, likability etc are the primary qualities you are looking for. The Dean also needs to get along with all the tutors (grad students who also live in the house). The house is supposed to be a collegial place. From what I’ve read, this was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I know several schools off the top of my head that have a much greater (keen) awarenesses of social issues than Harvard, which is known for being one of the greatest research universities in the world. Heck, I would argue on a % basis, Brown students are more ‘socially aware’ than H.
So no, no jealousy here.
per tomorrow’s WSJ, Harvey has agreed to a $44M settlement with plaintiffs on the civil suits. It won’t affect the criminal suit filed in NYC, however. (not sure which or both that Sullivan was involved in.)
If the role of Harvard residential Dean is to be innocuous and uncontroversial, faculty shouldn’t be appointed. Maybe they could find a nice nanny instead. Faculty, particularly tenured faculty, may be at the center of controversy in any field or profession, and were hired and promoted for their professional accomplishments more than their ability to give sympathy. The job might be better suited for those in childcare, developmental psychology, or adolescent counseling.
mathmom is absolutely right about the role of the Faculty House Deans at Harvard. If you are analogizing the House Deans to the Deans at most “normal” universities, that would give an incorrect impression. The Deans at most normal universities are administrators, who handle faculty hiring, budgets, and organizational issues. In some cases, they may see an undergraduate only at an annual awards ceremony.
The Faculty House Deans at Harvard are faculty for a good reason, and often eminent faculty (e.g., my colleague the Nobel laureate). I don’t think he was the only Nobelist to serve as a Faculty House Dean at Harvard. I believe the goal is to permit the students to have “everyday” interactions with an person of distinction. Harvard is trying to grow distinguished men and women for the future. This is one of their strategies. There are also Residential Deans in all of the Houses, who provide more of the “adolescent counseling,” to which roycroftmom refers.
The Faculty House Dean needs to be someone the students look up to, in order to accomplish the goal of having Faculty House Deans to begin with. You can’t force admiration, even if you find a person’s actions completely admirable.
Well, perhaps the students will need to learn to “look up” to a counselor if those are the skills expected in such a dean.
Thank you mathmom and quantmech for your eloquent posts. The two of you have described the situation very precisely
Why wouldn’t students look up to this accomplished attorney? Again, I’ve mentioned this before - students DO NOT GET A VOTE for this position, ever. Except now, of course.
It’s really unfortunate that Alan Dershowitz is not a House Dean. I suspect he would also have been driven out by students who were uncomfortable around him because of his (inadvertent?) support of the current holder of the office of the presidency. I would love to have seen that fight.
I understand the argument that Professor Sullivan’s signing on to Harvey Weinstein’s defense team was actually a good thing to do, and I can see the rationale, though I do not share that view personally.
But I go back to the point that students’ admiration cannot be compelled. In this case, the empiricist in me wins out.
Also, thanks, collegedad13.
Excuse me, students may not be voting for the Dean, but there was a student on the advisory search committee for Sullivan which I linked in an article.
The majority of people supporting the position of the administration seem to have a vested interest in Harvard appearing to be above reproach.
If there is one school that doesn’t need an online phalanx of protective alums and students, it’s H.
My wife and fil are grads and they both think this is 100 percent counter to their experience and expectations for the school.
Understanding fully that they only speak for themselves.
The fact that the professor is an accomplished AA makes it all so much worse, imho. In a normal situation you would hope that the social activists would be assailing H for removing such a respected academic. An accomplished person of color who has done nothing wrong. It would normally be an outrage.
Rightfully so.
Apparently, some people are able to seamlessly switch from righteous indignation to apathy depending on the situation.
Well, he has seemingly done something wrong, in that his performance as a Dean was reportedly poor.
@sorghum That’s part of the issue. None of these so called problems where ever brought up in the past. There are many earlier posts pointing to his high regard and accolades for his work. It’s like they went looking for other issues to misdirect what they were trying to achieve.
His counterparts at Harvard law are pretty upset apparently. They know him better the most.
In the article I posted several pages back, in 2017, he was considered very good at his job and raising the funds for the renovations.
However, it is the natural cycle for his contract to be renewed. Or not. They are going to look at the things from the last year or two more than stuff that happened 7 years ago. It would be interesting to know how many Deans serve about 10 years and then leave (or are asked to) and how many are ‘lifer’.
The Harvard Crimson article linked in Post #7 is quite persuasive that there was something wrong in Winthrop.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/5/10/winthrop-climate/
Such a long article but could not find anywhere discussing if Robinson contract was renewed before this year. How often do they go up for renewal? With all the pre Weinstein complaints, why was he not relieved of his job sooner?
They are renewed every 5 years, so this is his natural period for renewal. He hasn’t been fired or removed but hand wife were not renewed.
I just don’t fully trust articles that appear with all kinds of problems to report after the fact- although can be true of course. What happened to the compelling crimson reporting or the school’s own positive reports on S and the house for the ten years before.
Why were the reports about S so positive before and suddenly change. Hmmm.
Leaks and misinformation are a pr tactic friends.
Do you think the average crimson reporter is doing deep analysis or going with what they’re given?
Especially when it supports a view they hold or subconsciously are more interested in institution protection.
It’s a student newspaper. I would hold off with fully formed opinions.
Think critically not with confirmation bias.