Both professors who support University President Lawrence H. Summers and those who oppose him are calling for change, from small structural fixes aimed at dispelling faculty discontent to broad administrative alterations that will allow faculty to have more decision-making power.

Professor of Economics David I. Laibson, who co-authored a letter with Lee Professor of Economics Claudia Goldin asking senior faculty members to support Summers, says that he is optimistic that Summers will change his leadership style.

“It’s already begun to happen that we will see a president who will not only be visionary and effective, but one who will also be collegial and responsive,” Laibson said.

Last Thursday, Summers bowed to pressure from the faculty and released the transcript of his contentious Jan. 14 remarks on women and science.

Others, however, say that such changes will be insufficient, and that only adjustments to Harvard’s governance structure itself can give the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) the increased power and freedom of expression it is demanding.

“The real problem in my opinion is not Summers, per se, but the way power is structured at Harvard,” Professor of Biology and of Geology Charles R. Marshall wrote in an e-mail last week.

Marshall describes Harvard’s leadership structure as “way too top-heavy.”

Professors disagree as to how Harvard Faculty members and administrators can find a middle ground between the “top-down” and “collegial” models that they see as theoretical ideals.

BETWEEN TWO THEORIES

Professors say there are two main models of university governance—a top-down model in which a university is run much like a corporation, and a more collegial model in which the FAS has a greater leadership role.

And in higher education, they say, the recent trend is toward a business-style university.

“What’s happening is a distrust of the old models of university governance because increasingly, in our culture, the only models that are taken as legitimate are those that are business models,” says Joan C. Tronto, professor of political science at Hunter College and chair of the Hunter College Senate.

Tronto adds that the top-down style of university management conflicts with some of the oldest elements of universities.

“The university is a medieval institution, and it’s important to remember that certain kinds of guild thinking make sense,” she says.

Those involved in the current debate about Summers’ leadership echo Tronto’s statement that the top-down governance model is of recent origin.

“Traditionally, Harvard has had a great deal of school autonomy. The old label that was often used was ‘every tub on its own bottom,’” Laibson says.

“During President Summers’ tenure as president, we’ve moved towards a system that has a more active center,” he adds.

But Laibson says he does not believe Harvard is more centralized than any other university.

However, Phyllis and Morton Keller, authors of Making Harvard Modern, highlight schools where faculty have a somewhat greater degree of decision-making power than is standard in a top-down system, including Stanford, where a Faculty Senate has authority in promotion decisions.

PUTTING IT INTO PRACTICE

Even as Faculty members call for change in the university’s governance structure, they disagree over the extent of the reforms needed—and their opinions rest on whether they believe Harvard’s problem is with its current leadership or with its underlying administrative structure.

Some say that faculty can take on a greater role in decision-making only if Harvard shifts toward a collegial model, while others advocate working within the existing top-down system.

“I think that...something positive that can come out of this, and some of my colleagues have called for this in a public way, would be to have more genuine faculty governance at Harvard,” says Dillon Professor of the Civilization of France and Professor of Comparative Literature Susan R. Suleiman. “I think there has been a tendency to get more and more top-heavy with administration. Many members of the Faculty have been feeling very frustrated.”

For a collegial model to work, the currently-divided Faculty would have to commit to some shared view of how the University should operate.

Professor of the History of Science Everett I. Mendelsohn says he believes that if Harvard adopted a collegial model, faculty would be willing to take on any new responsibilities necessary.

“Where a collegial mode of operation exists, people expect to carry on more responsibility,” he says. “I believe that faculty members could indeed become committed to a shared vision. I believe there’s a lot of overlap that goes on even at this point of shared vision.”

Another senior faculty member, who asked to remain anonymous, says that the university’s governance structure could be improved by extending faculty meetings—currently an hour and a half long—to two hours, so that faculty would have more of an opportunity to interact with the administration.

“I think the actual structure of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences is a reasonably good one,” the professor said. “[Longer faculty meetings] bring the president and the Faculty into a circle of decision-making.”

Laibson says the issue is not one of an imbalance of the power held by FAS compared to the president—a problem many say a collegial model would solve—but one of a need for a different mode of communication between Summers and the FAS.

“The complaints from some faculty...are not so much about mis-balance but about a style of communication and a quality of discourse,” Laibson says. “We need to find a communication style that makes everyone feel comfortable at the table.”

Tronto says that another possible solution within the top-down model would involve decentralizing administrative power and sharing the decision-making process with professors.

“One way is to make a larger institutional commitment to transparency. It’s possible to create forums for people to express disapproval without it having to build up to a point of explosion,” she says.

—Staff writer Sara E. Polsky can be reached at polsky@fas.harvard.edu.