University President Lawrence H. Summers will once again face strong criticism from professors who disapprove of his presidency at today’s Faculty meeting, although his supporters are expected to take a more vocal stand today than they did last week.

It is unlikely that a vote of “no confidence” in Summers will be held because of time constraints due to the large number of professors who have requested to speak at the meeting, professors say.

“I don’t think there’s going to be any ‘no confidence’ vote on Tuesday,” said Classics Department Chair Richard F. Thomas. “I think the time period is presumably to get through as many questions as possible.”

A vote would also be procedurally difficult to call because 80 percent of faculty in attendance must approve holding one—and Summers’ supporters say they will vote against such a motion.

“I don’t see how a vote that splits the Faculty down the middle on this issue, which will create divisions which will be remembered for years to come, is in Harvard’s best interest,” said Professor of Economics Edward L. Glaeser.

One senior professor, who asked to remain anonymous, said Summers’ opponents intend to move forward with a vote of no confidence—and that if a vote is not held today, they will put the vote on the docket for the March 15 meeting.

“I think it’s almost definite” that a professor will place a vote of no confidence on the agenda for the March meeting should it not take place today, the professor said. “Things could change because that’s a long time from now and something major could happen, but I think given the information that we know right now, it’s very likely.”

A number of other professors who have been critical of Summers declined to comment on the possibility of holding a vote of no confidence in March.

But Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature Ruth R. Wisse, the only professor who spoke openly in support of Summers at last Tuesday’s faculty meeting, hinted that if professors put a vote of “no confidence” in Summers on the docket for the March 15 meeting, they might face another docket item aimed at them.

“I would hope that there would be a condemnation of those who seek to condemn [Summers],” Wisse said. “I think the direst thing that one could do on campus would be to inhibit speech.”

TAKING SIDES

No calm has followed last Tuesday’s storm amongst the faculty.

Rather, the world behind Harvard’s ivy walls has been transformed into an intensely political landscape, with professors on all sides trying to galvanize support going into today’s meeting.

Lee Professor of Economics Claudia Goldin and Professor of Economics David I. Laibson drafted a letter last week in support of Summers and informally distributed it to other tenured professors, requesting that they sign the letter and pass it on to more colleagues. As of last night, 186 professors have signed the letter. (Please see page A15 for the full text of the letter.)

The letter concedes that Summers “has made mistakes during his tenure” and that “his personal interactions sometimes feel confrontational,” but nonetheless expresses confidence in Summers because of the belief “that his decisions are guided by a fundamental commitment to the ideals of scholarship and teaching that define this institution.”