The storm of criticism facing University President Lawrence H. Summers has been quantified and codified. With the Faculty’s unexpected passing of a measure indicating the body’s lack of confidence in Summers’ leadership abilities, we can now put a number, 218, to what has become increasingly apparent over the last several months: the Faculty has clear objections to Summers’ leadership style. Perhaps some economist somewhere will find this quantification useful.

The fact remains that despite a strong constituency who seem unshakable in their opposition to Summers, an even larger majority wants to look forward and amend ties with their battered chief, flawed though he may be. Indeed, the Faculty’s choice to vote in greater numbers for the proposal of Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology Theda Skocpol, which articulated regrets over Summers’ actions but also interest in reconciliation and future collaboration, indicates that there is a silver lining in the Summers storm. Moreover, many of Summers’ most fervent supporters—who may not have wanted to concede even the regrets expressed in Skocpol’s proposal—would add to the tally of those seeking improved relations. All this should signal to Summers that, despite the inevitable sensationalizing in today’s national pages, he has grounds on which to stage a recovery.

Nearly a month ago, we intimated on this page that the Faculty should have recognized that neither a lack-of-confidence nor a no-confidence vote (as well as calls for Summers’ resignation) would be effective—except as a vehicle to sow more division. The very wording of the “lack” of confidence vote—as opposed to a less widely supported “no” confidence—suggests especially that this vote was more about divisive power politics than about the actual sentiment expressed. The Harvard Corporation was never likely to fire Summers—lack of Faculty confidence notwithstanding—and the best option from the start was Skocpol’s more conciliatory proposal.

Two months have passed since the two sides began warring to varying degrees, over Summers’ managerial style, his bluntness, and his perceived sexism. The Faculty has made its statement—loud, clear, and in great number—that the current academic environment at the College cannot persist. The Summers controversy has brought to the surface latent hostilities that have poisoned the Faculty-President relationship to the detriment of all. The mass-airing of opinions that has resulted has been therapeutic for both sides involved, but has distracted them from longer term, arguably more pressing issues.

With two scheduled Faculty meetings taken over by the debate, the end stages of the Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR) are being pushed back to next semester instead of the end of this one. While good things do take time—as the current disagreements over the recommendations of the Committee on General Education illustrate—they also take focus. Faculty members and University Hall need closure over the Summers controversy in order to refocus their efforts on the HCCR, and we hope that closure is imminent.

There are enough issues in any one of the six HCCR committees currently meeting to keep the Faculty and Summers busy in the coming months. Now endowed with more clout to control their own fates thanks to the Summers controversy, we hope that the Faculty will feel secure enough to immerse themselves in the HCCR without keeping one eye on the President. There is much to be done to patch up the cracks in the foundation of our College—some of which may be permanent. But with a sturdier base, and with renewed striving to push the limits of our undergraduate curriculum, we hope that these past two months will leave our Ivory Tower strengthened.