When University President Lawrence H. Summers’ comments on women in science sparked a ruckus last January, the president turned to an old-fashioned apology to defuse criticism of his remarks.

“I was wrong,” Summers wrote in a letter he released five days after delivering the now-infamous speech.

But as Summers confronts a renewed crisis of confidence this semester, apologizing may no longer be on the table.

Today, the chief grievances leveled at the president by embittered faculty members might not be ameliorated by a simple mea culpa.

The re-energized Faculty uprising against Summers was triggered by the Jan. 27 resignation of Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby. The Crimson reported that the president forced Kirby to resign, citing four individuals close to the central administration.

At a Faculty meeting in University Hall one week ago, professors greeted Kirby with a prolonged standing ovation—before sinking their teeth into Summers, attacking his leadership for over an hour.

Dillon Professor of International Affairs Lisa L. Martin said the Faculty felt “embarrassment” at the handling of the dean’s departure in light of “leaks and manipulation” in news accounts of the resignation. But in contrast to his handling of the fallout from his remarks last year, Summers disputes the validity of the new accusations, calling the reports of Kirby’s forced resignation “mischaracterizations.”

“This was his decision,” the president said in an interview earlier this month.

Professors also assailed Summers for the University’s handling of the government lawsuit implicating his close friend, Jones Professor of Economics Andrei Shleifer ’82. A federal court found Shleifer liable in 2004 for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government while leading a State Department-funded Harvard project to reform Russia’s economy. The University paid $26.5 million to settle the suit in August 2005, and neither the University nor Shleifer admitted any wrongdoing.

Now, prodded by an article in the January issue of Institutional Investor magazine scrutinizing the Shleifer affair, professors have blasted Summers for Harvard’s role—and what they consider Summers’ unsatisfactory responses to questions about the matter.

Summers has said he has recused himself from the University’s handling of the suit. Thus, an apology for the Shleifer matter also appears unlikely.

“I am not knowledgeable of the facts and circumstances to be able to express an opinion as a consequence of my recusal,” Summers told the Faculty in response to a question posed by Frederick H. Abernathy, the McKay professor of mechanical engineering.

Last year, after the debate shifted to Summers’ leadership and the Faculty censured him with a vote of no confidence, the president vowed to “think hard about what has been said, and to make the appropriate adjustments.”

But resentment over Summers’ leadership style continues to dominate Faculty members’ grievances, and if a second no-confidence vote is passed by the Faculty on Feb. 28, another such pledge to restore relations may be impossible.

J.D. Connor ’92, an assistant professor of visual and environmental studies and of English, said he agreed that an apology may not be suited to the latest round of objections raised by the Faculty.

“I don’t know what runs through [Summers’] head when he sees this happen,” Connor said. “I wouldn’t know how to get out of this...I don’t know what he can do to fix that.”

­—Staff writer Nicholas M. Ciarelli can be reached at ciarelli@fas.harvard.edu.

­—Staff writer Javier C. Hernandez can be reached at jhernand@fas.harvard.edu.