To the editors:



I’ve read the first three Crimson profiles of possible Harvard presidential candidates with great interest; clearly, people of the highest quality and talent are being considered for this tremendously important job. So I was surprised to see that the sub-headline of your first profile (“Provost Considered for Top Post,” 12/19) asserted that this candidate’s resume, more than any other’s, “may make him [the] most qualified candidate.”

The search committee has not limited itself to individuals currently part of Harvard’s administration, so obviously knowledge of Harvard—which Provost Hyman has in spades, and which is certainly an asset—is hardly dispositive.

Meanwhile, Alison Richard runs Cambridge University. Shirley Tilghman runs Princeton. Amy Gutmann runs the University of Pennsylvania. Ruth Simmons runs Brown. All have been mentioned as possible contenders for the Harvard presidency. I make no comment on Hyman’s skills as provost, which are surely considerable. But must your headline stack the deck against the other candidates (all those listed above have greater experience being “#1” and not just “#2” than Steven Hyman) so quickly?

The content of your profiles has been substantive and nuanced, and it would nice to see some of that reflected even in your headlines.



PAIGE HERWIG

Jan. 12, 2007

Washington, D.C.



The writer graduated from Yale College in 2002.