 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Yale Alumni Magazine is owned and operated by Yale Alumni Publications, Inc., a nonprofit corporation independent of Yale University. The content of the magazine and its website is the responsibility of the editors and does not necessarily reflect the views of Yale or its officers. |
|
Y: Decades ago, university presidents were expected to be national opinion leaders and take controversial stands. In 1920 the president of Columbia ran for president of the United States. In the thirties a Harvard president campaigned against the New Deal. Has something changed in the president’s role? L: What’s changed is the attitude of the press. In the period before World War II, not only university presidents but also presidents of General Electric and other large companies used to offer their views on public policy issues with some regularity. Today, the press has little interest in what a university president has to say, unless the president’s views are highly controversial. I have had a number of op-ed pieces rejected because they weren’t sufficiently controversial. Interestingly, in the other parts of the world, the press has far more interest in publishing the views of university presidents. On my visits to China, India, Korea, and Mexico, I have given scores of interviews concerning my views on the global economy, international trade negotiations, intellectual property, and other topics related to my expertise as an economist. I have expressed my views on such subjects annually at the meetings of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and I am frequently interviewed by the Chinese media on aspects of China’s economic development, even from my office in New Haven. Y: What do you think of the recent remarks by Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, that his “best guess” is that the reasons for the relative scarcity of women in science and engineering include “issues of intrinsic aptitude"? [For more, see “From the editor."] L: Throughout my presidency I have made it a top priority to increase the number of women on our faculty. I know that President Summers shares this goal. This was made clear in his recent comments and has been clear to me from conversations with him over the past four years. Y: At Yale, Kingman Brewster ['41] is usually seen as the epitome of the politically involved president. But in many ways he stood back from politics. He allowed the expression of antiwar opinion on campus without supporting or suppressing it. That seems like the model today. Presidents don’t seek a national role—they pick their battles according to their priorities for their institutions. L: The issues on which university presidents work actively aren’t simply in service of their own institutions. Much more often they concern the state of higher education as a whole. There are many university presidents who are active in securing appropriate funding for scientific research and ensuring the integrity of that research. There has been a lot of activity recently on the question of immigration restrictions. I spoke out about the problems of early-decision applications not to advance Yale, but because young people were being ill-served by being forced to commit to a particular university at the beginning of their senior year. Y: What about areas that are not related to education, but where you have expertise? For instance, you’re an economist, and you have said that you disagree with current tax policy. Would you take a strong public stand on a non-university issue like this one? L: It depends on the issue, the moment, the particular degree of one’s professional relationship to the issue. I would be conservative about going out of my way to make a point—unless I felt particularly strongly, or felt that the argument wasn’t being made by anyone else. It’s clearly appropriate for a university president to speak out on issues that concern universities. It’s also appropriate to speak out in areas of professional competence. But let’s distinguish for a moment between making public statements and performing public actions. I don’t often make public statements in the media, but I work very actively on public policy issues all the time. Some are critical to universities, such as research funding and visa reform, where I believe my involvement has had a major impact. Others relate to my professional expertise. I have served on two Presidential Commissions, and I co-chaired a major study for the National Academy of Sciences on reforming patent law that may well lead to legislation this spring. I also believe that my involvement with educational reform in China is having a very significant impact. Y: You’re on a commission convened by President Bush to evaluate U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, which will release its report this spring. Do you often engage in issues that are neither educational nor related to your field? L: In the case of the commission, I was asked by the president to serve the nation, and I considered it my duty. But in general, I’m reluctant to opine on issues where I have only a personal opinion. For instance, the legitimacy of the Iraq war—I would rather be in the position of stimulating public discussion on such a subject. When the Iraq war started, I asked two members of our faculty, John Gaddis and Cynthia Farrar, to organize a series of talks drawing from all parts of the political spectrum and representing different perspectives—political, military, economic, religious—to stimulate education of our students. Y: Are the alumni a factor in that? Politically, the Yale alumni are extremely diverse, and the university depends on their donations. What would be their reaction if the president used the university as a platform to criticize, say, the Iraq war? L: Many alumni have asked me to speak out on public issues. So I don’t worry about alumni reaction. As I said, I tend to confine these statements to issues on which I have some expertise. Y: What about electoral politics? L: I don’t get involved. Yale’s senior officers have a policy that generally precludes us from making public endorsements and campaign contributions. Y: Then there are the times when you take a strong public stand on something controversial that concerns the university, such as stem cell research. Do you run the risk of alienating alumni? L: Stem cell research is important to the advance of science and the treatment of human disease. We are making a significant public policy error by not having a more permissive policy. If restrictions continue in the United States, there will be repercussions for the quality of science done in this country and for the locus of where science is done internationally, and also for the competitive health of our pharmaceutical industry. So I have been active on this front. Recently I’ve been encouraging the state of Connecticut to adopt a program like California's, which would provide state funding in areas that the federal government won’t. I think that’s consistent with advancing the university’s interest, and I am perfectly prepared to take the heat for it. Y: Have you gotten any heat? L: No, none, actually. Though I am prepared for it, now that this is appearing in this magazine! But frankly, I don’t think this subject takes a great deal of courage. If you are looking for a courageous stance by a recent Yale president, I think the very strong attacks on McCarthyism by President [A. Whitney] Griswold ['29] were in fact very courageous. He published some of his speeches in newsmagazines and took an active role early in the period, long before McCarthy succeeding in discrediting himself. I would hope that in a similar situation I would have the same kind of courage, because that serious interference with the right of free speech, and serious pressures placed on university faculties and governance, were a threat not only to the fabric of our university but to the fabric of American democracy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
©1992–2012, Yale Alumni Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Yale Alumni Magazine, P.O. Box 1905, New Haven, CT 06509-1905, USA. yam@yale.edu |
||