As the US government's case against Harvard University for
the collapse of its Russia Project under economist Andrei
Shleifer winds towards its suspenseful conclusion, one question
more than any other has taken on additional interest.
Who has oversight of the legal strategy for the seven-member
corporation that rules the university -- the President and
Fellows of Harvard College, as they are known?
Lawrence Summers, president and ordinarily the university's
chief executive officer, is recused in the matter, because
of the several ways in which he is involved in it: through
his long-time friendship with his protégé Shleifer,
through the duties he performed in the Treasury Department
in the 1990s; and through his presidency of the university
since 2001.
Obviously, there is no way to delegate responsibility down in a university in which everyone works, one way or
another, for the recused president. The lawyers don't run
things; they offer advice and follow the directions they are
given.
In other words, there is nothing automatic about what happens
next. The case must be actively managed. Often Harvard has
insisted that it wants a jury trial to argue that it is entitled
to keep some portion of the $33 million or so that the US
government paid it to furnish advice to the Russian government,
before the project collapsed amid charges of corruption. The
Assistant US Attorney in Boston who is trying the case, Sara
Miron Bloom (Harvard Law 1988), wants all the money back.
(Last summer Judge US District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock
found Harvard liable for simple breach of contract instead
of fraud, ruling out treble damages against the university
while maintaining them against Shleifer, a relatively wealthy
man, who had been found liable on two counts of fraud.)
At the same time, its lawyers have been engaged in settlement
negotiations with the government. Shleifer has changed lawyers.
The university's attitude towards its prodigal professor may
have evolved since he last lobbied to have Harvard pay his
legal bills. Within the university itself, tensions have increased.
The stakes change on a weekly basis.
The parties haven't met in court since late last year, when
a jury took barely two hours to dismiss a narrow aspect of
Harvard's and Shleifer's joint defense -- that it didn't matter
that the economist (and his deputy, Jonathan Hay, together
with their wives, had been investing in Russian securities,
even attempting to elbow their way into the mutual fund business
for themselves, for despite the fact that Shleifer had been
hired by the US government to advise the Russian government
on how to create a market economy, he wasn't technically "assigned"
to Russia.
(Shleifer grew up in the former Soviet Union, before emigrating
as a 16-year-old, with his parents, to Rochester, New York.
As a sophomore at Harvard, he met Summers, who was then a
graduate student. By the age of 25, Shleifer had earned a
PhD in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)
Now, an oft-postponed conference before Judge Woodlock is
scheduled for June 2. It could bring news of a settlement,
partial or complete; even an abrupt end to the proceedings.
Or it could result in a decision to schedule a trial on damages,
beginning as late as June of next year.
So who is minding the store for Harvard?
According to two sources familiar with aspects of the university's
defense, the corporation's senior adviser in the matter is
none other than Derek Bok. The former president has been asked
by the corporation to "look at" not just Russia, said one,
but "all kinds of things" within the university.
A standing Joint Committee on Inspections -- joint between
the seven-member corporation, which has ultimate authority
over the university, and the Board of Overseers, a thirty-member
advisory panel elected by alumni -- presumably also plays a
role as the university's audit committee.
Bok is especially well-qualified by to training, temperament
and experience. He is a lawyer, a former professor of law
and dean of the Harvard Law School. From 1971 until 1991 he
was Harvard's president. Among his salient policies was a
thoughtful annual report on significant developments affecting
the university.
He has written five books on higher education and two on
government: Beyond the Ivory Tower
(1982), Higher Learning
(1986), Universities and the Future of America
(1990), The State of the Nation
(1997), The Shape of the River
(1998), The Trouble with Government
(2001) and Universities in the Marketplace
(2003).
One case in particular during the Bok years has some bearing
on the question of errant behavior among professors.
In 1984, tenured government professor Douglas Hibbs Jr. was
compelled to resign despite his tenure, after being found
to have demanded sexual favors from a graduate student.
Similarly, Yale University earlier this year dismissed tenured
economics professor Florencio López-de-Silanes for
double-billing his expense accounts to the university and
The World Bank. López-de-Silanes, 38, a protégé
and frequent collaborator of Andrei Shleifer, had been recruited
from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government to head
the newly-created Institute for Corporate Governance at Yale's
School of Management.
Harvard began is Russia Project with great fanfare in 1992,
with Shleifer as its 30-year-old team leader. The program
came to a dramatic end in May 1997, when the US Agency for
International Development cancelled it after a brief investigation,
having been tipped off to its team leaders' investments. Angered
by the loss of its favorite advisers, Boris Yeltsin's government
promptly severed its relationship with USAID.
By then, nearly 2 percent of Harvard's endowment had been
directly invested by its managers in Russian assets.
They were taking part in the great gold rush that unfolded
as the Russian government (which Shleifer had advised) sold
off its state-owned assets at bargain prices. As Harvard investigated
internally the collapse of its mission to Moscow, the Asian
financial crisis spread in early 1998 to Russian securities
markets. By August 1998, an abrupt devaluation of the ruble
briefly threatened the global financial system with paralysis.
Point man in the US effort to maintain order was Deputy Treasury
Secretary Larry Summers. Among his eyes and ears presumably
were those of his protégé Shleifer, no longer
a US government employee.
The crisis passed. Amid considerable internal uncertainty
at Harvard, the decision to aggressively defend the conduct
of Harvard's Russia Project was taken in the months immediately
before and after the government filed a fraud suit in September
2000, seeking more than $120 million in damages.
By then, Harvard was searching for its next president. Provost
Harvey Fineberg, in charge of the Russia matter, was hoping
to succeed Neil Rudenstine as president. Summers had become
Treasury Secretary and was an informal adviser to presidential
candidate Al Gore. The university has not deviated from
the course it set then.
Complicating the oversight process today is the lack of deep
experience among members of the corporation, the oldest self-perpetuating
body in the Western hemisphere. When Robert Stone stepped
down in 2002, it was after 27 years of service. Hanna Holborn
Gray, president emerita of the University of Chicago, replaced
Henry Rosovsky in 1997. She retires next month.
At that point, only James Houghton and Conrad Harper will
have become members before Summers became president in 2001
-- Houghton, recently renamed chairman of Corning, Inc., since
1995; and Harper, a partner in Simpson, Thatcher and Bartlett,
a prestigious New York law firm, since 2000.
Citigroup's executive committee chairman Robert Rubin, Urban
Institute President Robert Reischauer, university treasurer
and McKinsey director James Rothenberg and Nannerl Overholser
Keohane, president emerita of both Duke University and Wellesley
College, have joined since -- and Rubin was Summers' boss
through most of the 1990s.
Also disruptive was the resignation in 2002 of Herbert Winokur
Jr., CEO of Capricorn Holdings, who left the corporation after
only two years, when his role as a key director at Enron became
a potential source of embarrassment.
All the more reason, therefore, for the President and Fellows
of Harvard College to turn to Derek Bok, a man of sound judgment
and deep experience in the university, as they prepare to
write the end to a most peculiar episode.