Search News


Browse Archives

News

Uncertain Outcome for Accused Harvard Scholar

October 13, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

 

Andrei Shleifer has weathered a lot in recent years, including a legal settlement in which Harvard University agreed to pay $26 million to resolve claims that he and other leaders of a project in Russia were liable for conspiracy to defraud the United States government. And his colleagues have grumbled that he benefited from favoritism shown by his friend and Harvard's former president, Lawrence H. Summers. Now, it appears that he has withstood a Harvard ethics investigation with his job intact, although exactly what the inquiry found remains a mystery.

The interim dean of the faculty, Jeremy R. Knowles, was quoted in The Harvard Crimson saying that "appropriate action” had been taken against Shleifer, who is the Jones Professor of Economics. However, Knowles declined to answer questions about whether Shleifer had been punished for his actions. The Crimson article also quoted faculty close to the investigation expressing concern that the case had not been handled fairly by Knowles.

“In other cases of professional misconduct, without the millions of dollars lost, just charges of plagiarism, university officials have made public statements,” said Harry Lewis, the Gordon McKay Professor of Computer Science and a former dean of Harvard's main undergraduate college. In a recent book on Harvard, Lewis documented recent investigations of mere scholarly misconduct that were later publicly aired in statements by the university president.

Shleifer is out of the country and did not answer a question asking if he had been punished. “I am sitting on an airplane ready to take off. I gave a comment to the Crimson yesterday, which was printed accurately,” he responded via BlackBerry.

His assistant, Lori Reck, sent an e-mail with the statement that appeared in the paper. “I am delighted that this matter is fully behind me.  I look forward to following Dean Knowles' advice and focusing my energies fully on scholarship, teaching and service to economics and to Harvard.” Shleifer also declined to answer similar questions posed by the Crimson, said its reporter, Javier C. Hernandez.

While testifying to a federal grand jury that was investigating Shleifer, Knowles stated that faculty should know the regulations prohibiting conflicts and “understand the spirit, not just try to squeeze past the letter….” Knowles did not return e-mails or a telephone call seeking comment.

A subcommittee of Harvard’s Committee on Professional Conduct carried out the investigation and a committee member, the physicist Gary Feldman, said that the subcommittee's report is a confidential, fact finding document that may or may not recommend disciplining Shleifer. However, Knowles is free to make a statement, release the report and punish Shleifer, Feldman said.

“The case has received so much  outside attention that that it would probably be in Harvard’s interest to make public what action has been taken,” said Feldman.

The most detailed story on Shleifer and the role he played in bringing about the huge fine levied against his institution has been written by Harvard alum, David McClintick. A former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, McClintick pored through documents and court transcripts to write "How Harvard Lost Russia."

“It’s hair raising,” said Lewis.

In the article, McClintick documents “an extraordinary display of overweening ‘best and brightest’ arrogance toward the rules and laws” by Shleifer and Harvard colleagues working in the 1990s to reform the Russian economy and introduce capitalism. Shleifer ran elements of the university’s renowned Harvard Institute for International Development. With a contract from the U.S. government's Agency for International Development, the Harvard institute advised the Russian government on ways to privatize its economy and create capital markets, as well as about laws and institutions for regulation.

Shleifer and his wife, the hedge fund manager Nancy Zimmerman, invested large sums of personal money in Russian oil and gas stocks even while Shleifer was providing the country with supposedly objective advice on privatization. The investments were hidden by registering the shares with Zimmerman’s father.

Harvard later fired Shleifer from his position at the Harvard institute, although he retained his tenured position in the economics department. Lewis says that Knowles later promoted Shleifer, who now holds an endowed chair.

Criminal charges were never filed and Harvard, Shleifer and others eventually settled years of litigation by agreeing to pay the U.S government $31 million.

Frederick H. Abernathy, McKay Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Harvard, has long been a critic of the whole affair. “I think it’s a disgraceful blotch on Harvard’s history,” he said. He then asked how faculty can expect ethical behavior from students when there is so little expected of faculty.

“Our president has published a statement saying that Harvard should be transparent, and have high moral standards and blah, blah, blah…. And it just seems that we haven’t done that,” he said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Uncertain Outcome for Accused Harvard Scholar

  • Shame on Harvard!!
  • Posted by Jane , Shame on Harvard!! on October 13, 2006 at 8:50am EDT
  • What a disgrace this is! It just goes to show that, once again, the Faculty at universities and colleges think they know it all and can get away with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. And in this case, they are right! These people purposely defrauded and hid their investments under someone else's name, cost Harvard millions of dollars that could and should have been used for other things like scholarships, and the guy doesn't get fired?! Come on! When will institutions stop allowing reckless Faculty to run their schools? If this guy worked in the "real world" (a.k.a. the Corporate world), he would have been fired and charges would have been brought against him. That's the way life is supposed to work. "Academic Freedom" and the "Entitlement Attitude" have gone too far! Shame on Harvard for allowing this to happen!!

  • Shame Indeed
  • Posted by kgotthardt on October 13, 2006 at 11:45am EDT
  • This is the kind of thing that gives higher ed a bad name.

  • Posted by Diane Brown on October 13, 2006 at 2:40pm EDT
  • This is EXACTLY why tenure should be abolished! And we all thought Harvard was a school that set the example for the rest. Silly us!

    End tenure and stop giving professors all this freedom!

  • I thought this was about Harvard...
  • Posted by QuakerProf on October 15, 2006 at 6:50am EDT
  • Without question, this man's conduct warrants dismissal from Harvard and criminal prosecution. This incident reflects very badly on Harvard for taking insufficient action and on the US government for accepting a financial settlement in such a serious matter.

    However, that doesn't mean that all faculty are arrogant, corrupt, self-centered, etc. Most faculty are highly dedicated, principled people working for mediocre salaries because they believe in what they do.

    For those who are so ready to condemn faculty, the institution of tenure, and everything having to do with univeristies and academics over a few incidents like this, I wonder whether you have equally angry things to say about lawyers, business people, and others in professions containing a few bad apples (far more than the professoriate, I would say).

  • Harvard, faculty member, and tenure
  • Posted by PhD Student on October 16, 2006 at 4:05am EDT
  • I love it when people say that a few bad apples don't reflect poorly on tenure. But tenure protects exactly those bad apples! Come on get real here folks!

  • Posted by Jane on October 16, 2006 at 8:36am EDT
  • You are so right! Get rid of Tenure and let the bad apples fall away from the tree. Then all you are left with are the decent profs.

  • A Sordid Blotch on Harvard
  • Posted by Habeeb Al-Aidroos on October 16, 2006 at 11:36am EDT
  • What's tenure got to with it? Lots of tenured faculty have been fired (or persuaded to leave) for much less. This sordid affair that has gone on far too long has, inter alia, cost a President his job. And it is, as Abernathy puts it, "a blotch on Harvard's history." And now, sadly, it is besmirching the reputation of a Dean who may have been, at least till now in my judgement, a man of integrity. Taking cover under the "confidentiality" of personnel decisions may yet turn out to be as lame as the presidential recusal. What disturbs me here is that senior management at Harvard, perhaps in consult with legal counsel, has taken the position that throwing a few more shovelfuls of verbiage and "confidentiality" on this dossier will make the stench go away once and for all. That remains to be seen.
    The glib refrain oft repeated is that no crime was ever charged or proven. Does anyone wonder what might have been had a prosecutor with the determination of a Spitzer or a Fitzgerald been let loose on the file? Were there no statutes under the laws of Russia, under the laws of the United States, under Harvard's contractual obligations, that jumped up and grabbed you? Snow-White, we are led to believe, is as pure and innocent as ever. She just forked over $31 million to Uncle Sam merely to avoid expensive litigation. Pity.
    Habeeb Al-Aidroos
    Havard '64