Chapter 12 Chapter Eleven

Tuesday, January 8 "Evening sunlight filtered through the curtains, casting striped shadows on the oval conference table. These shadows were separated by piles of papers and notebooks, some hanging precariously from the edge of the table. The meeting Around the table, there were a pair of dark brown Herman Miller swivel chairs. On the chairs, more documents and notes were piled up, and some were scattered on the carpet. At Harvard, the dean's office is three rooms side by side.The Dean's Room is the third of these.The first served as both a reception room and the offices of the dean's personal secretary, typist and receptionist.Filing cabinets line the back wall of the room.The second, and smallest, room was Clegg's office.Here is where he corrects the documents.

From time to time, he also meets with individual faculty members or small groups of faculty members here.Walk out of this room, pass through the antique glass door, and you will arrive at the meeting room.This is where Clegg holds committee meetings, and sometimes he invites people over for a few cocktails and sometimes even dinners.Two of the conference room walls, floor to ceiling, are lined with rows of bookshelves inlaid with veneer of cherry wood.On the shelves are part of Clegg's anthropological collection, as well as gift copies of works given to him by faculty members.His few books on university administration are kept in the next room—his office.

Only Oliver Wu was still sitting at the conference table.It seems that he is concentrating on reviewing a manuscript, and flipping through a yellow sticky note from time to time to check what is written on it.Through the thick lenses of his glasses, he looked at the material carefully. The rest of the titles and tenure committee sat around a coffee pot and a snack cart rolled into the conference room.The meeting has been going on for three and a half hours.Now is the first break.So far, although the discussions have been going on intensely, there is no sense of tension at all.Disputes are inevitable, but discussions have always been carried out in a peaceful atmosphere.Dean Clegg chewed the biscuits vigorously, thinking to himself: The purpose of the gathering at Spearman's house last night—it was declared to be to eliminate the tension among the committee members—as far as it seems , well achieved.But he also knew in his heart that the real test was coming.He had learned from experience that even the most temperate and mild-mannered academic was prone to quarrel with others as committee meetings progressed.Committee members can grow jaded, and what was once moderate can become curt and curt.

"I think I'll have to announce that the break is over," said Clegg in a solemn tone amidst the twittering of the committee members. Tomorrow will be longer here too. Can you all get your marks? You can take your cups to the table." Clegg gestured for the young lady in food service to take the snacks and drinks out of the conference room.Craig also thanked her as she exited the room. When discussing each promotion candidate, Clegg had the dean of the candidate's department come to the committee as a matter of procedure.Therefore, an empty chair is placed at one end of the conference table for the chairs to sit.Each time, at the end of a discussion of a candidate, Clegg's secretary would, in due course, usher in the head of the next candidate's department.Each department chair has prepared a letter outlining comments and recommendations from those within and outside the department on the candidate's work and future academic potential.At the meeting of the professional title and tenure evaluation committee, the head of the department does not have to read the entire letter, but only briefly summarizes it.The department chair may also offer his or her personal input.These opinions may differ from, and may even conflict with, those stated by others in the candidate's portfolio.But the candidates themselves are not allowed to come to the committee members for interviews.It is one of the peculiarities of academia -- quite different from a for-profit institution -- that decisions that have significant consequences for a faculty member's life and for the school itself are made by a committee that never Candidates will be interviewed.In most cases, the members of the committee do not know each other, let alone the client applying for promotion.The main purpose of the head of the department attending the meeting is to accept inquiries from the committee members about the candidates.

After the inquiry process is over, the head of the department will withdraw.The committee's secret deliberations then officially began. According to the arrangement, the next dean to present the candidates is Leonard Coster of the Department of Economics.This academic year, their department has only elected one candidate at the teaching assistant level.Clegg pressed a button under the edge of the table next to his chair, signaling to his secretary that the commissioners were ready to see Coster. At this time, Coster was waiting in the office outside. Coster walked in slowly through the open glass door.He greeted the members of the committee with a nod and waved to them.Then he sat down on the empty chair.Around his neck was a beige woolen sweater.The sweater stood up so high that it almost covered the multicolored plaid tie and plaid shirt worn underneath.He wore corduroy trousers, high leather riding boots, and wool socks.In this look, it looks more like a hike than a statement.He put the Manila folder that he had brought into the conference room in front of him, and looked at the conference table as if he wanted to focus on the very center of the oval table.

"Leonard, you're familiar with our process," Clegg said. "Could you please begin by outlining the candidate's job—who's it now?—oh, yes, Dennis Go Mr Mori. Does everyone have his papers on hand?" "Thank you, Dean Clegg. As you all know, in the past two years our department has not presented a single candidate. We have always taken our duties seriously. Some people are not qualified enough. One point will be exposed after your discussion. If you recommend such a person, you will definitely doubt our department’s evaluation and judgment ability. Therefore, we will not let this kind of person pass the evaluation of our department to accept your committee It is for this reason that I dare not hesitate to recommend Dennis Ghosn. Mr. Ghosn's achievements in the past five years, in terms of quality - after all, for a scholar, this is the It is the most important - is very remarkable. Really, very remarkable. No one in his class can match him in terms of research theory. The letters we have received from leading scholars in this field speak for themselves. I think you've all read the letters by now. A Nobel laureate writes an impassioned letter praising a teaching assistant. It's very rare. Sen is known to everyone of importance in his field. I won't say much here in detail about his contributions. But I will be more than happy to answer your questions on various points. Allow me to add One sentence: In our department, Ghosn has a very special position, and it is very difficult for someone to replace him. I hate trying to find someone else. I don't think anyone anywhere can replace him. "

"Professor Coster, your presentation for your candidate was excellent. I was also amazed at what you presented. I didn't expect one of our teaching staff to make an argument in a loop." Coster looked at Valerie Danzer and frowned.He was waiting for her to explain further, but she said nothing more.Finally, he said, "I don't think I understand what you mean." "What I mean," she replied irritably, "is that Mr. Ghosn's article is based entirely on circular reasoning." "Professor Danzer, I doubt what you say. Could you give me an example?"

"All of his work is based on utilitarianism. Psychologists, I'm afraid, don't believe in utilitarianism any more. People do things because they bring them the greatest benefit—that statement, I'm afraid, cannot be Use it to explain people's behavior. Every hypothesis Mr. Ghosn claims to test is based on this idea. I'm no economist, but I do know that Veblen completely shattered it at the turn of the century This view. Don't economists stop looking at Veblen's work?" Leonard.Coster smiled self-deprecatingly. "Perhaps, this is not a compelling point. But I would not be at all surprised if the younger generation of our economic circles had never heard of Veblen. In fact, at present, He's really out of date."

"That's too bad," Denzel replied, "because his view of human nature is closer to real human behavior than the exaggerated descriptions in Ghosn's model." Coster nodded in agreement. "I see what you're saying, and I believe you're probably right. But I don't think you should dismiss a young scholar just because of the model he employs." At this time, Oliver Wu interjected: "I also have an objection similar to that of Professor Danzig. I think Mr. Ghosn has an outdated view of human nature. Professor Danzig said that Ghosn is arguing in circles. As long as the circle is enough Great, I think I can understand that. In fact, my objection - and I think Professor Danzer will support me on this point - is that Ghosn believes that human behavior has only a single motive. This This rational point of view is culminated in the work of this man. I mean reductio absurdum.

If people really counted every step they take, as Ghosn believes, our social fabric would be torn apart. "Professor Wu raised his voice, and there was a hint of sharpness in his words. When Professor Wu said these words, Valerie Danzer nodded vigorously. Leonard.Coster is not used to being pushed by others.He had never expected the meeting to proceed in such a way.He was not at all prepared for these objections raised by the commissioners to Ghosn's work.He faltered, and eyed his colleagues beseechingly.He wanted to get out of this embarrassment.Throughout the interrogation, Spearman hunched over, clasped his hands around his bald head, and rested his elbows on the table.

So far, Spielman has voluntarily kept silent.From the very beginning of the discussion, he sensed the strong disapproval from Danze and Professor Wu's words.But he knew that, out of protocol, Coster had to make a case for the candidates in the department.Spearman was not used to controlling himself like this.He believes that some illogical words need to be corrected.At this time, he couldn't bear it any longer.Spielman's usual cheerfulness had vanished without a trace.He shook his head vigorously.He chimed in: "I'm sorry, please forgive me. Leonard, I'm really surprised that you allowed these false views to go on for so long without anyone going to refute them." "I'm sorry, Henry. I..." The diminutive economist waved his hand and rejected Coster's explanation.Spielman knew that most economists rarely reflect on biases in their discipline. "These objections are of no value. How can they be passed without review? There may indeed be deficiencies in Dennis Gossen's analytical work. If we look at his essay carefully enough, we can find Wrong. I have no doubts about it. However, what Danzer and Professor Wu have said so far should not be taken seriously as a criticism of Ghosn's work in any way. What I have heard Most of the words represent some misunderstanding in the scientific research method." The atmosphere in the meeting room became tense.Oliver Wu's eyes squinted across the table through thick lenses, watching Spearman.His beard was erected, and it was obvious that the corners of his mouth twitched.Valerie Denzel felt very uncomfortable too.She knew that Spielman liked the mutual accommodation of verbal arguments, but she didn't like it.She took a sip of the coke that was placed on the table in front of her, her expression became stern.Spielman stared across the conference table at Oliver Wu.There was a faint hint of excitement behind his glasses.he laughed.He turned his head to look at the faces of the other committee members.Then, his gaze rested on Sofia Ustinov who was sitting opposite him. "Sofia, just imagine - what kind of problems would you have if you had to put sodium ions together with chloride ions, which they are least interested in." Sofia Ustinov shrugged and replied: "Sodium and chlorine—they can't coexist. They can't argue, they can't communicate. They're not like people." "Exactly. They're not like people," Spearman replied, "so when you experiment with them, they neither protest nor interfere with your experiment." Sofia Ustinov's eyes narrowed as she contemplated the stubborn particles she'd encountered in laboratory experiments.Her life as a chemist would not be so much fun if the chemical would argue with her, trick her, lie to her, or try to reason with her. "Economists can't do research in a laboratory—if you do, people will argue with you, they will scam you, and they may lie about information, such as their income or assets. Here, we cannot experiment with living reactants like man, we develop theories by evaluating them, and we evaluate them not by idealism, but by their practicality. 'Practical', of course, means that these theories can predict the results well, or have a hint of practice.It is true that economists sometimes develop theories based on mere fantasies, and such theories inevitably lose touch with reality.Dennis Ghosn assumed that people are highly rational and do things as efficiently as possible.This does not mean that he is formulating a view of human nature that he believes to be true.It's just that, in order to prove that his research topic is feasible, he has to do so.Utility maximization is one of the most powerful generalizations and generalizations we have come up with.Its usefulness has been proven time and time again.For an economist, all you can ask him to do is to ask his theory to have high standards and be proved to be correct by experience.But a theory is just an inductive generalization if many details in the real world are ignored. " Regarding this point, Oliver Wu raised a question: "If a theory has unrealistic assumptions, can such a theory predict the future and guide practice?" "It's always been like this," Spearman replied. "Physicists imagine a perfect vacuum. They also imagine frictionless airplanes. And we don't complain to them—hey, these things are not realistic." —isn't it? Of course we're not going to complain. Economists assume utility maximization and test theories on that basis." Denton Craig looked impatiently at his watch.He felt it was time to take control of the meeting. "Anyone else want to ask Professor Coster a question?" he interjected. "Give me a little more time, Denton. I want to respond to what Valerie just said." "Henry, we'll be seeing Dr. Ross from the Biology Department soon. We have to watch our time." "Please allow me another two minutes, Denton. This is very important. I want to respond to what Valerie just said." The dean knows very well that when his friend insists on teaching others, you can't let him Changed my mind.Clegg agreed to Spearman and allowed him to continue. "Valerie, can I try to explain to you your false idea of ​​circularity in economics with the soft drink in your hand?" "It's a pleasure to accept your instruction." "There are two things about Coke. I'm sure you're all too familiar with them because they're so common. But they have strong implications for utility theory. The first thing is this: the first sip of Coke is better than the last Drink. The 1st soft drink tastes better than the 2nd, and of course, the 10th.” "I don't object to that," she said. "You don't rush to agree with me. Because it's wrong. Rather, it's wrong unless I state the time period very carefully. The 10th bottle you drink in an hour Coke is indeed not as good as the first bottle; however, for the 10th bottle of Coke you drink in a month, it will not be as bad as the first bottle you drink. So, if you buy 100 cans for storage At home, and if you drink them at a certain pace, each can will give you the same taste. This explains my second point. When soft drinks are in a vending machine, you bend down and just To get that can you paid for. Now let me ask you this question. What happens when you buy The New York Times from a vending machine? You throw coins in and the whole stack of papers come out Yes. There is a hypothesis to explain this: People are less honest when they buy soft drinks than they buy newspapers. However, this conclusion does not seem to be true when it comes to the same people. Because the buyers are often the same people. If I am a good bet man, I would bet my money on the utility assumption. To be precise, newspapers have an extremely fast diminishing marginal utility. Once you get a copy of today's newspaper, it immediately has no marginal utility. So the vending machine The vending machine does not necessarily depend on your honesty. You will only take away one newspaper, even if you can get a dozen newspapers for the same coin. Thus, a vending machine that sells newspapers is a very simple machine. However, a vending machine that sells soft drinks people need a much more complicated machine. This prevents you from getting an extra can unless you pay for it. This is because the soft drink you don't drink today can be drunk tomorrow or even next year. So when people Putting in the money for just one can, he's going to be very tempted to take all the cans he can. Now, I don't think there's a better assumption than diminishing marginal utility to explain the way in which we distribute and sell these goods. different technological means. "In other words, Henry," replied Oliver Wu, "the implication of diminishing marginal utility is that you sell newspapers differently than you sell candy bars or cigarettes." "Exactly," Spielman replied. "I see what you're saying," said Professor Wu. "Theory can predict, as you told us earlier. I'm sure I haven't understood utility theory in that way before." "Of course, you can also understand that the theory is not circular. It's impossible to make predictions with circular theories. "Henry," said Valerie Danzer, "you're getting marginal utility wrong, can I convince you? If I show you ten copies of yesterday's papers that are frozen in my freezer." Spielman himself Laughed first.There was laughter in the room. "If you have frozen newspapers, I predict that you have wrapped a fish in each newspaper and put them in the refrigerator. If this is not the case, and what you say is true, then I have to remind you: our economics The family never said that each of us is logical." Dean Clegg did his best to bring the meeting back to business. "Ladies and gentlemen, I must play the villain. Let's end these humorous banter. Perhaps some of you have further questions for Professor Coster." "Professor Coster, I have a question." Sofia Ustinov sat forward, rotated her chair, and faced the economist directly. "You told us before that Ghosn is hard to replace and there is no one who can replace him. Okay. I have seen his work. I should tell you that I have my puzzles. Mind you, I am not Economist, but I'm going to buy, and I've noticed a few things. All of us here buy, don't we?" Ustinov, scanning the table, asked rhetorically, "Gerson wrote that we should The optimal quantity to buy the brand of merchandise. So...he should go to the grocery store with me and try to pick out what to buy. Has he ever done that? I'd love to know.If there is only one good brand, what is the real optimal quantity?" "A good brand" Ustinov said the words slowly and emphatically. "Just one brand.I'll take the item, pay for it, and leave.Now, what if there is more than one brand.So what is the optimal amount? You tell me. " "Well, Professor Ustinov," Coster began, "if you have only one brand, as I suppose you have in Russia, then you have a state-run monopoly..." "No, I'm not talking about Russia. You want to divert our attention. I mean there is only one private brand. The brand that everyone wants made by American companies. The money wasted in advertising different brands can be saved Now, can you imagine that? You young man misses that." "All you have is a monopoly. In economic theory, we have..." Coster began his reply. "The government manages and controls monopoly enterprises." Ustinov answered before Coster finished speaking. "Ustinov, let's be fair to Dennis Ghosn—be fair to the consumer," Henry Spellman exclaimed, "you probably don't care about the difference between the brand of detergent and the brand of cars." .but I guess you must value the distinctions in your chemistry textbook; you wouldn't be happy if there was only a single breed of dog - anyone who knew you could have predicted that. If that only breed was an English Pit Bull Canines or Yorkshire Terriers, but not Pozoo Terriers? Dennis Gossen writes in The Optimal Quantity of Brands to Solve One of the Hardest Problems in Economics. He starts with 'Consumer Preferences is different'. Don't your preferences also differ from other people's? He then posits an economy in which privately managed commercial enterprises can attract these differentiated preferences. But like everything in life, variety has its costs, especially in an economy that mass-produces a specialized brand. Ghosn traces how a free-market economy strikes a balance." "But Professor Spielman, whenever there's this variety, this difference, these companies will advertise every brand. And advertising has a cost. Let me ask you. If a certain This product is not advertised, and if there is no different brand that the young man approves of," Ustinov held up the pile of documents on Ghosn at this point, "then, when I bought this product, How much less will it cost, and how much less will it cost?" "I'm afraid you'll have to pay more," Spielman replied. "More money?" Ustinov wasn't the only one in the room who looked taken aback by Spearman's answer. "Would I pay more if businesses didn't have to spend all their money on advertising? Ghosn would probably believe that. But you wouldn't, would you?" "Oh, most of the time I certainly believe that," Spielman said. His right hand tapped lightly on the table, emphasizing what he said. "If a product is sold in a country that does not allow product advertising, and the same product is sold in an adjacent country that allows product advertising, I can tell you with certainty that after A country sells at a lower price. Advertising is a business cost. We must be clear about this. But advertising also lets us know about other products and gives us more choices. It tells us more information, Tell us what's on the market right now, what products we can buy." Spielman points his index finger to the ceiling.His students knew the gesture—it meant he was about to wrap up. "Advertising increases the intensity of competition, and the result is that the price of the product is lowered, not increased." "That sounds counterintuitive to me, Henry," Morrison Bell interrupted suddenly. "I'm not talking about intuition here. Nor is Ghosn talking about intuition. Not at all. On this point, there is evidence of empiricism.Sofia, let me ask you a question.In Russia, if a person wants to save money to buy furniture, like a stove or a freezer, which is a government-controlled product, how should he buy it? Do they just pick one at random, because all the products are the same?” "Actually not, at least if they are sensible. Take the example of buying stoves. In Russia there is more than one factory that makes stoves. They are supposed to make stoves that look the same to the specifications set by the government. But they don't . In Russia there is only one factory, I think in Leningrad, which produces satisfactory furnaces.So people ask: Is the stove in this store made in that factory in Leningrad? Everyone hopes that what they buy is made in that factory. But they are difficult to identify.All furnaces have the same shape.But that factory produces better quality. " "In a free market economy, that's exactly what a trademark or a brand does, Sofia. What Ghosn is trying to clarify is how branding goods stimulates manufacturers in order not to lose the market for the brands they've built. Don’t talk about their right to brand their products, don’t talk about their right to let people know about their brand, and don’t talk about their motivation to maintain high quality products.” Spielman looked at it and nodded Coster agrees. "But, Henry," interjected Foster Barrett, "isn't there a process or a system that Gerson ultimately recommends? Lessing's law, where bad brands drive out good ones? You can probably understand Gossen's number of best brands, but, well, they're disgusting." "When you say disgusting, you don't mean taste, and you don't mean economics. If consumer preferences are tasteless, there will be tasteless products on the market. But, I'm afraid you're right about Gresham's Law is very wrong. Gresham pointed out that bad money drives out good money. However, I note that there is no scientific basis for saying that poor quality goods drive out good goods. If you know this, I You'll appreciate it. The market economy produced weekly magazines like the National Explorer and the People; they weren't to a professor's taste. But the same economic system produced The New Yorker and Harper's , but they suit the tastes of professors. So I disagree with you that the bad weeklies drive out the good ones. As for Ghosn, he puts people's tastes, whether Still in bad taste, assuming a given. You can't blame him for not elevating people's tastes with his work." Barrett stared at Spearman's clasped hands on the table as he spoke.Then, he looked meaningfully at the ceiling. "As King Agrippa said to St. Paul in a very different situation than now, 'You almost convinced me.' But not all. If there is a professor who does not intend to improve taste, then I will ask ,Who is this guy? " No one has answered this question. "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid we can't continue discussing this candidate." Clegg drew everyone's attention to him. "I must seize the moment. We must now end this discussion. Leonard, unless they have any special questions for you—and..." Clegg paused, scanning all the committee members present," If not, you can go back.We are wrapping up our discussion of candidates for your department.On behalf of all committee members, thank you. ’ Clegg added as the economist got up to leave. "Although our discussion on this candidate has timed out, we still have ten more minutes to discuss it and have a final vote before letting Dr. Ross in. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, you can wait After the meeting. Who starts first?" Calvin Weber, who had been silent all morning, was a blockbuster. He said one word: "Teaching." "How do you say that?" the dean was attracted. "Teaching. Can this guy teach? I've been listening to discussions here all morning, and none of them have been about this candidate's teaching skills. As a new member of the title and tenure committee, my question may be very Stupid. But I've thrown the question anyway, so please forgive my ignorance. In Ghosn's files, I don't find any record of his teaching." Foster Barrett didn't want to pass up an opportunity like this. “A new commissioner should be aware of an established habit among the other members. At Harvard, we assume that anyone who can be nominated for promotion is recommendable. Therefore, you should not ask this question.” Denton-Craig has a fatherly face. "I'm afraid, to a certain extent, Foster is right, Calvin." He smiled ingratiatingly.On the faces of those less able to maintain calm than Clegg, that same smiley face might appear arrogant. "Teaching skills are considered in departmental selection." "However, research is the same. Why do our committees evaluate candidates for their research and not their teaching skills? If we can all be honest with each other, we have to admit that when evaluating someone with a different field of research than ours We should be more confident in assessing their teaching skills than their research abilities. I can't read the statistics in Mr. Ghosn's published work, but economists can. However, if given the opportunity If so, I think I can also judge Ghosn's ability to deliver speeches." "However, research is a very objective thing that we can all examine. Teaching skills, on the other hand, are subjective.Assessing a person's teaching skills is like assessing his popularity, isn't it?" Morrison Bell chirped, "and, if teaching skills are the main factor in evaluating promotion, then we all Had to be under the surveillance of colleagues for a long time. " "Having a committee sit in on a faculty member breaks tradition at Harvard," Barrett added. Calvin Webb seems to be compliant with the committee's ground rules.After an exaggerated lament, he muttered, "Well, first of all, let's not break any traditions at Harvard." For the next few minutes, the committee did everything a committee of this type could do.The members exchanged views and clarified some details.The exchange of opinions revealed that the committee members had different views on the candidates' abilities.Because Spielman and Ghosn are from the same field, the commissioners asked him some professional questions.If other people have candidates in their departments, they will be asked the same way.During this time, Clegg took silent notes.His report will be based on these discussions and subsequent votes. "Ladies and gentlemen, I must announce that our discussion should be concluded. Now, let's vote.As before, let's vote one by one in a counterclockwise direction.Don't forget, Henry, because Ghosn belongs to your department, so you have no right to vote this round.Oliver Wu, have you already expressed your opinion?" "I never dreamed that I would vote for a contemporary follower of Jeremy Bentham. I know that if you put any ten people in the same room as Henry Spellman, they would all stand On his side -- at least for the time being. So, before I change my mind, I'm going to vote for Ghosn." "Sofia Ustinov?" “我也一样。经济学和化学不一样。他们的研究方法有所不同。在经济学领域里是一种方法行得通，在化学里却不一定可以。 经济学家们说戈森的研究方法达到了他们的标准。考斯特说他们系需要戈森。那么，就让戈森留在他们系吧。 " “卡尔文·韦伯。” “我投这个候选人赞成票。” “好的，现在有三张赞成票了。亨利，你跳过了哦，我要让维勒莉·丹泽投票了。” “恐怕我要打破戈森的全票连胜了。我很尊重你，亨利，但是我认为这个人的工作没有什么值得称道的地方。我投反对票。” “好的，现在是三比一。接下来到莫里森·贝尔了。” “作为一个数学家，我没法发现戈森在专业方面的错误。我想他是一个不错的经济学家。但是，处于某种原因，我不能投赞成票，我认为他缺少道德辨别力。这一点从他的作品中可以看出来。比如说他在污染问题上的见解。这种见解很聪明，从专业的角度上看甚至很巧妙。但是这种观点一点也不明智，也没有平衡。 对于他正在谈的污染问题，他没有意识到问题的严重性。“接着，贝尔停顿了一下，”我觉得这些内容能证明我所持的这个候选人缺乏常识的观点，如果不是因为这个，我还不敢肯定该不该说呢。 两个多星期前，他打电话到我家找我，想和我谈有关委员会的事情。当然，我立刻打断他了。但是后来，令我很生气的是，我在邮箱里收到他给我的一个信封。之后他又给我打电话，说他犯了一个很严重的错误；他说信封里写的东西是不对的，如果我能忘掉他会很感激我的。他满怀歉意地请求我毁掉那封信，如果我没有看里面的东西就请求我别看了。因为这样，我没有看。事实上，那封信现在仍然在我家里。还原封未动——我可以保证——在我的床头——现在应该还在那里。关键是，所有的这些没有影响我的投票，但是也许会坚定我的选择。我希望我们的学校会做得更好一些。我投反对票。 " 丹顿·克莱格严肃地看着贝尔。“嗯，我们不能容许候选人为晋升游说。你没看他给你的任何东西，这一点你做得非常对。” 丹顿- 克莱格在他的小纸片上随便写着什么。“现在是三比二。 福斯特·贝瑞特，现在，我们都看你的了。 " “直到刚才莫里森讲了，不然我还不打算提委员会聚会上的事，尽管我觉得昨天晚上在斯皮尔曼家我应该告诉丹顿·克莱格才合适。但是，为了彻底曝光他，我要补充的是这个家伙戈森同样也接近过我。一开始他说了一些和这个委员会很不相称的话，我就打断了他。从此我就再也没有见过他。对于我左手边的这些同事们说的每件事情，我都深表同意。我认为这个人不配待在哈佛。” “那现在就是三比三了。这让我必须一锤定音了。在这个问题上，除非有什么值得人原谅的地方或者有什么特别的情况出现，否则我投反对票。在像晋升这样重大的事情上，为了确保一个人的任期，不应该只有一个草率的决定。在我对这个候选人的了解中，没有什么东西能让我投他赞成票。在晋升的问题上，戈森先生被否决了。”