Document Actions
Tuesday: Glass Houses?
posted at 2007-11-28 00:04 | Last modified 2007-11-28 09:14
A few days ago, an interested reader called my attention to Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Richard Moore’s page on the Project Votesmart website. Until today, his bio there said Moore had “attended Harvard University” - a fact that doesn’t appear on his current bio.
Turns out Moore was at Harvard for a few weeks in the summer of 1981, when he took a summer study course (for credit) in economics. That much was confirmed by the Academic Records Dept at Harvard. When I asked, the clerk there also confirmed that, back in 1981, summer courses were open to anyone over 18 who applied early enough and could pay the tuition, which is to say the admissions process was not exactly competitive.
Over at Project VoteSmart, staffer Sarah Brady told me Moore's campaign provided the Harvard citation back in 1994, in response to a questionnaire PVS sent him when he was running for the US House. Actually, Brady said, PVS received a total of four copies of a bio from his campaign in 1994. Three of the four contain the Harvard reference, while the fourth bears no reference to either Harvard or the London School of Economics. You can see all four versions on file, plus his signed cover letter, here.
That’s odd in a lot of ways. Moore’s campaign has been accusing his Dem rival, Bev Perdue, of fudging her resume starting in 1991. And honestly, open-enrollment summer school is not what comes to mind when I read “Attended Harvard.” (I mean, hey, I went to a six-week summer program at Valdosta State University back in 1985, but I’d never say I “attended Valdosta State.” Then again, VSU ain’t Harvard, and I’m not running for anything, either.)
So I called Moore campaign manager Jay Reiff to ask whether the Harvard reference might be misleading to those voters who use VoteSmart to learn about candidate qualifications. He didn’t really answer that, but here’s what he did say:
“The statement is accurate. It's a part of Richard Moore's academic work, but it's not something he emphasizes (it was a small part of a bio written in 1994). That's in contrast to Bev Perdue, who has claimed to be a coal miner's daughter, claimed to be a small business owner, and falsified her age on official documents, just for starters.”
The view from the cheap seats
What does “Attended, Harvard University” mean to a voter? I decided to ask my own bipartisan focus group of six educated, voting, but non-politically-obsessed family and friends. Please keep in mind I’m NOT a pollster, but I did my best to be careful:
Q1: If a political candidate’s resume said she or he had “attended Harvard University,” what would you think that meant?
A: All 6 said they would think the candidate had gotten into the school, but had transferred or just hadn’t completed his or her course work.
Q2: Suppose it turns out that this candidate didn’t really get into Harvard – he or she actually attended a for-credit summer course that was open to anyone. What would you think then?A: 5 out of 6 used the words “misleading” or “misled.” The 6th used slightly stronger terminology I can't repeat here.
This isn’t anywhere near scientific, obviously. But no parties or names were mentioned, most of these folks aren’t even from this state, and they’re all smart people. That makes me think technical “accuracy” may not suffice when it comes to name-dropping the Ivy League.
So what?
One could argue (as Reiff did above, and as Moore’s supporters undoubtedly will) that “Attended Harvard” doesn’t even come close to the pattern of fudging they’ve accused Perdue of, from her date of birth to her PhD to her 1991 resume. (If you need a refresher, Reiff’s releases are here and here.)
And to be fair, after I started asking questions, the Harvard reference was removed from the VoteSmart website today as other corrections to Moore’s bio were made. You can compare the before and after versions yourself. But if it was accurate, why did the campaign request its removal?
On the other hand, one could argue (and Perdue’s supporters assuredly will) that this is part of a pattern of misrepresentation they accuse Moore of engaging in for years. (Kochman’s releases on that are here and here.)
