Faculty members at Harvard University voted Tuesday against Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ ability to lead the university.

Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences members gathered to pass two resolutions criticizing the Harvard chief.

Summers came under severe fire during the past several months for comments he made at a meeting of the National Bureau of Economics Research claiming women’s weak representations in the math and sciences could possibly be attributed to “innate” differences.

“In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude,” Summers said in a transcript on his website. “Those considerations are reinforced by what are, in fact, lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.”

The first resolution, a vote of no confidence, was passed with 218 members in favor, 185 opposed and 18 abstaining. The second related directly to Summers’ mid-January comments.

According to the resolution, the Harvard faculty regretted Summers’ comments and the adverse consequences resulting from those statements. The faculty additionally suggested Summers’ managerial approach was not what the faculty desired.

“The faculty appreciates the president’s stated intent to address these issues and seeks to meet the challenges facing Harvard,” the resolution said.

The second resolution was passed with 253 in favor, 137 opposed and 18 abstaining.

In a statement following the FAS meeting, Summers said he had done his best for the past two months to hear all that had been said.

“I will continue to do that,” Summers said. “I am committed to doing all I can to restore the sense of trust that is critical to our work together, and to reengage our collective attention with the vital academic issues before us.”

However, members of the staff voting against him were not so confident of what would happen next.

Harvard sociology professor Mary Waters said one professor thought Summers’ comments to the NBER were shocking but not surprising.

“It’s very important that we had the vote, because no one realized how widespread this lack of confidence was,” Waters said.

Waters also said many faculty members have not been happy with the way Summers leads the campus.

“The faculty does not feel like they are being consulted on decisions,” Waters said. “He’s kind of imposing from the top rather than listening to what faculty [have to say].”

Harvard sociology professor Theda Skocpol — the author of the second resolution — said the declarations were a combination of faculty reaction to what Summers said in January.

“I really don’t know what’s going to happen next,” Skocpol said.

Many have questioned how Summers’ case could affect Harvard.

UW Department of Educational Administration professor Allen Phelps said the vote of no confidence could be a signal to Harvard’s seven-member group, the Harvard Corporation. The corporation has the right to take action against Summers if it deems necessary.

“Well, it pretty much does what it suggests,” Phelps said. “It indicates to [the Harvard Corporation] that these people represented the vote.”

However, Phelps said the Summers case also hurt students and damaged Harvard’s reputation, especially in the eyes of alumni.

“Harvard relies [on alumni] for contributions,” Phelps said. “It can be totally divisive and create other problems not good for the students at Harvard.”

Still, Phelps said, Summers’ comments could also be the source of a serious and needed discussion.

“He’s raised some very fundamental questions about the nature of intelligence and intellect in the scientific community,” Phelps said. “What he’s putting on the table, what he’s bringing to the discussion, is something that will engage a lot of important dialogue.”