That’s the question Walt Gardner asks in today’s Martin Center article.
He writes, “The job of college president is clearly not what it used to be. Today, success requires the tact of a diplomat, sterling scholarship, and the ability to connect with students. It’s a rare person who checks all of those boxes, which is why high turnover persists. It’s also why it’s not enough to say that rules about campus protests will be strictly enforced. That’s meaningless until law- and rule-breakers actually get what’s in store for them.”
Some college presidents manage to thrive and improve their institutions. Gardner points to Mitch Daniels, whose tenure at Purdue was excellent. Many others, however, can’t handle it and manage to bring disrepute to theirs.
As Gardner sees things, college presidents are torn between having to uphold important traditions and wanting to side with those who believe that the purpose of the university is to remake society. Too many of them do what they think will be popular and take the latter side.
He concludes, “It’s too soon to know who will eventually win: traditionalists or revolutionaries. But unless there is stronger leadership, the odds sadly favor the latter. That was evident in the response of presidents to October 7, 2023. After years of dogmatic restrictions on free speech, they suddenly became outspoken supporters of even the most hateful speech. Public trust is at an all-time low for good reason. Why will things be different going forward? The struggle for control of our colleges is playing out now.”