University Presidents Are Failing to Lead
When the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University President of Pennsylvania testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, it was an opportunity to address their responses to antisemitism and campus hatred.
However, they fell short in showcasing leadership and empathy to the public. In a discussion on free speech and genocide, the presidents gave carefully worded and dispassionate responses, suggesting that calling for genocide might be protected as free speech depending on “context.” Subsequently, they backtracked, apologized, and acknowledged the need for policy reassessment, but the damage was done.
From a leadership standpoint, they failed to exhibit the expected empathy of 21st-century leaders, lacking moral clarity when discussing serious issues. Unfortunately, this disappointment extends beyond academia. A U.S. News-Harris Poll survey revealed that nearly 86% of Americans express disappointment in leaders across society, a sentiment shared by both Democrats and Republicans. About 60% believe university leaders are failing students, and 75% think leaders are hindering societal progress. Additionally, 69% believe current leaders are ill-prepared to respond to new crises.
Trustworthiness is identified by 88% of Americans as the most crucial characteristic for modern leaders, emphasizing the need for honesty and hard work. The academic leadership role, inherently challenging, demands a delicate balance of managing diverse constituencies while setting a clear institutional vision. However, recent events have exposed the inadequacy of university leaders, eroding trust and contributing to declining enrollment and trust in academic institutions.
While leadership typically involves a learning curve, the failure to immediately condemn events like the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and the equivocation on sensitive issues erodes moral clarity. In times of crisis, resolute leadership, empathy, and unequivocal condemnation of hatred are imperative. The responsibility also lies with boards of trustees to exercise leadership in their fiduciary role by selecting, overseeing, and, if necessary, dismissing presidents. The consequences of leadership lacking these essential traits are evident, with investigations, scrutiny, and donor withdrawals affecting universities. It is time for a change.
