On May 23, 2023 Jennifer Rubin wrote a pointed opinion piece in the Washington Post in part advocating for a change in leadership at CNN (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/23/cnn-chief-christiane-amanpour/). She had heard a critique by Christiane Amanpour of CNN’s Trump Townhall the week before during Amanpour’s commencement address for the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL-QCzVN9bA). This critique was especially powerful because Amanpour is a CNN journalist. Her critique was based on the principles of good journalism—not an argument that offensive or ill -informed comments should not be heard. Journalism is not just reporting words and events , but also investigation of the accuracy of the words which holds speakers accountable for what they say. Amanpour points out that this is not likely to happen in a venue where there are no guard rails for the main speaker and the audience is filled with ardent champions of that speaker.
Rubin concludes that “CNN—and all news outlets—should be run by a player-turned-coach, someone who played the ‘game’ at a high level and understands truth is the objective of journalism, first and foremost.”
The importance of this knowledge of the mission of a business enterprise that serves a larger civic purpose is true not just for journalism. Institutions of higher education deserve the same kind of leaders. Higher education in the United States is in a truly sorry state these days. Clearly the enterprise is being challenged by demographics (both the decline in those interested in attending college and the racial/ethnic/cultural specifics of those who are interested in attending), deep skepticism about the value of the investment of time and money to attain a degree, perceptions of political and social narrowness in academe, and a resistance by some campus stakeholders to change anything: curriculum, financial models, or governance (some of which date from the 16th century).
I would submit, however, that the real problem for higher education lies not in these challenges but in the leadership of the institutions. There is much in the press about problems stemming from the political nature of the appointment process and partisan attitudes of board members. Surely the misconception by board members that their allegiance is to the appointing or electing authority (whether that be a governor, an electorate, a faculty senate or an alumni board) rather than to the institution has had destructive impact on American higher education.
Damaging as the actions based on these misconceptions can be, I do not believe that is where most of the fault lies. I believe the fault lies in the administrative leadership of the institutions—the presidents and chancellors. It’s not just that those currently in the positions of executive leadership don’t come from higher education; it’s that they do not adhere to the most basic responsibility invested in their roles—to nurture and protect the mission of the enterprise which they lead. I can hear my colleagues responding to my criticism: “But you do not know how hot the political rhetoric is these days. You do not know how quickly a political leader can decide to attack your campus, reduce your budget, threaten your institutional autonomy. You do not know how quick the faculty is to begin the process for a vote of no confidence. You do not know how intrusive the board can be.” The landscape for higher education has in fact changed a lot in the five years that have passed since I sat in the executive seat of an institution of higher education, stemming partially from the pandemic and the growing mean spiritedness of partisan positions. But we as leaders need to own part of the reason why there have been such changes. We have been entirely too passive and silent. I remember saying when I sat in the seat (and acting on it in a couple of situations), you should never accept a job that is more important than your principles.
Even though I no longer hold a position of executive leadership on a university campus, I still feel a responsibility to speak out on issues that have an impact on the enterprise. That is a belief held by many of my colleagues. I am honored to have joined hundreds of my colleagues, former presidents and chancellors, in signing the Champions of Higher Education initiative ( Champions of Higher Education) a partnership with PEN America, “to fight political interference and government overreach on campus.” I only hope that our advocacy will help change the climate, encouraging boards to recognize that they should speak up and out about the infringement on the core principles of higher education, that they should recognize that their most important job is to appoint and support courageous and principled advocates for higher education not just as a business but as an enterprise that is central to democracy. More importantly, these appointed advocates while working with the board, do not work for the board; they work for the institution. Sometimes they have to guide the board, disagree with the board, and accept the consequences. I also hope that the PEN initiative will help those who are fortunate enough to be appointed to these positions recognize that along with the great joys of these jobs, there are tremendous responsibilities and difficult but essential fights.
We seem to have accepted that sometimes a vote of no confidence by a recalcitrant faculty is not necessarily a mark of failure by the president or chancellor. Equally important, we need to accept that a fight with a board which has lost the understanding of its fiduciary duties to the institution and to higher education or a fight with a governor who believes partisan politics should determine governance and curriculum is not a failure of that president, but in fact a badge of honor.
And for those who say I could not possibly understand the culture of today when I was sitting in the seat–perhaps. But I will point out, The College of New Jersey IS in New Jersey and let’s be real—politics in New Jersey has always been a blood sport.
Priorities always seem to get in the way don’t they?
A friend who has taught at one of your beloved institutions for more than 30 years told me of a recent experience where the president asked all professors to delay finals so that students could make plans to attend a conference football final and possibly a NCAA playoff. Unfortunately, the team proceeded to lose unceremoniously three straight games including the conference final, went to a much lesser bowl game and hence received a lesser financial payoff for the university.
I doubt the state politicians would have objected to the football aspirations of the school’s leadership but instead object to certain classes taught, as it affects our sensibilities.
Probably not! Thanks for reading.
I love the line about a job not getting in the way of one’s principles. It’s also vital for people elected to office.
Agree! And for all in leadership positions.
The political rhetoric is hot and getting hotter I many places. I hope that higher education leaders do not decide that “this too shall pass” and we can wait it out. We cannot! The damage to colleges and universities may be so great that it will take a long time to recover, if ever. Bobby, continue to speak out. I hope that more of us in higher education, whatever role we play, will join you.
Eleanor: Thanks so much for your comment. You are absolutely right–this WILL NOT pass. And it surely will not if we are silent. You know me, I will continue to speak out and I am gratified to know that you understand the importance of doing just that. All the best, Bobby
Bobby – I absolutely agree with you, but I believe this problem of truth in the face of harsh realities plays out in an arena much larger than leadership in higher education. It may be a president or governor who must give up or compromise an important piece of his/her agenda because of the near impossibility of achieving it without making damaging compromises. It may be a businessperson who who must be straightforward about product errors when the damage to the livelihoods of hundreds (or thousands) of employees in on the line. Or it could simply be you or me, who must choose between the truth and unbearable humiliation or frightening loss. You have, as you did so often when just a teenager in English class, put your finger on a critical piece of the human condition.
Thanks, Sally Ann. You are absolutely right this problem extends way beyond higher education or journalism. But for higher education to be so silent is simply unacceptable in these times. I do not understand why so few of my colleagues are willing to stand up. Even in the face of loss, if we do not speak up, we have no hope of counteracting the trends.
I very much appreciate your remarks. First — I think that journalism has suffered greatly in the cable news era. Cable TV journalism is mostly a pathetic veneer of ill-informed correspondents offering personal opinions about everything, and few facts or new information. Even easily investigated questions are ignored in favor of predictions and rehashed memes from the media echo chamber. It seems that the correspondents are selected based on “camera-readiness” and not investigative skills or historical knowledge. Scanning Twitter, Google, and other TV news shows, is now considered investigative journalism. Of course there are a few good TV journalists, and I view Amanpour as one of them. Sadly, I have little hope for any improvement in “news” organizations that operate in a highly competitive environment with huge profits at stake. Ultimately, I expect that the money will do the talking. Why should we expect otherwise?
Print journalism is sometimes better, but often not. They operate in the same world of super-competition for eyeballs and low expectations for real investigative work.
But that’s not what I came here to talk about (to borrow a phrase). Regarding your critique on higher-ed administrators — I can read between the lines and guess what events led to your focus on this. That notwithstanding, I would love to hear, more specifically, some specific examples of where you would take a stand along the lines that you described.
Thank you, Larry, for your response. The topics on which I have and would take a stand are various, but I would start with the purpose of Champions of Higher Education “to fight political interference and government overreach on campus.” During my years as president, I often spoke out on other topics, usually precipitated by some event that touched the lives of our students, faculty, or staff. These included open inquiry and freedom of even offensive speech after the visit from a reactionary minister, celebration of diversity in the face of first racist and then anti semitic events on the campus, sensible gun legislation after Sandy Hook, sensible immigration reform and support of DACA after the Muslim ban just to name a few. I was glad every time I did–though the response was rarely universally supportive.
Thank you Dr. Gitenstein for your courage in taking a principled stand on these important issues!