You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
VDH : Ivory Cower
2005-09-28
Long, needs p.49.
University presidents have lost their dignity.

BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Whether or not you agreed with them, university presidents used to be dignified figures on the American scene. They often were distinguished scholars, capable of bringing their own brand of independent thinking to bear on the operation and reform of their institutions. Above all, they took seriously the university's mission to seek and transmit the Truth, and thereby to strengthen the free society that made such inquiry possible.

But it has been a long time since Woodrow Wilson (at Princeton), Robert Hutchins (at Chicago) or James Bryant Conant (at Harvard) set the tone for American campuses. Over the past year, four university presidents have been in the news--from Harvard; the University of California, Santa Cruz; the University of Colorado; and the University of California, Berkeley. In each case, the curtains have briefly parted, allowing the public to glimpse the campus wizards working the levers behind the scenes, and confirming that something has gone terribly wrong at our best public and private universities.

Hypocrisy, faddishness, arrogance and intellectual cowardice are among the ailments of the American university today, and it is hard to say whether even a great president could save higher education from its now institutionalized vices. Amid the variety of scandals afflicting the campuses, the one constant is how the rhetoric of "diversity" trumps almost all other considerations--and how race and gender can be manipulated by either the college president or the faculty in ways that have nothing to do with educating America's youth, but everything to do with personal aggrandizement in an increasingly archaic and unexamined enclave.
Posted by:anonymous5089

#1  He misses the big picture, that is, the very purpose for university presidents has changed over the years. Their title is now reduced to mean solely, for all practical purposes, "fund raiser".

At one "Enormous State University", the interview for a new president was reduced to a single question, quite literally:

"CAN YOU BRING IN AN AVERAGE OF TEN MILLION DOLLARS A DAY, EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR?"

This figure sounds ridiculous and impossible, until you calculate how many sources of income are under the purview of the president. Many school fees, such as parking garages; fixed endowments that require speaking engagements; legislative, State Board of Education, and Regents lobbying; other alumni donations; new corporate and NGO sponsorships; athletic box office, television rights, and NCAA mutuals; etc.

But it boils down to the fact that this is all the president does, or is expected to do, other than to avoid controversy and issue boilerplate memos.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-09-28 14:01  

00:00