For a glimpse into the recent tumultuous changes in American university leadership, one need only look at the witnesses who testified at congressional hearings. Thursday, It was the fourth in a series of violent incidents over anti-Semitism on college campuses that led to the downfall of two university presidents.
Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway, a possible candidate to succeed Yale University's retiring president next month, also spoke out, as did UCLA President Jean D. Block, who is due to step down in July after 17 years in the position and hand it over to an unnamed individual.
In any other time, the next leaders at UCLA and Yale would have been announced already, but the uncertainty from California to Connecticut shows just how complicated the job of a top university executive has become in an increasingly polarized environment.
Since December, Cornell University, Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania have suddenly announced the resignations of their presidents, with the Harvard and Penn presidents' resignations coming after comments made in Congress that were widely condemned.
and last week, Sonoma State University President Mike Lee resigned after the president of the California State University system said the university's announcement of a deal with pro-Palestinian protesters was “made without proper authorization” and an act of “insubordination.”
Another witness on Thursday, Northwestern University President Michael H. Schill, is just taking office in 2022 but is facing calls for his resignation over a deal he made with protesters.
“There's always something going on in higher education, and on a good day it's hard work,” said Margaret Spellings, former president of the University of North Carolina System, noting that the nation's college campuses are especially now “the front lines of America's public square.”
The presidency is always a challenging job, requiring diplomatic poise, scholarship excellence and a knack for raising funds from a demanding alumni base, managing a rigorous faculty and connecting with a growing student body — all while inspiring a burning passion for football.
But today, faced with protests, politicians, personal attacks and endless scrutiny, even a top-tier presidency isn't necessarily as popular as it once was.
“I understand why people might be hesitant and think twice,” said the Rev. John I. Jenkins, who this month will mark nearly 19 years as president of the University of Notre Dame. “It's not for the faint of heart.”
Current school presidents have generally been in their positions for less time than in the past, but more than half plan to leave within five years, according to a 2022 survey by the American Council on Education. In Massachusetts, 12 of the state's 58 private schools had vacant presidency positions in the past year, according to Steven DiSalvo, president of Endicott College outside Boston.
However, schools have not always moved quickly to fill positions.
Faced with political and financial pressure, the College Board appears to have become more allergic to risk, and in recent years has intensified scrutiny, including extensive background checks and new plagiarism screening, which can lead to dozens of hours of tedious review.
Nicholas B. Dirks, former president of the University of California, Berkeley, said plagiarism checks “weren't done in the past,” but they have become more common since the plagiarism allegations against Claudine Gay contributed to her resignation as president of Harvard University last winter.
“Anyone who is even the slightest bit controversial is certainly going to be scrutinized more closely, if not disqualified,” said Dirks, who recently wrote “City of Intellectuals,” a book about the pressures he faced at Berkeley amid the financial crisis and campus turmoil.
Higher education veterans said that for now, a cautious board of trustees may be more inclined to promote academics than take a chance on a newcomer.
Stanford University, for example, has chosen as its next president Jonathan Levin, who was an undergraduate there in the 1990s and joined the faculty in 2000. Richard K. Lyons, who will become Berkeley's president in July, has even longer ties to the school, having earned his bachelor's degree there in 1982 and joined the faculty since 1993.
Boards of trustees are also open to keeping interim presidents in place for the long term. When Cornell University's Martha E. Pollack, who had served as president for the past seven years, announced this month that she would step down in June, the school said it would postpone its search for a successor for at least 15 months. The University of Pennsylvania has postponed its search for a permanent president even though M. Elizabeth McGill resigned in December.
“Choosing a president is a very complicated process because everyone at the university has a vested interest in the selection, and getting the right person is important to everyone,” said John Isaacson, chairman of Isaacson Miller, which has helped many top schools choose presidents. “It's a lengthy process.”
UCLA and Yale University did not respond to inquiries about the president selection process.
Some presidential candidates are as wary as the schools themselves. Dirks, the former UC Berkeley president, said he's heard a dwindling number of candidates are considering the pitfalls of the job, despite the mansion-like dorms on campus and the salaries that can reach seven figures.
“It's not as appealing as it used to be,” said DiSalvo, president of Endicott College, which runs a training program for aspiring college presidents.
A persistent challenge is that presidents must deal with so many constituencies with competing interests: students, parents, faculty, other university officials, public officials, donors, alumni, and athletic program sponsors.
“You put yourself in a position where whatever you do, somebody's going to come after you,” said Arizona State University President Michael M. Crow. (“Your alumni, if they don't like something, especially in the sports world, they're quick to take action,” laughed former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard B. Myers, who later became president of Kansas State University.)
Mark Yudof, who led the University of California and University of Texas systems, likened the presidency to serving as mayor or governor.
“We don't even know everything that's going on at our own university, much less what's going on in the world,” said Yudof, who served as the first president of the University of Minnesota.
Social media is also increasing pressure on smaller colleges. Marjorie Hass, president of the Council of Independent Colleges and Universities, said presidents have received complaints from everyone from students to members of religious denominations that fund their schools.
“There's an expectation that we'll be available 24/7,” she said.
And at any given time, national and international controversies could invade campus life with surprising speed and intensity. In a presidential election year, the situation could be even worse, many leaders said, as a tainted national debate overwhelms campuses.
“It's the tension of trying to create a community culture that's different from the national zeitgeist,” said Steve Briggs, president of Berry College, a small school in northwest Georgia.
While some university presidents come from business or politics, many come from academia, which can lead to what Notre Dame President Jenkins calls “a mismatch between the qualifications you need to get the job and the skills you need when you get the job.”
They rarely came to work eager to fight on statehouses or in Congress, and many of them are unaccustomed to such heated arguments.
“You don't necessarily have to take office to be part of a larger political narrative or attention,” said Quinton T. Ross Jr., president of Alabama State University and a former state legislator. “It's not really the case, but it's to be expected.”
While some college presidents have made no secret of their eagerness to serve in similar roles again, few will openly admit to doubts about their jobs.
Despite the turmoil, Vanderbilt University President Daniel Diermeier believes today's urgent demands could ultimately lead to greater job satisfaction.
“I would rather be prime minister of the UK in 1943 than in 1953,” he said. “If we're going in this direction, don't you want to do it at a crucial time? Yes, it's more difficult. Yes, it's more stressful. But at the end of the day, we want to have influence. And the higher the stakes are, the more important leadership is.”
