For anyone on the hunt for a job as a university or college president in the US, just sit tight — there very likely will be a lot more openings when the protests embroiling higher education in the nation are over.
Admittedly, the high-profile role of university president has lost much of its appeal over the past few weeks as pro-Palestinian student protests have erupted on college campuses, forcing administrators to publicly navigate myriad stakeholders with wildly different perspectives and interests.
However, in some cases, those sitting at the very top of the ivory tower who want to keep their jobs have not done themselves any favors. I will not pretend to know the blow-by-blow of what is happening on the ground from inside my own ivory tower, but based on the communications coming out of presidents’ offices, the impression many are leaving is that pockets of higher education desperately need more crisis-management training — a surprising revelation considering a university president’s top responsibility is supervising a passionate group of young adults with still-developing prefrontal cortices that make them prone to risky behavior.
Illustration: Mountain People
It all starts with Columbia University in New York, where a jaw-dropping scene took place on Tuesday night last week as police removed students who had barricaded themselves inside a campus building. (Full disclosure: I attended the university’s graduate school of journalism.)
It was the latest escalation in a protest that the university’s president, Nemat Shafik, first attempted to shut down the day after her congressional testimony last month.
In her April 18 request to the New York City Police Department seeking assistance shutting down a protesters’ encampment in the center of campus, Shafik justified the move by referencing safety four times and security and danger once each.
That kind of language is meant to raise alarms, but it is also vague and not once did Shafik define the terms she was using or give specific examples of what made the situation rise to the level of police action.
If safety, security and danger are your red line for calling in law enforcement, you should probably be pretty clear about what you mean when you invoke them.
The lack of clarity opened up Shafik to criticism that the decision was performative, meant to placate her critics in the US Congress. No big surprise, the police presence only inflamed the situation and was a precursor to the events of last week. It also set the tense tone for the encampments that students have since established across the US.
Fuzzy rhetoric and rules of engagement are pervasive in academia right now. As my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Jessica Karl said on Monday last week, her alma mater, Indiana University Bloomington, made a last-minute change to a 55-year-old campus policy around the use of “temporary structures” to arrest students.
At Columbia, Shafik appears to have broken protocols established in the wake of the university’s 1968 student protests; she authorized the initial police sweep over the unanimous objections of the executive committee of the university’s senate.
“The problem all year has been that the administrations are making up rules as they go along, often without even announcing the changes,” Nadia Abu el-Haj, a Columbia and Barnard anthropology professor, said in a recent interview with the New York Review.
The situation at Columbia did not have to go this way. The administration at Brown University in Rhode Island for example, has come to an agreement with student demonstrators without reaching the level of turmoil we have seen on other college campuses.
Protesters said they would take down their encampment, while university leadership said it would discuss and vote on divesting funds from corporations with ties to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
The university was willing to negotiate with its students and made real concessions, but also had its own red line.
Brown president Christina Paxson made clear what conduct would not be tolerated, saying she would not drop the charges against 41 students who were arrested at a university sit-in in December last year.
“I respect the conviction and passion that prompted the students to make the informed choice to be arrested last December,” Paxson wrote in a letter to the protesters, but “the practice of civil disobedience means accepting the consequences of decisions on matters of conscience.”
This might not be what the students want to hear, but she was exceedingly clear in her position and the logic underpinning it.
The University of Chicago has operated with the same kind of clarity. That might be one reason that the campus has not yet descended into chaos. After hundreds of students set up a pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus, the university’s president, Paul Alivisatos, put out a message laying out the institution’s values (“the greatest leeway possible for free expression”).
He provided real-life examples that fell on both sides of the line: Gaining permission to cover part of the quad with a massive Palestinian flag, fine; occupying a building, which disrupts learning and the functioning of the university, not fine.
“When expression becomes disruption, we act decisively to protect the learning environment of students and the functioning of the university against genuinely disruptive protesters,” Alivisatos wrote.
What has likely helped the University of Chicago navigate this moment is its well-articulated principles, in which it operates under the position of “viewpoint neutrality.” The institution does not make political or social statements of any kind, believing that doing so quells free speech.
I will not pass judgement on whether being neutral on everything is the right policy or approach, but I do think having a strong operating framework is. It allows for fast and clear decisionmaking when things reach a boiling point. That is what keeps everyone playing by the same rules and during a crisis that is what is really needed to keep everyone safe, secure and out of danger.
Beth Kowitt is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering corporate America. She was previously a senior writer and editor at Fortune magazine. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS