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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS