The Intricacies of College Leadership: A Candid Perspective
I have been asked, "Don't you want to be a college president?" My response has always been the role of a college president is like being a mayor for a city comprised mainly of 18 to 20-year-olds. "No thank you." And as time progresses, that role has become even less appealing due to the relentless fundraising, diminishing government support and funding, challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, governmental meddling in curricula, relatively low pay, and high stress. This is particularly true for predominantly white institutions (PWIs); the pressure is even greater for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
Another conversation I have is about the unique nature of higher education. Simply having attended college does not equate to understanding its intricacies. After spending the first decade of my career in the corporate world and the subsequent twenty years in higher education and government, I can say with authority they are not the same.
A significant challenge for colleges is governance. Boards of Trustees wield considerably more influence than in corporate settings, especially in public institutions. For example, consider Governor Youngkin of Virginia's request for documents from a professor about curriculum. The idea of a governor intervening in a corporation like, for example, P&G to the extent of disbanding the board and threatening to appoint loyalists is unthinkable. Additionally, college board members serve without pay, leading to a wide range of motivations for service. This can result in a board lacking the necessary skills or knowledge for effective governance, providing an avenue for accusations of incompetence, which can facilitate a takeover. Note: The ongoing assault on K-12 education, particularly in majority-minority districts facing state takeovers, offers a striking parallel.
This issue of governance was highlighted again recently with the conclusion of an investigation into the suicide of Dr. Candia-Bailey at Lincoln University (Missouri), where allegations of bullying by the president were dismissed as unfounded. Notably, the investigation was conducted by a firm affiliated with a former board member, which raises significant concerns about impartiality and resembles corporate practices.
The announcement of the three presidential finalists for Tennessee State University (TSU) came just before a damning report alleging financial mismanagement at TSU. The narrative portrays TSU and its governing board as irresponsible and incompetent. A remark suggesting the governor could reappoint board members feels both patronizing and insincere. This dichotomy—being labeled either completely inept or entirely competent—is frustrating.
Interestingly, all presidential finalists are male: one is the president of an African American civic organization, another is a community college president, and the last is a Vice President of Student Services at an HBCU. Ideally, the perfect candidate would embody qualities from all three. The chosen president will inherit a challenging situation, including an unsupportive board, a university reeling from the tenure of a long-serving president, and existing financial woes. The steep learning curve necessitates robust support and mentorship both within and outside Tennessee.
Rumors within the higher education community suggest the TSU presidency is not highly sought after, even by those aspiring to such roles. These opinions come from respected and trusted colleagues who have weighed the pros and cons.
It's imperative that alumni and stakeholders mobilize and devise strategies to support the incoming president, ensuring a prosperous future for TSU.
