For over a decade I’ve been writing about how leadership has become more difficult to exercise. Specifically in liberal democracies and especially in the United States. Not by chance the titles of two of my books – The End of Leadership (2012) and Hard Times: Leadership in America (2015) – make just this point.
Relations between leaders and followers have become more strained because our ideologies have changed, and so have our technologies, and our culture. These changes cut across the board, impacting leadership and followership everywhere: in politics and business, religion and education, the media, and the military. In recent months college and university campuses have been among the most visible of the relevant battle grounds, with tensions between leaders and others who, for leaders to lead, must follow. Usually, the leaders are presidents and deans of institutions of higher education. Usually, their followers include 1) students; 2) faculty; 3) staff; 4) alumni; 5) parents; 6) donors; 7) federal, state, and local officials; 8) interest groups; 9) lobbyists; and 10) the public.
In December and January, the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard were pushed from their posts on account of fallout from the war in Gaza. Last week the president of Columbia University, Dr. Nemat Shafik had her turn on the hot seat. In testimony before Congress, she conceded that Columbia had initially been stunned, even overwhelmed both by the virulence of campus protests in response to the crisis in the Middle East and, relatedly, by repeated incidents of antisemitism.
In her appearance before Congress, Dr. Shafik seemed to feel she had no choice but to respond to events on Columbia’s campus as strongly as publicly. She and Claire Shipman, co-chair of the school’s board of trustees, admitted they had a “moral crisis” on their hands, and they vowed that any violation of university policy would “have consequences.” One day later Shafik called in the New York City Police to arrest over 100 student protestors and tear down their encampment.
But if she thought the furies would be mollified or at least chastened, she was wrong. For her troubles she was loudly and soundly attacked by those who virulently disagreed with what they considered her too conservative views. The campus chapter of the American Association of University Professors announced that it had “lost confidence in our president and our administration.” A pro-Palestinian coalition of faculty and staff called on faculty to boycott not just graduation but all academic events. A columnist writing for the New York Times, Lydia Polgreen, asked, “If universities can’t protect free speech, what hope is there for other institutions?” And, most problematically, there was no sign that protesters at Columbia were acquiescing to the administration’s demands. The Times reported that even after the arrests, students remained “defiant” and activists “showed little signs of losing steam.”
To be clear, President Shafik had her defenders. An eminent professor of law at Columbia, Vincent Blasi, an expert on civil liberties, said the university had articulated a “reasonable” policy to govern protests and that it had the right to punish students who violated it. Still, no question that Columbia’s president had been caught in the cross hairs – damned if she did and damned if she did not.
Other colleges and universities have of course fared better. Either their campuses have not been so stressed, or the stress has been better managed. Moreover, this is hardly the first time that American students have taken on their elders. But it is the first time that leaders of colleges and universities have been challenged by so many different followers – different stakeholders, constituents, interest groups, parties and players – each of them convinced they are right, each of them convinced they have a right to have a say, and each of them with access to technologies that enable them not only to communicate but to connect.
In the old days, leaders, including those in higher education, were easily envied. For their power and perks, for their authority and influence. Now not so much. Whatever else can be said about President Shafik it cannot be claimed her last week was either easy or enviable.