The Ivy League is a group of eight American colleges and universities – Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale – that are among the most prestigious institutions of higher education in the world. Until the late 20th century – Judith Rodin was named president of the University of Pennsylvania in 1994 – not one had ever been led by a woman. In recent years however this demographic has changed dramatically. Six of the eight Ivies are currently led by women.
While this percentage is misleading – at the national level by far the most college presidents are still white men – symbolism counts for something. It matters that in the top tier of American higher education women presidents are now the norm not the exception.
Which brings me to the unsettling fiasco of the past week. The fiasco that was the highly contentious congressional hearing on antisemitism. Since the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel has been a surge in antisemitic and anti-Arab hate crimes on some American campuses. This explains the appearance on Capitol Hill of the president of Harvard, Claudine Gay; the president of the University of Pennsylvania, Elizabeth Magill; and the president of M.I.T., Sally Kornbluth. They were there to testify generally about antisemitism on their campuses, and specifically about their responses to recent events.
What they did, and did not, say ended for them, especially for Gay and Magill, in a political and public relations disaster. Moreover, the acrimony has not only not subsided, but since the hearing on Tuesday it has escalated. The women were attacked by the White House and by lawmakers in both parties. Some of their most generous donors turned away in disappointment and disgust. And, despite their expressions of remorse and regret, all three now face an investigation into antisemitism on their campuses by a Republican-led House committee.
Gay, Magill, and Kornbluth are not, of course, the only leaders in higher education obliged to address similar situations. But for now, they have become, no doubt to their great regret, indicators of what many perceive as a failure adequately to respond to an ancient hatred.
This raises – for me, I have not seen them raised elsewhere – two questions. First, were their answers to the questions posed during the hearing different because they were women? Would men have responded in the same way?
Second, has the fallout from their answers – the fierce backlash against them – been different because they were females? Would three male leaders have been attacked, and now continue to be attacked in the same way?
To these questions are of course no satisfactory answers. They are counterfactuals – which means we can never know. Still, we might hazard a few guesses, maybe even educated guesses, based on the literature on women and leadership.
Regarding what Gay, Magill, and Kornbluth said – and how they carried themselves – it’s worth recalling the research that indicates that in general women lead somewhat differently than men. In their important book, Through the Labyrinth, Alice Eagly and Linda Cary wrote that “some sex differences have been detected.” Specifically, women more than men “have a democratic, participative, collaborative [leadership] style.” As important is that other people expect women with power to downplay their power, to be, or at least to appear to be, more collaborative and less authoritative. This puts the burden on women to straddle the line between being sufficiently leader-like, that is, directive, but not so directive that they are perceived to be aggressive.
Does this matter in this instance? Were, for example, Gay’s responses to the questions posed by members of congress shaped at all by who she is – not just by what she believes? Gay is a woman, a black woman. Does it make sense that her being a woman, an African American woman, has no impact whatsoever on her leadership style? Not to me. All three women were taken to task for their extreme caution, for their overly “lawyerly” responses. Famed Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe chided Gay specifically for her “hesitant, formulaic, and bizarrely evasive answers.” I can only speculate that like the other women on the panel Gay’s reluctance to be more forceful, clearer, and more ringing in her responses was shaped by her identity.
And… by the role in which Gay and her colleagues found themselves. The most aggressive by far of their interlocutors was none other than Republican Representative Elise Stefanik – also obviously a woman. Why was it that Stefanik had no trouble whatsoever being dominant, agentic, directive? Recall her role. Her role was effectively that of prosecutor. She was free to be her most aggressive self because she was perfectly playing the part that she was assigned. Unfortunately for them, Gay, Magill, and Kornbluth were in this instance assigned a different part – a part more akin to that of a defendant. Of a follower – not of a leader.
But even here gender might matter. Her part as prosecuter notwithstanding, it’s plausible that had Stefanik been questioning three men not three women she would’ve felt less free “to be her most aggressive self” – lest she come off as a shrew, a harpie.
Which brings us to where we are now. Has the backlash against them been fiercer because they are women? Would three male presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT have been attacked – and would they continue to be attacked – in the same way?
Again, impossible to know. Still, it matters that while they were testifying all three of these ostensibly towering figures seemed curiously small, vulnerable even. That while they were testifying all three of these ostensibly formidable intellects seemed curiously unable to craft smart answers to simple questions. That while they were testifying all three of these ostensibly forceful females seemed curiously stymied by none other than one of their kind.
What we have then is a bad mix. Stupendously successful people. Stupendously successful people who are women. Stupendously successful people who are women who are leaders. Stupendously successful people who are women who are leaders who tried to strike the right balance between being directive and demure and failed.