Who Would Want to Be President of Columbia? - The Atlantic

The Crisis of Leadership at Columbia University

Columbia University's struggle to find a permanent president reveals a broader crisis in higher education leadership. The article details the tumultuous tenures of three recent presidents – Minouche Shafik, Katrina Armstrong, and others – all facing immense pressure from various stakeholders.

Political and Ideological Conflicts

The challenges are exacerbated by political polarization and escalating conflicts, notably involving antisemitism accusations and the Trump administration's interference. Governmental pressure and the cancellation of funding are significant factors impacting the university's ability to function smoothly.

• The Trump administration's actions, including the cancellation of $400 million in grants, are highlighted as a key contributing factor to the instability.
• The response to antisemitism accusations and related protests on campus created further divisions and difficulties for the university leadership.

The Changing Role of University Presidents

The article argues that the role of university president has become exceedingly complex. Presidents are now expected to be skilled fundraisers, financial managers, political navigators, and crisis managers, alongside traditional academic experience. This complex set of requirements makes it difficult to find suitable candidates.

Harvard's Defiance and Columbia's Path Forward

Harvard University's decision to defy similar governmental pressure offers a contrasting approach. The article suggests that Columbia's next president might need to navigate a similar political landscape or find a different solution to appease different stakeholders.

• Harvard's resistance led to significant financial penalties, suggesting the high cost of institutional autonomy.
• Columbia is beginning a new search for a president, with the acting president, Claire Shipman, taking a more defiant stance against governmental interference.