Coming from a public university in a red state whose government despises the institution, with some politicians more Trumpist than Trump about it, I feel this.
Though honestly those are the places where the "fitness landscape" should be producing leaders who are extremely skilled at defending what is essential. And actually there have been a few folks like that at some of the red state universities pre-Trump, though many others who are just so hapless.
"I don’t think it’s about money or being driven more by self-interest. It’s something in the architecture of our organizations, in the design of civic institutions generally."
I don't know why you dismiss this (or even implicitly the idea that money is a key part of the architecture). And, to be clear, I'm not just talking about leadership salaries (or the stock portfolios of the members of the Boards of Trustees). It's also the operating budgets are huge, and the moral calculus of the leaders includes protection of those budgets. And, to be clear, lots of jobs are at stake.
Yeah, I should be clearer here--I mean that people moving into leadership become instantly deaf to values the previously held or lose capabilities they once had because they're suddenly getting paid a lot more money. There are a few paid assassins of institutions out there who move from university to university because they're being offered $$$$ to leave wreckage in their wake, like Gordon Gee. But I think normally that almost instant loss of awareness and capability is about a loss of contact with the institution as a whole, with its daily routines and purposes, with the way people feel and desire in the work and life of the institution. Definitely one of the things that happens inside the new bubble reality is that the flow of money becomes the new imaginary--leaders see it come in, they see it go out, they see where it goes, and what it buys. But they don't really understand the referent of money any more--it becomes a reality all its own, and they can't understand any longer how impoverished the world of big money ultimately is, especially in the frames of reference that neoliberalism has provided. I think law and regulation also function the same way for leaders--they stop thinking about what it is that regulations and compliance purpose to achieve--they become the purpose.
I'll give the Trump people this much--they're still clumsy as hell as Satanic tempters, but they're learning pretty quickly how to kick the people in charge right in their unmentionables.
I think there are two things happening. One is that many of these people are very bad at their jobs (my university president is one such example). Just totally unqualified, and sometimes I think they were promoted for that reason. Other times I think it's that B players hire C players.
The other thing is that for many stakeholders the current form of the university (how many people it educates, the size of the medical research program, etc) is genuinely more important than the 1000-year history and mission of universities as a concept.
Yes to both. The latter, I think, is an imprint of the history of the land-grant university and especially of its GI Bill-era expansion. It's a monumentalist belief--that university is in their minds something like the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate, a colossus that stands in for mass society in America, an institution that scaled into America's imperial era. But that's a tragic mistaking of the form for the function. The Hoover Dam doesn't matter any more if the Colorado River dries up entirely; the Golden Gate is just a weird, big statue if San Francisco and Marin close the roads on either side of it. Preservation of the scale in the absence of the purpose is at the least blindness; more often, it's just further confirmation of the lack of qualification.
And yes, I do think that's why some people get pushed upward--that the people who might lead with more purpose, more vision, more of a sense of devotion to the values, scare some stakeholders, or seem too involved, too passionate, too on the side of something-or-other, so the most neutrally inoffensive people get picked instead, but that neutrality isn't a dispassionate fairness or even-tempered concern for all stakeholders, it's the affect of someone who doesn't know what even happens in the institution they lead and doesn't really care to find out.
Coming from a public university in a red state whose government despises the institution, with some politicians more Trumpist than Trump about it, I feel this.
Though honestly those are the places where the "fitness landscape" should be producing leaders who are extremely skilled at defending what is essential. And actually there have been a few folks like that at some of the red state universities pre-Trump, though many others who are just so hapless.
I share news from the red state frontier, for the files…
https://www.ipm.org/news/2025-10-03/be-very-very-quiet-ius-elmer-fudd-approach-to-transparency
Indeed - I’ve worked under both types
"I don’t think it’s about money or being driven more by self-interest. It’s something in the architecture of our organizations, in the design of civic institutions generally."
I don't know why you dismiss this (or even implicitly the idea that money is a key part of the architecture). And, to be clear, I'm not just talking about leadership salaries (or the stock portfolios of the members of the Boards of Trustees). It's also the operating budgets are huge, and the moral calculus of the leaders includes protection of those budgets. And, to be clear, lots of jobs are at stake.
It's Kobayashi Maru all the way down.
Yeah, I should be clearer here--I mean that people moving into leadership become instantly deaf to values the previously held or lose capabilities they once had because they're suddenly getting paid a lot more money. There are a few paid assassins of institutions out there who move from university to university because they're being offered $$$$ to leave wreckage in their wake, like Gordon Gee. But I think normally that almost instant loss of awareness and capability is about a loss of contact with the institution as a whole, with its daily routines and purposes, with the way people feel and desire in the work and life of the institution. Definitely one of the things that happens inside the new bubble reality is that the flow of money becomes the new imaginary--leaders see it come in, they see it go out, they see where it goes, and what it buys. But they don't really understand the referent of money any more--it becomes a reality all its own, and they can't understand any longer how impoverished the world of big money ultimately is, especially in the frames of reference that neoliberalism has provided. I think law and regulation also function the same way for leaders--they stop thinking about what it is that regulations and compliance purpose to achieve--they become the purpose.
I'll give the Trump people this much--they're still clumsy as hell as Satanic tempters, but they're learning pretty quickly how to kick the people in charge right in their unmentionables.
So, we need a little Henry V the night before Agincourt? (Star Trek did that one, too).
Seriously, maybe it would be a good idea for university presidents to host regular dinners with small groups of faculty (not just department chairs).
I think there are two things happening. One is that many of these people are very bad at their jobs (my university president is one such example). Just totally unqualified, and sometimes I think they were promoted for that reason. Other times I think it's that B players hire C players.
The other thing is that for many stakeholders the current form of the university (how many people it educates, the size of the medical research program, etc) is genuinely more important than the 1000-year history and mission of universities as a concept.
Yes to both. The latter, I think, is an imprint of the history of the land-grant university and especially of its GI Bill-era expansion. It's a monumentalist belief--that university is in their minds something like the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate, a colossus that stands in for mass society in America, an institution that scaled into America's imperial era. But that's a tragic mistaking of the form for the function. The Hoover Dam doesn't matter any more if the Colorado River dries up entirely; the Golden Gate is just a weird, big statue if San Francisco and Marin close the roads on either side of it. Preservation of the scale in the absence of the purpose is at the least blindness; more often, it's just further confirmation of the lack of qualification.
And yes, I do think that's why some people get pushed upward--that the people who might lead with more purpose, more vision, more of a sense of devotion to the values, scare some stakeholders, or seem too involved, too passionate, too on the side of something-or-other, so the most neutrally inoffensive people get picked instead, but that neutrality isn't a dispassionate fairness or even-tempered concern for all stakeholders, it's the affect of someone who doesn't know what even happens in the institution they lead and doesn't really care to find out.