Dr. Shawntal Z. Brown
One by one, university presidents are stepping down amid a climate of rising political pressure and anti-equity attacks. As someone who studies presidential leadership and higher education policy, I keep asking: Who will defend the integrity of higher education in this storm?
My research, focused on the historical case study of former University of Texas at Austin president William C. Powers, revealed how these leaders navigated the challenges of political interference from former Governor Rick Perry, the Board of Regents, and the Chancellor amid his administration. Ultimately, this historical perspective offers an opportunity for university presidents to consider how their social power and skill set are critical assets in leading higher education during this period of uncertainty.
Before presenting the case of Powers, grounding the importance and evolution of the president’s role is key to understanding how this leader can wield their influence in this period of uncertainty. Today’s university presidents face expectations and responsibilities vastly different from those of their historical predecessors. Historically, the role of the university president has changed significantly. During the colonial era, presidents were often clergy who served as both “teachers and disciplinarians” for young white men. As the United States transitioned through the Industrial Revolution and the post–World War II era, the presidency evolved alongside the expansion of higher education and increased student enrollment (Bourgeois, 2016; Melidona et al., 2023).
Conversely, the current iteration of the university president, as Duderstadt (2000) describes, is someone who can “develop, articulate, and implement the vision of the university [to] sustain and enhance the quality of the institution” (p. 374). This high-stakes role requires these leaders to advance the strategic vision and mission of their institutions, mediate between internal and external stakeholders (Levin et al., 2018), respond to campus crises at a moment’s notice (Briscoe, 2022; Griggs & Thouin, 2022; Kelderman, 2022), and lead fundraising efforts (Trombley, 2007). Ultimately, the actions—or inaction—of a university president have a substantial impact on the institution’s reputation and culture (Briscoe & Freeman Jr., 2019; Havice & Williams, 2005; Hornak & Garza Mitchell, 2016; Martinez & Henkle, 2023; McNaughtan et al., 2019; Perrakis et al., 2010).
Institutional shifts have demanded more public-facing leadership, with presidents becoming increasingly accountable to both internal and external stakeholders. The American Council on Education (ACE) has surveyed university presidents every five years since 1986 (Melidona et al., 2023). In these surveys, ACE has identified key trends in preparation, demographics, and leadership practices among these leaders. The 2023 survey revealed a significant gap in presidential professional development, with 59% of the 1,075 presidents surveyed reporting that they were not preparing a successor for their current position (Melidona et al., 2023, p. 14). This brings me back to my initial question: Who will protect the integrity of higher education amid this destabilizing political landscape—especially when this leadership role has become a revolving door?
While these trends paint a sobering picture for current leadership pipelines, history offers us a valuable example of presidential resilience under political pressure.
