A university president makes a case against cowardice

I don't see much talk of donors? My impression is that, as in many situations, the super-wealthy are forming a dominant class - as if it's their right - rather than respect democracy and freedom, and attacking university freedom. Didn't some person engineer the Harvard leader's exit?

Roth says the Wesleyan board is supportive; maybe they are just lucky.

Being a super wealthy alum is a prerequisite for being a Trustee, and University Trustees are the group that University Presidents report to.

This is why I always have and always will prefer community colleges. Their boards are elected officials. Not perfect, but 1000 times better than just having wealth.

Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. The enthusiasm of Americans for adding yet more elected roles rather than, say, having anything done by anybody competent is part of how they got here. The only place elections are even a plausible choice is political office - with an election and as close as you can to universal suffrage now the idiots running things are everybody's fault, although Americans even managed to screw that up pretty good. Sortition would probably be cheaper, but elections are fine for this purpose.

> Election is a bad way to choose almost anything.

Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.

That's the point the parent made. Elections are suitable for political officers.

Once you start electing other jobs, like judges or plumbers, then you get whoever you elected, rather than necessarily a person able to do the job.

In other words, getting elected is a specific skill set. Doing the job is a different skill set. In most fields those skill sets do not overlap.

Even in govt the overlap is marginal. Which is why some elected officials are pretty useless at actually "governing".

To my American friends all I can say is "you voted for this".