A university president makes a case against cowardice

(www.newyorker.com)

453 points pseudolus | 1 comments | 03 Apr 25 12:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.242s | source

Show context

mmooss ◴[03 Apr 25 20:58 UTC] No.43575323[source]▶

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.

replies(2): >>43575903 #>>43576103 #

chriskanan ◴[03 Apr 25 22:12 UTC] No.43576103[source]▶

>>43575323 #

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

replies(1): >>43576558 #

Loughla ◴[03 Apr 25 23:08 UTC] No.43576558[source]▶

>>43576103 #

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.

replies(2): >>43576689 #>>43588888 #

1. jltsiren ◴[04 Apr 25 23:38 UTC] No.43588888[source]▶

>>43576558 #

I prefer the way it used to be in Finland (and still mostly is). Board members are elected by the people affiliated with the university. Votes might be split 4:3:3 or 5:4:4 between professors, other staff, and students. Some board positions are representatives of the three internal groups, while the rest are outsiders. You get all kinds of interesting people from business leaders to activists to former national presidents in the board, while avoiding politruks elected or appointed by random outsiders.

↑