Most afternoons I take a break to go for a short hike or walk with our dog, Tess. There are a lot of nice hiking trails within a couple of miles of where we live in southeastern New Hampshire, so we tend to head to the woods for our daily constitutional. This time of year is hunting season in New Hampshire and much of the rest of the northeast. So, to be sure that no over-eager deer hunter mistakes either of us for a six-point buck, Tess and I dutifully don our blaze orange vests before heading out. The truth is, no one really hunts near the trails where we walk, but we opt for caution being the better part of valor during hunting season – even if the fluorescent orange clashes with, well, pretty much everything.
Unfortunately, most of the higher education leaders I’m talking to and reading about these days aren’t getting too many peaceful afternoon strolls through the woods and the clashes they are confronting are unrelated to outerwear color combinations. But make no mistake, they are drawing plenty of attention – and not much of it is the good kind.
It’s not a secret that higher education has been getting more than its share of bad press for a long time. The high cost of tuition, soaring student debt, declining public confidence, concerns about admissions practices at selective colleges, and growing doubts about the relative value of a college degree have all garnered substantial attention in recent years. And that list doesn’t include any of the politically charged criticisms that college campuses are too liberal and too woke that has come from the political right in recent months and years. But in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel the unfavorable attention being directed at higher education leaders from students, faculty, donors, and especially the media seems to have reached a new high.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that I think all, or even most of the criticism is fair or based on informed understanding of the issues at play. I don’t.
I have spent enough time working through challenging issues and campus crises to know that the college leaders involved in managing these moments are accomplished and experienced professionals under enormous pressure coming from all directions. I know too that contrary to what comes through Instagram, Snapchat, and most commercial news coverage of higher education, college presidents, provosts, vice presidents, deans, and others responsible for stewardship of their institutions are not out-of-touch elites huddled in an ivory tower ducking responsibility and kowtowing to the whims of wealthy alumni and donors. To the contrary, they are smart, compassionate, and conscientious educators dealing with a litany of competing matters that are both more numerous and complicated than anyone who hasn’t been in their shoes can begin to understand or appreciate.
And that is the problem.
When it comes to the most contentious situations, more often than not colleges and universities choose only to issue cursory information in carefully prepared statements or not to comment at all. Meanwhile, the swarm of critics – students, faculty, alumni, partisan politicians, etc., – are flooding social and mainstream media with their points of view which tend to be highly critical of institutional leaders and their motives. The result is news stories that are informed largely by impassioned quotes from those airing their grievances about how they have been mistreated by the (Choose one: a. unethical, b. uncaring, c. cowardly, or d. all of the above) administration. But those stories tend to include little or no input or explanation from administrators.
There are good reasons why college leaders refrain from commenting on many of the situations that draw the most scrutiny. For both ethical and legal reasons, confidentiality must be considered, and privacy respected in matters related to employment or individual students’ personal information (e.g., academic standing, disciplinary matters, etc.). Administrators are rightly reluctant to come across as insensitive, defensive, or hostile to any members of the campus community – especially students. And most of the time, the media attention on even the most high-profile campus conflicts tends to blow over quickly. So, it is understandable that the prevailing wisdom has been to adopt a less-is-more approach to commenting on campus unrest.
But it may be time for colleges to be more proactive and forthcoming in their communications strategies about some of these situations.
The world of the 2020’s is dramatically different from the past. Though students and external constituencies continue to place a premium on gaining admission to and graduating from highly esteemed colleges and universities, they no longer give deference to the expertise with which these institutions have been traditionally imbued or the wisdom of their leaders. Rather, unsubstantiated claims of bias and mistreatment by administrators from aggrieved students, disgruntled faculty, and cranky alumni/donors are frequently taken at face value with little scrutiny from mainstream media, while administrators’ statements are met with skepticism and their motives are openly questioned. And all of it is constantly rehashed, recast, and recirculated on cable news and social media.
With most indicators suggesting that public perception of higher education is flagging both on and off campus, it may be time for colleges and universities to be timelier in calling out behavior that undermines the academic mission, violates institutional policies, and impedes the ability of faculty and students to teach and learn on campus. And at the same time, more transparency about the complexities and nuances of how and why they come to the decisions they make might promote a richer understanding of the issues at hand. Perhaps, in addition to three students from Ivy League schools making the rounds on cable news airing one-sided grievances about how their institutions are failing them, a triumvirate of college presidents could make themselves available to CNN, MSNBC, PBS/NPR, or even Fox News to bring attention to the steps they are taking to support Jewish and Muslim students and the litany of events that are focus on increasing awareness of the complexity of the situation in the Middle East and the range of campus resources being directed to meet student and faculty needs.
I am the first to admit that there are no easy answers as to the best communications strategy to meet the moment. But it seems right to question whether colleges are ceding too much ground when it comes to shaping the public narrative. And whether it might be time to try a new approach.