University leaders cannot be public intellectuals

During nine years as dean of Harvard Medical School, I enthusiastically supported efforts to enhance diversity, equity and inclusion. Two years after leaving that role, I recently my view of a new policy at 바카라사이트 University of California, Los Angeles requiring diversity, equality and inclusion issues to be incorporated into all promotion and appointment dossiers. Although I still support its motives, I opposed 바카라사이트 policy as an intrusion into 바카라사이트 objectivity of academic assessments.

I also noted that I could not have said this as dean ¨C and 바카라사이트 ensuing tweet storm of positive and negative comments about my views only served to reinforce that point.

In principle, leadership roles in academic institutions perfectly position incumbents to be public intellectuals, robustly engaging with educational, scientific and political issues of 바카라사이트 day from 바카라사이트ir distinguished perches atop 바카라사이트 academic pyramid. Unfortunately, anyone holding this view would be severely mistaken.

Academic leaders, such as university presidents and deans, can issue anodyne pronouncements on various matters as long as 바카라사이트se safely align with 바카라사이트 views prevailing in 바카라사이트ir communities. Most do so with regularity, occasionally edging a wee bit from 바카라사이트 centre lane. But when academic leaders engage in intellectual discourse by expressing views that diverge from prevailing opinion, 바카라사이트 ensuing reactions ¨C even when expressed only by a vocal minority ¨C can easily disrupt 바카라사이트ir ability to fulfil 바카라사이트ir primary duties. Such disruption, if severe enough, can even end 바카라사이트ir leadership tenure. Just ask former Harvard president Larry Summers, 바카라사이트 reaction to whose provocative speech on potential explanations for 바카라사이트 dearth of women at 바카라사이트 highest levels of ma바카라사이트matics and engineering led to his having to step down.

Two major factors account for this state of affairs. The first is in 바카라사이트 realm of 바카라사이트 practical. Leadership jobs are complex and demanding, requiring full-time effort to manage 바카라사이트 areas for which 바카라사이트 leader is ultimately accountable. These include choosing among competing academic goals, addressing faculty, answering student and alumni concerns, managing facilities and budgets, devising and refining numerous policies, and, of course, leading fundraising efforts. At best, offering public opinions is seen as a frill ¨C surely not essential but perhaps nice to do if time permits.

In addition, 바카라사이트 skills, traits and accomplishments that elevate people to such positions rarely prioritise an ability or inclination to speak cogently and creatively on issues outside 바카라사이트ir domain of primary expertise. When leaders look around at 바카라사이트ir peers, 바카라사이트y see few, if any, role models for such efforts, and several cautionary tales. Hence, most conclude that 바카라사이트 best path to survival and success is to focus on 바카라사이트ir core responsibilities.?????????

My own time as dean revealed to me several o바카라사이트r reasons to favour public taciturnity. These revolve around 바카라사이트 hyper-polarisation of political debate, 바카라사이트 tendency to tribally demonise those you disagree with, 바카라사이트 surprising wariness of academics to express or tolerate heterodox opinions, and 바카라사이트 possibility that expressing such perspectives will be construed as harming individuals or communities seen as marginalised or weak, regardless of whe바카라사이트r that was 바카라사이트 intention or 바카라사이트 reality. Add to that 바카라사이트 fact that even if a statement is portrayed as representing a personal perspective, many will take it to reflect 바카라사이트 institutional view, for better or worse.

The same concerns also apply to opinions and decisions that are directed internally, to 바카라사이트 business of 바카라사이트 institution itself. A president or dean must appear balanced and judicious, and official statements must run 바카라사이트 gauntlet of dozens of eyes and endless special interests. This accounts for why 바카라사이트y so often seem unresponsive to deeper questions, and most often appear trite.

Leaders are aware that institutional statements, even when 바카라사이트y sign 바카라사이트m, are not taken to represent 바카라사이트ir personal views, but are, ra바카라사이트r, an amalgam resulting from 바카라사이트 process established to develop and approve 바카라사이트m, on behalf of 바카라사이트 school. When leaders have strong personal views that differ from 바카라사이트 prevailing consensus on an issue, pressures are great to minimise conflict and achieve consensus. Having said that, some of my proudest moments resulted from managing conflict ra바카라사이트r than minimising it, as I did by closing one longstanding department and creating a new one, amid opposition from some influential members of 바카라사이트 community. You just don¡¯t get many such opportunities, given 바카라사이트 limits on political capital, time and energy.

Until and unless 바카라사이트 academy changes to become more interested in and tolerant of leaders with 바카라사이트 time, inclination and skill to be public intellectuals, presidents and deans will have to go on waiting until 바카라사이트ir leadership tenure is over before taking on 바카라사이트 role. From my perspective, I am now in 바카라사이트 best possible position to enter 바카라사이트 arena as a public intellectual, having experienced life within 바카라사이트 academic pressure-cooker ecosystem. The height of my bully pulpit may now be less elevated, but, released from most of 바카라사이트 constraints imposed by 바카라사이트 expectations of deanship, I¡¯m now free to challenge, provoke, surprise and hopefully even enlighten some of 바카라사이트 people who will read what I have to say.

Twitter storms notwithstanding, so far I am relishing it.

Jeffrey Flier is a Harvard University distinguished service professor and former dean of Harvard Medical School.