A closing plenary session on the president's role in public discourse led by Lesley University President Margaret McKenna and North Carolina Wesleyan College President Ian Newbould sparked a lively debate about whether presidents should express personal opinions on controversial national issues.

The closing plenary featured two presidents addressing the question “When should presidents express an opinion on a public policy issue?” They sparked a spirited conversation on ways presidents can help campus communities to address controversial issues.
     Presidents Margaret McKenna of Lesley University (MA) and Ian Newbould of North Carolina Wesleyan College brought a breadth of experience to the topic as panelists, and session facilitator Robert Zemsky, chair of the Learning Alliance for Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania, opened the session with the question, “what is the role of the academic leader in a time of national travail?”
     McKenna made the case that presidents should take a stand and speak out on important national issues and provide moral leadership not only for the campus community, but for the community at large. Newbould took the opposite stance, stating that while presidents should provide opportunities for debates on campus, they should avoid taking a stand on particular issues that are beyond the college’s immediate
concerns.
     McKenna said that “as presidents, we need to ask tough questions about what is the truth” on a whole host of issues such as the Patriot Act, tax reform, health policy, and the Iraq war. On the latter issue, for example, McKenna wondered why more college campuses and presidents were not engaged in the Iraq debate. Following the invasion last spring, she said she posted an e-mail on CIC’s Presidents Listserv questioning why presidents were not more vocal or taking leadership stands on the issue. Respondents gave a variety of reasons, such as “if we take a stand, we will offend some people,” or “the government knows more than you think it knows,” and others suggested that such actions might put the campus at risk.
     McKenna told session participants, “If we’re not asking questions about war and civil liberties—and if we don’t speak out about such issues and act as role models for our students—I don’t know who will. My job is as a moral leader, not just a fundraiser.”
     Newbould agreed that the role of the president is to foster debate, but said he avoids taking a personal stand on a particular issue “because to do so might upset some constituents. The president has to stand above the fray. The campus, not the president, should be the center of the debate.” On the Iraq war, he said “lots of students’ family members are involved in the military. If I were to say ‘this war is wrong’—that would have a serious impact on those students. Fostering debate is important, but an issue like Iraq is different from speaking out about general issues such as racism.”
     Participant Ellen Hurwitz, president of New England College (NH), said that during the debate on the Iraq war, she found herself “more in the role of comforting students—particularly students with parents in the military—and protecting students on campus who could be affected in a detrimental way by war in Iraq.” She also felt that an important part of her role as a college president is “to make sure all sides of the debate are heard.” Peggy Williams of Ithaca College (NY) agreed that “the president’s responsibility is to get a conversation going about issues. Very quickly after the attacks of 9/11,” she said, “we hosted a panel discussion ensuring that many perspectives were represented. Many other events—most of them faculty led—soon followed. After the invasion of Iraq, we distributed a packet of information to faculty about how to frame discussion in class, if students wanted to talk about it. Once again, more events followed. We can’t allow significant moments like these to go by without structuring opportunities for conversation and reflection,” Williams said. But even doing that can be controversial, said Esther Barazzone of Chatham College (PA). “After 9/11 we held a lot of debates with all sides of the issue presented, yet I was accused by a relative few of being anti-Semitic simply for encouraging open discussion. It was not easy for me or the Board [to continue the bipartisan debates], but I’m proud we did it.” Southwestern University (TX) President Jake Schrum saw his role as being one of “helping the campus confront being uncomfortable.”

     As the discussion moved to other examples, Todd Hutton of Utica College (NY) stressed the need “to recapture the role of the college/university president as a moral beacon for America. While presidents must look out for the welfare of our institutions, we must also be willing to express our personal, moral views, and be a role model for students. It is sometimes a difficult balance, but we can’t always send a message to students that our role in protecting the campus is more important than speaking on important issues. We need to encourage students to seek out many opinions.”
     Other presidents shared their views: “if we voice our personal opinion, we compromise our ability to foster debate and lose our own effectiveness,” and “each of us has a different comfort zone —I agree we should take on big issues such as alcohol abuse on campus, even if we are not comfortable with doing so.”
     McKenna said she understood that “people are nervous about speaking out because they don’t want to hurt their institution” but she stood her ground, arguing that “we need to push the envelope of our ‘uncomfortable zone’ and worry less about repercussions. If funds are cut, so be it.” She added that “there are various levels of taking a stand… from financial aid policies to K-12 testing to implications of the Patriot Act. We need to be model leaders for our students while encouraging debate.” Newbould, however, cautioned that his job was to foster the well-being of his institution, and that the luxury of voicing his opinion had to be set against those with other opinions who supported his institution financially or otherwise.
     Zemsky asked participants whether they had ever had a discussion such as this, on the role of presidents on issues of national importance. Many said they had not. David Glenn-Lewin of Unity College (ME) was pessimistic about the role of today’s college and university presidents. “We (and our institutions) were seen as moral beacons 40-50 years ago—not any more. We are just part of the cacophony now, and we are to blame, in part, for constantly promoting ourselves as the means to improved incomes. Our campuses are now seen as places for students to get a degree and double their income potential.”
     At the conclusion of the session, Zemsky and McKenna suggested that CIC revisit the discussion during the next Presidents Institute. “This is a tough discussion, but it’s bedrock stuff,” Zemsky concluded.