How African American Males Become Presidents of Four-Year

How African American Males Become Presidents of Four-Year Predominantly

White Colleges and Universities: Three Oral Histories

by

John Barker

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the

Requirements of the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Supervised by

Professor Bruce Kimball & Professor Douglas Guiffrida

Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development

University of Rochester

Rochester, New York

2008

African American Presidents ii

Curriculum Vitae

John Barker was born in Jacksonville, North Carolina on July 2nd, 1973. He

attended The State University of New York at Oswego from 1991 to 1995, and graduated

with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Political Science in 1995. He came to the

University of Rochester in the Spring of 1998 and began graduate studies in Higher

Education. He pursued research in Higher Education under the direction of Professor

Bruce Kimball.

African American Presidents iii

Acknowledgments

I want to personally thank my committee and some of the people that have been

instrumental to me in relation to completing my dissertation. First, I would like to thank

my mother, Ethell Barker, and family for their countless years of love and support

through my educational career. I would like to thank my supportive wife, Sarah, and my

mentors Dr. David King, Dr. Robert Moore, Dr. William Scott Green, and especially my

faculty advisor Dr. Bruce Kimball. I could not have completed the dissertation without

the help of both of my transcriptionists Mother Schmidl and Diane Cox. I would like to

thank my McNair family for all of their help, support and encouragement over the ten

years of my involvement in the program. Last but not least there is one person that I

really must praise, Dr. Beth Olivares. Words cannot explain how grateful I am for her

love and support over the years and her passion for taking interest in the types of students

that she does, and that I am.

African American Presidents iv

Abstract

This study is an attempt to explain the life history and career development of three

African American male presidents of Predominantly White institutions (PWIs). What is

evident from these interviews is that there exists a small discourse community of African

American presidents who utilize one another’s knowledge and understanding to help in

decision-making regarding academic trajectories and the presidency. Because only a

very few people have direct access to this community, the current study adds

substantially to the resources available to succeeding generations of administrative

leaders. This study was not an attempt at a comprehensive understanding of every aspect

in the life of an African American president at a PWI. Rather, it is designed to provide

insight and observation into the significant details in the lives of presidents in the context

studied.

In addition, I surmise that the African American presidents studied play a

significant role in promoting diversity in their institutions. Diverse leadership can be

instrumental in institutions of higher education in the fact that it can represent the

openness, freedom from racial stereotypes, and the vision of what higher education can

possibly be. Why is it so imperative that there is a diverse representation of university

presidents? Because these groups shape the educational philosophy, mission, and culture

of any institution; their interactions with students help mold individual perspectives and

foster intellectual curiosity. Knowledge cannot advance as it should, or as it must, if large

segments of the population are absent from higher education, as is currently the case

when looking at the African American presidency at PWIs. We cannot realize the

possibility of open access to our colleges and universities until we are able to ensure that

African American Presidents v

access can be achieved at all levels within our institutions. The presidential voices in this

study have contributed to the current discourse in these areas and lead to a deeper and

more robust dialogue about the current state of higher education.

I have made several observations about the lives and career trajectories of these

presidents; however, the benefit of this research is to those individuals who do not have

the ability to speak to, be mentored by, or interact with, those very individuals that could

help in the development and personal career aspirations of administrators. In reading

these life histories, individuals will be able to ascertain how best to plan their entry into

administration and possibly even be able to avoid critical mistakes in their own careers.

African American Presidents vi

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Study Overview 1

Purpose of the Study 4 Background 6 Justification 9 Theoretical Foundation 13

Chapter 2: Method 17

Oral History 17 Biography: A Research Genre 24 Research Design 26

Methods of Collecting and Analyzing Data 26 Data Collection Strategies 27

Informed Consent 29 The Three-Interview Series: In-Depth Interviewing 29

Interview One: Focused Life History 31 Interview Two: Detailed Account of the Contemporary

Context 32 Interview Three: Reflections on Meaning 32

Method of Reporting 33 Mode of Analysis 34

Chapter 3: Literature Review 35

Defining the College President? 36 The Presidential Search Process 46

Description of the Search Process 46 Increasing Access to the Search Process 50

The Under Representation of African American Men at Every 58 Point in the Educational Pipeline Historical Framework 58 Current Status of African American Males in Education 63 Undergraduate College Pipeline 69 Graduate School Pipeline 71

Entering the Professoriate 72 Academic Administration 72

Chapter 4: President McDavis Interview 76 Overview of Ohio University 76 Presidential Succession 77 President McDavis Biographical Synopsis 78 Transcription of President McDavis Interview 79

African American Presidents vii

Chapter 5: President Crutcher Interview 166 Overview of Wheaton College 166 Presidential Succession 167 President Crutcher Biographical Synopsis 168 Transcription of President Crutcher Interview 171 Chapter 6: President Pelton Interview 323 Overview of Willamette University 323 Presidential Succession 324 President Pelton Biographical Synopsis 325 Transcription of President Pelton Interview 328 Chapter 7: Case Analysis and Discussion 400 Family Structure Rooted in the Black Middle Class 401 Acceptance of Campus Diversity 404 Influence of the Board of Trustees in the Search Process 408 The Importance of Presidential Charisma 409 Connections with Campus Constituents 413 Contextual Difference of an African American President at a PWI 415 Chapter 8: Summary and Implications 418 Summary 418

Implications and Recommendations 420

References 423 Appendices

A. Text of Email Sent to Participant 448 B. Informed Consent 449 C. Questions from Interview One 450 D. Questions from Interview Two 452 E. Questions from Interview Three 454

African American Presidents 1

Chapter 1

Study Overview

Throughout the history of higher education in the United States, only 282 African

American men have served as presidents of the nation’s nearly 4,000 predominantly

white institutions (PWI) (Fikes, 2004; Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005). With over

300 presidential appointments each year at two-year and four-year institutions nationally,

the number of African American presidents at PWIs is a fluid number. However, having

such a small number of African American male presidents in the entire history of

American higher education is indicative of a serious disparity. Patrick F. Healy was

appointed as president of Georgetown University in 1873; it was not until 1970, when

Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. was selected to the presidency of Michigan State University, that

another African American was selected to head a PWI. Robert Fikes (2004) indicates that

“in the decade of the 1970s the total number of Black presidents was 30; in the 1980s, 61

African Americans were appointed heads of U.S. colleges and universities. In the 1990s,

144 Black presidents of academic institutions were named. Thus far in the 2000s there

have been 44 Black appointees” (p.2). Fewer than thirty of the over 2,000 four-year,

baccalaureate degree granting, PWIs could claim an African American president as

recently as 2001 (Harvey, 2001). This figure amounts to approximately two percent of

presidential leadership positions, continuing the reality of Black under representation at

PWIs.

The increasing diversity of the nation’s general population has led to a more

diverse student body, faculty, and administration in the country’s colleges and

universities and has encouraged many to respond by creating learning environments that


support diverse cultures (Hurtado, Miliem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999). However,

at the highest levels, academic leadership has not developed similar strategies for

diversity. The college presidency continues to be a position where significant inroads

have yet to be made. Institutional mission statements often comment on the need for

diversity in their campus communities; however, these ideals are not necessarily

exhibited in administrative leadership positions throughout higher education. The college

presidency is the pinnacle of academic leadership, and while some members of minority

groups have been able to break through the proverbial glass ceiling, the need for greater

inclusiveness at the highest levels of university administration is necessary for the

continued growth and relevance of higher education (Harvey, 2001).

Some researchers point to racial discrimination as the root cause for inadequate

Black representation in positions of authority. Political and business leader Vernon

Jordan (1988) considers colleges and universities to be as discriminatory as any other

business or organization, which could account for the small number of Black presidents

at PWIs. Other qualitative studies and first-hand accounts document the trials and

experiences of Black PWI administrators, and demonstrate a consistent pattern of bias.

Poussaint (1974) studied Black administrators and found that many of them were

disenchanted and isolated in their work roles. Tucker (1980) asserted that Black

administrators were given inadequate institutional resources and power, which limited

their ability to lead and subsequently left many feeling incompetent. Davis (2003) states

that Black administrators preparing to work at PWIs must, “develop a tough skin so that

they can deal with racist behavior, personal harassment, and indignities” (p.149). Harvey

(1999) chronicled the lives and work experience of Black administrators, including


presidents, to illustrate the impact of race in their academic careers and their ability to

overcome perceived discrimination.

African Americans in general, and males more specifically, have difficulty

persisting through graduation in various segments of the educational pipeline (Massey,

2003; Orfield, 2004). According to Harper, (2007) some 67.6 percent of Black male

students who begin college never complete their degrees. Harper goes on to claim that

Black males have the worst college attrition rate among both sexes and all racial/ethnic

groups in higher education and “comprised only 4.3 percent of all students enrolled at

American institutions of higher education, the exact same percentage as in 1976”

(Harper, 2007). Literally, no progress has been made in increasing participation rates

among this population in over a quarter of a century. Therefore, there is little likelihood

of their completing graduate degrees, which ultimately qualifies them to participate in

executive-level administrative positions. Educational theorists who focus on pipeline

theory believe that the smaller numbers in the pipeline yield fewer candidates when

presidencies become vacant (Blackwell, 1988; Drummond, 1995; Robinson, 1996).

Drawing upon the scholarly literature, interviews with each participant, and related

primary and secondary documents of the scholarly literature, this dissertation examines

the life histories of three African American male presidents of four-year colleges and

universities in an attempt to infer how they achieved the presidency.

Black men who lead PWIs cope with a unique experience as a member of an

ethnic minority leading a complex organization populated by a White majority. Obtaining

the presidency and coping with the demands of the position is likely exacerbated by the

construct of race. An understanding of the life histories of these men can contribute to the


scholarship and to understanding a vexing problem in higher education and in American

society at large.

In Chapter One, I provide an introduction to the overall study, its purpose,

background, justification, and theoretical foundation. Chapter Two lays out the

methodology I used in order to complete this research project, and to answer the

questions posed above. Chapter Three reviews the literature regarding the college

presidency, the presidential search process, and the underrepresentation of African

American men in the educational pipeline. Chapters Four, Five and Six contain the

transcriptions of each of the three interviews I conducted for each participant, as well as

biographical data and an overview of each institution. Chapter Seven contains my

analysis and discussion of the relevant themes that emerged in the study. And finally,

Chapter Eight provides a summary, conclusion and implications for future study.

Purpose of the Study

This project charts the path by which three African American males become

president of four-year PWIs. This dissertation answers the following questions: how do

individual Black males become president of PWIs, and what is the personal course by

which they ascended to the presidency? What does the personal experience of African

American male college presidents tell us about the barriers to success faced by African

American males? How were these individuals able to successfully navigate the racial

context of their rise to the presidency?

My subjects include Roderick McDavis, Ronald Crutcher and Lee Pelton, three

African American male presidents of four-year PWIs. In order to ascertain the factors that


they feel most nurtured or obstructed their inherent abilities and led them successfully

through the presidential search process and to the academic presidency, I completed a

three-part interview process with each president. From their personal experience I draw

conclusions about how such people became presidents, investigating these particular

stories to identify potential trends for success that may reveal entry points that can be

taught to another generation. Their success is instrumental to identifying how the current

system nurtures or blocks potential advancement for African American males in

American academia.


Justification and Theoretical Foundation of the Project

This section examines the factors that impact the individual’s academic trajectory

that led to the presidency, and the ways campuses become willing to hire a Black

president. Here, I define educational structure and explain key terms such as pipeline and

critical mass, which are essential to an understanding of the varied forces at play in the

academic hierarchy. I examine current scholarly literature that may explain the under

representation of Black males in high-level administrative positions in the academy.

Finally, I consider various theoretical models that may add to an understanding of this

study.

Background

The higher education research literature is replete with studies about retaining and

advancing students and faculty of color (Davis, 1994; Fleming, 1984; Gregory, 1995;

Harvey, 1999; Holmes, 2004; Jackson, 2001), but little empirical knowledge is available

about engaging, retaining, and advancing administrators of color, specifically African

American males. African American men are underrepresented at every point along the

educational pipeline; this is why a contemporary examination of successful

administrators is beneficial to the current discourse surrounding black male

underperformance and underrepresentation in education. The social construct of race is a

divisive issue in American society, including within the arena of higher education. “Race

is so deeply confounded with racism that it bears enormous power in lives and

communities” (Fine, 2000, p. 112). Higher education continues to fill its historical role of

setting trends for societal change, but proactively advocating for diverse leadership in any

setting – majority or minority – is an instance where it often falls short (Harvey, 1999).


Race deeply permeates our lives and permeates higher education as well. Progress made

in integration and civil rights generally appears first in our colleges and universities.

Higher education is also the site of legal challenges and decisions that ultimately affect

other aspects of American society. Few African American men lead colleges and

universities where they are a racial minority, making further investigation of this fact

relevant and needed.

Considerable research cites the need for more diverse leadership to provide role

models for students and divergent perspectives as the academy continues to change and

develop over time (Blackwell, 1988; Brown, 1988; Rosser, 1990; Turner, 1994;

Williams, 1989). Jones (2000) asserts that future leaders must have excellent intercultural

communication skills to promote success and growth while managing a continually

diversifying work force. Research also suggests that a more diverse administration and

staff can aid majority faculty and students in developing broader perspectives about

people from non-European cultures (Blackwell, 1988; Hurtado et al., 1999). These

studies illustrate the positive impact exposure to diverse racial perspectives can have on

White students and faculty.

Despite modest increases in African American student enrollment, faculty

appointments, and administrative employment throughout higher education, the potential

for a Black male to lead a majority institution in the United States remains bleak

(Bridges, 2003). According to the Twenty-First Annual Status Report on Minorities in

Higher Education (Harvey, 2005), the number of Black students in all institutions of

higher education increased by more than 104,000 students, or 6.3 percent, from 2000 to

2001. Black graduate student enrollment increased by 30,000 students in the same


period. Blacks currently comprise over nine percent of the professional staff employed in

colleges and universities. The number of Black faculty in higher education has reached

almost 32,000, which is an all-time high. The slow, yet somewhat steady improvement of

Blacks in academia has not translated into a proliferation of Black presidents at PWIs.

Fewer than sixty African Americans have led all types of PWIs in any given year since

1970. When limited to four-year, baccalaureate degree-granting institutions, the number

has never been higher than thirty in a year, or two percent of all such institutions (Harvey,

2001) 1

Because the obstacles for African American college administrators are so

profound in their pursuit of the presidency of colleges and universities, it helps to study

specific individuals to examine what particular factors of resilience contributed to their

success. Most of the discussion to date of the managerial styles of African American

managers and college presidents is impressionistic and anecdotal (Fisher & Koch, 1996).

Those African American men who have achieved the position of president have a wealth

of information that could help deepen the level of discourse in higher education.

.

Among the range of issues concerning access to American colleges and

universities is the question: who will lead and develop policy for these institutions? Will

the leadership reflect the changing demographic shift of our country and the diversity that

most schools search for in their student bodies? Considering the many changes higher

education has undergone in the past fifty years, we are compelled to understand the

extent to which colleges and universities are engaging, retaining, and advancing diverse

constituencies to top-level administrative positions (Jackson, 2004). When the variable of

1 It is important to note that when discussing the diversity of the college presidency, I am referring to the aggregate numbers across higher education.


race is added into the discussion, the presidency can illustrate the intersection of

contested values. Presidential leadership positions in our country’s universities and

colleges can serve as an interesting cross-section of contested values in American

education.

Justification for the Study

Research about Black college administrators clearly demonstrates that race plays

a role in how they are perceived and valued (Bridges, 2003). In addition, it would appear

to play a role in how they work. According to Nelms (1999), who served as a president of

a PWI and is an African American man, his race definitely played a role in how he was

perceived by university and community members. Nelms also believes that race played a

role in his selection as president and clearly influenced perceptions of his abilities.

In almost all cases, my Caucasian colleagues and superiors have interpreted these

situations differently than I have. Without failure, they seem to be able to

rationalize away the racist behavior of a colleague while failing to understand my

reaction! In comparing notes with colleagues from other universities, I find my

experience is not unique. Indeed, every African – American CEO with whom I

am acquainted has his or her own horror stories to tell. (Nelms, 1999, p. 51-52)

Farris (1999), another African American president at a PWI, agreed with Nelms stating,

“bigotry within American institutions of higher education often appears to reflect the

state of bigotry within the nation” (p. 67). Additional life experiences such as Farris’ and

Nelms’ can be researched and corroborated through other interviews with Black male

university presidents.


The term "critical mass" refers to the existence, creation, and retention of a

significant population of underrepresented students as well as faculty and staff at

universities. The term “pipeline” is a metaphor that refers to the elementary, secondary,

post-secondary and graduate educational systems in the United States. In order to

achieve a doctorate (or comparable post-baccalaureate degree; e.g., MD, JD, MBA), the

highest degree available, a student must persist all the way through the entire educational

pipeline. To analyze the situation further, at every segment of the pipeline,

underrepresented minority students are not retained in sufficient numbers and, therefore,

lack "critical mass" at the higher levels of education. When universities or colleges are

searching for faculty members and high-level administrators, such as presidents, search

committees often blame the lack of representation of minority candidates on the “leaky

pipeline” (Massey, 2003).

When focusing on the “pipeline” one must acknowledge that issues of retention

and attrition of underrepresented students start not at the graduate level, but at the K-12

and undergraduate levels. Why is it so imperative that there be a diverse representation of

faculty among the professorate and administration? Because these groups shape the

educational philosophy, mission, and culture of any institution, their interactions with

students help mold individual perspectives and foster intellectual curiosity. Knowledge

cannot advance as it should, or as it must, if large segments of the population are absent

from higher education, as is currently the case. Therefore, the wide range of programs

and policies that have existed in higher education, since the 1960s, that have supported

the enrollment and retention of students of color may have fostered the development of

African American presidents at PWIs.


Many presidents rise to the presidency by mastering the academic hierarchy; they

first succeed as faculty members, department chairs, deans, and academic vice presidents

at traditionally white institutions (Greenwood, 2002). Historically, several key positions

have served as the means of entry to the college presidency: department chairmanship,

dean, vice presidency, and provost. This group accounts for 74 percent of the US college

presidents (Harvey, 2001). The remaining 26 percent of college and university presidents

are from a cross-section of legal backgrounds, the business world, government, and state

appointees. An understanding of pipeline issues can help explain the successes of those

select few African American men who have achieved this level of administration.

Though there are exceptions to most trends in higher education, typically high level

administrative positions are filled by individuals who have been successful as scholars

and demonstrate the capacity to contribute to the administrative leadership of a college or

university; faculty who assume these positions are of particular interest because they do

not traditionally receive pre-service2

The presidential search process in its current format privileges White men who

have either taken the traditional academic path, as described above, or have achieved at a

high level in fields such as law, business, or politics. Omi and Winant (1994) present a

or in-service training (Jackson, 2004). The

“pipeline” is of particular concern for African American males who are underrepresented

at every level of higher education, and lag behind their White counterparts in retention

and graduation rates. But very little detailed information is currently available about what

happens to African American administrators once they reach executive-level positions

(Holmes, 2004).

2 By pre-service and in-service training I am referring to specific education related to becoming a successful university administrator, e.g. the American Council of Education (ACE) Fellowship that will be discussed later in the paper.


perspective for understanding the racial formation process as a linkage between structure

and representation. They envision these linkages being made ideologically through racial

projects, which are “simultaneously an interpretation, representation, or explanation of

racial dynamics” (Omi & Winant, 1994, p. 56). According to Lee (1995) the construction

of race differs based upon the social context in which it exists. Therefore, as many

different definitions of race are possible as there are different social contexts; several

definitions of race can exist simultaneously within a particular situation: biological,

social, cultural, and political (Lee, 1995).

One reason for the disproportionately low numbers of African American male

administrators, particularly at top levels, is the low percentage of African American men

pursuing graduate or professional study, a prerequisite for almost all top administrative

positions in higher education. But the problem begins at an even earlier stage; the

recruitment and retention of African American undergraduate students is intimately

related to the recruitment and retention of faculty (Blackwell, 1988). If representation

among faculty is inadequate, there will be inadequate support systems and role models to

encourage undergraduate students to pursue graduate study necessary to obtain these

positions. The problems are cyclical; success breeds and inspires more success, but the

alternate is additionally true, the lack of success also inspires and breeds a climate of

failure.

The phenomenon of White male privilege in some measure contributes to the

under representation of African American males in lead administrative positions. Peter

McLaren (1991) points out that, “Whiteness constitutes unmarked patriarchal,

heterosexist, Euro-American practices that have negative effects on and consequences for


those who do not participate in them” (p. 67). Patriarchal White male privileged ideas

dictate much of the behavior and expectations in organizations such as universities and

colleges. According to Farris (1999), racism and sexism block the recognition of the

contributions African Americans make to academe, and hinder upward mobility to

decision making ranks. Judson (1999) reflected on his race as an ever-present construct

that is perceived and reacted to differently. Judson elaborates by saying, “ the issue of

race is never far away, and it manifests itself in many ways. This is true even for those of

us who ascribe racism to a given situation or incident only as a last resort” (p.89).

In conjunction with the issue of privilege and bias, mobility between two-year and

four-year institutions is another limiting factor in the search for candidates. Little to no

mobility exists between historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and their

predominantly White counterparts. Many HBCUs make it a point to advance

administrators of color through the professional ranks, with additional mentoring and

professional training (Harvey, 2001). But PWIs have not adopted this model and continue

to use an older paradigm, which is a more traditional approach to retaining and promoting

administrators. Since there is limited interaction between HBCUs and PWIs nationally,

having high-level experience as an administrator at an HBCU does not often provide a

sufficient credential for hiring at a PWI.

Theoretical Foundation

Multiple theories exist regarding the phenomenon of minority underperformance

and under representation in academia. These theories include the inherited intelligence

theory (Herrnstein and Murray 1996), which has been discounted by current research.

Other theories include: capital deficiency, the low family income model (Jencks, 1979;


Fischer & Koch, 1996), oppositional culture (Ogbu, 1978, 1991), stereotype vulnerability

(Steele, 1988, 1999), peer influences (Coleman, 1988), institutional attachment (Tinto,

1993), and school segregation (Kozol, 1991; Orfield, 1993).

Other theorists claim that African Americans have yet to build upon the

intergenerational resources of social capital, cultural capital, and human capital (Massey,

2003). Social capital is the tangible benefits and resources that people accrue by virtue of

their inclusion in a social structure (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Cultural capital refers

to an individual’s knowledge of the norms, styles, conventions, and tastes that pervade

specific social settings and allow individuals to navigate them in ways that increase their

odds of success (Swindler, 1986; MacLeod, 1995). Human capital refers to the skills,

abilities, and knowledge possessed by an individual (Schultz, 1963).

Education is an important source of human capital, one from which African

American men in particular have not historically benefited. “Under the precepts of

human capital theory, parents invest in their children in the same way that entrepreneurs

invest in a company, seeking to maximize their ultimate payoff- in this case the

happiness, productivity, socioeconomic status, and prestige of their descendants in

society” (Massey, 2003, p. 5).

Regardless of the model one uses, measurable differences in academic preparation

clearly exist between minority and majority students by the time they graduate from high

school. DiMaggio and Ostrower (1990) and Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell (1999)

have documented clear Black-White differences in cultural capital, also finding that these

differences were substantially explained by differences in socioeconomic background.

The capital deficiency theory posits that:


Cultural information passed on informally from one generation to the next helps

to perpetuate social stratification. Wealthy children inherit a substantially

different body of cultural knowledge compared with working class children,

especially when the latter are members of a racial or ethnic minority. Academia

in particular is a rarefied social niche with its own customs, traditions, and

expectations. Exposure to and prior knowledge of the social conventions of

academia can be critical in preparing students for achieving success in a school

environment. (Farkas, 1996, p. 5)

Without adopting a monolithic interpretation, capital deficiency theory will enable me to

construct multiple readings of my participants’ lived experiences. They have come from a

variety of cultures and family arrangements. Though capital deficiency theory has its

disadvantages and drawbacks, and may not provide answers to every problem, this theory

will allow me to examine more aspects of his subject’s experience than a single-lens

theory would allow.

In addition to cultural and social capital, race and past discrimination also

contribute to the problem of under representation. Discrimination of past generations

continues to linger such that racial issues make equality, intellectual respect, and full

participation in all areas of the academy difficult for African Americans (Holmes, 2004).

While there have been various efforts to understand leadership styles and types of

university presidents (Benezet, Katz, Magnusson, & American Council on Education,

1981; Bensimon, 1989; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Birnbaum, 1988, 1999; Fife, 1987;

Fisher & Koch, 1996; Fisher, Tack & Wheeler, 1988; Greenwood, 1996, 2002;

McLaughlin, 1990; Nelson, 2000; Neumann, 1990), this study includes the factor of race.


This study represents a contribution to the current literature because no systematic

study of the life histories of African American male college presidents and the racial

composition of the American college presidency has ever been completed. The

significance of this study lies in its description of the social, cultural, and political

dynamics encountered by African American males at the highest level of mainstream

higher education administration.


Chapter 2

Method

This section describes the methods by which I conducted the research project, and

describes the tools I used to interpret and analyze my findings. First, I detail the method

of oral history and detail the specific genre of Black biography, and explain the necessity

of each approach to this project. I then describe the research design of the project. This is

followed by an explanation of how I collected the data, analyzed the findings, and

interviewed the participants in the study. The oral history interviews are presented in the

chronological order in which they took place.

Oral History

Although oral history has been variously defined as a number of different

activities, for the purposes of this paper, oral history will be defined as a collection of

spoken memories and personal commentaries of historical significance through recorded

interviews. An oral history interview generally consists of a well-prepared interviewer

questioning an interviewee, and recording their exchange on audio or videotape (Ritchie,

1995). The first thing that makes oral history different from standard forms of history is

that the subject provides his/her interpretation of events and conversations, rather than

simply reporting the conversations themselves. This statement does not imply that oral

history is invalid. Interviews often reveal unknown events or aspects of previously

researched topics; oral histories cast new light on unexplored areas of the daily life of the

non-hegemonic classes (Portelli, 1998).

Oral history is a method that has enabled people who lack the ability or

opportunity to document their lives to contribute to the historical record of this country.


The only problem posed by oral sources is that of verification. In this project, the public

record was used to determine the accuracy of events referred to by participants.

While oral history has proliferated since World War II, it has not had a long

historical use as a device or tool. “Oral evidence not only post-dates documentation but

also pre-dates it. Before writing became commonplace, and in pre-literate societies

today, oral evidence has a unique importance” (Sheldon & Pappworth, 1986). Authors

throughout history have used eyewitness accounts of events of deep significance, e.g.

Herodotus, and Thucydides in the History of the Peloponnesian War. Although oral

evidence has been a constant feature since history began to be written, yet the tempo has

increased dramatically in recent decades (Sheldon & Pappworth, 1983).

Interviews with members of social and political elites have complemented

existing documentary sources in a variety of ways, but the most distinctive contribution

of oral history has been to include in the historical record the experiences and

perspectives of groups of people who might otherwise have been ‘hidden from history’.3

3 For surveys of oral history literature on particular historical subjects, see Rowbotham, S. (1973). Hidden from History. London, Pluto.

Through oral history interviews, working class men and women, indigenous people or

members of cultural minorities have inscribed their experiences on the historical record,

and have given their own interpretations of history. Therefore, the form of oral history

has special significance for this project. Allowing African American college presidents

the opportunity to tell their own stories and interpret their own experiences has connected

the methods of Black history, oral history, and biography into a new paradigm that allows

an inductive interpretation of primary and secondary source material. More importantly,


interviews allowed the documentation of particular aspects of the experience of my

participants which are missing from other sources.

African Americans have a special relationship with oral history due to their

systematic denial of access to education, which has historically limited their ability to

write for themselves their lived experiences. For example, I can remember my first oral

history assignment as though it happened yesterday. It was part of individual research

project in my undergraduate history of labor class. The assignment was to interview my

grandfather on his professional work experience and how that related to his life, starting

with background research on the history of the time period and my grandfather’s

occupation. My grandfather was a sharecropper from the Deep South who was illiterate

and never made it past the second grade. The dilemma I faced was immediate: how do I

interview one of the wisest men that I have ever known without insulting him or coming

off as overly academic? Though I did not know that I was conducting an oral history

interview that would later become an oral history project, I understood the importance

and the significance of what I was doing: documenting a portion of history that would be

lost to me and future generations of my family if not for my tape recorder and my

grandfather’s willingness to try to remember the experiences and be as forthright and

honest as possible. I often wonder how much more rich the data would have been if I

were not a sophomore in college and really had the knowledge and background to

conduct a more professional interview.

I mention this story because of the limited opportunity for education that an

African American man of my grandfather’s generation would have had. The expectation

of that time for many African American men was of racial and economic marginalization,


not intellectual capability. Many of today’s African American educational leaders and

their families came out of the same educational system to which my grandfather would

have been exposed. This project will be an avenue not currently available for African

American college presidents who have so positively affected the landscape of American

higher education. The connection is me: as a college student I embarked on a project that

allowed me to understand more of my grandfather’s experience; now, as a well-educated

researcher, I use these same skills and tools to hear the experiences of Black men who

have ascended to what some would think of as the highest educational office possible.

In the last fifteen years, the field of oral history has been transformed by

practitioners who have redefined the methodological, analytical, and interpretive depth of

the craft. Oral history, the most narrative of all disciplines, has moved toward a reflective

period (Thompson, 1998). Early in the oral history movement many researchers

lamented the absence of manuals for interviewers while also wondering how useful any

single book would be, since interviews with different participants would have distinctive

requirements. Now, historians, librarians, educators and a number of other groups have

contributed to the growing body of literature.

Oral history is an active process in which interviewers seek out, record and

preserve memories (Ritchie, 1995). These historians must acknowledge that with age

most individuals find it difficult to recall accurately specific times, names, and dates, thus

oral historians must conduct preliminary research to assist interviewees, give context and

structure to the questions that will be asked, and acknowledge (at that time) any seeming

misstatements and contradictions within the interview. Oral historians have had to learn

skills required for the creation of recorded interviews and to draw upon different


disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, psychology and linguistics in order to

understand the narratives of memory (Thompson, 1998). Oral history is predicated on an

active human relationship between historians and their sources, which can transform the

practice of history in many ways. “The narrator not only recalls the past but also asserts

his or her interpretation on the past, and in participatory oral history projects the

interviewee can be a historian as well as the source” (Thompson, 1998, p. 68). In some

oral history projects a primary aim has been the empowerment of individuals or social

groups through the process of remembering and reinterpreting the past, with an emphasis

on the value of process as much as on the historical product (Ritchie, 1995). Most oral

historians learn by doing, and understanding the theories of interviewing and the

interpretation of interviews has more often followed than preceded the interviewing

(Ritchie, 1995). In the case of this project, the researcher certainly came to a deeper and

richer understanding of the experiences that led to my participants’ educational outcomes.

If history were to be defined as one fourteenth-century author from India noted,

the knowledge on the annals and traditions of prophets, caliphs, sultans, and of the

great men of religion and government… low fellows, rascals, unfit people and

unknown stock and mean natures, of no lineage an low lineage, loiterers and

bazaar loafers – all these have no connection with history. (Boorstin, 1983, p. 6)

Ordinary people would never find a place or voice within it. I look at history from a

more culturally relevant standpoint; through history, ordinary people seek to understand

the challenges and changes they experience in their own lives. The challenge of oral

history lies partly in relation to this social and cultural purpose of history.


Alex Haley’s (1965) introduction to the Autobiography of Malcolm X describes

how Malcolm shifted his narrative approach not spontaneously, but because the

interviewer’s questioning led him away from the exclusively public and official image of

himself and the Nation of Islam which he was trying to protect. This illustrates the fact

that the documents of oral history are always the result of a relationship, of a shared

project in which both the interviewer and the interviewee are involved, if not necessarily

with the same objectives. Written documents are fixed; they exist whether we are aware

of them or not, and do not change once we have found them (Ritchie, 1995). Oral

testimony is only a potential resource until the researcher calls it into existence (Portelli,

1998). The content of the written source is independent of the researcher’s need and

hypotheses; it is a constant text, which we can only interpret. The content of the oral

sources, on the other hand, depends largely on what the interviewer puts into it in terms

of questions, dialogue, and personal relationship (Ritchie, 1995). As most of the research

on oral history points out, there is no one correct way to conduct an oral history project or

interview. While interviewing is, to some extent, an art, it is also a skill that can be

acquired through experience and observation; and the awareness and practice of certain

procedures can be advantageous (Sheldon & Pappworth, 1986).

If the interview is conducted skillfully and its purposes are clear to the narrators,

it is very possible for them to distinguish between the present and the past self, and to

objectify the past self as other than the present self (Portelli, 1998). Oral history is not

necessarily an instrument for change; it depends upon the spirit in which it is used.

However, oral history can be a means by which to transform both the content and the


purpose of history. Oral history is a history built around people, rather than around events

or moments.

The Oral History Association has developed principles, standards, and guidelines

to raise the consciousness and professional standards of all historians conducting oral

histories (Oral History Association, 2000). “There are interviewing skills to be learned.

There are right and wrong ways to conduct oral history. There are great differences

between usable oral histories and useless ones, and there are far too many of the latter”

(Ritchie, 1995, p. 6). Oral history is as reliable or unreliable as other research sources.

No single piece of data of any sort should be trusted completely, and all sources need to

be tested against other evidence (Ritchie, 1995).

As Ritchie (1995) points out in Doing Oral History, the quintessential guide in the

oral history field, skeptics distrust eyewitness accounts as too subjective. When historians

describe evidence as objective, they mean not only unbiased but also unchanging, such as

documents that remain the same over time even if individual interpretations change.

Subjective suggests a partial and partisan point of view, less reliable because it is subject

to alteration over time. Some social historians have accused oral historians of swallowing

whole the stories that informants tell them. They argue that a truer “people’s history”

must be based on statistical analysis and other objective data rather than a subjective

individual testimony4

4 A critique on the subjective perception of oral history by social historian Ritchie, D. A., Doing Oral History. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1995, 8.

. Ritchie makes an important distinction that the historian, with

hindsight and thorough research, perceives past events more clearly than those who lived

through them. Another problem with oral history is the over reliance on individual and

personal memory over the more traditional historical approach. Clearly, the tools of oral


history, if used appropriately, can assist the historian in presenting a full and complex

account of the historical subject.

Using the tools of oral history in addition to biographical analysis has allowed me

to present a more nuanced and complete examination of my participants than would

otherwise be possible. This dissertation is an exercise in social science research that links

methods of oral history interview, historical analysis, and biographical analysis;

culminating in both a practical and theoretical explanation of the personal experience of

African American males who have successfully negotiated the presidential search process

at PWIs and are able to contribute to the dialogue on how and why such low numbers of

African American male college and university presidents exist in American higher

education.

Biography: A Research Genre

In contemporary Black biography the details of the subject’s life cannot be

divorced from the racial and identity politics in which he or she lived. When focusing

specifically on Black biography the limiting nature of our racial history is paramount to

the actual story. For example, one cannot divorce the historical context of Plessy v.

Ferguson, the Dred Scott case, or the civil rights era from the lived experiences of Black

Americans of the time; these are seminal moments in Black history that either liberated or

constricted individual Black freedom.

In biography based upon documents alone, the need for sufficient primary sources

is imperative. However, as with any other type of research, one must sometimes

acknowledge that historians do not always have the documents they need for every


biographical subject. If a person did not leave behind letters, diaries, or other private

papers, historians must rely on the public record. As it pertains to the current study,

biography will be useful, through insufficient. This is why adding the methodological

approach of oral history, described below, is so important. Combining oral history and

biography allows the researcher to gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the

subject’s life, outside of the public record. Individuals’ perceptions of their experiences

change; oral history allows a subject to reflect and contextualize his/her life in ways not

otherwise available to the historian or biographer.

Current literature suggests that Black biography is somewhat different; history is

center stage in Black biography. Black biographers know that they are writing about a

member of a people, a concept that links identity and history. “African Americans live in

a special relationship with history. More than most biographers, Black biographers

struggle with ignorance, resistance, and disbelief as they try to initiate the average reader,

Black or White, to a nearly unknown history and a cast of characters who have frequently

been footnotes or excluded from history” (Backscheider, 1999, p. 213). Slavery and the

history of legal discrimination, tolerance of prejudices, and racism embedded in

institutions such as education and government assured that African Americans would

become a people, a political community within a nation (Backscheider, 1999, p. 211).

The traditional expectation of biography is that it be transparent, an expectation

increasingly problematic for writers dealing with racial and class identity. Hence, I did

not complete a strict biography. Since educational institutions are not neutral sites and

race is one of the most important factors influencing educational experience and

opportunity (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Kozol, 1991; Orfield, 1993), it is vital to ascertain


how much race enters the experience of my interview participants in the American

educational system. Each of these individuals successfully negotiated the college

presidency, despite the obstacles noted above. Was their success attributable more to

individual factors or institutional goals?

Research Design

This study is historical, inductive, and interpretive in nature and the unit of

analysis is the life histories of three African American male college presidents. The

research methodology utilized in this project included the method of oral history along

with biographical research. I completed a review of the public record regarding my

participants, and then wrote a short biographical analysis of each. I used oral history

interviews to deepen my understanding of the participants. As Goodley (2004) notes in

the book, Researching Life Stories: Method, Theory and Analyses in a Biographical Age,

“we know that researchers adopt a whole host of overlapping and mutually inclusive

methodological positions when they enact life story research” (p. 55). Furthermore, the

methodological approach of studying a professional group by constructing in-depth,

biographical, oral histories of individual members of the group has been used before in

higher education research5

.

Methods for Collecting and Analyzing Data

In order to complete this project I used the following methods of data collection:

First, I thoroughly examined the scholarly literature on the presidency, presidential search

5 See also: Nidiffer, J., (2000) Pioneering Deans of Women: More than Wise and Pious Matrons, & Bashaw, C., (1999) “Stalwart Women”: A Historical Analysis of Deans of Women in the South.


process, and the under representation of African American males in those regards.

Second, I collected and read secondary and primary documents both about and by the

selected participants. The materials that I collected are curriculum vita, each president’s

inaugural address, mission statements and strategic plans where available, and existing

biographical information for each participant. I completed a three-step oral-history

interview process consisting of: (1) life history interview, (2) contemporary experience

interview, (3) reflection on meaning interview. Once I completed the interviews, I

constructed the case studies of each president that form the basis for my analysis.

The interviews are printed in their entirety to lend clarity and depth to the

individual experiences of the university presidency. To publish only segments of the

work would limit the impact that the conversations in their entirety can have on the

insight and development of those who are looking to the personal trajectories for

inspiration, and for future scholars to be able to add additional interpretive frameworks to

this discussion.

Data Collection Strategies

Most university presidents are busy people with a number of competing demands

on their time; therefore, access to these individuals was somewhat limited. Some

potentially eligible participants chose not to participate in the study.

In order to confirm the participation of a sufficient number of college presidents, I

used many professional connections. I had met Dr. Freeman Hrabowski, president of the

University of Maryland Baltimore County. In addition, through my association with the

national McNair Program, I knew several other individuals who assisted in introducing


me to potential participants. These people include Dr. Robert Belle Jr., former director of

TRIO programs at the US Department of Education, and currently director of the

Compact for Faculty Diversity; William Blakey Esq., lead counsel for the United Negro

College Fund; Dr. Arnold Mitchem, president for the Council for Opportunity in

Education; Dr. Orlando Taylor, dean of the graduate school at Howard University; as

well as members of my current dissertation committee and other faculty/administrators at

the University of Rochester.

In 2007, I attended the Chronicle of Higher Education’s forum entitled The

Challenge of Presidential Leadership, and attended a number of presentations that were

germane to my topic on the college presidency. I was able to talk to several university

presidents about the search process and make some valuable connections with potential

interview participants. Specifically, Ronald A. Crutcher, president of Wheaton College,

Wallace C. Arnold, interim president of Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, James D.

Spaniolo, president of the University of Texas at Arlington, Rodney P. McClendon, chief

of staff to president at Texas A&M University and Rev. Ken Gibson, Vice President for

Mission Support at Wartburg Seminary, agreed to assist me in my research and to put me

in contact with other potential participants. In addition to the previous individuals I was

also able to communicate with Shelly Weiss Storbeck, of the search firm A.T. Kearney,

Inc., who worked with the University of Rochester on its last two presidential searches,

and who has agreed to talk with me further about the presidential search process.

In order to make contact with prospective candidates I used electronic mail, and

telephone calls. See Appendix A for the text of emails sent to participants. I contacted


five university presidents; from those five contacts I was able to solicit three participants

for my study.

Informed Consent

All participants were made aware of the kinds of information that I would be

requesting, why I requested it, the way the information would be used, and the ways in

which I expected them to participate. I obtained each participant’s signature on a consent

form (see Appendix B). Consent was voluntary and uncoerced.

The Three-Interview Series: In-Depth Interviewing

Drawing on both Schuman6 (1982) that designed the series of three interviews

that characterizes this method and allows the interviewer and participant to fully take

advantage of the experience and to place it in context, and Seidman7

6 Schuman, D. (1982). Policy analysis, education, and everyday life. Lexington, MA: Heath.

(1991) who

developed an in-depth interview approach, I used a three-step in-depth interview method

to gather data: life history, a detailed account of the contemporary context, and

reflections on meaning to further the presidents’ perspectives on their academic

presidencies. I designed three formal interviews, lasting two hours each, to allow me to

gather information about the participants’ personal, educational, cultural, professional,

and social backgrounds. The first interview allowed me to establish the context of the

participants’ experience. The second allowed the participants to reconstruct the details of

their experiences within the context in which it occurred. And the third interview

7 Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press.


encouraged the participants to reflect on the meaning their experiences held for them.

The interview questions addressed the participants’ perceptions of themselves as leaders

and of the role(s) that their experiences played in their ability to accomplish their

professional goals of becoming university presidents. I asked each to articulate their

leadership goals and what they considered to be the factors that enhanced or obstructed

their ability to navigate the educational hierarchy to become university presidents.

If one wants to know how people understand their world and their life, one needs

to talk to them. “In an interview conversation, the researcher listens to what people

themselves tell about their lived worlds, hears them express their views and opinions in

their own words, learns about their views on their work, family, life, and their dreams”

(Kval, 1996, p.6). A qualitative research interview attempts to understand the meaning of

peoples’ experiences, to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations. The

qualitative research interview is a constructive interchange of knowledge between two

persons with a mutual theme or interest.

Interviewing was my major tool for collecting data and eliciting responses.

Education researcher Irving Seidman (2006) defines the purpose of in-depth interviewing

as “not to get answers to questions, nor to test hypotheses, and not to evaluate as the term

is normally used. At the root of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the

lived experience” (p.33). He goes on to say that if a researcher’s goal “is to understand

the meaning people involved in education make of their experience, then interviewing

provides a necessary, if not always completely sufficient avenue of inquiry” (p. 11). I

used a three-step in-depth interview method to gather data: life history, contemporary

experience, and reflections on meaning to gather the presidents’ perspectives on their


academic presidencies. As Seidman (2006) notes, people’s behavior becomes meaningful

and understandable when placed in the context of their lives and the lives around them.

Without context there is little possibility of exploring the meaning of an experience

(Patton, 1990).

During the interview I used a hand-held digital voice-recording device, which

allowed me to download the interviews directly to my computer. This made for easier

transcription, and therefore more accurate interpretation. I kept field notes of the nature

of my conversations with participants, phone conversations, email correspondence and

faxed materials. This data allowed me to better reconstruct conversations with my

participants, even though they were transcribed, and provides for ease of biographical

interpretation. Participants have had the opportunity to view interview transcripts in order

to correct or clarify their views if they so desire.

Interview one: focused life history. The task of the first interview was to put the

participant’s experience in context by asking him to tell as much as possible about

himself in light of the topic up to the present time, going as far back as possible within

the two hour structured interview time (Seidman, 2006). Given that the purpose of this

approach is to have the participant reconstruct his experience, put it in the context of his

life, and reflect on its meaning, anything shorter than two hours for each interview seems

too short.

Each interview had a specific purpose, and did not deviate from the intended

scope of the interview so that a rich source of data was obtained. I had the participants

reconstruct their early experiences in their family, in school, with friends, in their

neighborhood, and at work. Because the topic of this interview study was their


experience as presidents, I focused on the participants’ past educational, administrative,

and professional development experience. In asking participants to put their presidential

experience in context of their life history, I avoided asking, “Why did you become a

university president?” Instead I asked, how they came to be president. By asking “how?”

I was able to reconstruct and narrate a range of constitutive events in their past family,

school, and work experiences that place their presidency in the context of their lives

(Seidman, 2006). See Appendix C for the list of questions used in Interview #1.

Interview Two: detailed account of the contemporary context. The purpose of the

second interview was to concentrate on the concrete details of the participants’ present

lived experience in the topic area of study (Seidman, 2006). In this phase of the interview

process, I did not ask for opinions but rather the details of the subject’s experience, upon

which their opinions may have been built. The task of the second interview was to strive,

however incompletely, to reconstruct the myriad details of our participants’ experiences

in the area we are studying.

Interview two asked the participant to put their experience within the context of

their social setting, asking them to talk about their relationships with their students, their

mentors, the other faculty in the school, the administration, the constituencies, and the

wider community. Understanding the subject’s lived experiences of the search process

and of other aspects of their lives is integral to getting at the central issue of the ways in

which these individuals successfully navigated their presidency. See Appendix D for the

list of questions used in Interview #2.

Interview three: reflections on the meaning. In the third interview, the participants

were asked to reflect on the meaning of their experience of the search process as well as


other aspects of their life in higher education. “The question of ‘meaning’ is not one of

satisfaction or reward, although such issues may play a part in the participants’ thinking”

(Seidman, 2006, p. 18). The aim was to address the intellectual and emotional

connections between the participants’ work and life. Making meaning required that the

participants look at how the factors in their lives interacted to bring them to their present

situation; it also required that they look at their present experience in detail and within the

context in which it occurs (Seidman, 2006).

The combination of exploring the past to clarify the events that led participants to

where they are now, and describing the concrete details of their present experience,

establishes conditions for reflecting upon what they are now doing in their lives

(Seidman, 2006). The very process of putting experience into language is a meaning-

making process (Vygotsky, 1987). When asking a participant to reconstruct details of

their experiences, they are selecting events from their past and in so doing imparting

meaning to them (Seidman, 2006). In interview three, focus was placed on that question

in the context of the two previous interviews, and makes meaning making the center of

the attention. See Appendix E for the list of questions used in Interview #3.

Method of Reporting

The results of the study are reported in case study narratives. Each case study

includes: a description of the participants’ institution; a presidential succession list for

each institution; a brief biography of each participant; and the transcribed text of each

oral history interview. In an effort to be more concise, non-pertinent interview text was

deleted, and noted with ellipses.


Mode of Analysis

This dissertation utilizes thematic analysis to categorize and understand the data

collected through interviews and field notes. Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to these

actions as three linked sub-processes of data analysis: data reduction, data display and

conclusion drawing/verification. Preliminary inspection of the data will be conducted to

determine the frequency of particular codes, leading to the creation of themes (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). In analyzing the themes within each case, there are two levels of

understanding at which one arrives: description and explanation (Miles & Huberman,

1994). The focus of this study, which is to understand the life histories of Black male

university and college presidents, will be revealed in the descriptions that result from

common themes.

The oral history interviews represent the richest source of information and data

collection in this project, and only used the other primary material to deepen my

understanding of the participants. This approach of bringing together the methods of

biography and oral history has allowed a substantial analysis, which would otherwise

have been impossible. The next section of the dissertation provides a thorough review of

literature relevant to the college presidency, the search process, and the academic pipeline

for African Americans.


Chapter3

Literature Review

This section begins by describing the role of the college president, then turns to a

discussion of the search process for a college president. The literature review then

proceeds to examine the educational pipeline, with a historical overview, followed by a

discussion of the under representation of African American males in undergraduate and

graduate student populations, as well as faculty and administrative positions in

predominantly white college and universities. I do this to contextualize the experiences

of African American college presidents at PWIs. The interview questions were firmly

grounding in an understanding of both the pipeline and of presidential trajectories.


Defining the College President

Higher education presidents are the chief executive officers at their respective

institutions. The position of president carries with it responsibility for the

superintendence of an institution’s statutes, the facilitation of operational needs, the

identification of new ways to develop revenue and improve existing methods, and

leadership in policy making (Cowley, 1980). This is an enormous undertaking, which can

increase in complexity when race and ethnicity are factored into the equation. A great

deal of research about the college and university presidency has been conducted from

numerous points of view since the title officially entered American higher education in

1640, when Henry Dunster was elected president of Harvard College. However, there is

an absence of significant and comprehensive research examining African Americans in

higher education presidencies, particularly at predominantly white institutions.

The typical college president is a White, Christian, male, democrat, who is at least

fifty-years old, attends religious services, is married, has a PhD, has been president for

three years, and still believes that there is an important place for affirmative action in

college admissions (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2006). He has spent eight years as a

faculty member, and then progressed through the academic hierarchy as chair, dean, and

vice president before becoming president (Harvey, 2001). The Chronicle of Higher

Education (2006) reports that 80.8 percent of all presidents are men and 88.6 percent are

Caucasian; only 6 percent are Black.

The first Black person to preside over a predominantly white college or university

was Patrick Frances Healy, a Jesuit priest. A former slave, Healy was appointed president


of Georgetown University in 1874, and it took more than 100 years before another

African American male became president of a PWI. According to the survey “American

College President: 2002 Edition,” African Americans represented 6.3 percent (149) of the

total 2,366 presidents represented in the study by race and ethnicity as of 2001, compared

to 87.2 percent (2,064) for Whites. This reflects an increase of 1.3 percent (27) for

African Americans in 2001 when compared to their 5.0 percent (122) representations in

1986 (Harvey, 2001). The total number of White presidents (2,062) in 2001 represented a

4.7 percent decrease (199) from 1986 figures (2,263), while the total number of African

American presidents increased less than one percent from 1986 (Harvey, 2001). See

appendix C for a list of all African American college and university presidents.

Understanding the nature and source of control of a college or university is

essential to understanding the presidential role as it relates to a particular institution.

In most situations, colleges and universities are formed through statutes, charters, and

constitutional provisions passed by the state, and these legal documents define the

governing board at the institution (Jackson, 2003). In doing so, vast decision-making

authority is placed in the hands of the governing board. There can be major differences

between public and private institutions as to whom and how they search for and hire

candidates. Operationally, most decisions made on behalf of the institution, including the

selection and hiring of the president, require final approval by the governing board. Over

time the decision making authority has shifted and is shared with other members of the

university such as the president and faculty. As institutions have continually become

more complex, boards have chosen to delegate de facto authority to the president.


Eventually, shared governance became a trademark of colleges and universities in the

United States (Jackson, 2003).

Presidential searches are important and the candidate that is selected plays a

critical role in the development and vision of an institution. The difference between an

effective and ineffective president can mean a great deal to a university or college.

Presidents are as Judith McLaughlin explains (1990),

the chief spokesperson for their institutions, all presidents have the opportunity to

set a tone or style of operation; to help their institutions learn about their

environment and their particular niche in this environment; to help develop and

articulate agendas for their institutions; to affect quality; to mentor and educate,

energize, frustrate, or enervate those who work for them. All presidents are the

focal point of their institutions for students, faculty, administration, …

governmental officials, and foundation heads; and they must find a workable

balance among these often divergent and contentious constituents. (p. 14)

It is obvious that presidents and their leadership do matter. Presidents are vital members

of the campus community and set the tone in a number of different ways for the campus

population and external constituencies.

However, as in any other complex organization, colleges and university

management and power structures are fluid. At some points in a college or university’s

history, the president will be more or less powerful in relation to the trustees and the

faculty. The concept of “shared governance” is a topic of debate in academic circles,

most notably in the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities which was

jointly formulated by the American Association of University professors (AAUP), the

American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of

Universities and Colleges (AGB). The statement points out that,


although the variety of some approaches may be wide, at least two general

conclusions regarding joint effort seem clearly warranted: (1) important areas of

action involve at one time or another the initiating capacity and decision-making

participation of all the institutional components, and (2) differences in the weight

and voice, from one point to the next, should be determined by reference to the

responsibility of each component for the particular matter at hand. (AAUP

Statement on Government, 1990)

Simply stated, presidents are the leaders of their institutions. College and

university presidents are symbolic heads of the institutions they lead. Fundamental to an

effective presidency, however, is the understanding of the institutional nature and

character of a college or university – how the institution is structured as a whole.

Presidents of colleges and universities in the United States are not elected but appointed,

usually after long searches (lasting about a year) conducted by committees who represent

different components of the university community. Professional search firms often

support presidential searches.

A university president is responsible to the board of trustees that appoints him or

her, with the mutual understanding that the president will fulfill the delegated

responsibilities that the board devolves to him or her (Olscamp, 2003). However, this

interpretation of the responsibilities of the president is over-simplified. “The language of

the governing documents of universities in which the president’s responsibilities are

outlined is always very broad because those responsibilities are so general that they defy

precise description before the fact” (Jackson, 2004, p. 4).


The broad job description of a president can ultimately be deduced down to one

simple concept: managing constituencies. The president must facilitate the delivery of

support services that enable the education of students to take place, such as providing an

excellent faculty and staff, maintaining and improving physical facilities such as

classrooms, laboratories, libraries, computer services, and develop a budget and making

sure that the university lives within it (Olscamp, 2003). As one president commented:

Regardless of what may appear in the charter and by-laws, the authority of the

president and his real leadership depends on the willingness of the campus to

accept him as a leader. If it will not, well there are other ways for him to earn a

living. (p. 326)

The multiple constituencies of today’s colleges and universities mandate that college

presidents possess a clear vision of the complexity of their organizations, including the

macro and micro levels of analysis from which to establish an “informed” direction

(Lewin & Regine, 2001).

Presidents in institutions of higher education have undergone significant changes

in the past thirty years, in response to social, economic, and technological changes in

society. James W. Duderstadt (2000) analyzed some of these ongoing process changes in

his book A University for the 21st Century. According to Duderstadt, former president of

the University of Michigan, the increase in the complexity of a university calls for the

recognition of the importance of modern university presidential leadership. Duderstadt

argues that change must not be driven by economic forces alone; the broader purpose of

the university, which he defined as the mission to preserve and convey heritage and to be

a social critic, must be kept in mind.


Sherry Penney (1996), the former Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts

at Boston, describes the demands that will be placed on academic leaders on the 21st

century as follows:

I see five specific challenges for academic leaders as we prepare for tomorrow’s

turbulent world. They are the necessity to: manage and enhance change; reassert

academic leadership, balance an institution’s many and varied constituencies;

raise increased amounts of funds; and respond to increasing demands for strict

accountability. Because of these five challenges, we will serve in an academic

world that bears little resemblance to what is so familiar to us today. (p. 19)

These emerging challenges only add to the traditional challenges that university

presidents have faced. One of the most pressing challenges is establishing a leadership

mandate amidst faculty control. The tradition of shared governance rests on the

fundamental principal that faculty should hold a substantive role in decision-making at

their respective universities and colleges. It has been stated that, “university faculty have

systematically made it impossible (or nearly so) for deans and presidents to lead or to

administer, and the better the university, the less it is led” (Griffiths, p. 37). Clark Kerr

(1986), former Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley went so far as to

say that, “the key to innovation lies in the battleground between administrative leadership

and faculty conservatism” (p. 5-6).

Although presidential functions are categorized in various ways, it appears that

they fit into four basic categories identified by Cowley (1980); these categories are

superintendence, facilitation, development, and leadership in policy making. The function

of superintendence involves the exercising of general overseeing and direction of the

institution. Presidents have responsibility for all the activities of their respective

institutions. Although presidents carry out little of the work themselves, trustees and the


general public hold them responsible for everything done by everyone within the

institution.

Facilitation is the second function; it involves ministering to the needs of faculty

and other institutional units. “This facilitation encompasses developing and establishing

administrative structures which allow satisfaction of goals and objectives, including

instructional, financial, and support services” (Robinson, 1996, p. 15). If effective

structures are in place, presidents are in a better position to assume the critical roles of

development and policy making.

The third function of the presidency is development, which is often considered the

most important of all. As Kelly (1991) points out, colleges and universities are

increasingly being challenged to develop sophisticated capital campaign programs, to

secure grants for research, and to maintain positive government relations, as a means of

supplementing state appropriations and combating rising capital requirements. “For

private colleges, trustees and faculty often seek presidents who can develop new sources

of revenue; for public colleges, presidents are expected to establish effective and thus

profitable relations with government officials” (Cowley, 1980, p. 64). Cowley continues

to elaborate on the role of the president and development:

The President of a college is the only person who has a total view of its

work. Professors see primarily their own specialties and have glimpses of

those of their friends; department heads concentrate upon their

departments and deans upon their colleges; and the trustees primarily give

their attention to financial and material matters. No one but the president

sees the whole, and hence he or she has the best opportunity and the most

insistent obligation to plan for the future. To be equal to this opportunity

and obligation the president must be a student of social and educational


trends and apply his or her scholarship to the development of the

institution at large. (p. 66)

Leadership in policy making is the fourth and final presidential function, as

characterized by Cowley. Although trustees have the final word in determining policy,

and faculty propose almost all-academic policy to boards of trustees, presidents are still

expected to take a leadership role. Robinson (1996) points out in his dissertation that,

“All groups associated with colleges and universities look to them for leadership, and no

one respects those who do not exert it or whose proposals fall short of obvious needs”

(p.69).

Much of the discourse surrounding the office of the presidency classifies the

individuals into three fundamental types – the external, the political, and the academic –

although they always overlap (Olscamp, 2003). The external president focuses primarily

on the nonacademic constituencies of the university, such as the legislature, the business

community, and the alumni as well as financial supporters. The political president usually

focuses on the external constituencies of the university more than the internal ones and

may relinquish the practical everyday reins of management control (Olscamp, 2003).

The political president sees himself leading groups in competition for control and

governance, scarce resources, standards and contracts and so on, and views his role

largely as a mediator who subtly influences and guides these groups to compromises. The

political president is usually never involved in curriculum development or research, and

is heavily involved in fund-raising and, in public schools, lobbying, even in regional state

systems (Olscamp, 2003).


The academic president concentrates much more on internal and management

matters than external ones, although fund-raising and speaking to public groups are

unavoidable for any kind of president. Academic presidents are members of the faculty

and frequently teach a regular academic course and participate in disciplinary research

(Olscamp, 2003). Traditionally, the academic president reviews all hiring, tenure and

promotion decisions, and rarely overturns decisions that have been readily approved at

earlier steps in the process; their primary concern is the academic excellence of the

university. Of the three types of presidents, the academic president is the most vulnerable

to external pressures, because they do not spend the time to build external support that the

political presidents do (Olscamp, 2003).

As Judith McLaughlin makes note in her critical evaluation of the search process

in Choosing a College President: Opportunities and Constraints, America’s first colleges

were small, easily managed, uncomplicated organizations. The University of Michigan

was the largest public institution in the country in 1850 and had only twenty faculty

members. By 1870 the nation’s colleges and universities only averaged ten faculty

members and approximately ninety students (McLaughlin, 1990).

As campuses gradually grew they changed in size and complexity, and so did the

processes by which they were run. As Michigan and Harvard quadrupled their student

bodies their enrollment soared to more than five thousand; with the increased student

enrollment, administrative duties began to be delegated to other administrators and

academic assignments were made more formal. “With the rise of the modern university,

the nation’s most distinguished institutions of higher learning were led by generations of

builders. William Rainey Harper, David Starr Jordan, and Daniel Coit Gilman, through a


rare combination of energy and intellect, determinedly—sometime autocratically –

directed the destinies of their institutions” (McLaughlin, 1990, p.xvii).

With the expansion of higher education after World War II came an increase in

the number of administrators. Jobs that had never existed in colleges and universities to

this date, such as financial aid, computer center directors, grant administrators, bursar,

facilities, and athletics are now a staple of the university structure. “The added layers,

while essential, diluted the force of leadership as presidents became increasingly isolated

from both academic and social functions on the campus” (McLaughlin, 1990, p. xxii).

The office of the president became more about the managerial functions then that of

scholarship.

Presidential attention in recent years has been driven by mandates of expansion,

their day-to-day tasks are almost single-mindedly on the financial aspects of the

institution; they assert that, the modern president has become preoccupied with external

constituencies. Academic responsibilities, once the major concern of the president, have

been delegated for the most part to the dean and provost level. The comprehensive role of

a president has only heightened the complexity already associated with the position.

Extensive literature on educational administration recognizes a succession of presidents

worn down, driven out, or in distress (Hahn, 1995). Statistical reports indicate that

presidents today serve at a single institution for about 5 to 7 years, representing a much

more limited tenure than that of the previous generations of college and university

presidents (Basinger, 2001). In view of these changes and challenges in higher education

today, Fischer (1996) suggests that we focus on the importance of the organizational

mission, structure, and cultural traditions of colleges and universities as well as individual


characteristics of their presidents when measuring leadership effectiveness. According to

Fincher, the personal qualities and professional experiences of individual leaders interact

with the organizational structure to produce a desired outcome. For example, Birnbaum

(1999) emphasizes the understanding of the culture of an institution as a key strategy to

assess the leadership effectiveness of a president.

The Presidential Search Process

The search process for top academic positions grew out of a dream common to

many in higher education: that at another college or university in the country there is the

perfect person who needs to be cajoled into considering an open position. As American

higher education has transitioned to the era of the modern president it is even more

imperative than in prior generations to insure that the presidential search leads to a

candidate that understands and can relate to the institutional mission, goals, and clearly

articulate the intended direction of the college or university. Too many times the

freighted process of the presidential search leads to a bad institutional fit, the past pulls of

constituents can sabotage a search process. A president will only be as successful as a

university allows him/her to be, and success is measured differently from one president to

the next.

Description of the Search Process

The search for a college or university president is as varied and as complex as the

over 3,000 institutions themselves. However, as varied as the individual processes are,

there are commonalities shared by all searches. In general, searches are initiated by a


board of trustees (or in the case of public institutions, by regents or boards of governors).

Most boards of trustees will employ one of two committee structures: the single search

and selection committee, or the two-tiered advisory/selection process. In either case,

campus constituencies (faculty, administrators, alumni, undergraduate and graduate

students) are represented in some fashion on the search committee. In extremely rare

cases, presidents will be selected directly by the trustees, without the input of others; for

example, the 1990 Harvard University search (McLaughlin, 1990).

The processes of a search vary depending on the type of institution and its

particular circumstances. Search firms have long been part of the corporate scene; over

time they have gradually entered into higher education and made substantial inroads into

an already convoluted search process. Today, more than half of all colleges and

universities retain search counsel to assist in their presidential searches (Perry, 2003).

Typically, this processes falls into one of two broad categories: corporate or educational

search models.

Having evolved from within the academy over many years and created before

today’s pervasive use of search counsel, the educational model is heavily process-

oriented. This means significant involvement of the committee and all of the institution’s

constituencies (Perry, 2003). Among the advantages of this model is the opportunity it

offers to strengthen the institutions through a campus-wide interaction with the process

and ultimately to provide a mandate for the new chief executive (Perry, 2003). The

downside to this model is the tendency of committees to pay so much attention to process

and accompanying details that they lose sight of the high-quality result that they are

seeking (Perry, 2003). Other critics go further, asserting that the involvement of so many


groups, each with a separate sense of entitlement, tends to breed the candidate that

embodies none of the qualities, a sort of least common denominator and the result is a

compromised choice.

The corporate model is vastly different than the educational model. Created in the

business world, the model emerged after corporate headhunters were contracted to

identify and attract executive talent. The focus was on a candidate’s skills and

motivation, with the authority for the final hiring decision often resting with a single

individual (Perry, 2003). When corporate search firms began entering the higher

education market more than twenty years ago, they adapted their approach but retained

the emphasis on the cultivation and presentation of candidates. An advantage of this

model is that it has a good probability of generating high-quality candidates based in part

on the firm’s capacity to protect confidentiality. There are horror stories within higher

education about when confidentiality between a prospective candidate and the university

is broken. The disadvantage to this model is the lack of constituent involvement,

particularly of faculty, which could later work against the new president by not giving

him or her a mandate with the faculty. For example, say that the governing board of a

large private university retains a search firm that uses the corporate model. After several

concerns are raised, the board opts for a confidential process that relies on a selection

committee composed of only trustees and search counsel with expertise in identifying and

attracting top candidates. In an attempt to keep everyone informed in the process, the

trustees occasionally release status reports on the process.

As one can suspect, there is a great difference between reading general

information and serving on a committee that speculates about individual candidates and


reviews and analyzes the credential of nominees and applicants. Throughout the process,

faculty members may feel left out. Once a candidate is selected, despite their

qualifications, resentment is likely to exist. Regardless of which process an institution

selects, the flaws will remain, and may cause the same kinds of difficulty.

The synergistic effect is created at the intersection of headhunters, corporate search firms,

governing boards, faculty, students, the under representation of the African Americans in

the educational pipeline and in top administrative positions, and is in fact an important

reason that there is such a stark variance between the number of White and African

American chief executives.

The search committee can be constructed as the board sees fit. Typically, the

committee will be comprised of some combination of trustees, faculty members, alumni,

students, and administrators. Regardless of the ultimate composition of the committee,

however, it is clear that in order for the search to be considered valid, (and the choice of

president legitimate), important institutional stakeholders must be included in the process.

However the committee is organized, its members must educate themselves fully about

the institution’s mission and vision, as well as the hiring process for chief executive

officers in higher education. Needless to say, these are not competencies the typical

faculty member or student already has.

Once the committee has been finalized, they will then construct a list of

qualifications and prerequisites that outlines the ideal candidate for that particular

institution at that particular moment in time. One of the decisions made by the committee

is how they will set about narrowing the pool; will they utilize a search firm? If so, the

search firm will handle all advertisements, contacts, correspondence, and will create a


dossier of appropriate applicants, based on the qualifications summary that the committee

has provided. If not, that responsibility lies within the committee itself. The increasing

burden associated with screening candidates has led to higher education’s increasing

dependence on search firms. One of the intricacies of the search is the level of

confidentiality provided to each candidate at each stage of the process; confidentiality is

primarily governed by the institution’s status as either public or private.

Eventually, the list of potential candidates is winnowed, either by external

consultants or by members of the committee. A short list of candidates is invited to meet

either on or off campus with subsets of campus constituencies. Ultimately, the board of

trustees decides on the new chief executive officer. The process, which usually takes a

full calendar year, is subjective at every turn, and as the data confirmed, most often

results in the hiring of a White male.

One conclusion that can be made after examining the search is that there is no

one-size fits all approach that works for all organizations. When defining the nature of a

search, schools, institutional culture, faculty, students, external constituencies and boards

all matter, to what degree depends on the respective institution. One can clearly evaluate

presidential searches by evaluating those searches on the margins, those that are

exceptional and those that are truly flawed.

Increasing Access to the Search Process

Despite decades of progress in opening opportunities for women and minority

presidents, many presidents and observers of the institution note that those efforts to

diversify top leadership on campus continue to hit major roadblocks. In recent years, 25


percent of newly hired presidents have been women. As mentioned previously, the

numbers of minority presidents rose from 8 percent to 11 percent from 1986-98. Those

minority incumbents now comprise 6.3 percent African Americans, 0.9 percent Asian

Americans, 3.2 percent Hispanics, and 0.9 percent Native Americans (Harvey, 2001).

The reasons for this slow pace of change include everything from old-fashioned

prejudice, to a limited pool of qualified and experienced female and minority candidates

(outside of HBCUs and women’s colleges), to a reluctance among board search

committees and executive search firms to consciously promote minority prospects. In an

interview, UR Vice President Paul Burgett referenced the fact of tokenism in the

selection and interview process as a major reason of reluctance for many minority

candidates; minority candidates sometimes sort themselves out of the competition. Many

top minority executives have expressed that they are reluctant to leave a rewarding

situation for an uncertain one. In some presidential searches the language of inclusion and

diversity are simply idle chatter; advertisement of positions are sent to prospective

minority men and women candidates to give the perception that they are actively sought,

with no real intention of selecting diverse candidates. “These search committees care

more about the statement they are making when they include women and ‘candidates of

color’ on their short-list of finalist, than they do about the candidates themselves who,

having been used in this fashion, are understandably reluctant to enter future searches

where are uncertain as to their real standing” (McLaughlin, 1990 p. xxxii).

Obviously the goal of diversity remains elusive; as many as 80 percent of U.S.

college presidents are men and a similar percent of the members of the boards of trustees

(Corrigan, 2002). Clearly some minorities are selected to the presidency because of their


experience, skills, and personal attributes make them the best candidates. Jean Dowdall

(2002), Senior Vice President, Will/Kieffer Executive Search Firm points out that,

The best candidate doesn’t always win … Other factors that increase the chances

of selecting candidates who also bring diversity to institutions are: institutional

commitment, willingness to take risks, candidates with steady and comprehensive

experience, personal presence, skills that are critical in a particular search, and

credible references. (p. 16)

Examining some of the above-mentioned factors such as institutional commitment

and a university’s willingness to take risks, diversity appointments are more likely if

there is a preexisting and well-known commitment on the part of the appointing officer

and/or key board members. “While a search process that has no such advocates

occasionally makes appointments that advance diverse candidates, such outcomes are far

more common when the search committee states its commitment” (Dowdall, 2002 p. 16).

Search consultants play a very important role as well; they have the possibility of

preventing the files of strong female and minority candidates from being discarded too

quickly.

Some committee members are willing to select someone who not only is different

in gender or ethnicity but also in such aspects as entrepreneurial spirit, institutional

ambition, or professional background. Dowdall (2002) points out that a voice on the

committee that encourages risk taking also can function as a voice of diversity;

institutions facing serious troubles (an enrollment decline, financial strain, internal

conflict) are sometimes more inclined to take risks. Candidates who do not represent a

traditional way of thinking can bring a new perspective to the job.


The presidential pool of talent is limited, meaning that search groups try to find

candidates with solid and varied experiences. Typically committees and search firms are

looking for good academic credentials, leadership and management skills, and external-

relations capabilities (with significant attention going to the ability to fund-raise). With

the shortage of African Americans in leadership positions throughout higher education at

predominately white institutions has become a problem. The minority candidates who do

make it through the process will be scrutinized closely and perceived gaps or

shortcomings in their experiences and skills in all areas are more likely to eliminate them

from the process (Jackson, 2004).

A number of African American presidents spoke of the benefits derived from

participating in leadership development programs. As described in an article by Jerlando

Jackson (2004), four of them had been in the American Council on Education (ACE)

Fellows Program. One male president attributed his being considered for certain positions

to being an ACE Fellow saying, “I am certain that my having been an [ACE] Fellow was

a definite plus on my vita. It came up during the interview. Some institutions seem to

value the extra training received as a participant in leadership development programs.”

He goes on further to explain, “I think they [hiring officials in White institutions] feel

more comfortable knowing that someone else has validated your ability and effectiveness

as a leader” (p. 13). The ACE Fellowship Program serves as a mechanism to help

colleges and universities groom their middle-management leaders in becoming more

adept and comfortable in implementing management, organizational, and governance

changes that confront postsecondary institutions (Harvey, 1999). Ruffin indicated that

since its inception, 205 of the 1,215 ACE Fellows (17 percent) have been African


Americans, and approximately twenty-five of them have gone on to become college and

university presidents. One president suggested in a study that a primary benefit in

participating in these types of programs is the opportunity to develop a strong

professional support network.

Personal presence can be a very significant factor for a candidate in a search

process. A candidate who has a personal presence and a style that fits with the

institutional culture can win over hesitant committee and board members (Dowdell,

2002). Most board members will eventually have to ask themselves, “How will I feel

introducing this new president to a prominent (usually White, male) corporate CEO?”

Candidates with an extra measure of the skills deemed essential for the next president can

overcome resistance from those not eager for an appointment made primarily to advance

diversity.

The question of qualification is a difficult one to address and in many cases

contrived to be so (Perry, 2003). Robert Perry, President of RH. Perry and Associates,

elaborates on the situation, “those of us engaged in presidential searches know that there

are a great many more highly qualified women and minorities ‘out there’ than the

presidential numbers suggest - very likely by a factor of two” (p. 15). If this is the case,

why does the problem of correcting the imbalance still persist? One significant factor is

the problem of tokenism. Consider this common scenario give in the article entitled,

Roadblocks on the Road to Diversity (2002): A governing board and search committee

state a strong desire to include women and minorities in their search. The search counsel

presents four or five such candidates among the top twelve to fifteen. The committee

selects seven or eight semifinalists, including three women and/or minorities, and after


interviewing them chooses four finalists, one a minority or a woman. The board and

committee are pleased with the slate, and a White male is selected as the institution’s next

president. There is only one way in which the example given above is atypical. The

search counsel tries to target minorities and women in the effort to identify four or five

for inclusion among the top candidates. “Unfortunately, this example has repeated itself

so often over the years that minorities and women become frustrated and opt out of

searches,” which, Vice President Burgett of the University of Rochester explains,

happens with great regularity. In fact, this situation has occurred to him on more than one

occasion.

This represents a major challenge for search firms and committees:

gaining the board’s confidence so that members may speak to search consultants

frankly. Only then will the institution go beyond encouraging search firms to

recruit women and minorities by admitting to them the barriers to the acceptance

of such candidates, so the firm can realistically help prepare the candidate for the

search. (Perry, 2003 p. 15)

Search firms can be a valuable tool in finding qualified minority candidates and are

uniquely positioned to do so, when given the opportunity to fully evaluate minority

candidates on their potential and skill rather then just their color.

One serious problem identified in the current literature that impedes African

American candidates’ success is that of the “star syndrome,” or finding the best

candidates. As Maria Perez of the Principal, Perez-Arton Consultants, Inc., suggests,

“Most institutions conducting presidential searches want to be sure they have appointed

the best candidate. While no one knowingly would appoint the worst candidate, the word


best often takes on a different meaning when women and minorities are under

consideration” (Perry, 2003 p. 16). The term best usually refers to the individual who fits

most comfortable with the institution and possesses the administrative and leadership

skills the institution needs most at the time. To the contrary, when minorities are in the

pool of applicants they usually become serious contenders only when they fit the

dictionary definition, meaning they surpass all others in quality (Roadblocks, 2002).

Minorities, in particular, are often required to be stars in order to be selected. “Fit” is

explicitly recognized as a valid criterion in most search processes. The problem is that the

concept of fit naturally tends to perpetuate existing norms built upon past prejudices, if

not current ones.

As the expectations for presidential candidates to be successful fund-raisers for

their institutions continues to grow, the necessity for colleges and universities to seek out

stars as their leaders has also grown. “Yet if one looks at the candidates actually

appointed to presidencies, one finds few stars of regional, national, or international

renown; few stars of the sciences, arts, social sciences, humanities, or any of the myriad

fields in academia; and few stars of business, industry, and government” (Roadblocks,

2002, p. 16). However, what one will find at most universities are presidents that are

competent, knowledgeable, and seasoned academic administrators (Roadblocks, 2002).

The reason that higher education is so vibrant, distinctive, and valued is that we

celebrate diversity among institutions, students, and faculty; not just racially but

intellectually, creatively, and epistemologically. However, achieving racial, ethnic, and

gender diversity among college and university administrative leaders remains an

unfulfilled possibility. Many campus stakeholders still ask the question of whether a


person of color can successfully lead an institution. Many institutions claim to want a

diverse search pool and are ready to accept minority candidates in theory. In actuality

most universities have not asked the internal institutional question: are we ready and

prepared to support a candidate for president who is nontraditional? “As a matter of

institutional culture, geography, and philosophy, some institutions frankly are not

prepared, in the final analysis, to support a minority president” (Greenwood, 2002, p. 6).


The Under Representation of African American Men at Every Point in the Educational

Pipeline

Historical framework

Americans have historically understood the importance of higher education to the

nation and its citizens. In 1787 delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated the

creation of a national university that would have established an “educational federalism”

to mirror the relationship of the federal government with states and localities (Hofstadter

& Smith, 1961; Rainsford, 1972; Ellis, 2001). The delegates rejected a national

university and as the Constitution was ratified it made no mention of higher education.

However, at key points in each of the three previous centuries, the nation harnessed

higher education for economic growth and social good. In one of its earliest acts,

Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, which provided land grants to fund

institutions of higher education (Rainsford, 1972). With the advent of westward

expansion Congress expended its all ready existing practice of providing resources to

higher education through land grants in the first Morrill Act of 1862. This act, and the

subsequent Morrill Act in 1890, gave rise to a system of public universities in each state

to ensure agricultural and economic development” (Ravlin, 1961, p. 5). Reflecting on the

educational discourse of the nation, Horace Mann recognized the power of education,

asserting that education “beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer

of the conditions of man” (Mann, 1867).

In the 1960s, the nation faced a crisis of opportunity and equity. Income, as well

as race and ethnicity played a substantial role in determining college attendance.

Minorities were significantly underrepresented in four-year institutions and were

overrepresented at less selective institutions, a pattern that could not be explained by


variations in ability (Gladieux & Wolanin, 1976). In response to this crisis of opportunity,

the nation promised lower-income students that they would no longer face financial

barriers to higher education that exceeded those of their middle- and upper-income peers,

as expressed in the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Fitzgerald & Delaney,

2002). The justification for creating the 1965 Act was articulated by two distinct policy

justifications—economic opportunity and social equity. “Policymakers focused on

economic opportunity because the invisible hand of the capitalist market would not

provide adequate opportunities for individuals to attend college” (Wolanin, 2001, p. 6).

The positive externalities of secondary and postsecondary education are a flexible work

force, a more informed citizenry, a lower level of crime, a higher level of public health,

and overall increased economic productivity (Wolanin, 2001).

Ironically, today’s challenges are not significantly different to those faced nearly

forty years ago when the nation’s first comprehensive commitment to access to higher

education was first articulated in the Higher Education Act of 1965. The Higher

Education Act was propelled by concerns that are virtually identical to the challenges that

face our nation’s institutions today: swelling enrollments, inadequate capacity on college

campuses, and the recognition that financial barriers severely restrict the access to higher

education (Fitzgerald & Delaney, 2002). The current debate over higher education

funding and access, is, in many ways, as old as the history of higher education in

America.

The Higher Education Act was initially passed in 1965 as an omnibus bill

authorizing a variety of institutional, student, and programmatic aid programs for higher

education. It was subsequently amended in 1972 and reauthorized in 1980, 1986, 1992,


1998, and 2006. When HEA was initially adopted in 1965, the Democrats controlled the

White House and Congress and had mobilized public support for dramatic changes in

domestic policy on behalf of “The Great Society.” Overshadowed by Medicaid, the

Voting Rights Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, HEA was passed

with little debate and signed by President Johnson at his alma mater, South West Texas

State College, in November 1965. Incremental even then, HEA in 1965 brought together

a variety of existing student aid programs designed to meet earlier national educational

needs. The federal work study program, for example, began during the Depression to help

students pay for college; the 1944 GI Bill allowed returning veterans to continue their

education and met twin national goals of obligation and economic development; World

War II produced a student loan program in disciplines with manpower shortages; the

National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 provided grants and loans to students

in education and the science as a national defense response to Sputnik. President

Kennedy introduced what became the National Education Facilities Act of 1963 to help

universities cope with the resulting enrollment boom.

Even the issue of access for low-income students was not new. President

Truman’s 1947 Commission on Higher Education had issued a stirring challenge to make

“Equal education opportunity for all persons…a major goal of American democracy.”

Truman’s 1947 report was echoed and reaffirmed by a similar Eisenhower administration

study, yet the goal of equal opportunity legislation foundered. Struggling to control the

growing civil rights movement, President Kennedy proposed need-based grants in the

name of “equal opportunity” in 1963, but his ideas were dropped in the Senate over


concerns about redistributing funds from rich to poor and from public to private

institutions (Wolanin & Gladieux, 1976).

By 1965 both the players and the environment had shifted. Concerns about

redistribution were swept away by the recasting of the issues of equal opportunity in

terms of civil rights and the national war on poverty. Congress followed President

Johnson’s lead in launching a variety of efforts to make it possible for able students from

disadvantaged backgrounds to go to college. Franklin and Ripley argue that the

enactment of general-purpose aid for need students was possible because “the

redistributive focus was shifted away from race and religion to poverty; and the

distributive features were emphasized” (Franklin and Ripley, 1991, p. 144-147).

In the 1972 Amendments the access goals of HEA ’65 were strengthened,

culminating in far-reaching changes. The HEA of 1972 established equal opportunity as

the principle focus of federal policy toward higher education, thereby deciding the long

standing debate over institutional versus student aid in favor of students. The ’72

Amendments created a system of federally funded Basic Educational Opportunity Grants

(BEOG), to assure every able and needy student a set amount of aid to help meet college

costs. These grants were awarded to students regardless of the institution in which they

were enrolled, thus incentivizing the enrollment of low-income students (who were

largely from minority backgrounds) at selective colleges and universities. Without this

particular government intervention, it is highly unlikely that colleges and universities

would have sought to diversify their student bodies, or that the numbers of students from

low-income families who enrolled in college in the decades following the 1965 Act

would have increased as substantially as they did.


The 1980s inaugurated a new phase of federal-higher education relations reflected

in Congress. According to Wolanin (1996), the reauthorization of the HEA in 1980 was

particularly important, politically and philosophically, for the adoption of two key

concepts regarding eligibility for participation in a number of educational access

programs. The first of these was consideration of students’ status as the first in their

families to pursue higher education (first-generation college students or candidates). The

second was consideration of students’ prior performance. The first-generation college

criterion was important as a determinant of the educationally disadvantaged, Wolanin

(1996) notes, because it shifted eligibility requirements in a more encompassing direction

by looking at the origin and impact of non-financial barriers to access and success in

postsecondary education. The prior performance criterion motivates students to achieve a

minimum grade point average and the maintenance of a minimum number of credit hours

in order for the continuation of financial aid. Thus programs in support of the

educationally disadvantaged could serve an expanded population, and the students served

had increased performance requirements.

The end of the 1980s added a preoccupation in Congress with the growing

federal deficit and the U.S. Department of Education, some members of Congress argued

that education was a state issue, and that high levels of federal funding for educational

access programs was inappropriate and wasteful. These conflicting political agendas

ultimately manifested themselves in minimal changes in the HEA. Democratic supporters

of higher education in Congress worked to focus the 1986 reauthorization on minor

points of implementation in fear of White House intervention if access issues were

emphasized. The 1986 HEA, and the Reauthorization and Budget Reconciliation Acts in


1988 and 1990, raised loan limits and interest rates, but also reinstituted income caps for

guaranteed student loans (GSL), tightened loan disbursement and collection procedures,

and added restrictions on students, lenders, and institutions to deal with an alarming

increase in defaults. The 1988 Amendments renamed the GSL program for Senator

Robert Stafford. Preparation for the 1992 HEA reauthorization, therefore, began with a

legacy of access which had been fundamentally compromised by a decade of divided

political power, anti-education sentiment, and more severe budget restrictions (McAdam,

1992, p. 109).

Subsequent reauthorizations in 1992, 1998, and most recently, this year, have

been increasingly fraught with partisan posturing, and have rarely resulted in either

philosophical consensus on important issues facing higher education, or in dramatic

changes to the Act. In fact, the Act was scheduled for reauthorization in 2004, but

changes were not agreed upon until the middle of 2006. Alongside of the battle for

reauthorization is the annual budget appropriations process. President Bush has

consistently targeted a large number of programs (48 in FY 2007) that serve low-income

and otherwise disadvantaged students for zero funding. Because these programs enjoy

widespread support from members of both political parties, however, funding for a

number of them has been retained.

Current Status of African American Males in Education

African American males are often categorized as a population that is at-risk in

American society (Bailey & Moore, 2004; Davis, 2003; Moore, 2003, 2004). Based on

national statistics on unemployment, education, incarceration, and mental and physical


health, African American males face numerous challenges (Hoffman, Llagas, & Synder,

2003). Depictions of African American males as endangered, uneducable, dysfunctional,

and dangerous dominate populate popular and academic culture, and negatively impact

the perceived ability and subsequent behavior of African American males (Bailey &

Moore, 2004; Moore, 2000; Moore & Herndon, 2003) and impede their social and

economic mobility. Therefore, it is no surprise that African American males often

experience difficulty in social domains such as education (Jackson, 2003; Jackson &

Crawley, 2003; Moore, Flowers, Guion, Zhang, & Staten 2004; Moore, Madison-

Calmore, & Smith, 2003; Noguera, 2003).

Throughout the educational pipeline today– elementary, secondary, and

postsecondary—in the United States, many African American males lag behind both their

African American female and White male counterparts (Ferguson, 2003; Hrabowski,

Maton, & Grief, 1998; Polite & Davis, 1999). They are often more likely than any other

group to be suspended or expelled from school (Meier, Stewart, & England, 1998), to be

under represented in gifted education programs or advanced placement courses, to

underachieve or disengage academically (Ford, 1996), and to experience the most

challenges in higher education settings as both students and professionals (Flowers &

Jones, 2003; Hrabowski et al., 1998; Jackson, 2003; Jackson & Crawley 2003; Steele,

1997).

Education is currently more important to the plight of African American men than

it has been any other time in American history. For most Americans, and for under

represented Americans particularly, the level of education one reaches largely determines

the degree of social mobility that one will have (Jackson & Moore, 2006). As Jackson


and Moore (2006) point out in African American Males in Education: Endangered or

Ignored? quality of life tends to be highly correlated with one’s educational attainment.

Considerable research has documented the educational experiences of African

American males as students and educational providers (Jackson, 2003). However, the

existing body of knowledge is both limited and disjointed. Scholars neglect to

collectively explain the educational experiences of African American males throughout

the educational pipeline. The higher education research literature is replete with

recommendations for retaining and advancing students and faculty of color (Davis, 1994;

Fleming, 1984; Gregory, 1995; Harvey, 1999; Holmes, 2004; Jackson, 2001). With that

said, little empirical knowledge is provided for engaging, retaining, and advancing

administrators of color, specifically African American males. While there is a small but

growing body of literature that explores aspects of African American administrators in

two- and four-year institutions (Holmes, 2004; Miller, & Creswell, 1998; Opp, & Gosetti,

2002; Vaughan, 1989; Williams, 1989), not many studies focus on the impact of the

search process. An examination of the status of African Americans in leadership

positions and how they become university and college CEOs through the presidential

search process is needed to help facilitate the development and advancement of the next

generation of leaders. For many in higher education, the college presidency is viewed as

the pinnacle of academic administration and can serve as a benchmark of status for

African Americans and other people of color in the academy (Wilson, 1987).

Jackson (2003) explored the educational pipeline of African American males to

determine its ultimate impact on their participation in administrative diversity. He

concluded that a serious breakdown occurs for this group at the higher education level,


such that their level of participation places them in jeopardy in the remaining phases of

the pipeline. In other words, because African American males have difficulty persisting

through graduation in various phases of the educational pipeline, the chances of their

completing graduate degrees, which ultimately qualifies them to participate in executive-

level administrative positions, is at risk (Jackson, 2003).

Nationally, only half of all Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans who enter

ninth grade will graduate with a diploma in a four-year period (Orfield, 2004). For

minority males the national graduation rates are significantly lower: Black, Native

American, and Hispanic males have graduation rates of 43 percent, 47 percent, and 48

percent respectively (Orfield, 2004). These patterns can be traced throughout the

educational pipeline all the way through graduate study. The gender difference within

racial groups can be as large as 20 points, with males of every racial group consistently

faring worse than females. A recent national study, Losing Our Future: How Minority

Youth are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis, reports that, at the national

and state levels, the racial gap in graduation rates between Whites and most minority

groups is pronounced: the national gap for Blacks is 24.7 percentage points; for Hispanics

21.7 percentage points; for Native Americans 23.8 percentage points. Despite wide

ranges within some states, nearly every state shows a large and negative gap between

Whites and at least one minority group, with the largest being in New York with a

differential of 40.2 percent between Whites and Blacks (Losing Our Future, 2004).

At a district and school level low graduation rates show a strong correlation with

indicators of school segregation and this relationship is independent of poverty (Orfield,

2004). Moreover, in every state, districts with high minority concentrations had lower


graduation rates than districts where Whites were the majority. In Ohio, for example, the

minority composition difference is pronounced even among the state’s largest districts,

with a graduation rate gap of over 50 points between the majority White district of

Westerville (81.0) and the majority minority districts of Cleveland (30.0) (Orfield, 2004).

This suggests that the growing segregation of our public schools will likely contribute

further to low graduation rates and therefore to the under representation along the entire

pipeline. Since making the point that schools are highly segregated on racial as well as

economic lines, it is easy to make the correlation that African American males in highly

segregated impoverished areas are being impacted substantially.

The social cost of the problem of African American male under performance is

staggering in scope and perspective. Many high school dropouts are not able to provide

the essentials for their families, and studies indicate that the economic and societal effects

of dropouts’ lost earnings and taxes persist for many years. In addition, children of

dropouts are far more likely to be in weak schools, perform badly, and drop out

themselves, thus creating powerful intergenerational social problems (Orfield, 2004).

When an entire racial or ethnic group experiences consistently high dropout rates, these

problems can deeply damage the community, its families, its social structure, and its

institutions (Orfield, 2004).

The implications of these high dropout rates are far-reaching and devastating for

individuals, communities, and the economic vitality of this country (Orfield, 2004).

Dropping out of high school, for the most part, leads to economic and social hardships.

High school dropouts are far more likely than graduates to be unemployed, in prison,

unmarried or divorced, and living in poverty. The New York Times recently published an


article on the educational and economic difficulty of young African American men and

these are just a few of the findings (May, 16, 2006). The United States Census Bureau

estimates there are about 5 million Black men in American between the ages of 20 and

39, who are losing ground in mainstream society despite advances made by Black

women. African American females are out-performing males at every point of the

educational pipeline, in most cases 2:1. Sixteen percent of Black men in their twenties

who are not college students are either in jail or in prison. Though the reasons are

debatable, the fact still remains that African Americans males are seven times more likely

to go to prison than Whites. Almost 60 percent of Black male high school dropouts in

their early thirties have spent time in prison, which limits their potential career path. In

2004, 72 percent of Black male high school dropouts had no jobs, because they could not

find work or for other reasons such as incarceration. The epidemic is so severe that three

new academic publications that address the topic are coming out this year alone,

Punishment and Inequality in America; Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men; and

Black Males Left Behind. Each of these works addresses a previously unexamined aspect

of African American male detachment from mainstream society.


Undergraduate College Pipeline

Minority students face three major inequities in higher education: they go to

college in fewer instances than others; they complete college at lower rates; they attend

four-year colleges generally, and selective schools particularly, with substantially less

frequency (Kahlenberg, 2004). The most efficient means by which to summarize the

current state of African Americans participating in higher education is to look at the

results of recent studies. The Chronicle of Higher Education’s yearly report on the state

of higher education found that although African Americans account for 13 percent of the

country’s population and approximately 14 percent of it college-aged youth, they

represent roughly 9.5 percent of undergraduate students, only 6.8 percent of graduate

students, and a mere 6 percent of faculty members.

Two of every three students from the top socioeconomic quartile enroll in a four-

year institution within two years of high school graduation, compared with one in five

from the bottom quartile. Of all college first-year entrants, almost half of low-income

students attend two-year community colleges, in contrast with just one in ten high-

income students. The most compelling statistic related to graduate education and

completion of graduate school is the level of undergraduate educational rigor, in other

words, how competitive was a student’s undergraduate education in preparation for

graduate school. At top-tier colleges, “students in the highest socioeconomic quartile

take up 74 percent of the available slots, compared with three percent from the bottom

quartile” (Bowen & Bok, 1998, p. 341). The under representation of low-income students

at elite colleges is many times greater than it is for under represented minorities, who are

still the subject of debate in relation to affirmative action.


Inequality in access to higher education has historically been, and continues to be,

a significant problem in our society due to the growing wage premium provided by a

college education generally and because of the particular advantages of attending a

selective university. As Gladieux (2004) notes, the median annual household income in

1999 was roughly $36,000 for those with a high school degree, $62,000 for those with a

bachelor’s degree, and $100,000 for those with a professional degree. While community

colleges are seen as a gateway to four-year colleges, less than one-tenth of community

college students ultimately receive a bachelor’s degree. Carnevale and Rose (2004) point

out that there are three major advantages to attending a selective four-year college.

Controlling for test scores, students in selective colleges are more likely to graduate;

attending a top-tier college promotes access to postgraduate school; and a number of

studies also show a wage premium of 5-20 percent representing the value added from

attending a competitive school.

On the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) and the

series of legal cases that ended the separate and unequal practices of education in the

south “with all deliberate speed,” – we have entered another transitional phase in higher

education. Since the University of Michigan Supreme Court decisions, many universities

are dismantling programs that use race as a criterion for entrance, ignoring the historical

and systematic under representation of African American and other minority students to

equal education, and directly rolling back the positive contributions of the Brown v.

Board ruling. But issues of under representation of minority students continue to exist

throughout higher education, from the undergraduate and graduate student bodies to

academic faculty and administrative positions. Systemic problems of access within the


culture of secondary and higher education drastically affect the efforts and opportunities

of minorities in institutions of higher learning around the country.

Graduate School Pipeline

In 2004 the total number of PhD completions by US citizens was 26,431, of

which 644 (approximately 2.5percent) went to African American men; less than 100

doctorates were earned by African American men in the fields of math, computer science,

and engineering (Hoffer, Survey of Earned Doctorates 2006). In 2003, minority

candidates earned 20 percent more doctorates than they did had in 1998, and 64 percent

more than in 1993. Of the doctorates awarded to African Americans in 2003, 60.1

percent of them were earned by women, only 39.9 percent by men; in 2002, the

percentages were 63.1 percent female, 36.9 percent male (Hoffer, Survey of Earned

Doctorates 2006). Of the total African American male population, a mere 0.4 percent

hold the doctorate, compared to 1.5 percent of White males, and 3.9 percent of Asian

males (Nettles & Millett, 2006). Demographic profiles of doctoral recipients published

each year in the Survey of Earned Doctorates illustrate a significant growth in the

numbers of women, international students, and Hispanic students who earn doctoral

degrees. Yet despite the growing numbers of Americans of many demographic

backgrounds who are pursuing doctoral degrees, and the slowly but steadily increasing

numbers of African American women who earn graduate degrees, African American men

remain woefully underrepresented in graduate education.

Statistics regarding retention in graduate programs are hard to find. Higher

education scholars (Nettles & Millett, 2006, Golde, 2006) agree that as many as half of


those individuals who start a doctoral program never finish it; the attrition rate of

minority students may be even higher than 50 percent.

Entering the Professoriate

Although some progress has been made in diversifying the undergraduate student

bodies at many, if not most, of our colleges and universities, the same cannot be said of

efforts to diversify the faculty. Faculty diversity has not substantially increased in

decades; minority faculty members are still rare in many academic disciplines.

According to JoAnn Moody (2004), “the cause stems . . . from unconscionably high

barriers to minorities’ entry into and success in the professoriate (p. 1). Barriers to entry

into and success in the academy for potential underrepresented minority faculty members

include real or perceived racial bias on the part of hiring committees, lack of mentoring

and job coaching, being overburdened by committee work or student advising duties,

institutional or departmental elitism and a bias about where excellence resides or what are

appropriate and valid subjects for scholarly inquiry, among others. Each of these

represents a real barrier to full participation in the academy on the part of potential

faculty members, and therefore, impacts the pool of potential presidential candidates.

Academic administration

With the exceptions of reports from the U.S. Department of Education, the ACE,

and Diverse Issues in Higher Education, national indicators of the status of African

American college and university presidents are few in number. What is typically

provided in the current literature is information related to administrators and faculty of

color. While there is a growing body of data that explores aspects of African American

administrators in two and four-year colleges (Holmes, 2004; Miller & Creswell, 1998;


Opp & Gosetti, 2002; Vaughan, 1989), “not many studies disaggregate the minority or

administrators of color groups to determine specifically how individual ethnic groups are

progressing in higher education, especially to chief executive levels, such as the

president” (Holmes, 2004, p. 3). This lack of data is frustrating to the scholar interested

in these questions.

Historically, access to educational opportunities has increased for African

Americans since the tumultuous times of the 1960s; however, disparities still exist at all

levels of the academic ladder when African Americans are compared to their White

counterparts (Corrigan, 2002). “Some of the research also provides evidence to suggest

that the vestiges of the past linger such that race and gender-related issues make equity,

mutual respect, and full participation in all areas of the academy difficult for African

American administrators to achieve” (Holmes, 2004, p. 4). Harvey (2001) reports that as

of 1997 African Americans represented only 8.9 percent of full-time administrators in

higher education, while Whites represented 85.9 percent. Jerlando Jackson (2003), a

scholar involved in the discourse pertaining to the African American college president,

makes the point that,

The presence or lack thereof for African Americans in these key positions

provides a benchmark for the future composition of the American college

presidency; those holding these positions form the potential pool of

eligible candidates for college presidencies in the future. Collectively, of

all the incumbents holding executive-level positions in 1993, African

Americans occupied 6.8 percent, and Whites constituted 89.2 percent of

these positions. Six years later, a slight change in the composition

occurred for those in executive-level positions. By 1999, African

Americans constituted 7.3 percent of the executive positions, and Whites

occupied 87.7 percent. (p. 16)


Administrators in academia are unlike people who move into senior management

positions in most other fields. Academics have traditionally chosen a different path to

join the ranks of faculty and pursue a life of “contemplation, teaching, and scholarship.”

Though the presidency is considered by some to be the peak of academic achievement,

practically no one enters academia with the goal of becoming a college or university

president. When a faculty member accepts his or her first senior administrative post, he or

she has made a major career shift. Rather than being solely responsible for teaching and

advising, a faculty member turned administrator is now tasked with budget oversight,

faculty hiring and contracting, dealing with campus vendors, and relations with external

constituencies, including potential and current donors and trustees. Training in how to

handle these multiple demands via continuing education is critical because so little of the

person’s prior training or experience is likely to be relevant to a high-level administrative

position. No matter how well faculty members try to prepare for the leap into the

presidency, they will face a host of challenges that can contribute to a difficult transition

and a tumultuous period of tenure in the presidency. This is especially true for non-

traditional candidates.

Comparing colleges and universities to the corporate world, Vernon Jordan

(1988) claims that institutions of higher education have proved as discriminatory as any

other business or organization. I would go a step further and say that the

intergenerational effect of education in regards to persisting and completing a Ph.D has a

more detrimental effect when coupled with the persisting effect of a lack of social capital.

African Americans and other people of color who are relatively new to a society in which

race and ethnicity is not the most prevailing characteristic to success, with the end of


segregation and Jim Crow, have a tendency to gravitate towards higher paying fields in

an attempt to accumulate wealth, instead of to fields where the delayed gratification could

ultimately go without reward for a considerably longer period of time.

American higher education is closer today to the ideals of education for

democracy than at any point in our nation’s history. Nonetheless, complex issues of

racism and discrimination remain a part of American higher education, and the question

persists: how do Black males today succeed in obtaining chief executive positions at

predominantly white institutions?

The following three chapters contain the transcripts of the three interviews held

with each participant, as well as information on their respective institutions and

biographical data. This is followed by an analysis of the lived experiences of the

participants, as described in their interviews.


Chapter 4

President McDavis Interview

Overview of Ohio University8

Located in Athens, Ohio, Ohio University’s motto is “Religio Doctrina Civilitas,

Prae Omnibus Virtus” (usually translated as: “Religion, Learning, Civility; Above All,

Virtue”). The school was established in 1804, and was formerly known as American

Western University. As of June 2006, Ohio’s endowment was $240 million. It employs

a faculty of 2,187, and enrolls 17,176 undergraduate and 3,261 graduate students. Ohio

University was named by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a

Doctoral/High Research Activity institution to reflect its growing number of graduate

programs.

On February 18th, 1804, the Ohio legislature established Ohio University at

Athens. The university first offered classes in 1809, but it was not until 1822 that Ohio

University began to offer a traditional college programs. Throughout the nineteenth

century, the university continued to grow. By the late 1800s, Ohio University had taken a

leading role in providing education and training to Ohio’s future teachers. The goals of

the university and the State of Ohio were to provide skilled teachers and to establish

standards in public education. The university was one of the earliest institutions of higher

education in Ohio to receive some state support through taxation.

8 Informational overview of Ohio University, Presidential Succession, and Biographical information obtained from institutional website: http://www.ohio.edu/.


Presidential Succession

Ohio University has had twenty presidents in its 204-year existence; only one of

those presidents has been an African American male, current President Roderick

McDavis. Each of Ohio University’s presidents is listed below in reverse chronological

order. President McDavis is a rare case in the fact that he holds an undergraduate degree

from the institution that he currently leads.

20th Roderick J. McDavis (2004-present)

19th Robert Glidden (1994-2004)

18th Charles J. Ping (1975-1994)

17th Harry B. Crewson (1974-1975)

16th Claude R. Sowle (1969-1974)

15th Vernon Roger Alden (1962-1969)

14th John Calhoun Baker (1945-1961)

13th Walter S. Gamertsfelder (1943-1945)

12th Herman Gerlach James (1935-1943)

11th Elmer Burritt Bryan (1921-1934*)9

10th Alston Ellis (1901-1920*)

9th Isaac Crook (1896-1898)

8th Charles William Super (1884-1896), (1899-1901)

7th William Henry Scott (1872-1883)

6th Solomon Howard (1852-1872)

5th Alfred Ryors (1848-1852)

9 Edwin Watts Chubb was acting president for one year in 1920 when President Ellis died and again in 1934 when President Bryan died.


4th William Holmes McGuffey (1839-1843)

3rd Robert G. Wilson (1824-1839)

2nd James Irvine (1822-1824)

1st Jacob Lindley (1809-1822)

President Roderick McDavis

Roderick J. McDavis became Ohio University's 20th president on July 1, 2004. A

native of Dayton, Ohio, he received a bachelor's degree in social sciences in secondary

education from Ohio University in 1970, making him only the second university alumnus

to lead the university as president. He received a master's degree in student personnel

administration from the University of Dayton in 1971, and a doctorate in counselor

education and higher education administration from the University of Toledo in 1974.

Prior to his arrival at Ohio University, McDavis served as provost and vice

president for academic affairs and professor of education at Virginia Commonwealth

University in Richmond, Va., from 1999-2004. He was dean of the College of Education

and professor of education at the University of Florida from 1994-1999. He was dean of

the College of Education and professor of counselor education at the University of

Arkansas, Fayetteville, from 1989-1994. He served as the director of the Arkansas

Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management from 1992-1994. He

was a professor of education in the Department of Counselor Education at the University

of Florida from 1974-1989 and an associate dean of the graduate school and minority

programs at the University of Florida from 1984-1989.

President McDavis has served as chair of the Board of Directors of the American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). His primary interests and


publications include restructuring teacher education programs, improving public schools

and districts, counseling ethnic minorities, recruiting and retaining minority students and

faculty, and evaluating student personnel programs. He has authored or co-authored

chapters in books, monographs and articles in professional journals and other

publications.

President McDavis has served as a consultant and keynote speaker for

universities, community colleges, public school systems, human service agencies,

professional associations, community organizations and churches. In 1995, President

McDavis was named Person of the Year in Education by The Gainesville Sun. He was

named the 1996 Outstanding Alumnus of the College of Education at Ohio University.

He also received the Post-Secondary Outstanding Educator Award from the North

Central Florida Chapter of Phi Delta Kappa in 1996. McDavis received the 1997 Black

Achiever's Award in Education from the Florida Conference of Black State Legislators.

Transcriptions of President McDavis Interview

Interview One: Focused Life History

Location: President’s Office, Ohio University

Date: December 5, 2007

MR. BARKER: So, I thought we’d start at the beginning. I’m going to ask each one of

my participants who is participating in this research: when did you first decide that you

wanted to be a university president?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Probably at a fairly young age. I was, in fact, an

undergraduate student when I started thinking about becoming president. I was in college

between 1966 and 1970 and, I observed, during that turbulent period of American history

with the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and Women’s Rights that presidents

of universities were using their offices as a bully post to speak to the issues of the day.

And I started to think that this looked like it would be, not only challenging, but a lot of

fun to have the opportunity to really speak to a lot of national and, in some regards,

international issues, as well as to be working on a college campus and, as a college

student, I thought that I’d have a good time, you know, being on a college campus. I got

a lot more serious about thinking about it as a graduate student in the early 70’s. So, I

would say probably that in the early 70’s is when it became really important to me,

probably 1970 or 1971, where I actually said I’m going to go through whatever steps I

needed to go through to hopefully one day achieve becoming a college president.

MR. BARKER: When going through that process, when did you think it was plausible?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: You know, probably when I became a dean, and that would

have been, probably, in 1989. So, from about 1974, when I earned my doctorate degree, I

thought, “Alright, there’s the first step” because I felt like I needed to have a terminal

degree in order to compete. And then I knew that I needed to go through all those faculty

steps in terms of getting tenure and rising to the level of full Professor and all of those

kind of things, having that background experience as a faculty member. But, really, what

I saw then, from people who had become presidents, is that they had been a dean first.


And, that was still a period before we got a lot of nontraditional people going into the

presidencies. Most of those, in that time frame, who had become presidents, had been a

dean. So, when I was appointed to my first deanship I thought, “This is doable. This is

reachable.” Because that put me on a path where it separated me from an awful large

number of people in academia just by being a dean.

MR. BARKER: Can you tell me about your educational and social upbringing?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I was born and raised in Dayton, Ohio. I was born into a

middle class family. Both of my parents had baccalaureate degrees. My father was a

graduate of Wake Forrest University and my mother was a graduate of Kentucky State

University. So I came up in a family with middle class values and a deep appreciation for

education. Tell me the other part of that question.

MR. BARKER: Social education?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Oh, you know, socially I probably was a pretty typical kid, in

terms of, you know, having, what I would consider to be, normal experiences socially,

pretty well adjusted socially in terms of going to parties and other kinds of social events

coming up. But, there was always a focus on education from my family and always

encouragement to acquire a college education. So, because my mother was a teacher and

my father worked in education, ultimately I decided to go into the social sciences with

secondary education as a major. When I got into my junior year, I started seriously


thinking about graduate school. At that point, I thought of going in one of two directions.

Either going to law school, which was a really different thought for me then because I

had never really considered being an attorney. Or going to graduate school into

counseling, which I thought well, I was thinking about being a teacher in high school,

possibly working in higher education. I thought, well counseling I could go in either

direction because I saw some people with counseling backgrounds that worked in

universities and I also saw school counselors working in high schools. So, my senior

year, which would have been 1970, I decided to go into counseling as a bachelor program

and that is what I did in the summer of 1970 upon graduating with a baccalaureate

degree, was to go into a master’s program in counseling and student personnel work, or

what is better known as student affairs today. So, I did that for a year, got a Masters

degree. Graduated in 1971, and then worked for a year. I started working as a graduate

student and continued working after that at the University of Dayton. I got my

baccalaureate from here, from Ohio University, in 1970, Masters Degree from University

of Dayton in 1971. I worked up until the fall of 1972 and then went on to get a doctorate

degree in Counselor Education. I started on that in the fall of 1972 and finished in

August of 1974.

…

MR. BARKER: You mentioned that your father was in education.

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Yes.


MR. BARKER: What did he do?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: He was what was called a Visiting Teacher. He worked in the

central office of the Board of Education. What my Dad essentially did was, if you were a

truant, if you were out of school for an extended period without being sick, on account of

people didn’t know where you were at, I guess in the current day you would be

considered a dropout, he was the guy that went to check you out. He went to find out

what were you doing and why you weren’t in school. He ended up being someone who

would travel across the community identify these young people who were not in school

and try to talk them into going back to school. In that day, it was called a Visiting

Teacher, so it was kind of an administrative job that had an interesting title to it. But

that’s kind of what he did. My mom was a teacher of special Ed at a high school.

MR. BARKER: What did your brothers go into?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Uh, my brother, my twin brother went on to study English and

became a faculty member in English. My older brother did not get a college education

but got a community college education, a two-year education, and became a housing

inspector and works for the city of Dayton today. .

MR. BARKER: The next question you kind of answered for me. Was there both a

personal and family expectation of college and when did you realize your personal

expectation of wanting to go to college? When was that?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: There was definitely a family expectation of going to college,

but not forced. In other words, there was a great deal of discussion about going to

college around the family dinner table, and in other ways. There was a great deal of

encouragement, but there wasn’t a “You must do this.” You know, there wasn’t that sort

of thing. I came to a decision point as a sophomore in high school that I was going to

college. For me it just took a couple of years of high school to understand that a high

school education was not going to be sufficient to do the kinds of things in life that I

wanted to do.

So, for me the decision to go to college was very easy because I understood the

value of a college education. The only question for me, in high school, was that I

definitely wanted to go into education. At one point, I thought about business, but I kept

coming back to, you know, probably what I knew best because that’s what I found my

parents involved with, that was education. So that became kind of like a comfort zone for

me to think about going into education and become a teacher.

MR. BARKER: You said that you had a middle class background. Did you live in a

segregated neighborhood? Was your school segregated?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: That’s a great question. It’s interesting. Let’s see, when I was

very young, probably up until I was in the 7th grade, we lived in an all black community.

From the 7th grade up through a few years of high school, we lived in an integrated

community. My last two years of high school, we moved into an all black subdivision


which, in that day, was rare for subdivisions to be African-American. So I sort of had

both ends of that, an all black segregated community, and then integrated, then back to

segregated, and then on to college which was predominantly white institutions.

MR. BARKER: And how do you think those changes affected your outlook?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Oh, great, because I think, for me, it was better to come from

an all black perspective. Being very young, it grounded me, helped me to understand

who I was, what I was and what challenges life had in store for me. The integrated part

of growing up taught me how important it was going to be to learn to get along with

people who were different from me. And then going to an integrated high school,

although I lived, in the latter portion of high school, once again in a segregated

community, taught me that you have to learn how to go back and forth between both of

those societies. So when I was home in my neighborhood, I was around people that were

like me. But when I was at the high school, I was in the minority, because it was a

predominantly white high school. It was a private high school. I learned that if I was

going to be successful, I was definitely going to have to learn how to get along with

people that were different from me, primarily whites. So, I think I benefited from having

both segregated and integrated periods growing up.

MR. BARKER: At that time, when you were growing up in those different communities,

did they have the same kind of value structures?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: You know, I think in my first community when my parents

were just getting started, we were probably at the lower end of being in the middle class.

Many of the people we lived around were just making it, so we had our taste of that.

Now when we moved into the integrated community, that was more all middle class

values. Certainly when we moved into a middle class African American community, that

was definitely middle class values. So I would say the majority of my awareness years,

from 7th grade up, were spent in communities that had clear-cut middle class values. My

younger years in elementary school up through 6th grade probably were in a probably

lower socioeconomic, lower middle class neighborhood. That had a broader range of

society and education was not valued as highly in the community that I started in. But in

the community I moved to, the two middle class communities I moved into, it was greatly

valued and talked about.

MR. BARKER: If I could move back to one simple question. You mentioned education

and how it was kind of what you knew. I’m sure you know, disproportionably, more

African Americans gravitate towards the field of education, and even in the doctoral

level, they gravitate toward degrees in K-12 education, become principals and

superintendents and even go into higher ed. Can you speak to that?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: The role models that were present in the community, at the

time when I grew up, were educators and preachers. As a consequence, I knew that it was

possible to get a degree in education or theology and have a successful life. There

weren’t as many doctors, lawyers, engineers, pharmacist, etc around me, so I didn’t have


a lot of role models that led me to believe that it was possible to become a doctor, lawyer,

engineer or pharmacist. What I knew from my parents and their friends, most of who

were in education, and certainly those in the community who were in education and or

ministry. So it was from observing, and probably learning, from those around me what

was possible in that era.

I knew that if I majored in education that that could lead to a very good life. I

didn’t think, when I started, about going to graduate school, to be honest about it. The

whole graduate thing didn’t actually kick in until I actually got into the university in my

junior year when I started to say that I liked being in a university environment and I was

doing pretty well as a student so that lead me to think, hum, I might want to go into

professional school. And that’s when I got into this law vs. graduate education.

Graduate education won out. Once I started the master’s program I wasn’t going to quit

until I got the doctorate degree. Then it shifted from OK I want to be a teacher in K thru

12 to I’d love to be a faculty member and serve in higher education and an awareness that

well if you’re going to do that you’re going to have to have a PhD. With a baccalaureate,

you’re not going to get there.

…

MR. BARKER: When you made the decision to go to grad school, who did you use as

references or mentors to bounce your ideas off of?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Primarily black and white faculty members, in the university

who I had come to know. There were a significant number of black faculty members

who were being hired at this university for the first time. I also had white faculty


members who were my teachers and my advisor was white. So I’d sit down with them

about going beyond the baccalaureate level and got encouragement from everyone. Got

encouragement from my own advisors that life will be so much better if you pursue

graduate education. I was the type of student that didn’t take much convincing because I

could see it. It was all around. When you’re around people with advanced degrees and

see what they do, you start to say, “Oh maybe I could do that. Or maybe I could do this

or maybe I could do that”. And I just knew that the ticket to all of that was a terminal

degree. That was real clear to me.

MR. BARKER: Would you have considered yourself, reflecting back as an

undergraduate, a serious student? What kind of activities did you participate in?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I was a good student. I wouldn’t say great. I was a good

student. I guess I was pretty well balanced. I was serious about my education but I had a

good time. I was in a fraternity, which was my primary social outlet on campus and was

an officer in the frat.

MR. BARKER: What fraternity?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Omega Psi Phi that took a lot of my time in terms of social

outlet on campus. I was a tutor in the Institute of Black Culture, which we had at the

time. So as a junior and senior, I tried to reach back and help those students who were

coming in who were coming into the institution and primarily black by working a little


bit and being a tutor. But, I wasn’t involved in student government or other kinds of

major activities. Primarily, it was the fraternity and my work as a tutor.

MR. BARKER: How did you decide to take your first position after graduate school?

When you surveyed the scene, and you knew you wanted to be a faculty member, how

did you decide which position to take?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: You know, that’s a very good question. I don’t think anybody

has ever asked me that. The first job I took was Director for the Center for African

American Studies at the University of Dayton. I said I was a tutor at the Institute for

Black Culture here. That much I knew. I knew I could do that work. During that time

period, there were a lot of those kinds of centers and institutes that were being

established. The University of Dayton was just establishing one. I had been a tutor in

one here so I kind of knew what that was supposed to do.

I was about half way through my master’s degree that first year and a couple of

administrators on campus came up to me and said, “We’re starting a center here. Would

you be interested in becoming the director?” I thought it started interesting. It kind of

had an academic component to it. It certainly had a student support services aspect to it,

in terms of advising and tutoring and doing all those kind of things and I thought yeah,

this could be fun. So, that was my first job. I took it as a graduate student. When I

finished my master’s degree, I kept the job for an additional year. It was during that

additional year, when I didn’t have school to worry about, when I really realized that in

order to get to the presidency that I would need to go back and get a terminal degree.


A master’s degree was still not going to be sufficient to accomplish that goal. So it made

me that much more interested in pursuing a doctorate degree.

The fact that I realized that getting a doctorate degree was absolutely essential to

becoming a faculty member, which was the other part of the academy that really

interested me. I wanted to work. Knowing that one-day I might want to be a president. I

studied presidents from the vantage point of saying, “Well, how do you get there?” Well,

before that president became a dean, that president was a faculty member. So, for me,

that one-year of working said, there are two things I’d have to do. “OK, you’ve got to get

the term degree. You’ve got to go somewhere and get a PhD”. Two, you’ve got to be a

faculty member. Well, I enjoyed administration, organizing and all of that. I said that

you’ve got to start out by being a full time faculty member, not just part time, but full

time. So, that pretty much convinced me of what my next 10 or so years of life would be

all about. After I got the doctorate degree, I just said, “forget all this administrative work

and I’ll just jump in and become a faculty member”.

MR. BARKER: When making these decisions along the way, did you go back to those

same mentors?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: When I was here, I had several people that I had talked with.

When I got to the University of Dayton, I settled in on one. I probably kept him, well,

until today. So that one mentor that I picked up at the University of Dayton, a person that

I not only learned from, but also relied upon to give advises. He was chairman of the

department. He did a lot of consulting and teaching off campus because the University


had a lot of centers all over Ohio and he would take me with him. It was like all right he

had a consulting job to go out and work for, “fill in the blank”. He said, “Bob, you want

to go?” I said “Sure”. So, I’m off with him. I hopped in the car, sat in the back of the

class and observed him teaching. So, I probably learned more by traveling with him, than

I did by sitting down and having a conversation, because I observed his techniques,

consulting, facilitating workshops, and that sort of thing and then observed him teaching.

I learned a lot about how to do that just by watching and observing. So, I pretty much

had that mentor relationship that was a much truer mentoring relationship than as an

undergrad, where I was just going into somebody’s office and just talking to them.

MR. BARKER: Were you able to build a network or peer group of other faculty of color

or administrators of color to ask questions?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Not really. And the reason that was not easy is that there

weren’t as many. Especially when I got into my field, it was sort of you had to take the

people who were there and rely upon the advice that they gave. So for me, as I continued

to pursue the doctorate degree, initial opportunities and later opportunities, there were

really few African Americans that I came to know where I could use them as mentors

because their numbers got fewer. The more education I received, there just didn’t seem

to be a lot of people doing what I was doing. I didn’t realize, then, that I was going to be

in an even larger minority than what I was already in, just by the amount of education I

was getting. I was finding fewer and fewer people each step of the way, baccalaureate,


masters, PhD. Fewer people of color that would, at least, know the experience that I was

going through.

MR. BARKER: When you were going through this whole process, did you feel isolated

at times?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Yes, oh yes, big time.

MR. BARKER: How did you deal with this?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: You, know, that’s were family came into play. I could always

go home and talk to my family. I got married when I was got out of my masters program.

My wife had a master’s degree. The fact that, at that point, both of my parents had gone

back and gotten masters degrees, my wife had a master’s degree. Between my master’s

degree and my doctorate degree I could talk to all of them because that was a common

experience. They could understand what I had been through because they had been

through that. And they also understood what I was trying to accomplish by going one step

further. But, there weren’t a lot of people I could go and talk with on the campus, so I

relied a lot on my family.

MR. BARKER: I’m sure you’ve developed an education mission, or philosophy, over

time that’s I’m sure, different now than when you were first starting out. Can you tell me


what your educational philosophy was when you were a young faculty member and how

that has progressed until now?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I think when I was younger, I was more idealistic. I had,

probably, a broader worldview of wanting to do things that would benefit the greater

good to improve the human condition, to put it in that context. I saw my work, my role,

as helping to really improve the human condition in as macro way as possible to, over

time, to improving the human condition for the institution where I served and the people

around the institution. So it went from kind of a broader philosophical perspective on life

and the human condition to a narrower perspective of: Do what you can in the sphere of

influence, which is basically the campus environment and the people in that environment.

If you can do that, you have impacted, greatly, a large number of people because you’re

not going to impact the state, the nation, and the world to the level that maybe

idealistically I thought I might when I was young.

MR. BARKER: How did you get involved in administration? You had been a faculty

member for about ten years. Did you also take on roles of additional leadership

responsibility, those with a teaching component, research component and service

component?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Right, right. I did. As a faculty member, I was a coordinator

of my program areas. So in the department, we had three different areas. We had, sort

of, the school counseling area. We had a mental health agency area. And then we had a


higher ed or student personnel area. So I served as a coordinator of my area, which was

student personnel work. I probably did that for three or four years. But that was only

about a quarter of my time. It was just a coordinating function in the department. So it

wasn’t serious, serious administrative work, but it was enough to get my hands wet, you

know, and I think it helped me to say, “Yeah, I think that this is something I could do for

more of my time” because at that point I still really enjoyed teaching for the majority of

my time and working with students on dissertations and all those kinds of things. So, that

year that I served as Director for the Center of African American Studies was also a year

that helped me, sort of understand that, this administration thing was something I really

could enjoy. So, for the better part of those ten years I was a full time faculty member

with a part of my assignment as administration.

My first administrative job was in my ninth year of being a faculty member. I had

determined that I was not going to pursue an administrative job until I was a full

professor because I had observed people when they had become associate professor after

five years, when normally you had to go up to obtain a promotion after five years. Many

people who had become an associate professor and took an administrative job never

became a full professor and I thought I’m not going to make that mistake. I’m just going

to hang in here and wait until I become a full professor before I pursue any administrative

job. In my eighth year I became a full professor. In my ninth year I went over to see the

provost and I said, you know what, I’m interested in being an administrator. I don’t

know what I could do. I don’t know where I’d fit in. But if there’s an administrative job

open somewhere in the university, I’d certainly be open to talking more about it. I left

his office thinking, I’m one faculty member at a big university. There’s just no way. A


few months later he called. He said we have an opening in the graduate school. It would

start off as an interim position, assistant to the dean. I said, great, what do I need to do.

He said, well, it’s kind of a recruiting job. The university is trying to recruit more

African-American students for graduate school. So you’re going to have to spend some

time on the road and this may, or may not, turn into something more permanent. I said,

great I’ll give it a shot. So I gave up my full time faculty position. I think it was in

midyear. I think it was around this time of year, December. And in January I started this

new job.

I kept my doctorate students, but I didn’t teach any more. And I really started

enjoying it. And then it turned into a permanent assistant dean job. Ultimately, I got

promoted over a five-year period to associate dean, and more responsibilities in the

graduate school. That’s really what got me started into full time administration. That

would have been about 1984. So from about 1974 to 1984 I was a full time faculty

member, enjoying it, with a little bit of administrative experience. But in 1984 I started

full time administration.

MR. BARKER: Could you explain, or express, some personal attributes that you might

think a successful administrator should have?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Great people skills. Administrative work really comes down

to relationships and it’s all about working with people. So the better people skills you

have, the better administrator you’ll become. That’s one thing. The second thing is good

management skills. You have to be able to move paper and you have to be able to


manage division, unit, area, and institution. So people skills and management skills have

to be there. And then I think you have to have a high level of energy. Most

administrative jobs turn into ten to twelve hour day jobs, which was a far cry from what I

did as a faculty member. A faculty member might work eight hours. There may be a day

where I might work ten. I spent a good 8 as a faculty member. As an administrator, I

don’t work less than ten hours a day on too many days. So you have to have that great

energy and know how to pace yourself.

I would say that the other part would be having patience with personnel issues. I

didn’t realize until I got involved in this work, but I’ve spent 23 years now in different

administrative roles. In every one of those years, personnel issues consumed large

amounts of time. In going back to my initial statement about seeing presidents utilizing

the presidency as bully pulpits speaking to national and international issues, I thought,

wow, that’s going to be a lot of fun. And it is. That part is fun. But a big part of your

job is spent dealing with personnel issues. So and so quit today. We’ve got to replace

him. Who are we going to replace him with? So and so is having an issue and it’s gone

all the way up to your desk, because it couldn’t get solved at a lower issue. So you end

up mediating and saying who’s right and who’s wrong, getting into grievances and all

that sort of thing.

I never imagined how much of one’s time in administrative work was spent

dealing with personnel issues. So that’s a big part of administrative work that people

don’t often talk about but it does take up a lot of time. So you have to understand how to

deal with personnel issues. And then, probably, the other part of it would be time

management. You can spend twelve hours doing nothing, or you can spend twelve hours


getting a lot done. So time management quickly becomes, what’s the most important

thing I can spend my time on today. And every day is making that decision. There are

some days when I say, “Did I really spend my time wisely today?” And admittedly some

days I’ll look up and say “No I didn’t.” I’ve got to do better tomorrow. And each day,

each month, each year you just get better at knowing how to spend your time.

MR. BARKER: Do you think this is something that can be learned and developed or is it

innate?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Most of it can be learned and developed. I would say that the

one that is difficult to learn is the people skills. What has kept a lot of people from

becoming very effective administrators is the lack of people skills. I’ve known a lot of

faculty members who were their best in his or her discipline, in terms of knowledge, and

the ability to communicate that knowledge in a classroom. But there’s a big difference

between standing in front of a classroom and teaching and sitting behind a desk. So that

has lead me, after so many of these years, to believe that I could teach people how to

move paper. I could teach people how to deal with personnel issues. I could teach people

how to manage their time. I can’t teach people how to be nice. You either have the skills

of knowing how to relate to people or you don’t. Now, can you get better?

Yes, but there are certain personality traits that either people are born with them

or not. Let me give one, social skills at receptions and social events. The ability to walk

around the room with something in your hand and just talk to people, make conversation.

Some people are at ease when they do that. Some people are very stiff, very rigid. Some


people don’t know what to say. Some people say too much. But I can always tell who’s

comfortable with their social skills and who’s strained with those social skills. By and

large, the people that I have admired as effective administrators are the people who are

most comfortable with those social skills in a room full of people. They’ve learned how

to “work a room” and learned how to communicate effectively to the point where each

person feels that he or she is important. The qualities that make one skilled at that, I

think, are part of you when you’re born. And again, you can learn certain skills in that

regard. But I can always tell who is natural and who has worked hard to learn how to be

more sociable.

MR. BARKER: Going through this process, I’m sure you weren’t always that

comfortable.

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Oh no. You’re exactly right.

MR. BARKER: So through this whole process, I’m sure you had doubts and when

speaking in front of an audience, you must have had butterflies in your stomach.

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Oh yes, yes.

MR. BARKER: So how did you manage that?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: That’s a very good question. My response to the question

would be that what helped me, more than anything else, was my discipline in counseling.

Because in counseling you have to learn to listen very carefully to what other people are

saying. You have to be empathic, so you have to have some feelings for the person. And

you have to be able to facilitate group dialogue. I think it was when I got really deep into

my discipline that it brought forth in me qualities that I didn’t even know I had. Because

when I was young, when I was in high school and when I was in college, I was very

introverted. I was the last guy that was going to stand in front of a group and give a

speech, or the last guy that would be Mr. Conversation. You might get a few words out

of me but you weren’t going to get any dialogue about a wide variety of things.

Once I got engaged and studied counseling, I think it helped that inner part of me

to come out. And then once I matriculated into administration, I was able to refer back to

my training and utilize what I had learned there to help me be at ease in a social

environment, as well as the public part, which includes speaking. What helped me on

that side of public speaking was doing presentations as a faculty member at national

conferences. So part of the reward system of being a faculty member was how often you

went to national conferences and presented papers. So the motivation was there for me to

do it. As uncomfortable as I was standing in front of a group, I knew that if I could just

do 3 or 4 of these a year, that would help me in getting a raise. It would help me in

getting promoted. It would help me get tenure, all the things that I wanted to be there.

So, by confidently going up and giving papers at state and national conferences,

finally I got comfortable in being in front of a group. And then transitioning into

instruction, it was then easier to start giving speeches to groups because all I had to do


was to refer back to just thinking about when I went to all these national conferences, and

giving presentations to your colleagues, you peers. So I translated one set of skills from

one area to another area and that was good. And the other experience I had along the

way, which I think helped greatly, and this was good preparation for the upper level

positions that I was able to obtain, was getting involved in a TV program, which was

called “Divine Families.” It was a program on public broadcasting in Jacksonville,

Florida. For twelve years I did a live TV program, once every other week. So there was

a co-host and I was the talent and I was responsible for sharing information and then

responding to questions on live TV. So, no time to go to the library and prep, or

whatever, just listen to the question and respond. So my teaching helped me with that

because my professors would say, “That’s an interesting question. Let me go to the

library and check that out”. You had to give an answer. So that was very helpful. But

all of that, the teaching, the TV, all of that helped me when I finally got to a dean position

to say, “OK I can do this. I can answer questions.” I’m good on my feet in a faculty

meeting with two or three hundred faculty members there. I didn’t get intimidated

because there were a lot of people there. I had answer questions before.

MR. BARKER: In respect to what you just said, dealing with adversity, what personal

characteristics would you say helped you deal with certain adversities?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I think the greatest one is not personalizing other people’s

problems. By that I mean that I have met, as a faculty member and certainly as an

administrator, people who were not advocates, people who were not supporters. These


people made a point of trying to detract or derail me from a goal and created obstacles.

For me, I think understanding that those people will always be with you. So you can

never allow what they do to you, to personalize that in a way that throws you off the path

that you’re trying to walk.

So, as adversity has come up, either as a faculty member or as an administrator, I

simply take those individual experiences as learning opportunities. What did I learn from

this? I’ll talk about one example that was not adversity but it’s an example of what I

mean by not personalizing. The first year that I was a faculty member, I was very young.

I was 25. I was an assistant professor. It was a big university. There was a professor in

our department who was what was called a Distinguished Professor. He had a title that

was the highest honor you could earn in the university. He had been there about 25 plus

years. He came into my office at the end of my first year. He was just walking around my

office. My door was open. He stopped in and said. “How’s it going?” I said it’s going

great. He said, do you like it here? I said, yeah I love it here. It’s a great place. I love

the students. I like my classes, etc., etc. He said, “Have you published any articles this

year?” I said, “Well, you know I’m still working on my first one. I really haven’t had a

lot of time to do it” and all of that. He just stopped in the middle of the conversation,

turned around and said, “Do you mind if I close the door?” I said, “No, it’s OK. Close

the door.” So I closed the door. And he said, “Do you really want to stay here?” I said,

“Yeah, I really want to stay here. I love it here” He said, “You’ve got to publish some

articles.” It’s like, that’s the first person in twelve months that I had been there who had

that serious conversation with me about what I needed to do. I’m thinking because I got a

PhD that I didn’t need to do those things and nobody needed to tell me what I needed to


do. And here was a senior professor telling me, in my first year, that I wasn’t doing

everything I needed to do in order to stay in that position.

So he didn’t realize what an impact he made on me. When that man left my

office, I picked up my pen and started working on writing articles and I didn’t stop until I

was a tenured Associate Professor. That’s a true story. And my point there is that he was

telling me something I didn’t want to hear. It wasn’t a racial kind of thing. It wasn’t a

negative kind of thing in that regard. He was telling me something as a genuine faculty

member that I needed to be on my game. I was having a good time as a first year faculty

member. You know, I figured I’d get around to writing one day but it wasn’t anything I

was going to rush with. And I had literally blown one year and I only had five. And his

points was, hmm, one down and still no articles. You’ve got three left before you got to

turn in your papers your fifth year. So what he’s saying to me is that I was probably not

getting tenure or promoted. So I just started to produce, in significant, numbers, as many

different publications as I could and I was fortunate enough to continue and promote after

five years.

And so I use that as an example to say that those kinds of things happened to me,

whether they be personal or whether they be professional. My reaction was always to get

within myself and say, “OK, what do you need to do?” And when it was personal, it was

always, “OK, I know this person is trying to keep me from achieving my goals.” And

I’m not going to let that other person do it because that’s a victory for that person if I let

them throw me off the path that I’m trying to walk. So when I got involved with more

administrative work, because when I was a faculty member I sort of steered clear of all of

those kinds of situations where somebody could get in my way.


Every once in a while, I’d have a negative student or someone who did not

appreciate the fact that they had an African American professor, but that was OK because

I was a professor. And I knew at the end of the day that, “I’m going to grade you.

You’re not going to grade me. You can evaluate me. But I’m going to grade you. So,

you’d better be careful about what you say and what you do. I don’t care what you

think.” But there was always that leverage that I had as a faculty member. When I got

into administration it changed. Because then it was a question of, I know that people can

create situations to make it appear that I’m not doing my job. That was a different ball

game for me. So I had to adjust and understand that OK whoever I’m working for, I need

to have a relationship with that person that says OK here are the five things that I have to

do and to always make sure that I would deliver on those five things, so when these other

people would say, “He’s not doing his job” I could say well, wait a minute, let’s talk

about that. Here are the five things that I said I was going to do. Here’s the data that

supports that I’ve been doing those five things. So I would always focus on why was I

hired, what job did I have to do, who asked me to do the job and what data am I going to

provide to show that I’ve been doing the job. And again, it’s a way to separate out your

detractors or those people who want to put obstacles in your way from the reality of your

experience of “This is what I was hired to do and dog gone it, this is what I’ve done” So

it’s a different response as a faculty member and as an administrator to deal with the

adversity that one faces. That’s why I say never allow, or I’ve never allowed, the

adversity to become personalized to the extent that I would allow anybody to get in my

way because I’d always figure out what’s the thing I have to do to protect me from those

who would be against me. And I still do that today.


MR. BARKER: I’m going to ask this question in three parts. How has being African

American, specifically an African American man, going through this process helped or

hindered you in your academic trajectory?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: It’s done both. It’s helped me because I think I have been

given opportunities to be successful that I may not have been given. Timing, sometimes,

is everything. And if you’re in the right place at the right time, and opportunities come

your way, I know that some of the opportunities that came my way came my way

because I was African American. I don’t have any illusion about that. I don’t think that I

got here because of my degree, my talent and all those things only. Some of the

opportunities as an administrator that I was given, I was given because that institution or

that situation called for or the people wanted a person of color. So, with that clear, the

other side of that, I think that the challenge has been that all but one administrative

experience I had, I was the first. No, I’m sorry, all but two.

The very first administrative job that I took after I got my PhD I was the second

African American to do that job. The two dean positions I held, I was the first, not only

in that deanship, but the first African American dean on campus. When I was a provost, I

was the second. I followed an African American woman who was the provost, so I was

the second. And in this position, I’m the first. So, I say all that to say the challenge has

been to be a pioneer and to experience the support with the challenges. As an African

American male and it took me far along to realize it, there are many people in higher

education who are staff, who are faculty, who are administrators who have never had an


African American as a supervisor or boss, much less an African American male. That

probably has posed the greatest challenge for me over these last 23 years as anything else

because they had to get comfortable with that reality. And some people never will be

comfortable with that reality.

So from the first day I was a dean and the first day I was a provost, from the first

day I’ve been a president, I’ve had people actively working to make my time short in

whatever job I’ve held in administration in the past. As a faculty member there was no

problem, I could be a tenured full professor. Not a big deal cause I was nobody’s boss.

But that difference of the academic side goes with my carefree days. As I said, I ran into

some students, some faculty, who may have been detractors, but it’s a whole different

situation. We’re all peers and students are in class. But when you’re an administrator

and telling people what to do, that’s a very different role and relationship. . . . So that’s

why I said, on the one hand it’s helped because I’ve been given opportunities. On the

other hand, it hurt because I’d been the first and people felt very uncomfortable with that

reality.

It’s not saying whether I did a good job or a bad job. I think in some instances,

people have referred to some things as “Well this happened to you because you were

black.” I have deferred most of those kinds of statements publicly because I’ve always

believed that that’s the expected answer. And my answer to this man is “Well you need

to ask the other people” Whether it’s been a group or whatever, I mean, “Go ask them.

Don’t ask me.” Where, in my mind I had believed that race was a factor, but had not

affirmed that race was a factor because the learning that comes from that in a public

perspective needs to come from the individuals who read about it and they draw


conclusions from it. If I say it then, “Well I don’t know if I believe him or no.t” That’s

not the place to be. The place to be is: go read the facts. And if one and one equals two

you don’t need to say two. You just need to know what one and one equals. And in

reading about a situation, if one and one is adding up to two, believe your math. But if I

said “It is two” For me, that’s what I mean when I say never personalizing to the point

when I say, Yes, it is. Clearly this is a case of racism.

You know, I don’t really know that. I might believe it personally, but I don’t

want to state it because that’s too easy. The more challenging part is to get the group of

people who are objective to come to a decision point and to get them to make the

decision, “Well, absolutely, that happened to him because of race. So again, it’s a

different way to deal with it. I’ve often wondered why, given different situations, for

example I am very cognizant of watching the presidential campaign this year with Barack

Obama because my theory is that he will be deemed as a great candidate until he wins the

primary. The first primary that he wins, people will begin to find a lot of fault. “Oh you

know he tried drugs when he was in college.” Right now that’s just kind of out there. But

because he’s fresh, he’s new, he’s interesting. But, I don’t think he’ll be president. He

wins the Iowa caucuses and he wins New Hampshire. Now all of a sudden, “Huh, this

brother may really become president of the United States” Now lets see how fresh and

new and great he is, given the reality that he could be living in the White House. So I’ve

had that reality from the standpoint of, Barack is a great colleague. Cause I went back to

the place where I started as a faculty member. I worked with the people, who were

assistant professors for me, guys that used to play poker together. And I was their boss.

I’ve been there and I realize that those are experiences that you just can’t personalize


because you have to understand that people have certain attitudes and beliefs that have

been there, probably, since they were very young. And work though they may to

eliminate a lot of that, or at least mask it, it manifests itself at times when they need to

call on it. And I’ve just seen that first hand where I was a great colleague, but once I

became somebody’s boss it’s a very different relationship.

MR. BARKER: Do you think it’s better in higher education because you’re dealing with

people who are supposedly learned intellectuals, or is it reinforced as an intergenerational

effect of race and privilege and those kinds of characteristics?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: It’s the latter. One of the things we do well in higher

education is we think more liberally than we believe. And by that I mean, it’s OK for me

to espouse change in the classroom, but when I am personally asked to change, we’ve got

a problem. And I’m seeing that in great conversations with colleagues about the times in

which we live, what needs to happen to make society better, the institution better, and all

those kinds of things. And then to be in an administrative capacity, where I have the

opportunity to make it better, but the very people that need to change are the last ones

who want to change because that’s who they really are. So it’s sort of like I can tell you

what you should do to make the world better, but I don’t want to do it.

MR. BARKER: Can you tell me when you actually thought you were ready to apply for

the position of president? Did you contact a search firm?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I had two deanships. I was the dean for five years at one

institution and a dean for five years at a second institution. I thought those were very

challenging positions to obtain. Little did I realize that, probably still to this day, the

most difficult job for me to get was provost because that’s the entry way to the

presidency. When you’re appointed to the provost, it’s the number two position in the

university. You’re the chief academic officer, which is the heart and soul of the

university. For an African American to be the Chief Academic Officer is a big deal,

when you stop and think about the entire academic unit on campus. . . . In my fourth year

as a provost I started to put the word out with search firms that I was interested.

You meet these people at professional conferences and they call you to see if

you’re interested in applying for a presidency. For three years I put them off and said,

“No, I’m too happy doing what I’m doing.” I liked being a provost, but I appreciated the

fact that they were contacting me. I understood why they were contacting me because

during that period of time, and still until this day, most searches for a president, most

boards of trustees, would like a diverse pool of candidates. Well, there aren’t that many

people of color that you can pick from to be in that pool. So if you’re going to have a

diverse pool, part of that diverse pool is going to be of color. There was a short list of us

that they were contacting. I got contacted by quite a few. So, for the better part of three

years I kept pushing it off and said I wasn’t interested.

By the fourth year, I started to say yes to callers and so I started to be included in

the pool and was fortunate enough by my fourth year. I think by my fourth year I was a

serious candidate for several and made it to the finals of one. By my fifth year I was a

finalist at four. And that got to be an interesting experience because if you’re going for


the presidency, it’s the board that makes the final decision. All of my experiences had

been in the south, as a faculty member and administrator. So I applied to universities in

the south. . . . Cause I grew up in Ohio. I lived in Florida. I lived in Arkansas and I

lived in Virginia, where I was a faculty member and an administrator. So I finally

reached a point where I said, you know, if I’m going to be successful, I need to start

applying for some presidencies in the mid west and New York and possibly the east

because all the presidencies I had applied for in the south I had just been a bridesmaid.

Everybody said, “You’re our guy, you’re our guy.” But at the end of the day I kept

coming in second.

So I woke up one day and I said “I’m probably asking too much of some of these

people. Because they’re much more willing to have me as a provost or dean. But I’m

going after the top job. I went through one search. I won’t name the institution, where

the headhunter called after the decision was done. He said “You should have been the

guy” and I agreed, but I wasn’t. And what, again, struck me was when you pass a board,

at the end of the day they have to pick the guy they’re going to go with. If there is any

hesitation, what I’ve learned at this level, the answer is no. I finally started to spread out

a little bit and come back to the mid west. I ended up being selected by my alma mater.

Post graduate, I was known for having a good track record, came from some good

institutions and I was applying in the mid west.

So while I understood that there were still people on this campus, probably in the

state, and probably some alumni, who said, “Well, do you really want an African

American?” So, this is a long answer to your questions. What I’m trying to explain to

you is I went through both avenues. I took the time to survey the landscape to see where


there were interesting opportunities to serve as president. I wanted to be at a certain type

of university. I wanted to be at a university that had research. I wanted to be at a

university that had doctorate degrees. That’s where I had served. And so there were only

certain institutions that I had selected to even apply. When I kept coming in second, I

started saying that I’ve got to go outside of my area where I wanted to live and start being

more realistic about where I could be successful.

MR. BARKER: Do you think that sometimes you were a token?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Absolutely, there’s no question. I even got to the point where

institution X looked at my credentials. I said, look; let’s not waste your time or my time.

If the only reason you’re asking me to be in the pool is to satisfy the desire of either you

or the search committee to have a diverse pool, I don’t want to be in it. If I have a better

than average chance of landing this presidency, I’m willing to pursue it. Now, the

obvious question. How did I know? I didn’t. I had to trust that when I challenged

people, they’d tell me the truth. To this day, I’ll never know. I was probably in a couple,

even after I went through this process, where I was just there to satisfy a diversity

requirement. I mean, it got to the point for me, after four or five of these searches,

especially when I started finishing second, that I just backed up and said. You know,

maybe I should just take a year off. In fact, this was the last one that I was going to test.

I said, all right, this is my alma mater. I know some people. They know that I’ve been

on other searches that I’ve finished second. If I can’t get this one, I’ll probably back up

and wait for another cycle. And I was fortunate enough to be offered this presidency.


MR. BARKER: As you moved through the search process, could you reconstruct some

of the events that took place, interaction with students, interaction with faculty and

administrators?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Specifically, two rounds. The first round is what is called the

airport interview. The airport interview is typically held off campus. If you’re in an

urban area, it’s at a hotel outside the airport. If you’re in a residential area like this, more

rural, it’s in a specific location within an hour or two drive, but it’s always around an

airport, nice hotel. Typically the search committee is composed of four trustees, faculty,

students, and a good diverse slice of the campus. So, those interviews typically last

anywhere from one to one and a half hours. There’s a certain set of questions that range

from personal information that you share to specific information about your previous

work experiences as a faculty member, administrator, to your vision about what you

would do if you were picked for the job, to what are your accomplishments.

What were the challenges to the jobs you’ve had? You know, just those kinds of

questions. And each person typically will ask a question. If there are 10 questions, 10

different people will ask a question. So they come from students, faculty, trustees,

whomever. The whole purpose of that is to see how you are received. They want to see

if you’ve done the research. Do you know something about the institution? They gauge,

from your answers, whether you’ve done the research. And two, to see how you come

across. You know, what kind of communication skills do you have? Are you

comfortable? Do you seem tense? Do you seem nervous and all those kinds of things?


So, if you are fortunate enough to get through that round, because typically they’ll have

six to eight people at the airport level, and they’ll reduce that to about three that they’ll

take to campus.

So, if you make the top three, then you have the campus interview, which is very

grueling. And it’s as I mentioned earlier, you really have to be accustomed to 10 hour

days because typically, what will happen there is that you’ll start in the morning at 7:30

with breakfast, typically with the search committee. You will go from that to meeting

with individuals and groups throughout the day. Typically, it’s always an open forum.

Anybody on campus who wants to come and ask questions is welcome. So, you meet

with a small group of faculty. You meet with a small group of students. You meet with

the deans. You meet with staff. All of the constituent groups on campus will have their

time with you. And then there’ll be a time for you to meet with the board of trustees.

There’ll be this open forum where you can make a little presentation, ten or 15 minutes,

typically about your vision, and then there’ll be a Q&A that will last for about an hour.

And then you end up at a dinner. So, each time you eat you have people around you. So

you never get to eat. So you’ve got breakfast, you get a little nibble and answer all their

questions. You’ve got lunch, little nibble, answer a lot of questions, and dinner. And,

typically, there’s a reception.

So, you start about 7:30 and interview will end about 9 o’clock, or so, at night.

And then you get up the next day and do the same thing. So, presidential interviews are,

typically, two to two and a half days. Part of this is to test your endurance to see if you

have enough energy to get through this process. Are you still answering questions as

well at that 8 or 9 o’clock reception as you were at 7:30 in the morning. And it’s


typically somebody who was at that 7:30 breakfast who’s at that 8 or 9 o’clock reception

to kind of check all that out. And that typically will be someone on the search

committee. So, all throughout the day you’ll see people who are on the search

committee. Because they see you at the airport. Typically, they liked what you said or

you wouldn’t be on campus. So now, it’s a validation to see how well you can play to the

campus audience.

So, for me, I knew I did well because I got the feedback from the different

constituency groups on campus. And people, quite frankly, are pretty honest with you

when you go on these things. By the end of the interview, I would always ask, “Hey,

what do you think?” People said, “You were great. You did a wonderful job.” Higher

education is a small community. So basically, with the exception of a couple institutions,

wherever I interviewed, I knew somebody. So, they were always my inside eyes and

ears. And they would call and tell me. That’s where I knew that the final decision was

left up to an individual or a board. So, if I applied to an institution that was part of a

system, it was the chancellor or the president of the system who would make the

decision. If I applied to a university that just had boards, it was the board that would

make that decision. So, where I ended up second several times, and knew that I probably

should have been the guy, was one in a system. One time is was a board, but that was just

a circumstance when I ended up in a search where I was told by someone at the table

where the decision was made that it kept going back and forth between myself and a

Hispanic person. There had already been an African American president of this

university 10-12 years ago. So, at the end of the day, it was, “Well we kind of had an

African American but we never had a Hispanic. So it went that way. But, the person told


me it could have easily gone either way because it kept going back and forth. That’s fair.

But in the other two situations where I felt I was the best candidate, and it went a

different way, I just left shaking my head and said “Something else is going on here.”

Those were the two southern institutions. One was validated. I was out on a

whole different job, a year or so ago, I was out at an institution in the east. I was a

consultant. There was a guy there, who was African American, who had been a vice

president at one of these institutions where I had applied. I hadn’t seen him since the

interview. And he pulled me aside and said, “Did anybody ever talk to you after the

interview?”. I said “No.” He said, “Well, I need to tell you.” There were alumni and

some people on the board that said they were not going to have an African American

president. And they told the head of the system that. So, it validated what I perceived.

Everybody on campus was saying I was good and, yet, I didn’t get picked. It’s like,

“What gives?” Again, sometimes, it’s very political and there are other reasons why you

don’t get picked. This gentleman was part of the inner circle. So he heard things. And he

heard that and he just shared it with me. And I said that I appreciated that because,

oftentimes, you just need to know so that when you get asked questions about whether

race plays a role, you can answer the question. I can answer the question that, for sure,

race plays a role.

MR. BARKER: What does it mean, going through the search process, and being selected

as a college president, being an African American male?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I think it is a validation of all of the hard work that I invested

in reaching a point being competitive. In my whole academic and administrative career, I

wanted to put myself in a position so that if I sought a presidency, I would be very

competitive. So when this appointment occurred, I said “mission accomplished.” Not

only did I put myself in a position of being competitive, but I won. And so, it created for

me a sense of accomplishment. But even beyond that, it created for me a sense of a

pioneer. OK, I used to look at other African Americans who had succeeded in becoming

presidents and they became my role models, at predominantly white universities. OK, if

he did it or she did it, that tells me it is possible.

So, when I really was able to reflect, I said now I can tell myself that I stand here,

I sit here, as a role model for those who will follow me. And so as people have reached

out to me and said will you be a mentor or could you be somebody I could call and talk

with and get some pointers about how to become a president, it’s an absolute because

I’ve never forgotten that there were people there that gave me advice and gave me input

that helped to steer me in a direction that helped me achieve this goal. So, it’s been all of

that. It’s been a validation of the time and effort that I’ve put in towards reaching that

goal. But it has also created at least one more person that other people may now call

upon and say, “Could you give me some pointers on how I could be successful?” So, the

appointment was all wrapped up in many things including a sense that things were getting

better in America. The board had one person of color, but the others were all Caucasian.

So, for them to vote unanimously was a big deal in 2004 to appoint an African American

male as president of a predominantly white university. It’s not only the personal

accomplishment, but it’s the social recognition that things in America are looking better.


MR. BARKER: Can you speak to your concerns about losing greater than 50% of

African American boys from K-12 education?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I think our greatest challenge is the African American family.

I believe that we’re spending, as a community of families, a lot of time mentoring and

nurturing young women in our families and in our communities. I don’t think we’re

spending equal time mentoring and nurturing young African American males. We make

assumptions in our community about males that they can learn how to fend for

themselves because there’s always been that kind of macho thing about African

American males that, somehow we can make them tough and it’s OK. But we have to

protect, nurture and mentor our young ladies in ways that help them become successful. I

think the pendulum has swung too far to the side of African American males can make it

on their own. They can’t. And that’s not a weakness of the gender or family. It’s the

reality of the experience of more African American males in jail today than there are in

college.

We’ve got to look at the data and hard facts and say that the assumptions we’ve

made, the way we’ve raised our males, is not working. We’ve got to spend a lot more

time with young African American males, nurturing them, mentoring them, protecting

them and disciplining them. We need to do all the things that we assumed, for far too

long, we didn’t need to do. We did it with our African American women. If you look at

all the data today, there are more African American women in college. There are more

that have gotten into presidencies, not only in universities, but in major corporations. We


have to allow the data to speak to us. That’s what we’ve failed to do. I guess where I’m

going with this is to say that I think we have to go back to our family. We have to go

back to our community. We have to change the way we’re rearing and raising African

American males and to invest in them the same time and energy that we have invested in

African American women.

Interview Two: Detailed Account of the Contemporary Context

Location: President’s Office, Ohio University


MR. BARKER: I hope you don’t mind if we backtrack a little bit. What were your initial

impressions of the search process before you went through it?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Each search process for a president is uniquely different.

With this one, I was nominated for the position. A person who I had been doing some

work with as a consultant, the gentleman who owned the consulting firm, had been doing

some work with K through 12 school districts. He was an alum of Ohio University and

lived in Columbus. When he saw this opening, and heard that the then current president

was stepping down, he was my first contact. He called and said that the presidency was

going to be open. He knew that was something I had been thinking about. He asked if he

could nominate me for this. I said that sure, that would be fine.

So, for this particular position I was nominated. For the first one that I sought, I

was contacted by a headhunter who was working for the institution and was simply

identifying prospective candidates. The commonality is that I submitted my vitae to


each. And that was what initiated the process. So, on one hand, this friend of mine

submitted my credentials to the chair of the search committee on my behalf. For the first

one I applied to, the headhunter simply gathered my material and took it to the search

committee. Once I became aware of the opening here, as well as the first one, I just went

to the web site and looked at the position description. That gave me a sense of what they

were looking for. I pretty much knew what the qualifications were for the job. My

personal way of doing this was to go to the institution’s web site for information.

Typically, I would go to is a research set of data that you have to submit, I think it’s to a

federal agency. The acronym for it is IPEDS data. It gives information about enrollment,

faculty and budget. It is factual kind of information. So that would be my source. I’d go

there and start to identify information about the institution that I wanted to learn to see if

it met my criteria for the type of institution where I would like to work. And so once that

occurred, then it was like, OK, now I can begin to get more serious about the process.

But that’s how it started.

MR. BARKER: Was there an openness with your then current position where they knew

you were applying for positions? They were all right with that?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: That’s a good question. Yes, I went to my president, the

gentleman who hired me and when I took the position he asked me for a five year

commitment, which I gave him. I indicated, at that point, that I was interested in being a

president and that I would probably begin to pursue that at some point during my tenure.

He said OK. At the beginning of my fourth year, I got real serious about pursuing a


presidency and applied to many in my fourth year. But, in my fifth year, I really got

absolutely serious and really started to pursue them in a very serious manner. So, every

time I allowed my name to be submitted, I’ve let my president know that this was one

that I submitted my material to.

MR. BARKER: How many schools met your criteria?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: About seven.

MR. BARKER: Research would suggest that there needs to be some type of institutional

push to hire a diverse candidate, either by the trustees, the faculty or student body. Do

you agree with that assessment?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Yes, that is absolutely the case. I think I talked a little bit

about that yesterday. What I didn’t say is that if that push for a diverse pool of candidates

does not come from the board, then one wonders whether there’s really a serious look at a

diverse candidate. If the push comes from the board of trustees, then one can be sure that

you will have a serious look as a minority candidate. So, for me, when the headhunters

called and we explored this, in just about every one that I pursued, there was that

statement that, yes, you’re going to have a fair opportunity. They haven’t already

determined who they want. I mean I got all those assurances before I submitted my name

because I was familiar with that research that indicated that these institutions were

seeking to have a diverse pool. So, for me, it was some level of assurance. From the


chair of the search committee, the headhunter, information I read in the paper and on the

website, that I got a comfort level that said, OK I’m going to be taken seriously in this

search.

. . .

MR. BARKER: Is there some kind of conversation that happens because there seems to

be with a new president, the institution starts to change gears and starts to focus in a new

direction. A lot of times they want the opposite of what they had before or they may lean

towards another focus. Is that expressed in the search process?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Yes. Now here’s the dilemma that you face as a presidential

candidate and as a new president. You never really know, until you get the job, whether

that direction that has been discussed during the search process was a consensus decision

or whether it was the board’s position. And there’s a difference. So that as I pursue

presidencies, I want to ask a question about that, whether this was the board or whether

this is a consensus. I was, more often than not, told this is a consensus. Um, in some

instances, I think that was true. In other instances, I think it was not. Now, as that relates

to the presidency that I now have, I said that we were going to develop a strategic plan.

The board and the search committee expressed, to me, their desire to develop a strategic

plan. When I came to the campus and actually started the work of developing a strategic

plan, I’m now sure the campus was ready to develop that strategic plan. This is a campus


that never had a strategic plan. So, when you have trustees that come from a business

background, they get it. They’re sitting there saying, we don’t have a strategic plan. The

search committee got it. I think, by and large, the majority of the people on the search

committee said, yeah we do need a strategic plan. I’m not sure the campus community

agreed that this university needed a strategic plan. So when I started that process, and put

the provost in charge of leading it, there was some push factor on the “why” and as we

evolved the content, on some of the content.

MR. BARKER: Was your provost already in place?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: My first appointment was an interim provost. The provost

that was in office, when I started, stepped down by mutual agreement of the provost and

me. The first person I appointed, the first one that was here, was an interim provost who

later became the permanent provost.

MR. BARKER: Understanding that every presidential search is different in a proximate

sense – what contextual differences do you believe exist between candidates of color –

and traditional candidates?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I think my experience is more scrutiny. I think there are more

questions about finance. I think there are more questions about focus. I think there are

more questions about vision. Because you only search for a president, you hope, every


five or ten years, it’s not a common experience for universities to have. So in one’s

career as a faculty member or staff, you may go through two, or at the most, three

searches for president. Not many if you’re at a place twenty or thirty years. So when you

have a candidate of color whose going through that search process, it relates back to some

of the things I’ve talked about in terms of never having a minority person as a boss.

So if you’ve never had a minority person as a supervisor or a boss now, all of a

sudden, here’s a person coming through the presidential search process. You’re talking

about going from sort of the mid-level to the highest level, in terms of what that person

will be all about. So some of the assumptions that you make about presidential

candidates, and the experiences they bring, don’t always fit for a minority candidate.

You really want to be sure, in case you are selected, that you know something about “fill

in the blank”. Well, let’s see, what does he know about finance? Does he know about

fund raising? Does he know about lobbying? Does he know about “fill in the blank.” I

can’t say that those kinds of questions aren’t as important for other candidates. What I

can say is that, having been part of other institutions that had presidential searches, there

was a lot that was assumed about candidates where those questions were not asked. So,

when I was asked those questions as a candidate, that led me to believe that some people

may have had some doubts about some areas.

But, on the question of diversity, I don’t think I was asked any more or less than

other candidates were asked about diversity. I think I got a pass on diversity. But, on the

other areas, you know again, finance and those kinds of things, that’s what people were

interested in. So, “Well he probably knows about diversity” So the benefit of the doubt

there. “So let’s see if he knows about fund raising, lobbying, finance, those other areas


that one might reverse, let’s say, for a white candidate. “Well, they probably know about

those areas. Let’s see if they know about diversity and some of these other things.”

MR. BARKER: OK, what was the most difficult aspect of the search process and what

was the easiest?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: The most difficult, let’s see. I think the most difficult was the

on-campus energy process. That would be consistent through all of the searches that I

was part of because you’re constantly changing groups. You know, at breakfast you’re

with the search committee. The next meeting you’re with 18-22 year old students. The

next meeting you’re with senior faculty. The next meeting you’re with the staff. The

next meeting you’re with another group. I mean, you’re constantly changing groups to

the extent that you can have a consistent message in what you say, the audience is

constantly changing. And so, you’re having to constantly change the delivery of that

message and the focus of the message. So, I’d say that would probably be the most

challenging.

MR. BARKER: Did you develop a strategy?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Yes, I did. And that was done in advance by me. You know,

I always got a schedule in advance. So, I would plan out in my mind, what I would say

and how I would say it, if asked, by the students, by the search committee, by the

trustees, by the faculty, by the staff, by whatever group I would happen to be around. I


would sort of have a sense of how to approach them. And that would be based, in a large

measure, on drawing on those experiences that I had as a provost and as a dean. You

know, being around students, being around faculty, being around staff, being around

alumnae, being around board of trustee members. And so that’s why it is often said that

you almost have to have those kinds of experiences before you get involved in the search

for the presidency, so that you have that to draw upon, because the interview process

makes you or breaks you. I’m convinced of it. It’s how you come across to the broad

spectrum of the community. Because after you leave, it’s those sectors of the community

that sent off the feedback forms. The search committee then has to look at those forms

and say, OK well he did well with the faculty, he did well with the students, he did well

with this group, he did well with that group. And that sort of either helps you win the

day, or not, you know, when you go through the interview process.

MR. BARKER: What was your most pleasurable experience?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: The most pleasurable was meeting different people. I think,

for me, having been involved in searches, primarily in the south and midwest, it was just

the opportunity to meet different people at every level, from the board, alumnae, faculty,

students, sharing my ideas, getting different perspectives and seeing how well received

those were. So it was a validation for me. I really do have some good ideas about

leadership for a university.

You know, I could be at university X and I have three or four things that I believe

in that I’m going to talk about. And those three or four things tend to be the things that I


used wherever I went for an interview, and they resonated pretty well at the end of the

day. Some adjustments, based on what the need was at the institution. You know, some

institutions needed an internal president a little bit more. Others were looking for an

external president a little bit more. Others wanted both. But every institution wants to

improve its academics. You know, every institution is interested in getting more money,

in terms of fundraising. Every institution that I’ve applied to is interested in increasing

its diversity. So once I sort of did the research, nationally, in some of the things that

universities are looking for, that helped me crack the message of, here are three or four

points I’m really going to drive home. If you pick me, here are three or four things I’m

going to do. And I would say that over and over and over. And as I would say these on

the on-campus part, the beauty of the airport interview was that you had everybody at the

table. You had students. You had faculty. You had staff. You had alumnae. You had

trustees. So you only had to deliver the message once to an entire group. When you had

the on-campus, you have segregated groups that you have to deliver that message to.

They didn’t have the gauges of Q&A. So the message stayed the same, but the delivery

of it and the focus of it changed, depending upon what group I happened to be in front of.

MR. BARKER: We can change gears now to the contemporary experience of being a

university president. What is it like for you, personally, to be a university president?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: This is a major decision. It is the most exciting and

challenging work that I’ve ever been engaged in. I thoroughly enjoy every day that I

serve as president because every day is different. I’m engaging in all kinds of


conversations, experiences, meeting different people, the full spectrum. If I were to take

all of the individual experiences that I’ve had in higher education, from a faculty

member, or even back to a grad assistant, dean, provost, it’s all wrapped up in the

presidency because I’m having all of those experiences, not every day, but over a given

period of three months, six months, it’s a vast spectrum of experiences that I’ve had in

streaks over 30 plus years. It’s great. I really enjoy the work. It’s everything I ever

thought it would be, and more.

The biggest difference, for me, is when I was a provost and a vice president of

academic affairs, I thought that the gap between that job and the president’s job was

pretty small because I had the knowledge of things all across the university, of going to

university events. I was engaged with the community. I primarily spent time with the

faculty and with the students, because I was the chief academic officer. But I didn’t

realize that when you crossed the stream, when you went from that provost’s office to the

president’s office, the major difference was it’s 24/7/365. And it’s always with you. As

a provost, I could go home and kind of take off the title and just relax.

As a president, you can get a call at midnight with a situation. You can get a call

at 3 o’clock in the morning. You can get a call on Sunday. You can get a call on

Christmas. It’s always with you. It’s ever present. And that’s the biggest difference

between this job and any other job I’ve ever had in higher education. The sense that I’m

the president never leaves. I mentioned earlier, I was at a basketball game last night. At

half time, I went to, we have a room that’s kind of like for special guests, they pay a little

extra and all of that. There are refreshments in that room. I went to that room last night

during half time to find out if there was any popcorn there. So I thought, I’ll just go out


to the concession stand and get some popcorn. So I went out to the concession stand and

there was a gentleman standing behind me. And he said, I’ll bet you can’t go anywhere

where people don’t know you as president. He said, how does that feel? I said, you know

it’s a little awkward. I go to the Post Office. I go to the drug store. I go to the grocery

store. I go to the cleaners. President McDavis. It’s just ever present. It’s one thing to

take on the role. But, it’s another thing for people to have the awareness of who you are.

MR. BARKER: So many compare being the president of a university to being a CEO of

a business. How would you say that they are alike and how would you say they are

different?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: They are alike from the standpoint of the fiduciary

responsibilities that you have. This is a $550 million enterprise, every bit as much, if not

more, than some major businesses. So the CEO part is providing the management and

leadership for making sure that you are taking care of the financial aspects of the

institution. How it’s not different is with the concept of shared governance. In higher

education, it’s sort of like the faculty has control of the academic enterprise and the

administrators in the institution provide management and leadership for the other parts of

the institution. But when it comes to determining the courses, the academic programs

and all things academic, the faculty are in control of that. In a business, the CEO is

responsible for everything. The product, the fiduciary, the marketing, from soup to nuts,

as they say. The CEO is responsible. Now, a president of a university is responsible for


everything. A lot of other people get involved with the decisions in the process, different

than they would if this was a business where the bottom line was profit.

So, you don’t necessarily ask the employees, “What do you think about starting a

new product line?” I’m not saying that you do or you don’t, but you don’t have to. I

can’t start a new academic program without the faculty being engaged in the process of

helping to develop that academic program. And, it’s difficult to eliminate an academic

program without the faculty being involved in a conversation about eliminating academic

programs. So, in the academy, there’s this concept of shared governance, where the

faculty feel very strongly that they should have input in the decision-making process, and

that a president of a university should not be the sole decision maker for the institution.

It’s very different from a CEO in a private business.

MR. BARKER: If and how were you mentored in preparation for the job? Did you go to

the Harvard new presidents meeting?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I didn’t. In fact, I did not attend any kind of seminar,

workshop, or conference as preparation. I used two strategies. One, I spent a lot of time

talking with the president of my former institution to try to glean, from him, good ideas

about how to provide leadership as president. I also consulted with people who were

presidents of other institutions, via telephone and e-mail to try and get ideas from them. I

took the collective experience that I had as a dean and provost for fifteen years. I was a

dean for ten years at two places and a provost at one place for five years. I said, let me

take these fifteen years and turn that into my workshop, turn that into my seminar, in


terms of preparation for president. So that was sort of the prelude for me to actually

coming in to the position.

When I was asked to be president, it was really interesting because my first

experience was an overlap experience. It was in July of 2004 where the president of the

institution where I was the provost had already agreed to being away from the campus on

a sabbatical for a month and had asked me to oversee the institution from July till August.

And the president who was here left right around July the 3rd. And so I was the president

of two institutions. I was the named president of this institution, but I was watching over

my previous institution as kind of the acting president, because the president was out of

the country. So, my first month, I was really in charge of two places which was very

ironic. And then, in August I gave up the other role and started to focus on this one on a

more singular basis. And then just slipped into it during the month of August and started

to work as the president of the institution without going to workshops, conferences,

seminars, that sort of thing.

MR. BARKER: They use the term, “The first hundred days” Is that some kind of marker

put out by the universities or is that more of a personal goal?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: That’s a good marker. It’s not quite the same as the first 100

days as the President of the United States or the first 100 days of the governorship. But,

there is something about those first few months of kind of establishing your identity, kind

of establishing your focus. And I, unlike most presidents, decided, after some misgivings


quite honestly, to have my inauguration within the first sixty days. So, my inauguration

was on September the 10th. I started, officially, as president on July 1.

I delivered my inaugural address, which laid out my agenda, for my presidency, at

least the early part of my presidency, within the first three months. And that set the tone

for then what I started to do immediately following that inauguration. Unlike most

presidents who probably spend the first 6 months just kind of getting the lay of the land.

And then they have their inauguration towards the end of their first year, where they’ll

lay out their plan for what they intend to do.

So, the first 100 days in the academy is much different than the first 100 days in

the White House, in that typically in that first 100 days or first six months, you’re just

listening, you’re collecting information. I thought I had a pretty good feel for the

institution, coming in after the interview process and the fact that I was an alum, that I

didn’t need to wait that long before I started moving on my agenda. So I started moving

on my agenda fairly early in my presidency. That’s good and bad. It’s good in that I hit

the ground running. I was doing something. I said, let’s start to develop a strategic plan.

We started a scholarship program we call the Urban Scholarship Program, which was

aimed at students from the urban centers. It was a way of focusing on our diversity

agenda. I mean, I started some initiatives within the first few months as a way of sending

a message, “Here are the things I talked about during the interview. You know, folks,

I’m going to start doing them”. Bad in that I think people got intimidated. “Wow, he

really meant what he said.” And so I started doing some things that, I think, intimidated

people a little bit because I think they expected me to wait a little longer before I started

to act. You know, that gets us to that whole area of “We need to get to know you better


before we’re going to let you act” vs. “OK, this is what this guy said. Obviously he felt

strongly about that. Obviously, he thinks he knows what he’s doing. So obviously he is

going to start acting.” So I started moving very quickly. And again, I think that scared

some people in more ways than one.

MR. BARKER: You have a unique perspective being an alum of this institution – how

has the racial climate changed from the past to the present?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: As a student, I came to Ohio University at a very unique time

in its history. The president in the 60’s, at Ohio University, was a president who believed

that this institution should be more diverse. One of the things that he ordered was that for

his admissions staff to go into the urban areas of Ohio and begin recruiting for students of

color. Ohio University was one of the first universities in Ohio to do that very

aggressively. As a consequence, I came at a time when the numbers were rolling at Ohio

University. So, for me, it was an exciting period because there were a lot of African

American students here when I came. We were over 1000, which was more than there

are today. And so, what I’ve said to people is, “I just want to go back to where we were.”

You know, it’s like, “Why is this push to get more diversity?” It’s like, whoa, whoa,

whoa, whoa, you’ve got to remember.

We had about 12,000, maybe 13,000 students back then, but we had 1000 African

American students. We’ve got 20,000 students today and we don’t have 1000 African

American students. So, we’ve gone backwards over a period of time. What we’re trying

to do is to reposition ourselves. I did exactly what the president back then did. I sat


down with the admissions staff. I asked them where they were recruiting. They said,

“We recruited all the suburban areas around the cities.” I said, you can go back to the

cities. You can go to Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, Akron and you

need to start recruiting from the cities. When we started doing that, our numbers started

going back up. So we know what the formula is. You have to go where the students are.

You have to market yourself. You have to make connections there through counselors,

teachers, principals and let people know.

Now, to spice it up, we started this Urban Scholars Program. We give out ten

scholarships a year to students from urban centers. So the Urban Scholars Program was

our calling card. That let students know, “Wow, Ohio University is interested in me

coming there as a student”. So the applications went out. Now, for those students who

don’t get the Urban Scholarship we have other financial support that we could provide for

those students. But the message was what was important. And that message was “We

want you to consider seriously coming to Ohio University and, oh by the way if you

decide to come, you’ll have some financial support that we can provide.” So what we’ve

done is generated the means by which more students of color can come.

Now, on the other side of that, I was here at a time when the university was also

trying to reach out and increase it’s faculty of color and it was having some success there.

We’ve got to do a better job of recruiting faculty of color. We’re just not able. And part

of that is for the right reason. We’re in a rural community. It’s a tough sell to convince a

person of color to come and live in Akron. They love the university when they see what

we’re all about in terms of the academic aspect. This is a great place to come and

become a faculty member. But, living in a community that only has one or two percent


people of color in the community, that’s a challenge. It’s very challenging. Now, we’re

doing better on the administrator side, as far as attracting administrators of color. We’ve

got a vice president of student affairs who is African American. We’ve got a dean of

education who is African American. That’s a lot more than what was here when I was a

student. So, on the administrator side, on the student side, we’re doing pretty well. On

the faculty side, we’re still challenged. So, the parallel is that I came here at a time when

this institution was making a serious commitment to diversify itself. I’m back to a time

when we’re making a serious commitment to re-diversify ourselves.

MR. BARKER: How important is the institutional fit to the university president?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Quite a bit important. Now here’s the part of that that’s a

mystery. I’m not sure there is a predominantly white university in American where

there’s a perfect fit for a president of color. And I say that because every institution has a

culture. And that culture is developed over a period of time. By and large, culture is

determined by the majority population within the institution. So that culture is part of the

institution that speaks to its image. It speaks to its academics. It speaks to its attitude or

environment. It has all been shaped by others. So when you bring a president of color

into that environment, you’re challenging that environment to accept difference at the

very top. And at the very top is supposed to be the person who exudes that culture of the

institution. So, you’re making a radical change at the highest level and asking the culture

to accept that difference and also asking the person at the top to reflect, in a large

measure, that culture, that environment. So it’s an interesting fit. And that’s why I’m


saying, I don’t know that there’s just a natural fit for a president of color in the United

States unless it’s at an HBCU, which the culture, the environment has all been shaped by

people of color. So you’re bringing a person of color in at the top to reflect that culture,

that environment.

A very challenging part of being president is fitting in to that culture, that

environment. For me, although I was a student here, living in a predominantly white

community and university, I didn’t notice that much as a student because, as I said, there

were so many other black students here, that’s what I got caught up in. So my

environment, as a student, was being around other black students. I didn’t spend a lot of

time in the rest of the environment. Some, but my base, my culture, was with black

students. As a president, you have to represent your whole university. So, culture of the

university is not that which you experienced as a student. So for me, as I say, it’s been an

interesting adjustment, both by me and by the rest of the university community. And I

think as provost, and as dean, there was only a slice of the environment that I had to be

concerned with, certainly as a dean my academic unit, which had a culture. As a provost,

again, the spokesperson, the ambassador for the university is the president, it’s not the

provost. So, the president of my previous institution was the face of the institution. I was

simply the person who was making the agenda work on behalf of the president. And so,

switching positions, and becoming the face of the institution, I reflect the image and the

culture of the university. Very different.

MR. BARKER: You mentioned HBCU’s. What do you think the major differences are

between being an African American president at an HBCU and a PWI?


PRESIDENT MC DAVIS: Well, I think when you’re leading an HBCU as a person of

color, there are certain givens. People have much more familiarity with where you’re

from and what you’re all about, your world view, your background, your culture. The fit

is one that is a little different in that although you may come from a different socio-

economic class, you probably grew up, in part, in a black community. You probably

have had some experiences along the way with people of color, both professionally and

personally. So when you come into that leadership role, you do have much greater

awareness of the population that you are serving. When you come into a PWI, again, you

are coming into an environment where you had probably worked, as I had, my entire

career. This is my fourth PWI. So I had that working for me. I had that familiarity. I

had all of that background. But each institution is different. So I was coming from an

urban institution that had 39% diversity in its students, to an institution that had three or

four percent. Again, the cultures are different. And it took people, it still is taking people

a while to say, “OK, he’s alright.” The first year, I think, was kind of the honeymoon.

MR. BARKER: How would you describe your relationship with the campus

community?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I believe I have a very good relationship with the majority of

the campus community and I strongly believe I have an excellent relationship with the

city community. We had talked about economic development as one of the four areas of

our administration. That has resonated well with the local community. We’ve


demonstrated our commitment by certain things that we’ve done, through the university.

I meet with the mayor on a regular basis. I meet with members of the city counsel on a

regular basis. Having that two-way communication sends the message that we’re

concerned about community relationships. The university community by and large, I

think, has been very accepting of the direction of the institution. Within the academic

community, I’ve always divided it into thirds. There’s a third of the university

community that will support you from day one. That’s how they are. They’re very loyal

to the institution. Whoever is leading it is secondary. “My loyalty is to the university. If

this person is leading it, then I’m loyal to him.” A third is kind of in the middle. They

want to see which way the wind blows. “If a lot of people are in favor of the president,

then I’m there. If a lot of people are against the president, then I’m there.” There’s a

third that’s just called “Not being with me” for a lot of different reasons. They’re just

anti-administration, anti-whoever the president is. They want to disagree with

everything. So your battleground is really that middle third, to constantly try to sway

them to be with the third that really strongly supports what you’re all about. And I think

that my sense is that I’ve got a large majority of that middle third to join with the third

that’s with me. So, in that regard, I feel the support of the university community, just as I

feel the “push-back” from that third that’s not really in favor of a lot of these changes that

we’re trying to make.

MR. BARKER: What is the best part of the job?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Visiting and being around different people 365 days, whether

it be students, whether it be faculty, whether it be staff, whether it be alumnae. The

contact with a wide variety of these interest groups on a daily basis is upside of this work.

It’s what keeps me invigorated. It’s what we’re all about. It really does touch people in a

very personal and a very serious way, and that’s what I enjoy most about the work.

MR. BARKER: What is the least enjoyable part of the job?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Dealing with what I call the disenchantment. The things that

one would think shouldn’t be areas of disagreement, but turn out to be. Pretty significant

areas of misunderstanding, typically, and having to engage in the dialogue around those

kinds of issues because those kinds of issues are hot with the media. So you end up

having dialogue around those issues with members of the media rather with the people

that you actually ought to be having dialogue with, the people that are raising the issues.

Because in today’s world, people have figured out that if you want to get attention, you

don’t come speak to the person you’re having the disagreement with, you go to the

media. And so you’re arguing about issues through the media, when you really ought to

be arguing about those issues face to face. That’s the underlying, frustrating part about

the work.

MR. BARKER: Can you give an example?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Primary example, the administrators, the board of trustees and

alumnae. Each one is managed differently. The trustees is the one the conversations,

keeping in communication via telephone, e-mail, face to face. With alumnae, definitely

is face to face. Going out and visiting. They want to keep in touch with the institution.

They want to hear the good things. They’re not really interested in hearing all the bad.

“What are some of the good things that are going on here?” The faculty is about going to

faculty meetings, visiting departments, visiting schools, seeing faculty out on the campus,

going to social events, you know, keeping the lines of communication open and being

willing to talk about key issues that might be out there. With administrators, you know

it’s managing the institution by developing those one on one relationships but, more

importantly, being able to motivate and encourage people to do the work that they should

do to keep the institution moving forward. So each group calls for a little different way

of connecting and continuing the dialogue. The constant across every group is

communication. And when that communication turns a little sour, that’s when you start

having problems because miscommunication can be a major problem area in higher

education.

MR. BARKER: There are different types of university presidents. How would you

define yourself?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I’d say I’m a combination of an academic and political

president. I try to ground myself in the heart of the institution, in that sense, academics,

and that’s why we’re here. I try to use the politics as a way to move us forward. And


that is to say you have your internal constituency groups, you have your board of trustees,

you have your policy makers. So you have to be political in nature to create movement

within the institution. You have to figure out how to make that happen. The other part of

your question was, I think that I’m a leader by participatory engagement. What I try to

do is to engage others in the decision making process. To make other people feel they

have input and involvement in the decisions that are being made within the institution. I

lead by example. I’m not a micromanager. I empower leaders within the campus. So

when I hire vice presidents and directors that are direct reports. I don’t tell them how to

do their jobs. I allow them to do their jobs. When we gather to have our meetings, I try to

get them to engage in a dialogue so that they feel they’re much a part of the decision

making process.

MR. BARKER: How would you describe the relationship between you and the Board of

Trustees? To what extent do they help or hinder you?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I would label it as an excellent relationship with the board of

trustees. The board hired me and I don’t wake up on any day not to be mindful of that.

The board of trustees has two major areas of responsibility. The fiduciary responsibility

for the institution and the policy-making for the institution. They hired me to be

administrator and manager of the day to day affairs of the institution. So the line of

separation is that they allow me to manage and they’re concerned about the finances and

the policies. They’ve been a tremendous help. I think the key to being successful as a


president is all that goes into that relationship with your trustees. That’s why I said, in

my previous response, that e-mails, telephone calls, face to face, all of that is critical with

the board of trustees. Because they have to know you. You have to know them.

MR. BARKER: In your opinion, is race a factor shaping interactions between you and

your senior administrators (i.e. deans and vice presidents)?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: You know, that’s a good question. I don’t think it matters as

much at that level. Now let me qualify that. Most vice presidents, directors and deans

have been around people of color. They’ve worked with people of color. The key is

have they been in a subordinate position. If they’ve not been in a subordinate position,

sometimes it takes people a little while to get comfortable again with that fact that the

president is African American. It takes people a little while to get there. Once they’re

there, it’s fine. At this level, I’ve never had an African American boss. I’ve never had an

African American president or provost or dean. So I can’t sit here and say how that is.

What I can tell you is that I’ve had white persons who have been my boss as a president,

as a provost, as a dean, so I’ve worked for them. I think what this situation has created is

an opportunity for the vice presidents and the deans to get comfortable working for an

African American as president.

So I think it takes a little while to reach a comfort level. Once that comfort level

is there, I don’t think it makes a difference. I think early on it does. Just visually, you

know, it’s getting comfortable with walking into the president’s office and there’s an

African American seated at that desk, when this university is 203 years old and there’s


never been an African American president. That’s a huge shift, you know, in thinking.

So it’s that shift that I think people have to get comfortable with. You’re probably

already aware, but in 120 Division I universities, there are four African American

presidents. They’re all male. And we’re similar, yet different institutions. There’s

Washington State. There Bowling Green State University, which is another university in

Ohio. There’s Middle Tennessee State with Sydney McPhee and there’s me, that’s it. If

you go outside of Division I, there are a lot more. I mean you’ve got ….I’m trying to

think of her name. I know it’s a woman. She’s visited this campus. Yeah, Ruth

Simmons. And then at RPI, there’s a woman, I can’t recall her name. At some of these

other universities, there are African American presidents, but I’m talking about the ones

that play Division I. There are 120 Division I universities. There are four of us as

presidents. That’s why when you ask me is that Division I. Yeah, we’re Division I.

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Last May, May of 2007, we were actually on a panel speaking

to many of the questions that you brought up, the National Council on Race and Ethnicity

in Higher Education, something like that. . . . Sydney McPhee and I were the only two

that could be there. The president of Bowling Green was due to be there but something

came up on his campus and he couldn’t get there. So we did this presentation with two

folks, one of whom was a former trustee here, an African American trustee that was on

the Search Committee when I was selected and one of her colleagues from Temple who

were the facilitators of this. And the whole purpose was to share our experiences. How

did we get there? What we talked about were really the contemporary experiences. What


was it like to be a president of a PWI? What were our experiences and what was that all

about? Next May we go back to what you started asking yesterday, which is to talk about

our experiences. How did we get here? So, yes, the short answer to your question is that

we do know each other. We see each other at national meetings. We communicate with

each other via telephone and e-mail. So, we’re aware of each other.

. . .

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: That’s why I say there are more of us if you go outside of

Division I. But even when you go outside of Division I, if there are a dozen of us, that’s

a lot out of 2 or 3 thousand universities.

MR. BARKER: Why? What is your rationale?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Again, I think it’s challenging for institutions, as a whole,

whether it be boards, faculty, staff. The board has to perceive that there’s at least enough

base support within the institution that a person of color can have a chance to be

successful. That’s not to say it guarantees it because I’ve had my trials. There’s no

question. I’ll tell you. I’ve been challenged. But I think that the board believes that

there was enough base of support for me coming and they made the decision to bring me

in. You multiply that out over all the universities in America and, as I said earlier, the

culture of a PWI was not developed by people of color. So now you’re asking a board of

trustees, who is in charge of overseeing this entity, to pick somebody who is racially,


culturally and ethically different to come in and lead an institution that has a culture that

has not been shaped by people who are not ethically, racially and culturally different.

And, more often than not, I believe that the leadership at that level of the institution says,

“This is a risk we don’t want to take.” Not because they’re not good people. But it’s

“Do you want to try it? Do you want to do it?” And, more often than not, institutions

have said no. “We don’t want to do it.” It’s part of what’s left to deal with in the

American culture that, you know in 2007, we just elected a year or so ago, the 2nd

governor of a state in the history of the United States. And I know Doug Wilder. Doug

Wilder spoke at my inauguration. I got to know him because his office was right down

the street from mine. And we had lunch. We talked a lot about this. And part of it is,

you’ve got to have a community, a culture, that is accepting. And when we think about

that extrapolated to the citizenry, because universities are a microcosm, we’ve only had

two African American governors elected. Therein lies our challenge. That’s why I

referenced Barack Obama’s campaign yesterday. There’s a challenge about respecting

someone, and what he or she has accomplished, and having that person as your boss.

There’s a big gap between respecting a person’s intelligence and what they’ve

accomplished and saying, “Yeah, I’ll work for you.” Fortune 500 companies, same thing.

MR. BARKER: Does the concept of race impact your decisions on a daily basis?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: No. Unless there’s a compelling reason to consider race, that

is not part of what the day to day is really all about. I try to manage and lead the

institution based on the needs of the institution vs diversity, race, whatever.


. . .

MR. BARKER: When issues of diversity are discussed on campus, do you feel that

you’re called to a different expectation of standard?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Yeah, I am. I think that there are assumptions that are made.

“Well, we know how the president is going to think. We know what the president is

going to say. We know what position he’s going to take.” Um, and that’s OK. I think

that’s normal. You know, I think, um, I’ve made no bones about the fact that I’m a

strong supporter of diversity initiatives within the institution. So any question that comes

up surrounding diversity I don’t think people have to stop and think “How does the

president believe or how does he think or how does he feel about it? You know, I think

people will ask. But I think people almost know what my answer will be and I’m OK

with that.

MR. BARKER: My last question: What is the typical day like in the life of a president?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Great question. Well, um, let’s see. Without getting tied up

into details, most of it is spent in either individual or group meetings with constituents

around the institution, faculty, administrators, staff, students. Another part of it is spent

in communication and that communication is telephone and e-mail. A growing part of


the day is spent responding to e-mails. Another part of the day is spent with paperwork.

Reading through paperwork, responding to different letters and different communication.

It’s just reading material that comes across my desk, be it in the form of magazines, be it

in the form of a letter or whatever. Just reading and keeping up with professional

correspondence and all of that. And then the other part of the day would be a little bit in

the social area, a lunch with friends or colleagues, and perhaps dinner. Social events in

the evenings. I consider social events sporting events or cultural events, but some

university related event in the evening. Probably four or five days a week are spent with

those. So, from meetings, to social, to reading or paperwork to e-mails, that would be a

big part of my 10 to 12 hour day.

MR. BARKER: And what part of those tasks can you delegate to others?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: You know, not many. I mean, I do have some support staff

that will respond to e-mails for me. But I still have to read them. I do have support staff

that will respond to written communication to me, but I have to read it and say, “This is

what I want you to say.” Going to social events, I need to be there. Either I go or I don’t

go. The meetings that I have I really set up in terms of meeting with individuals or

meeting with groups. So those things I can delegate I have either already done that, and

that’s already part of my day, or they’re within the domain of the e-mails, the paperwork,

those things that come to my desk, where I can go to a staff member and say, “Draft a

letter for this or draft an e-mail for that” You know, and I do that. I do a lot of that. And

that’s something I will learn how to do more because I have always cherished writing


personal letters back to people and I was able to do that all the way up until I got this job.

Now I have other people who draft them, in fact I’ve got a few on my desk. I’ve got a

couple people who will draft things for me and then I’ll just edit them and I’m done. But

I don’t draft any letters myself anymore. I just don’t have time to do it.

MR. BARKER: How do you stay healthy?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I don’t do the things that would help me be healthy. I don’t

have a strict diet, nor do I have a strict exercise program. I started an exercise program, I

even had a personal trainer, the first 6 months I was in this job. About this time of year,

from July to December, I was actually in a program where I was working out and I was

keeping up with it pretty well. And then I got away from it. So I’ve been away from it

now since January of 2005. So for three years, to be exact, I’ve gotten away from my

exercise. Eating, I try to watch what I eat. I try to get all my checkups to doctors, and so

forth, so in that regard, I know that I’m healthy there. I think I’m just blessed with

having a good healthy base. Now, how long, who knows. These are very demanding

jobs, very demanding jobs. But I’ve been fortunate enough that I’ve had my health up to

this point. I’ll probably need to take better care of myself, in terms of wellness programs.

MR. BARKER: How many hours of sleep do you get a night?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I have probably between 6 and 7 hours of sleep a night.


Interview Three: Reflections on Meaning

Location: Distance Learning Center, Ohio University


MR. BARKER: Alright, yesterday we asked the question, we started off with what is it

like to be a university president. As you remember from our first interview, today I’m

going to ask what does it mean to be the first university president, making meaning of the

whole situation? So, I’ll start with that question. What does it mean to you, at this point

in your life, and reflecting upon it to be the university president.

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I think, for me, the significance of serving as university

president was the opportunity to try to shape the future of a university from its potential

to provide high quality education to its students and to be a place of renown. So, from

my vantage point, it’s taking advantage of that opportunity to help shape what the future

of the institution will look like, from the standpoint of the education that it’s students

receive.

MR. BARKER: What does your presidency signify to the present state of higher

education?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Probably I think, the landscape of university presidents today,

at least in colored universities, I think all of us are challenged by the physical realities of

the time. And as such, it’s been taking what we’ve been asked to do to kind of elevate


our institutions against the fiscal realities that all of us have restrained and constrained

budgets and finding creative ways to lift the quality of higher education. So I think the

significance of my presidency is how well we’re able to increase the quality of the

institution, given the fiscal realities of the early 21st century.

MR. BARKER: Have you ever been tired of being identified as a black president of a

PWI?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: No. For the last 3 ½ years, it has gone by so quickly, that

there are days where I forget that I’m, in fact, an African American president of a PWI.

It’s just that I’m president of the university and we’re working hard to get things done.

But, I’m always, I think, in a larger context, aware of the historical significance of what

I’m doing, but not really fixating on that every day and spending a lot of time thinking

about why that is significant.

MR. BARKER: How do you feel the minority population on campus perceives you, such

as black students, staff and faculty?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Very positively. I think I have a great relationship with

African American students, faculty and staff on campus. I think that they know me in a

little different way than others on the campus, and that’s probably two fold. They take

the time to get to know me and I’ve probably taken a little bit more time to get to know

them. When you know people on a little bit more personal level, it increases the


relationship that you might have with them. So I think that they also, I think, as a group,

understand the significance of my serving as president, especially those who have been

here for a long time and never thought they’d see a day when an African American would

serve as the president of the university. To the students on campus, 18-22 year old

undergraduate students, they’re just proud of going to a university where they, actually

can identify with the president. So, it’s kind of both ends of that continuum of the

concurrent day students who understand, “Wow, this is great,” to the older faculty and

staff on campus who are saying, “This is history.” So it’s enjoyable being around such a

wide continuum of African Americans that are on campus, and understanding that they

all get it. They all understand the significance of this opportunity.

MR. BARKER: How do the four topics I’m about to bring up impact your presidency?

And how have you improved since you first started? Fundraising?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Fundraising is critically important to our university from the

standpoint that we cannot achieve the level of excellence that we aspire to achieve

without getting more private money coming into the institution. When I came in, the

institution had just completed its bicentennial campaign, celebrating $200 years, and it

exceeded its goal by $21 million, its goal was $200 million. They brought it in at $221

million. So we’ve been kind of building the base for the next campaign, which is

probably a year or two away, and I think that the change that we’ve made, the recent

campaign that was just completed, was basically staff based, meaning that the

development staff basically ran the campaign.


What we’re going to do is we’re going to go back to the first campaign, which

was volunteer based, which means alumnae were basically at the forefront of doing the

fundraising. We’re going to combine the two, so that the third campaign at the university

will be significant use of volunteers or alumnae matched with significant use of staff. So

getting both volunteers and staff to lead the next campaign. And we’re in the process of

making that structural change right now and I think that will be one significant difference

from what we’ve done before to what we’re going to do in the future. The other thing to

mention in that regard is that the two largest gifts in the history of the university have

been made during my watch. One a $15 million gift and the other a $10 million gift.

Both of those came in the last two years. So I’ve been very fortunate to serve as president

at a time when the two largest individual gifts in its history have come in.

MR. BARKER: Did you have personal relationships with the donors, did you know

them?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: With the $10 million gift, that’s directly related to an

initiative that we started since I came. The $15 million gift was a culmination of work

that started before I came and then some additional work that was done when I got here

to sort of convince them that this was the right investment for that foundation to make in

our university.

MR. BARKER: Lobbying?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Um, we did not have a director of government relations on a

full time basis when I came into office. We had done some lobbying at the state level.

We had done very little at the federal level. And without a full time director, it was sort

of a hit and miss. When I came, I created the position of Director of Government

Relations. The purpose of creating this position was to give lobbying it’s just due from

the standpoint that, I felt, we needed a full time person to work for us in Columbus and

Washington. So we now have a Director of Government Relations who spends her time,

basically, advocating for us in Columbus and advocating for us in Washington. We

visited some of our congressmen and senators in Washington who have reported that this

was the first time that they had actually met anyone from Ohio University in a formal

capacity, from the standpoint of coming to visit in their offices. So we feel good that

we’ve been able to create relationships in Columbus and Washington that we think will

bear fruit for us over the next few years.

MR. BARKER: Finance?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Yeah, finance. That’s our greatest challenge. We have lost

resources over the first six or seven years of this century. And, as such, the institution, I

think, was certainly better off in the 90’s in terms of finance. The first six years, since

2000, we’ve been challenged to have enough of a financial base to do all of the things

that we need to do to enhance the quality of the education. So what we have done is, I

think the significant difference that we bring, is that we’re focusing on how to become

cost efficient and effective so we make better use of the limited resources that we have.


And by making better use, and selectively investing in certain areas, it means that we’re

going to determine that we can’t invest equally all across the academy, but there are areas

where we can make critical investments to increase the quality in those areas. That’s the

challenge that we’re facing, where will those areas be. We haven’t determined where

they all will be, but that’s the path we’re beginning to walk. So in the area of finance, not

only are we looking at how to make better use of the state resources, but now we’re

challenging ourselves to figure out how can we generate new streams of revenue. So,

online courses, distance education, those are the kinds of ideas that we’re trying to come

up with. Offering more graduate programs in a center like this, which is very close to an

urban area. Those are things that we’ve not done a lot of in the past, but we think that

that’s the future for us. We need to think about new ways of generating revenue and

that’s something that we’re paying a lot more attention to than we ever have.

MR. BARKER: The complexity of dealing with Division I athletics, the educational

issue.

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: That’s a great question. We did something last year that

probably a handful of institutions have had to do in Division I. We eliminated four of our

sports programs. When I came in the summer of 2004, we had 20 athletic programs. We

reduced that 20 to 16 in January of 2007. We did that because we couldn’t afford to

support 20 athletic programs. We can afford to support 16. Now, the next step in that

process is how do we begin to elevate those 16 to a higher level of excellence, and at the

same time, integrate athletics into the university. And so we’ve done that in several


ways. One, we have made the Athletics Director part of, what I call, my executive staff,

which at other places would be called the President’s Cabinet. So he sits at the table with

all of the vice presidents and all of the directors who directly report to me and has input at

the table equal to the input that other people have. In addition, we’ve asked him to begin

working closely with the deans to look for opportunities to begin to integrate athletics

into the institution.

There are three ways we think we can do that. We have something we call

learning communities. It’s kind of a new addition that we started at the freshman level.

We want to make sure we include athletes in these learning communities, which are very

small communities that we create, twenty five to thirty students, who get to know each

other, take classes together, who live around each other. It takes a very large institution

and makes it small. So we want to make sure that we include the student athletes in those

learning communities. Secondly, we’re designing new programs that increase our

retention rate. We want to make sure that student athletes are included in the programs

and projects that we design to increase our retention. And third, graduation rate.

We have set as one of our goals that we’d like to lead our conference in

graduation rates for student athletes. I think we’re third or fourth in the conference right

now out of twelve schools. We want to be first. Now what that does, it focuses not only

on student athletes, but the coaches, on the academic enterprise. So the reason was we’ve

taken our athletic program and reduced that. Now we’re looking for ways to increase the

quality, competitively and otherwise, and we focused the coaches and the AD on the

academic purposes of our student athletes being here. And last, we have been talking to

our student athletes about the importance of graduation so to kind of reinforce on the part


of the student athletes. So, I speak to them directly. Other academic folks speak to them

directly. We try and keep the balance even between the focus on academics and the

focus on athletics.

MR. BARKER: What areas of the job, or your personal skill set, do you still diligently

work to improve upon?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: You know I was just thinking, with all the challenges that we

have, you can never know enough about financial matters in a $550 million enterprise.

So I do a lot to try and learn more about the finance side of the work. Probably the other

side is the vision of time, in terms of how much time is spent on academics. How much

time is spent on athletics. How much time is spent on lobbying. How much time is spent

on fundraising. It’s learning how to make the best use of limited time, because you have

such a large agenda and a large portfolio that you want to make sure that you’re spending

the right amount of time in those critical areas. So each year, I think, in the summer I try

and step back and analyze, “How did I spend my time last year?” And then try to make

some adjustments on how I’ll spend it the following year. I think in my fourth year I’m

beginning to hit the right stride in terms of how much time is spent on all of the various

areas that are in my portfolio. So time management becomes a consistent challenge as

well. And then I think the third would be how to balance the number of events that I

personally attend and get involved because I get invited to everything. All of the

activities and events the students have, all the things the faculty have, all the things the

different academic units have, as well as athletics. So how to spread myself out so that I


am attending things in the cultural and arts area, the athletics area, the student events

area, so that I have some visibility with all of that. So I separate that a bit because that’s

kind of the social calendar vs. the day to day work, which is the other area that I refer to

in terms of how much time I spend intellectually focusing on academics, athletics,

fundraising, lobbying, all of that. So those are the three or four things that I’d say I pay a

lot of attention to.

MR. BARKER: I envision this dissertation as a source of information for those young

administrators and faculty who might want to move into top level administrative jobs and

chart their individual potential career path, but lack direct mentorship from an African

American perspective. So two questions. What are skills/attributes that they may need to

learn that cannot be articulated or understood from just reading your CV?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I think all of the, what I refer to as the people skills side of the

work, that is to say, I think one should look at publications and presentations and

different experiences to sort of get this profile, “OK, he was this, he was that, he did this,

he did that”. It doesn’t really account for, how did you move from the faculty side of

things to the administrative side of things successfully. And that’s why I said the first

thing to be taught, the biggest part of this work if you want to be successful, is learning

how to navigate the people side of things, because the vast majority of your time is really

spent with people. And today is a great example.

The Audit Committee and the Board of Trustees met for three hours. We had five

of our trustees here. And then we had what we call the Information Technology


Oversight Committee. We had one of our Trustees on that. We had a faculty member

there. We had our auditor there and a vice president. We had a mixture of people. But I

chaired the meeting. I chair the Information Technology Oversight Committee. And a

big part of that is making sure that everybody around the table had appropriate input into

…my role on the Audit Committee which was listening to the internal auditor, sitting

next to the Chair of our Audit Committee who is one of our trustees. The Chair of …was

on the other side of the room. And just listening and offering there. It’s a different role.

So it’s that communication. It’s that people skills side that I think is really

important when one is thinking about, you know, what am I not seeing. Because, you

know, you can’t write that. You can write a title. You can write a publication. You can

write a consultation. But the actually navigating through is something that is not there, in

terms of what you see in life. And it’s understanding that what you don’t see is probably

the most important thing that helps one to get from where you’re at. Let’s say for those

who have finished the terminal degree, so you have a PhD. You have all the credentials

that you need. How do you navigate the system? And so what I sort of advise in that

regard is literally plotting a person’s career. Just kind of write it down. OK, he or she

started here and they ended up here. What are all the positions that they had along the

way. And then finding people who are in those positions and really talking to them and

saying, “You know, what makes you an effective leader. What makes you an effective

provost?” Because it’s those answers that fill in the blank. So you know the positions

that are held. The next part of that would be to find people that are in those positions and

really just talk to them and say, “Hey, what’s making you successful as a dean?” or

“What’s making you successful as a provost?”


MR. BARKER: What would you like to impart to those individuals of navigating the

higher education structure?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Well, first of all, it’s doable. It can be a lot of fun. It’s a lot

of hard work. I mean, it’s almost a question of earning one’s career. People come to me

and say, “You know, I kind of think I want to do what you do. I want to achieve what

you’ve achieved”. My first advise is, “What’s your goal? Where do see yourself

ending?” Because, for me, I was selected as president when I was 55. And yet, when I

was twenty five, I sort of had the vision of what I wanted to become. Now, did I know

that it would take thirty years? No. Did I think it would take at least fifteen to twenty?

Yes. I knew that it would be a journey, that you don’t just sit down one day and you have

your doctorate degree and say, “I think I want to be a president” and that’s going to

happen like yesterday. It’s a journey of 1000 miles and you literally have to take each

mile along the way. So, I think the part of it, you know, that I realize is that you have to

be able to identify your goal. And then you work backwards. You say, OK I want to be

a president. What are the things I’m going to have to do to get there. Maybe somebody

just wants to be a dean. Maybe somebody else wants to be a provost, chief academic

officer. So you set that goal. And then you determine what are the things I’m going to

have to do to get there. And then each year you’ve got to monitor your progress toward

that goal. And there are different places along the way where you know whether you’re

being successful or not. And, you know, there are great indicators along the way as to

whether you’re being successful in the achievement of that goal.


MR. BARKER: What is it going to take to see an increase in the number of African

American males leading division one and selective institutions?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: A greater focus on obtaining terminal degrees. The pool of

African American males who have doctorate degrees in the disciplines is going to have to

be greatly expanded because for every one like me who have been successful, there may

be 3 or 4 that are not successful, that have the same goals. They aspire to do the same

thing but for any number of reasons may not have been successful. So it’s just like many

things. We have to have a large enough pool so that, you know, in any research study, if

you want to get twenty five good responses you probably have to send out 100 surveys.

The same thing relates to the number of African American males who leave research

universities, specifically D1 universities, in that for every twenty-five of us, maybe one of

us will be successful and end up achieving their goal. And that’s with the assumption

that all twenty-five may not have had the goal. So it’s increasing the pool of African

Americans who have doctorate degrees and, to me, that’s the target of what will

ultimately lead to the increase of African Americans who either have top leadership roles

at research or D1 universities or at least those who are being seriously considered. So,

um, that’s going to push a lot of work down to the high school level, the undergraduate

level and certainly the graduate education level.

MR. BARKER: What do you think are the most pressing issues in American higher

education today and how do they impact your university specifically?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I’ll name three. One is access. It’s getting harder and harder

to get into universities because of the second issue, which is affordability. Access and

affordability are tied together. On one end, the pushback that has occurred over the last

twenty years to affirmative action has had serious negative consequences on increasing

the number of African American males in higher education because many universities

have become afraid to recruit for fear someone will file a lawsuit. So if you don’t recruit

a number of African Americans and if you don’t have specific programs to recruit

students of color, then you are diminishing the access that a group can have to your

institution. We’ve approached that from the standpoint of the two programs which I have

referred to. The Urban Scholarship Program speaks to students from our urban centers.

Now it just so happens that the majority of students from our urban centers are African

American. So it plays well to increase diversity and bring these students into our

institution. The Appalachian Scholars Program, which is the second program that we

started, to get students from southeast Ohio to come to our university. Both of those

programs are the anchor to us creating more diversity. I always like to talk about both of

them as a pair. On one hand, I say that the Appalachian Program helps us to get students

from rural America.

The Urban Program helps us to get students from the urban centers of American.

So it’s together that creates more access to two groups of students that otherwise may not

have an opportunity to get a college education. The fact of the matter is that the majority

of students tell us that they come from suburbs. So given the majority of students come

from suburbs, it means that if we don’t spend more time recruiting students from rural


areas and from urban areas, that those numbers will diminish in terms of access. It’s very

much related to affordability. The cost of college has gone up at least three to five

percent every year. So inflation is very real in terms of that cost. Also the fact that the

states, if you look at their numbers over a ten- year period, they’re probably going down

and the cost has gone up.

So you get these two lines, but the gap is much wider in terms of the cost of

education, because for every time the cost goes up and the funding goes down, you have

to increase tuition. So as tuition has increased, that means that the possibility of getting

into a university or attending a university gets farther away from a lower socio-economic

student. So affordability is a very, very significant issue in higher education today. How

do we get the cost of higher education under control from the standpoint of being able to

keep it within the reach of the vast majority of Americans so that it is not something that

is just there for the middle and upper class, but is there for the majority of Americans?

The third issue is diversity. How do we keep diversity as part of the landscape in higher

education? That’s become more and more challenging because of the Ward Connerly’s

and others around the country who have gone on campaigns to limit the possibility of

universities creating more programs, as well as scholarships, that could help students of

color to get into a university. So accessibility from a very broad vantage point,

affordability and diversity are three key issues.

MR. BARKER: What else do you want to accomplish during the rest of your tenure?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: I think, given the strategic plan, what I would like to see over

the course of my tenure as president, is progress toward implementing as many of the

objectives in the strategic plan as we possibly can and begin to see some outcomes over

the next three to five years. So there are six goals. There are 70 plus objectives. How do

we roll out those objectives over these next 3-5 years and truly begin to see some of the

outcomes? If that starts to occur, what it means is that we are slowly elevating the stature

of the institution. And that’s really going back to my inaugural address on September the

10th. That’s what I said I wanted to do, you know, as president, was to lift Ohio

University to a higher level of national prominence so that we can begin to see the

attainment of some of the goals that we set. That will be more than sufficient for me.

And then, it’s the opportunity after I leave, as president, to continue to see the university

make progress because of the value of having that plan in place.

MR. BARKER: How do you decide where to spend your capital?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: On those areas within the institution that I have determined as

priorities and there are four of them. One is having a strategic plan. I’ve invested a lot of

capital, personal and otherwise, in making sure that we stay focused on that strategic

plan. Being to a point now of turning it into a five year academic plan, with the real

prospect of seeing some progress being made towards the implementation of that 5 year

plan is very, very important.

The second is diversity. I think we’ve made great progress, as I pointed out in our

first session, in student diversity. Now I want to see some progress in faculty diversity,


so we get both those things operating at the same time, bring in more students of color

and bringing in more faculty of color. And then, I think, third is getting more funding for

the institution, either through state, federal or private resources. To get better costs

money and there’s no way we’re going to get better without getting more money. So the

challenge of fundraising, the challenge of getting more money from state and federal

agencies is personal to me. That’s an area where I’m going to spend quite a bit of time.

And the last area is economic development in the region. We had talked a lot

about having a positive impact on economic development throughout Ohio. We’ve made

a little progress there. But I think as I’m able to do the other work on the internal side of

the institution and to see that sort of move along. And that is to say, once we gets the 5

year plan really endorsed by the board and begin to be implemented, we can spend more

time on the economic development piece of the region of southeast Ohio. So those four

areas, strategic planning, getting it implemented and seeing some results of that,

diversity, funding, getting more resources for the institution and economic development

of the region are four areas where I’ve invested a lot of time and energy. I’ve invested

time making sure, at least from my vantage point, we were working hard to be more

competitive. I think we’re very competitive now and I think we’ll be there for the

foreseeable future.

MR. BARKER: The last question of the interview. What do you hope to leave as a

legacy at Ohio University?


PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: Mr. Barker, that’s a good question. You know, people have

asked me that. I don’t give a lot of thought what the legacy would be. I guess if I were to

look at it from the standpoint of what we’re trying to accomplish, my hope would be that

people would say, “You know, President McDavis had a vision for lifting Ohio

University to a higher level of national prominence. During his tenure he turned the

institution in such a way as to make that possible for it to get to a higher level of national

prominence. During his time here we became more diverse” You know, that would be

great. Again, related to the things I’ve talked about. We got more money. There was

some economic development in the region. I’d be fine with that. I don’t sit and think a

lot about the legacy because I’m too focused on the work. The work will lead us

wherever we go. Because I don’t know how long I’m going to serve. I’m in the 4th year

of a five-year contract.

If I am renewed, and I have reason to believe I will be, I may serve another 5

years. So maybe my presidency will be 10 years. During this 10 years I’ll probably have

more time in years 8, 9 and 10 to think about what I would like to leave as a legacy.

Right now, I’m still fairly young in purpose and I just don’t spend a lot of time thinking

about that legacy. Now, if something happens and I’m not serving 10 years, then, you

know, I hope that for whatever time I’ve served, there will be a mark that will be left and

it will be a positive one. So in many ways I hope, and I’ve done this in every

administrative job I’ve held, the two deanships and the provost job, and I’ve said this in

my going away, that the day I leave the institution is better off than the day I started. I

think that will be a measure of success. And so for me, that’s a sort of way to gauge

whatever that legacy will be. Is the institution better or worse than the day I started? If


it’s better, than I think I will have accomplished a lot of things. If it’s not, it’s not that I

haven’t worked hard it’s, hey, we didn’t get done the things that we really tried to get

done.

MR. BARKER: Anything else you want to add in closing?

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: It’s been an interesting conversation. I think, in a way, of

kind of wrapping it up for me, to become the university president is a lifelong ambition

that came to me very early in life. Having reached the goal, there are two major emotions

that I have and I think I’ve expressed these. The first one is thirty years of work paid off

because it took that long to reach the goal. So all of that time of being a faculty member,

a dean, a provost and just wondering some days if I’m ever going to get there. Is this

really what I want to do and all of that. The day that I was appointed was one of the

happiest days of my life because it was sort of like, “Mission Accomplished,” you know,

“Goal Reached.” Now, it’s putting in the time and effort of doing the very best job to not

only be successful personally, but to make it possible for other people of color to follow

me to be given the same opportunity five years from now, ten years from now, twenty

years from now. So that if one measures the work that I did, that’s just one more piece of

evidence that an African American can be a successful president. And if that is one of

the outcomes of the presidency, then I know I will have served a great mission because

someone else will get this opportunity, be that at Ohio University or elsewhere. And that

will be meaningful as well. Because the people who came before me made it possible for


me to get the consideration, and then the appointment. So I just want to keep that legacy

alive as well.

MR. BARKER: Well, thank you and I’m sure that your words will help inspire some

other people in this process. So thank you very much.

PRESIDENT MCDAVIS: You’re welcome.


Chapter 5

President Crutcher Interview

Overview of Wheaton College10

Located in Norton, Massachusetts, Wheaton College is a four year liberal arts

college whose motto is “That They May Have Life and Have it Abundantly.” Founded in

1834 as a female seminary, it is one of the oldest institutions of higher education for

women in the United States. Wheaton became a women's college in 1912; the school

began admitting men in 1988. As of June 2006, Wheaton’s endowment was $172.8

million. It employs a faculty of 140, and enrolls 1,550 undergraduate students.

Wheaton offers a liberal arts education leading to a bachelor of arts degree in

more than 36 majors and 50 minors. Students choose from over 600 courses in subjects

from physics to philosophy, political science to computer science, art history to theater,

English to economics. The course selection is extended further through the college's

cross-registration programs with Brown University and nine local colleges involved in

SACHEM (Southeastern Association for Cooperation in Higher Education in

Massachusetts). Wheaton also offers dual-degree programs, enabling its undergraduates

to begin graduate-level study in studio art, communications, engineering, business,

theology and optometry.

A unique part of the Wheaton curriculum requires students to complete

"connections" which approach a variety of topics from the perspectives of different

disciplines. During their Wheaton career, students must take either three linked courses or

10 Informational overview of Wheaton College, Presidential Succession, and Biographical information obtained from institutional website: http://wheatoncollege.edu/.


two sets of two-course connections. These courses are intended to encourage students to

explore and think beyond their primary academic interests.

In 1834, Eliza Wheaton Strong, the daughter and favorite child of Judge Laban

Wheaton, died at the age of thirty-nine. Eliza Baylies Chapin Wheaton, the Judge's

daughter-in-law, persuaded him to memorialize his daughter by founding a female

seminary. The family called upon noted women's educator Mary Lyon for assistance in

establishing the seminary. Miss Lyon created the first curriculum with the goal that it be

equal in quality to those of men's colleges. She also provided the first principal, Eunice

Caldwell.

Presidential Succession

Wheaton College has been led by ten individuals (including three Acting

Presidents who served during searches); they are all listed below in reverse chronological

order. Ronald Crutcher is the first African American president to lead Wheaton College.

10th Ronald Crutcher (2004-present)

9th Dale Rogers Marshall (1992-2004)

8th Hannah Goldberg, Acting President (1991-1992)

7th Alice Frey Emerson (1975-1991)

6th William Courtney Hamilton Prentice (1962-1975)

5th Elizabeth Stoffregen May, Acting President (1961-1962)

4th A. Howard Meneely (1944-1961)

3rd Rev. Dr. Mr. Barker Edgar Park (1926-1944)

2nd George Thomas Smart, Acting President (1925-1926)

1st Rev. Dr. Samuel Valentine Cole (1912-1925)


President Ronald Crutcher

Ronald A. Crutcher became the seventh president of Wheaton College on July 1,

2004; he was inaugurated on April 16, 2005. An active musician and scholar, President

Crutcher holds a faculty appointment at the college. He also is a member of the

Klemperer Trio, which performs regularly both in the United States and abroad, and

serves on a number of national educational boards.

Prior to becoming president of Wheaton College, President Crutcher served as

provost and executive vice president for academic affairs and professor of music at

Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. In his five years at Miami, Crutcher coordinated the

''First in 2009'' strategic vision process for the University, established the Center for

American and World Cultures, led the revamping of the first-year experience to intensify

its academic rigor, and established a new Institute for Ethical Leadership. Prior to Miami,

he served as director of the School of Music at the University of Texas at Austin (1994-

99). Earlier, he was vice president of academic affairs at the Cleveland Institute of Music

(1990-94), and associate vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of North

Carolina at Greensboro (1987-90).

Since arriving at Wheaton, President Crutcher led the institution in a strategic

planning process that positioned Wheaton for continued leadership in the liberal arts for

the 21st century. The strategic plan, “Wheaton 2014: Transforming Lives to Change the

World,” was unanimously approved by the board of trustees in October 2006 and is

currently being implemented. A recognized leader in the field of higher education,

President Crutcher is co-chair of LEAP (Liberal Education and America's Promise), the


Association of American Colleges and Universities' (AACU) national campaign to

demonstrate the value of liberal education. He is past chair of the AACU board of

directors, and currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the American

Council on Education.

In addition to his service as a national leader on liberal education, Crutcher

maintains close associations with the world of musical performance. Before joining the

Klemperer Trio, President Crutcher was a founding member of the Chanticleer String

Quartet, with whom he toured the Soviet Union in 1988. He made his Carnegie Hall

debut in March 1985 and has several recordings to his credit. His publications include

journal articles on chamber music, valuing cultural diversity in the arts, and Black

classical music. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Miami University, Crutcher pursued

graduate studies at Yale University as a Woodrow Wilson and Ford Foundation Fellow.

In 1979, he was the first cellist to receive the Doctor of Musical Arts degree from Yale.

The recipient of a Fulbright Award, he is fluent in German and studied music in that

country.

Dr. Crutcher began his musical and academic career thirty years ago without the

intention of becoming a college president. As an African American man from a working

class family and the first person in his immediate family to attend college, the inspiration

for his having even considered a career in a college or university was his first mentor,

Professor Elizabeth Potteiger, the cellist in the Oxford String Quartet and Professor of

Music at Miami University in Ohio. She had invited Crutcher to become one of her cello

students at the age of 14. Each Saturday he spent his entire day in Oxford (approximately

35 miles from his home in Cincinnati) pretending to be a college student. This


experience not only opened up an entirely new world to him, but it also presented a

different set of career possibilities.

Dr. Crutcher’s first full-time experience in a leadership position was at the

University of North Carolina at Greensboro in 1988. Shortly after having been promoted

and tenured, Vice Chancellor Elizabeth Zinser, invited him to become part of her team.

He accepted the position initially on a trial basis and continued teaching cello students.

He was energized by the multifaceted nature of responsibilities and decided to accept the

position as Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

During his tenure at UNCG, Dr. Crutcher had the opportunity to attend programs

at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) in Greensboro, North Carolina. One

program in particular, Excellence in Leadership, provided an opportunity to participate in

the CCL’s renowned Looking Glass simulation. “Basically, for half a day you had to

serve in a managerial position in a company and make decisions based on documents you

received the night before from your hypothetical “in box.” As you interacted with your

colleagues, the CCL psychologists observed you and took notes. At the end of the day,

we sat around a table with M and M’s in the center while the psychologist gave each of

us an assessment of our performance. According to Crutcher,” this was beyond any doubt

the most useful professional development experience in my entire career to date. In fact,

I still listen occasionally to the tape of the assessment session.”

It was not until Dr. Crutcher arrived at the University of Texas at Austin that he

began to contemplate perhaps becoming a college president. One of his mentors at UT-

Austin was Bryce Jordan, who not only helped him to think about the kind of college or


university he would like to lead, but was also a coach who helped in preparation for

interviews.

In the end, Crutcher was successful in his eighth presidential search. “Ironically,

it was the only nomination that I initially declined. Fortunately, however, the Wheaton

search committee persisted. The search consultant called me back and asked if she could

simply send me a packet of information. I told her that would be fine, and the rest is

history.” In the three interviews that follow, President Crutcher elaborates on his path to

the college presidency, his familial and educational upbringing, and the challenges of

being an Africa American leading a predominantly white institution.

Transcriptions of President Ronald Crutcher Interview


Location: President’s Office, Wheaton College

Date: January 10, 2008

MR. BARKER: All right, so I’ll start at the beginning. I’ll ask you the same question I

asked President McDavis and I’m going to ask each one of my participants. When did

you realize that you wanted to become a university president?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, probably about 10 years ago. Well, let’s say. This is

now 2008, so it was probably 1995 or 1996 and I can tell you the exact occasion. Bry

Stewart, who was the president of Penn State University, he was one of my mentors, he

was the first musician to be president of a large university in the country. He was kind of

a legend in the music field and I had an opportunity to meet him in the early 90’s in Ohio.


And it just turned out that when I moved to Texas in 1994, by that time he had retired

from Penn State, had moved back to Texas and was the Chair of our Fine Arts Council at

the College of Fine Arts at Texas. He had been very, very helpful to me in the search

process, throughout the search, and when we moved there he and his wife had a big

reception for us at their home.

One day he took me out to lunch and he said to me, “It’s obvious that you’re

going to become a college president one of these days.” And to be honest with you,

when I began my first experience in higher education administration was as Associate

Provost or Associate Vice Chancellor, is what it was called at that time at the University

of North Carolina. You know, becoming a president might be interesting but it wasn’t

something I had really thought about. And so he said, “Have you ever thought about the

kind of college where you’d want to be president?” I stopped and I thought and my first

response was just a visceral response. I said, “Well, certainly not a university like UT.

It’s just too big. Probably at one of the other small colleges, where you have the

opportunity to get to know people more.” After that lunch I tried to deconstruct why was

it that I made that response. What was it that moved me to do that? So I went to the

bookstore. I’m not really sure what I was looking for. But, regardless of what motivated

me to go there, I found what I was looking for and that was a book called Colleges That

Change Lives by Lauren Pope11

11 Colleges That Change Lives: 40 Schools You Should Know About Even If You’re Not A Straight-A Student; Penguin, 2000.

, which I had never seen before. Lauren Pope wrote this

book probably some time in the 80’s and it has gone through two other editions now.

Basically, what he says in the beginning of the book is that he is describing 40 colleges

that you wouldn’t necessarily think of if you were thinking of the top colleges in the


country, but these are colleges that really transformed the lives of students who attended

them and there are colleges like Wooster in Ohio, Austin College in Texas, Southwestern

University in Texas. But what struck me about, not so much the book but about his

opening remarks, was that the kind of college he was describing was the exactly the kind

of school I thought I’d love to be president of.

After that luncheon, after having that meeting with Bryce Stewart, I scheduled

another meeting with him and had a conversation with him, you know, “What should I

do? What’s the process?” And around the same time someone had nominated me for the

presidency of Sarah Lawrence College.

…

MR. BARKER: Was this relatively soon after your conversation with your mentor?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, it was within a year. When I was in Texas, you know,

I didn’t apply for any other jobs early on. Somehow I was nominated for this job. I can’t

recall how it was. So I talked to Bryce Jordan about it and sent him my information and

lo and behold, they asked me to come and interview for the job. So he sat with me and

we did a mock interview. And, again, this was one of the other experiences I had with

him that was just so invaluable. So we went through the mock interview and, you know,

it went well and he said, “Hum, what do you think your chances are of getting this job?”

I said to him, “I have no illusions whatsoever, I don’t expect to get this position. This is

my first interview for a college presidency. I hope I just do well enough so that the

search firm will want to nominate me for other positions and will want to put my name in

the pool.” And he said “Well good, because if I could tell you the number of times I was


a bridesmaid for a presidency.” And he started ticking off all the schools. He got up to

about five or six and I, of course, I was shocked because this man was a giant to me and

yet he had to go through many different interviews. And he, in fact, told me that even at

Penn State there were some people who were skeptical about whether or not, with a

musical background, that he could handle this huge state university. So that was a real

learning experience for me. I did go through the interview. They hired somebody else

for the job. But the search did want to put me in the pool for other positions.

MR. BARKER: It’s interesting, when I was at the function in DC, the Chronicle

function, I talked to, I think, George Hirschberg and the guy, I can’t think of his name.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Highsington.

MR. BARKER: Yes. And he told me, “When I interview, if you agree to interview with

me, ask him about that moment in the search process when he said race was a factor

because I’m not going to tell you. I want you to ask him directly.” And I remember that

from that day when we were there and I won’t ask you to talk about it now but I just

wanted to bring it up.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, no, I’ll tell you and I’ve told other people about my

interaction with John Highsington because I will tell you, we’ll talk about it in more

detail later, but of all the search firm people I’ve worked with, he was the one who was

the most honest with me and who helped me the most, in ways that he is aware of now,


but that wouldn’t have even occurred to me. And I’m indebted to him for his honesty and

directness.

MR. BARKER: He seemed very straightforward at that conference.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Because you don’t find that often.

MR. BARKER: Interesting. The next question. We talked about when you had the first

inkling about a university president, but when did you think it was plausible?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Interesting. When did I think it was plausible? I think it

was shortly after the Sarah Lawrence interview. Oh, I forgot one. The first one they

brought up was here in Massachusetts and it was a small liberal arts college, not unlike

Wheaton interestingly enough. And, um, I’ll think of it eventually but I can’t think of it

right now. It was just north of Boston, Bradford College. It doesn’t exist anymore. It

had been an academy for women. It was a women’s college. And basically a few years

after they hired a new president, it went belly up, and that’s one of the reasons why I

decided I didn’t want to be a candidate. The finances were not so great. But shortly

afterwards, maybe six months or so after Sarah Lawrence, someone nominated me for the

presidency of Montclair State University. Now once I decided I wanted to become a

president of a liberal arts college, I thought, you know, private liberal arts is what I

wanted. I wanted to be in the private sector. So I went to Bryce and I said, “What do you

think about Montclair State University?” It may have even been the other way around.


In fact, it was. It was he who brought it to me. Because one of his friends was the search

consultant.

By that time, there were a couple of other colleges that I had been nominated for

to where I had applied and I hadn’t even gotten an interview. I remember one was Knox

College. I remember that one specifically and maybe Grinnell. And he said, “You know,

maybe what you ought to think about is trying a state university, go to the interview and

see what that’s like, and if you should get the job, go there and start there first.” So, you

know, I got the information about Montclair and looked at it. It looked interesting; the

fact that it was in New Jersey and New York City was really attractive to me. In reading

the material, it sounds a little bit like Miami University in terms of the size and the

emphasis and it seemed to be unusual as a state university so I decided to become a

candidate. The only thing I didn’t like about it was a unionized campus. And so

remember, up until this point in time, I can’t tell you, I didn’t keep track of them, but by

this time I had been interviewed for one college presidency and I had been a candidate for

several more. I mean fewer than ten, probably around five, but a significant number and

hadn’t gotten anywhere, not even a first interview. So I went to Montclair and the first

interview seemed to go very well at the airport and then they called back and they said I

was one of five finalists. Because it’s an open kind of state system, they put it on the

website so it was there for people to see, the five finalists. And it turned out that I was

the last person to interview because I had a hard time scheduling the time to go up there

cause I had a concert in between. So by the time I got there, the search consultant said,

“Well, there are only two of you left now. There’s you and then there’s this woman who

used to be in New Jersey who’s now in Minnesota.” So, again, my wife and I went to the


campus and met with the trustees. It was clear that there was a lot of excitement about

my candidacy. And I thought, “Well, you know, this might work out.” The trustees

showed my wife the house and they told her that, you know, if she wanted to make some

changes to the house they’d be willing to do that.

And then there was one little bump in the road. I had to meet with the union. The

union meeting was just after the luncheon with the trustees. Fortunately, the trustee’s

luncheon went over about fifteen or twenty minutes. I walked into the union meeting.

I’ll never forget this as long as I live. There was a woman who was the head of the

union. Her name was Catherine Best. She was a hefty person. She was sitting there like

this and she said, “Well, I see they made you late again,” meaning the trustees. So it

wasn’t an auspicious occasion. And so I thought to myself, “Oh, this will be interesting.”

So I sat at a table and there must have been twenty people around this table. And I don’t

know who they were, maybe they were representatives of their particular area of work,

union representatives, I’m not really sure, I don’t remember what the council’s name was.

And as I recall, there were two areas where we did not agree. One had to do with the

decentralization of salary negotiations. At that point in time, everything was negotiated

at the state level. When they asked me what my preference was I said that my preference

would be to do it locally. The other had to do with merit pay. I’m a very strong

proponent of merit pay. And I said to them, “You know, I have to be honest with you. I

happen to be a very strong proponent of merit pay. So after that, I had to go to another

meeting. I had an open meeting with faculty and staff, I think it was. I remember it was

in a big auditorium, a performing arts center. And I just thought, “Well, OK, I can kiss

this job goodbye. I’m definitely not going to be their candidate.”


Well, ironically, in the end they did go with the other person and when I called up

the search consultant to find out what were the issues, he said, “Well there were some

people that were concerned about your being a performer and how that might distract you

from your job as a president.” My own internal thinking to that was, “Well, then I don’t

belong at this place if they don’t value what I do.” But the other one was kind of

interesting. The other reason was, he said, “You were the union’s preferred candidate.”

And I said to him, “Boy, that’s a surprise to me.” After my meeting with them, I felt

certain that I wouldn’t be their preferred candidate.

MR. BARKER: Did he elaborate as to why?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well it turns out that it was really not so much that they

were enamored with me, per se. He didn’t say that. This is my interpretation of it. But

the woman they hired had the reputation for really being tough on unions. That was what

it was, really. And he said the board said that they would prefer having someone who’s

tough on the union than to have someone who is light on the union. Okay, well there’s

not much I can do about that. But, despite the fact that I didn’t get the job, we were

disappointed. Because I mean by that time, my wife’s aunt had come down from New

York. She lives in Nyack. I mean she had actually blessed the house. You know, we

had claimed it. And our closest married couple friends had just told us that they were

moving to Montclair. She took a job as a senior VP at American Express. My daughter

was very excited about it because she had somehow met somebody on-line from New

Jersey. So, you know, she thought it was cool to be in New Jersey. So we were very


disappointed. But, you know, those things happen. But nevertheless, that was the first

opportunity where I thought that this was a realistic possibility.

MR. BARKER: If we could backtrack, could we go back and talk about your educational

upbringing and your social upbringing? What was it like? We talked a little bit about it

on the phone. We talked about your growing up in Kentucky with your grandfather.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Actually, I was born in Cincinnati. I was born in 1947.

Sometime before 1950 we went to live with my grandparents in Kentucky. We lived

with my maternal grandmother. My grandfather, her husband, had died when my mother

was eleven years old. But my maternal grandparents and paternal grandparents lived in

the same town. The little town was named after my maternal grandparent’s ancestors.

Peytontown and Burnumtown. The Peyton slaves and the Burnum slaves intermarried.

So there were two separate towns. By the time I came along, Burnumtown didn’t even

exist anymore. It was just Peyton town. So while I lived with my maternal grandmother,

at that time, my mother’s three youngest brothers were still home. They were still in high

school. My paternal grandmother and grandfather lived right up the road. We were little

country boys. I mean, we were two or three years old. There are some photographs of us

with blue jeans with the bibs. I mean this was really out in the country. And then later,

before we started school, my parents bought a house in 1950. And so sometime before

1947, I would say it was probably ‘49 when we were there, cause we had not moved to

our house. They bought this house in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood with a great

school system. My father wanted us to be in this quasi middle class in Avondale, which


was one of the first suburbs of Cincinnati since it was founded back in the 19th century.

And um, we moved to this house. And then before I was in kindergarten, my mother

went back to work again. My mother was a nursing assistant. Actually, at that time she

was working in the kitchen at the General Hospital at Cincinnati University. My father

worked at the Cincinnati Milacron [a manufacturer of machine tools, where he worked

for 43 years]. Eventually he became the first black manager of the Cincinnati Milacron.

He started there in 1939. He retired in 1961. Cincinnati Milacron makes the machines

that build jet engines and build computers and things like that and he was in the foundry

where they do molten steel and all that kind of stuff. So his first job there was just on the

line. Then he became a chipper. Then he became an inspector and eventually, as I said,

when I was in college he became the first black manager. He had an interesting

experience there.

My mother started out at the Coral School of Beauty. She did that because one of

her mentors, my grandmother Shelby’s sister, Helena, owned a couple of beauty salons

and was on the board of the Coral School of Beauty, this black beauty school in

Cincinnati. After my mother died we actually found her graduation photograph and a

booklet with all the people. My father has that. And so she did hair. She worked in the

beauty salon until we were born. When we were born she decided it was not healthy to

be doing people’s hair and taking care of two little children. My brother and I were born

10 ½ months apart. Let me also back up.

My parents were married in 1942. They were married on October the 18th. My

father was whisked away to the army on October 31st and didn’t come back until

Christmas Eve 1945. And that was when they started having children. The two of us


were looking at the wedding photograph, which I have at home, the photograph of them

when they were married. He was in the South Pacific in the Army. I’m fortunate to still

have my Dad with me and I’ve learned a lot. She was nineteen and he was 21. They had

been high school sweethearts. They lived in the same little town, in Peyton town. And

so my father left. My father was very ambitious. He didn’t want to be a farmer like his

father. But being the oldest son, he had to work while he was going to school and his

father was rather relentless in what he required of my father in terms of work. So

eventually my father just really wanted to get ahead. He decided that the only way he

was going to do that was to leave and go to Cincinnati. So that’s what he did.

MR. BARKER: How cognizant of this were you while you were growing up? Did you

not know at all about this?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: It’s interesting, I didn’t. My father is 86. I’ve learned a lot

of this when I grew up. What I knew when I was a teenager, I knew how old my parents

were when they got married because we celebrated their wedding anniversary. And I

knew they had gone together and had known each other for most of their lives and that

kind of thing. What I didn’t know was that my father hated his father in the same way I

hated my father when I was growing up. I actually only learned that in November of

2006, when I was talking to my Dad in the car and I said to him, “What motivated you to

leave the farm and come to Cincinnati and then once you started working, always striving

to do your best and to, you know, advance.” And he said, you know, my grandfather had

always told him no matter what you do, even if it was just sweeping up the room, to do


the best you possibly can. Then he said, as an aside, “I hated him so much that I actually

used to plot to try and kill him.” And I turned to him in the car and said, “You know

what, I hated you when I was growing up.” He just started laughing and cracking up.

My father was very, very strict. That’s what I didn’t like about him.

MR. BARKER: How do you think that impacted you growing up? Was it in education

as well? Was it in everything?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Everything. School, you know, well let’s put it this way.

We led a regimented life. That’s the way I looked at it and that’s what I didn’t like about

it. You know, we could only watch TV for a certain number of hours. We didn’t even

have a television until, let’s see. The first thing my father bought was this huge combo

radio. He was a ham radio operator. So we had this radio where you could listen all over

the world and even talk to people all over the world. He had that and then in 1954 he

bought a television set for us. And then we had only limited hours that we could watch

TV ourselves. We could watch Mickey Mouse every day after we did our homework

from school, 5 o’clock as I recall it came on. And then on Saturday mornings we could

watch cartoons from 8 o’clock in the morning until about 10. And that’s when we had to

start our chores. As soon as 10 o’clock came he had a list of things that we had to do. I

mean our day was just regulated. We went to the market, always went together, to

Findley Street Market to go shopping with my mother and my dad. There were just two

of us for several years. My younger brother is nine years younger. And it just used to

anger me so much. I didn’t have any time for myself. Everything was regulated.


MR. BARKER: How does that affect your life today?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, you know.

MR. BARKER: Are you the opposite of that intentionally or is that why you went into

music because it’s expression?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No, you know, what I would say is that, um, I am my

father’s child in a sense. Except that I married someone who is much more flexible than I

am by nature. We’ve been married for twenty-eight years. I’ve learned how to be more

flexible. And so, as a result, I think I have the best of all possible worlds. I’m very

disciplined. I get up at 4:30 in the morning to practice the cello, to meditate, to go to the

gym. But, unlike when I was much younger, I’m not as rigid about it. So, like this

morning, I was a little tired. I’ve had a cold for a few days. So I decided, I worked with

my trainer two days in a row. I’m not going to go to the gym today. But I did practice

because I’ve got a performance coming up. So I try to be as disciplined as possible

without being rigid, if that makes any sense. Now, in my wife’s mind, she looks at me as

being the most disciplined person she knows. But, um, and I am disciplined and I

attribute that to my upbringing. I couldn’t continue to perform at the level that I perform

without having that discipline. But, at the same time, I try to be flexible.

MR. BARKER: So, let’s focus on your childhood education.


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Let me explain the trajectory. So we started out, first we

went to a day care center. When my father first came back from the war, they were living

in the Lowell Homes in downtown Cincinnati, which were the projects, basically. And if

you were a military person you got really cheap rent. And then shortly after he came

back, after I was born, they moved to Mt. Arbor, near two of my great aunts, the one who

owns the beauty salon and another great aunt who lived on the same street, right down

from each other. And these are my earliest memories, really.

We lived in a two family house. We lived upstairs. I remember you had to go

around to the side to get in the house and upstairs. And there must have been only one

bedroom in the house because our beds were in the front of the house, as I recall, the

front room of the house. My parent’s room was here. There was a kitchen in the back

part of the house and I don’t remember where the bathroom was. We lived there for three

years, or for some number of years, probably less than three, because I was born

downtown. But while we were there, at some point in time, we started attending a day

care center, which was down at the end of the street. Have you been to Cincinnati?

Cincinnati is built on seven hills. Mt. Arbor is one of those seven hills. At the end of the

street you could see all around the city. And this day care center was just before you got

to the end of that particular street. It’s not there anymore. One day at the day care center

I became curious about the birdfeeder. I don’t know if you’ve ever see a birdfeeder like

these concrete things that have tops on them. They sit on a pedestal. I apparently picked

up the birdfeeder, put my head in it, and then I guess I couldn’t hold it and fell down.

And I don’t know whether it hurt me, or whatever. Anyway, there was a big commotion.


At any rate, my mother was a very earnest, she was a very serious mother, too serious

really. She became just, she was upset and decided, “I can’t have my children in this day

care center.” And that was the point at which we went to live with my grandmother in

Kentucky.

Actually, my father could probably tell me the exact years but, you know, I would

say probably, I must have been maybe two years old, between one and a half and two

years old, as I recall. It was like an adventure. At that point in time, we had been there to

visit, but we had never lived there. And here we are two little boys on a farm out in the

country, lots of open space to play and pass time. I remember a couple of things. The

one thing is the house that we lived in was a house that belonged to my grandfather’s

sister that she had built. And it was kind of a basic house. It had a front porch on it.

There was a room when you walked in and there were two doors. This door went into the

living room. This door went into this room where there was a bedroom and then behind

that there was a dining room. And next to the dining room there was kind of an open

wash room. In the back was the kitchen. And then the upstairs, as I recall, there was just

kind of one large loft room where was where we slept.

But in this room off to the side, there was these two huge photographs. One was

of my grandfather, whom I had never met because he had died when my mother was

eleven. The other was of my grandmother when she was in her teens, eighteen or

nineteen or so. And I was always afraid of going in that room because I thought my

grandfather was looking at me. Once I remember, many years later, we went down to

visit and we were supposed to sleep in that room. And I said, “I am not sleeping in

there.” But my father’s memories of those days was that my grandmother could put


down some food, biscuits, tripe, chicken, oh great food, wonderful food. Oh OK, well

you understand that, she could throw down some food. And just, you know, my mother

was a great hugger. My grandmother was the same way. So it was fun to be there. I

don’t have much of a recollection of my uncles except that they were gone.

I remember getting up in the morning and I had to go to school. And then coming

back and I had to work in the yard and then go to bed. I doubt that we stayed there longer

than two years. Because what happened is that, and I should actually ask my father this

for clarification. I was born in 1947. In 50 we bought the house that we lived in. And I

was there the day we moved into the house. Because I remember walking into the house.

The thing I remember most was that I ran upstairs and in the guest bedroom there was a

bedroom set there. And I thought someone had left it. As it turned out, my parents had

bought it and had it delivered to the house. And so, we probably were in Kentucky no

more than a year. Because my mother had gone back to work. That was why we were

there. She had gone back to work. And then when we moved into the house, at some

point in time, I don’t know whether this was at the very beginning or not, it was a

different arrangement. What happened then was that rather than being in Kentucky at my

grandmother’s house, we lived during the week with a woman we called Mother Gay,

who was in Madisonville.

Madisonville was a separate town, it was in the suburbs of Cincinnati. It was

where my father’s family lived. And I think they must have helped find Mother Gay.

She was a woman who kept children in her home. She and her husband did. She took

two sets of children. She had three bedrooms. My brother and I slept in one bedroom

and then Terry and his brother slept in the other bedroom. And we would go there on


Monday morning or Sunday evening and we would come home on Friday evening and be

with our parents on the weekends. I started kindergarten in Madisonville and I started

first grade. But it was near the beginning of first grade that we left because I rang a false

alarm, a fire alarm. I didn’t think that the firemen would come if you rang the alarm. My

friend Terry dared me to do it. I got up on my wagon. Of course, when the firemen came

he ran away. I ran away and hid and he told them where I was. So I had to actually go to

a magistrate. Madisonville had its own little paper. “Bad boy Ronald Crutcher rings

false alarm.” That, plus one other incident. One of the Fridays when I was supposed to

meet my mother, we got our signals crossed. My brother and I went to a movie. My

mother told us we could go to this movie. We thought my mother was going to come in

and get us. I don’t know how we thought that. She was, of course, expecting us to come

out to meet her. And so she was frantic thinking that we got lost or whatever. And so it

was a combination of those two events when she said, “This is not working.”

She quit work and we moved back home. And so in first grade, in was near the

beginning of the first grade year, I left Madisonville School. In retrospect, if you look at

my report card, you could see that I think that being separated from my parents caused

me to act out because on my report cards I got good grades but there were all these

comments about my talking too much and trying to agitate. I did do some things. I used

to organize students. In those days, we had sales tax stamps, you probably don’t

remember those. In the old days, in the early 50’s, you would get a sales tax stamp if you

paid tax on an item. You’d save those up, put them in books, and then you could go to a

place to redeem them and get all kinds of, you know, you could use them to buy items.

The school started to collect these and the schools could use them to buy things for the


school. Well, every day we had time to march and place our sales tax stamps in this little

basket. And a couple of times I would go and snitch cookies left over from lunch. So I

got in trouble for that and some other things. At any rate, we had to go back to the new

school and unbeknownst to me at that time, South Avenue School, and Cincinnati Public

Schools generally, had been experimenting with homogenous groupings.

So in my first week at this school, I got moved to three different classes. I asked

my mother, “Why do they move me around so much?” And she said, “Well, because

you’re very, very smart and they wanted to put you with all the smart kids.” That got my

attention, needless to say. At South Avenue, I had a fabulous situation because; well,

fabulous if you were privileged. For many years, until I had my own child, I actually

thought that homogenous was positive. I don’t anymore think it was positive than it was

for me. But, having had a child who was very different from me I realized that it’s not

really the best way to educate children. But for us it was a great experience because it

turned out that I was together with the same group of kids from the first grade to the sixth

grade. We got all kinds of special privileges. We learned Italian. We learned French.

We got to run the local television. Cincinnati had the first educational television station,

W…, I can’t remember anymore. Whatever it was, whatever the call numbers were, we

got to go do programs there. We did commercials. And it was a terrific experience. Um,

and also at the same time, it was much more.

Even though we were grouped homogeneously, based on our IQ’s, the economic

backgrounds of the students was quite diverse. My best friend was Robert Brown,

Bobbie Brown ... They were not twins but he had been put up into our grade. Their

father was a physician. It was mainly African American. Let’s see, there was Haitian,


Mur and Gary who were Asian in our class. One was Caucasian. Her father worked at

GE and supposedly was one of the inventors of color television…who had come to the

United States from Hungary in the 1950’s. Leon. There was an interesting story with

Leon because he was my closest friend and our first grade picture we were standing next

to each other, he on one side and me on the other. Leon moved to a Hebrew school after

one year. After second grade he went there. And then years later we met each other

when I was in the ninth grade. Just an amazing kind of situation. I was actually walking

to a civic orchestra rehearsal in Cincinnati. This man stops to ask me where the civic

orchestra rehearsal is being held at. I said it was right down here. I’m going there

myself. He said, “Why don’t you get in. I’ll take you there.” His son was named Leon.

When I went home I said to my mother, “You know, I met this guy today named Leon.

My friend in the first grade. Wasn’t his name Leon?” So she had his photograph and

took it our and was sure it was the same person. You could tell it looked the same so I

took it with me to the next rehearsal. Sure enough, it was Leon. Both of us ended up

playing the cello. And I’ll tell you an interesting aspect of that story. He and his wife

came to my inauguration and their son just graduated from Miami this year. He

graduates this year from Miami.

MR. BARKER: Did most of your friends go all the way through with you?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No. Leon didn’t. Most of the ones in South Ave started in

the first grade went with me through the sixth grade. And of that group, it’s interesting,

with the exception of Leon Freedburg and Steven Reese. He didn’t go through sixth


grade with us. He was put in another class for some reason. But he’s still a friend. He’s

in Cincinnati, former mayor of Cincinnati. But, you know, my cousin Sharon Williams

was in the class with me. But I don’t believe any of the other people. There were a

couple that I heard from when I was appointed president or when I went to Miami, I can’t

remember which one it was. But most of them I don’t really see.

MR. BARKER: When did you start playing cello?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh, not for a long time. The way my music got started was

really just one of those acts of fate. My BYPU, Baptist Young People’s Union, later

known as the BYTU. My teacher’s name was Miss Ruth Mathis. We went to church

every Sunday. My father would wake us up at 7 o’clock in the morning, come into our

room. My father is country, I mean, he’s from the country. My mother and father was

just the opposite. My father was really country. My mother was very, very refined. My

mother never in her life said to us, “Don’t talk like your Dad.” My father, this is the way

he’d wake up my mother “Get up.” He’d come into the room, turn on the switch, you

know, at 7 o’clock in the morning with that tone. So, we’d go to Sunday School. We’d

go to church. At that time the church was downtown Cincinnati on 9th street, the first

black Baptist church in Cincinnati. And so, anyway, we’d go back to BYTU. So you’d

have BYTU at 6 o’clock and you’d have evening service at 7:30. And Miss Mathis said

to me, “This evening you’re going to sing Holy Light of the Divine at the evening

service.” I don’t even know how she knew I could sing. But Miss Mathis said “You’re

going to sing.” So I didn’t think twice about it. I guess I’ll sing.


When I think about it, it’s bizarre. So I stood up and I sang Holy Bible Book

Divine. And for years, I’ll tell you this as an aside. That song would be the song that I

would rely on anytime when I was scared. I used to have nightmares after going to see

dead people, you know, at the funeral home. And that’s the song I would sing to myself.

Once we went to the circus and we saw these huge elephants and I was having

nightmares that they were trampling me and all that. I sang that song and it always

settled me in some way. And then, shortly after that, I started taking piano lessons,

learning how to play the piano. But again, you know, it was just something I did. But

because of the singing in the black Baptist church, I continued to sing in the church and

eventually sang in a group called the Zionettes, which was a small choral group. You

wouldn’t exactly call us a gospel group, because we sang more than just gospel. We sang

mainly hymns, anthems and some gospel things. And then in junior high, I made the

choir and sang in Junior High School, which was the best Junior High Choir in the state

of Ohio. It was a big deal.

And out of nowhere, one day the band director came up to me when I was in the

8th grade and he said that he had this opportunity with the high school that summer, I

could go and learn an instrument if I’d like to learn an instrument. He asked if there was

anybody interested. I raised my hand. I had no idea why I raised my hand. So he had us

come in after school and gave us a test. He said to me, “You have all this perfect pitch.

You could play any instrument. You can choose any instrument you want to play. There

were two instruments I liked because my parents had taken us to symphony. It was a nice

sound. I thought about it and decided that the violin wouldn’t be it because I was quite

overweight by this time. I decided if you played the violin you had to stand up and if you


played cello you sat down. So I chose the cello. I mean, he gave us the cello. But, so we

took this test and he said, “OK so you can choose whatever you want to choose.” And

then at the end of the school year he assigned me a cello to take home. And then I had to

take a bus to go to Withrow High School to start learning. Of course, I took it home.

Being Curious George, I wanted to figure it out. I broke a string because I didn’t know

what I was doing. But, I fell in love with it. I mean, it was though I had found my alter

ego with the cello. I don’t recall the total number of weeks that we had gone to Withrow.

It came time for boy scout camp. My father was the boy scout leader at the

church. Every year we went to Boy Scout camp. I really didn’t want to part with my

cello, you know. And, of course, you can’t take the cello to camp in a tent. So we went

for a week. I remember at the campfires I would sit there and do this with my fingers to

practice my fingers on the cello. When fall came, I think I was in ninth grade. I went

back and one of my math teachers was a pianist. I don’t remember how he found out that

I played the cello, maybe the orchestra director told him. But the orchestra director gave

me an album and I started learning these solo pieces and he would accompany me and I

would play for the assemblies in school.

I was taking some lessons with a violin teacher. He was a string teacher at one of

the schools and became a principal. He was a violinist. He wasn’t a cellist. And I was

so hungry. I wanted to learn as much as I could. So I would go to the library, the

Cincinnati public library, get out recordings of Pablo Casals and I basically taught myself

how to play first Bach Suite. Mr. Kings had no idea I was learning this piece. The other

thing I’ll tell you about that I did. I taught myself how to vibrate because I couldn’t stand

the sound without a vibrato. I just had to vibrate. But I would never vibrate in my


lessons because, you know, I’m an obedient child. You know, that’s the way I was

brought up. So I didn’t want Mr. Kings to know that I had taught this to myself. It was

funny. When he finally got around to teaching me he said he was pleasantly surprised at

how quickly I learned. But at any rate, in January, as I recall, of that next year. So I

started in June of the year before.

In January of the next year, I played this First Bach’s Suite in the state solo

ensemble competition and the cello professor at Miami University, Miss Potteiger, came

and heard me play. And she was impressed with my playing and she came up to me

afterwards and she asked how long have I been playing the cello. I had no idea what was

going on. So, about eight months. She looked at me and she said “You’ve been playing

longer than eight months.” I said, “No, I just started last June.” So, um, she invited me

to come to Music Camp at Miami, a music workshop. And I should say, by the way, as

an aside, my cousin Joan Jenkinson sadly just died last year. She played the cello at in

Junior High School. And I don’t know to what extent that might have had some kind of

impact on me. I knew Joan but I really didn’t know her all that well. She was a second

cousin, once removed. She was the granddaughter of my mother’s first cousin. At any

rate, Joan had gone to Miami University music workshop and she told me about it. And

so I went up there for a week. At the end of that week this woman, Miss Potteiger who

was a founding member of the Miami Quartet, said to my parents, “If you will see to it

that you get your son up here once a week I’ll give him lessons free of charge. All you

have to do is be sure he gets here.” And so starting that summer, I started going up on

Saturday morning. I’d take the bus at 7:40 in the morning and would arrive there at 9


o’clock. I’d stay all day and go back at the end of the day. And it was a great

experience.

MR. BARKER: Did you have the support of your Mom and Dad?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh yeah, my Dad used to take me to the bus station. So I

did that and after taking lessons from her. This was in ninth grade. So probably within

about six months of taking lessons with her, maybe even less, she said to me, “You know,

you really need to get a cello of your own.” I was using the school’s cello. It was a K

cello, made out of plywood. No sound whatsoever, you know. But I didn’t care. I just

wanted to play the cello. And so I had no idea how much an instrument would cost. But

she told me about this string person in Cincinnati, Mr. Barker Eishtot was his name. So I

looked him up in the phone book, went down to his shop, told him, you know, that Miss

Potteiger had sent me, and I was looking for a cello. And he had a cello there, um, I

looked at several instruments.

He had a German cello for about two hundred and fifty dollars. And I thought, oh

boy, this is going to be interesting. My father was always really tight with money. My

father was very frugal. And I thought oh well this is really going to go over well. Asking

him for $250 to buy a cello. And so I asked him at the dinner table. It was funny. And

in my father’s typical way, and this is so funny, I’m the same way. I don’t like surprises,

you know. And so if you give me information sometimes, the response can be really

curt. And that was his response. And I said, “Well Miss Potteiger says I’m doing really

well and that I need to have a cello of my own to play on.” And so I guess he must have


thought about it. He said, “OK.” I told him about my choice. He said, “OK, let’s go to

see what it’s all about.”

So we went down and he bought me a cello. He took money out of his savings

account and he paid over time. Well that was all well and good. As I said, that must

have been in the middle of my 9th grade year. About a year and a half later, in the

beginning of my sophomore year, I played in a competition and got second prize in this

big competition. Just before the competition, because I had been doing so well, Miss

Potteiger said, “You know what, you’ve outgrown this cello.” And of course, my first

response was “Oh hell. I can’t go back and ask him for another cello.” So this time I

went down to do the competition. In the meantime, I had contacted Mr. Eishtot and

asked him what cellos he had. Well he had gotten some new German cellos in. There

were 3 of them. They were $1,500. I thought, “No, this is not going to work.” But, you

know, she said I needed a new cello. I might as well go for it. So I wrote my father a

note. I wrote him a note and it said I have to go to this competition to play and Miss

Potteiger says I need a new cello and I talked to Mr. Eishtot and, you know, all I want

you to do is to come and meet me at Mr. Eishtot’s after the competition. So I went down

to Mr. Eishtot’s, walked in. He was a nice guy. I think he was an alcoholic because he

always had a red nose and red cheeks, but a really nice guy. And so I went in and I said,

“Mr. Eishtot, have you seen my Dad?.” He said “No, I haven’t seen your father.” I said,

“Well, let me go look at those cellos that you have in. He’s supposed to meet me here.

Maybe he’ll be here a little later.” Well, I walked back into the room and my father was

there already. He had been there for about ½ hour. Eishtot had explained to him why the

instruments were so expensive, that they appreciated into really good quality handcrafted


instruments and that they usually appreciated in price, etc.. And so my father said,

“Choose which one you want.” I took it home that night.

MR. BARKER: Do you still own it?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No. I kept the cello. I had that cello through my first year

as a Fulbright. And then I bought an instrument in Germany and sold it to one of Miss

Potteiger’s former students. But I had it through graduate school. My cello professor at

Yale didn’t particularly care for it. But, you know, it was the only cello I had. My father

borrowed the money to buy the cello, $1500. And, I mean, to this day, we were just

talking about this at Thanksgiving time you know. And I asked him, “Why did you do

that?” He said “Well, cause you know, you were doing really well on the cello.” And

they really trusted and it showed. I always talked about Miss Potteiger being the first

mentor I had, outside of my parents. And they were very close. They were good friends.

I think it was his trust in her. He decided that if she says he needs a new cello, you know,

he must need it, so I have to do what I need to do to get him a cello. So that’s what he

did. I went home, Mr. Barker. I stayed up all night. I didn’t go to sleep. I played the

cello all night. And, again, I look back on it and I think, you know, I was really, really

lucky. Now that I think about it I can’t believe that they didn’t say, “Son, we understand

you like to do cello, but...”

MR. BARKER: Sounds like you had a very supportive home.


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah, and we’re not talking about, this was not a palatial

residence. This was a 3 bedroom house with a living room, a dining room and a kitchen

on the first floor and 3 bedrooms upstairs. So it wasn’t a huge amount of room.

MR. BARKER: And what room did you practice in?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: By this time, my brother and I still slept in the same

bedroom. It was the front room. It was the guest bedroom, which is where that bedroom

set was that I was telling you about, you know. And I can tell you this. My parents

always supported me, no matter who was working or what they had to do. If I was

playing somewhere, one of them was there always.

MR. BARKER: Leading up to college, so you were in ninth or tenth grade right now,

how did you come about making a decision to go to college? How did you use your

parents as a resource? What other factors influenced your decision?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: In terms of going to college itself, um, that was something

that was just understood from elementary school.

MR. BARKER: That was a family expectation.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: It was a family expectation. And it was an expectation

because neither of my parents had gone to college.


MR. BARKER: OK.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And they wanted us to have greater opportunities than they

had. And I also benefited because, in those days, in my neighborhood which eventually

turned from a Jewish neighborhood to a predominantly African American neighborhood,

there were a lot of African American professionals there. And in my church and in the

community, they were programmed to introduce you to mainly HBCU’s. But still they

were colleges. And then every year they had something that they would call a College

Jamboree. At Christmastime, during the holidays, they would bring back local high

school graduates, people whom I knew, that had gone onto college. You could go around

to various stations and you could talk to people in the specific areas you were interested

in, music, architecture, and there would be African American students who grew up in

your community who were at college studying in that area. And that was probably the

single most activity that influenced me the most. There you could see people who were

your peers, um, who were going to some of the best colleges in the United States. And

every single year, in fact in my senior year, I was the co-chair for that particular event. It

was great. It was really fantastic.

MR. BARKER: How did you make the decision which college to go to?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: That was pretty easy. Um, my father influenced me there, I

mean. Because I had been in Miami those years, um, obviously I was going to apply to


Miami. And I really had planned to be an architect to begin with. I had wanted to be an

architect since the 3rd grade. Even though I was doing well in music, it hadn’t occurred

to me that music was something I would make a career. Architecture was still the focus.

At any rate, I got an alumnae merit scholarship at Miami, which basically paid

everything. And I can tell you this little anecdote. It was interesting. Liz Potteiger, who

was very good friends with the Vice President for Alumnae Relations and Development,

and this was 1965 the first year that Miami had these Alumnae Merit Scholarships, and

he told her I can give you one of these. By this time, Leon, my friend Leon Freeberg,

after I started studying with Liz, I introduced Liz to Leon and she said, “OK.”

She was an amazing woman. She figured out Leon had a car. I didn’t have a car.

And she figured out, well, if I teach him, then Ronald will have a way of getting up here

and I wouldn’t have to take a bus. So she agreed to teach him free too. And then I had a

ride. She was brilliant. And so, anyway, she had to choose between me and Leon. Now

Leon and I had been in class together throughout the whole thing. We reconnected in the

8th grade. And then in the 10th grade I ended up in the same school as Leon. And we

were on the same track. We were both taking advanced placement and honors academic

courses. But Leon was brilliant. He scored almost a perfect score on the SAT. I did not

receive a perfect score on the SAT. And basically she had to make a decision between

one or the other and she gave it to me. In the meantime, I didn’t want to go to Miami. I

wanted to get as far away from home as I possibly could. I went looking at Carnegie

Mellon and Oberlin and Cornell. And my father said, hey, you can look at all those

schools if you want to, but you better figure out how you are going to pay for the

education outside of any kind of scholarship that you get. So it was pretty much Miami.


And also part of it too is my father had wanted me to go to Miami since elementary

school since he and my mother had gone there for boy scout and cub scout training and

she just fell in love with the campus.

MR. BARKER: When did you make the decision to continue your education in graduate

school?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well again, what happened is that by the time I changed my

major to music, which was at the very beginning of my career at Miami, my role model

was Miss Potteiger. And I decided that what I wanted to do was teach at a university,

perform in a string quartet and admit I had to get a doctorate degree, in my mind. So I

had to go to graduate school. So I was actually thinking about, in my first and second

year, where I might go to graduate school, Indiana University, perhaps University of

Michigan. Um, Harvard was on the list because my advisor into graduate school was a

Harvard graduate, he was a musicologist. But I hadn’t even thought about Yale. Yale

just occurred to me really in my senior year because I heard about this man, Aldo Parisot,

who was teaching there. The son of one of my professors was taking lessons from him

and he was just raving about him. I did some research on him and was intrigued by this

man. He was Brazilian. And I liked his playing. I really loved his playing.

Up until that time my primary influence outside of my teacher was János

Starboro, a famous cellist, who was at Indiana University, who had been her teacher. I

had gone and taken some lessons from him. So I applied to Indiana and I thought I’d go

to Indiana because it was close by, had a great music school, but it was a little too large


for my taste. They had almost 2000 music students, as you can imagine. It was back in

the 60’s. It was huge, like a factory. And so in the meantime, this was an interesting

story. I’m a very, I’m still in my planning mode, planning my life out. So I was trying to

figure out how I’m going to afford to go to graduate school. You know I needed to find

some way. So I applied to every fellowship there was. I applied for Danforth. I was a

semifinalist for the Rhodes, Woodrow Wilson. And then one day, out of the blue I was

walking in the student affairs building. There was a bulletin board and there was this

sign on the bulletin board about the Ford Foundation and about the fellowships they had

for black students, doctoral fellowships. I couldn’t believe it. I said I’m going to have to

follow up on this. And so I applied. In the end I was a Woodrow Wilson and I had a

Ford Foundation Fellow and at that particular time, with the Woodrow Wilson

Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation was at the end of its money. They were

running out of money.

And so you were named a Woodrow Wilson Fellow but that didn’t guarantee you

any money. What they did is that they declared you a Woodrow Wilson Fellow. They

sent your name to all the graduate schools. And then the graduate schools would write

you and offer you fellowships, Columbia University, City College, Stanford, Berkeley. I

forget the ones that wrote to me. Um, but I had already applied for the Ford Foundation

too, cause I figured I was going to apply for as much as I possibly could. So I found out I

had the Woodrow Wilson but I didn’t get any money. And then in January I went to

interview in New York City for the Ford Foundation and lo and behold I got it, which

paid everything, full tuition, gave me a stipend, gave me money to go to summer school

if I wanted to. I mean it was just amazing.


In the meantime, at the same time when I went to interview for the Woodrow

Wilson, I had dinner with this professor’s son who had studied with Aldo Parisot, cause I

wanted to pump him to tell me about Aldo. Then I went to play for Aldo. I had written

him and he said I’m going on a concert tour but meet me at the music school and he had

about an hour he could spend with me. When he came he had a suitcase and his cello. I

played the Dvorak concerto. I played the Bach for him. I’m not sure what else I played.

He made some very good compliments and he said I’d like to have you as a student. I

was speechless cause I didn’t expect him to say that. He was just telling me a little bit

about the program. So a couple weeks later I got a letter saying that I had gotten

accepted into the Yale School of Music. I just thought, wow this is really amazing. And

I can’t remember which came first. And then I got the letter from the Ford Foundation

that everything is being paid for.

MR. BARKER: Looking back on those two experiences, what would you say about your

undergraduate career? Did you like being there? Did you enjoy the academic rigor?

You know, how did you develop those four years?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, I could say in undergraduate school, the thing that

was most striking is that I think my first semester in college, I was a little bit like a deer

in the headlights, even though I knew Miami. I had been there already for three years.

But it was different living in the residence hall. I was only one of two black students in

the residence hall. I didn’t feel that I had a community of people who were my peers

there. I felt that I was out of place there. I felt that my peers were very immature


because all they wanted to do was party and drink beer and come home and throw up all

over the bathroom. I did not drink. I just thought it was disgusting that they’d come

home and mess up the bathrooms.

So, the thing I remember most in my first year is walking down the hall with this

determination, “I’m going to show you just how good I am,” you know. And then at the

end of my first semester, I got a 2.864 and it just about killed me because I was

determined to get a 3.0. In one of my music classes, I was taught by this man who was

my advisor. It was called Survey of Musical Styles. It was an introduction to music, to

music analysis really. But the first semester was all oral, we had to listen to this music.

What I realized was how limited my scope was in terms of the kinds of music I listened

to. I never listened to medieval music. I had never listened to a lot of 20th century music

at all. And I basically blew it. I got a D. So, that’s what pulled my grade point average

down. And that was a real wake up call for me. I was determined that I wasn’t going to

be derailed. I’m going to get back on track and get it together.

My second semester I got a 3.8. Exactly the same thing happened to my daughter.

I hadn’t thought about it until just now. She got a 2.6 in her first semester. But I figured

out what I had been doing wrong in this music course. I also worked with a partner. I

had this guy I had known in high school who had done well in the course and I said,

“Help me. What am I doing wrong?” So he and I worked together and I figured it out.

And just that change in that semester was enough to give me the confidence I needed.

Cause I think, probably, my first semester I was, in spite of the fact that I knew the place,

I knew the people, I knew the music faculty, I was intimidated. I must have been at a

certain level because I didn’t perform as well. Then after that I became a part of the


honors program at Miami. I did well from that point on. I guess I felt by myself cause I

didn’t really have a roommate. My roommate was this Jewish guy, Howard Goldberg,

whose parents owned a delicatessen in Cleveland, Ohio. He didn’t go to class. He

basically partied the whole time. His parents would send him these big boxes of food.

He’d put them under his bed and never opened them. But we really didn’t have a

relationship at all and he was barely there.

And so in my sophomore year I had applied to become a resident advisor and got

turned down. I didn’t do it. And so they assigned me to a residence hall that was at the

opposite end of the campus from where I had been before. The music department was

closer to where I was before. And so for some reason, I don’t know what motivated me

to do this, I inquired if there were any other opportunities for housing. And somehow I

got put into the honors dorm, in a single, in my sophomore year. And two of the honors

dorms were two of the oldest residence halls on the campus. Miami is all Georgian

architecture. So these are these two beautiful buildings right next to, a block away, from

the music department and all my classes. It was really fantastic. And so then, in really

my second semester there, I decided I really wanted to explore as many kinds of courses

as I possibly could. At Miami everybody, no matter what your major was, had to take

something called a common curriculum. It’s now called the Miami Plan for a Liberal

Education. You had to take two social sciences. And so I tried to take as much as I

possibly could, driving my cello teacher crazy. “You’re taking three hours” But I was

loving it. But eventually in my sophomore year I started taking German. I fell in love

with German and eventually I took on German as a major. So I had a double major,

German and Music.


MR. BARKER: Did you find a community in German?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes, um, in kind of an odd way. One of the first persons I

got to know in Miami, new persons, was a woman named Caroline Bolton. We sat next

to each other in theory class and we became friends. Eventually we started hanging out

together. As I think about it, she was the first person to loosen me up. She started this

organization called ASPIYP, the Association for the Protection of Innocent Young

Prostitutes. And she took on this pseudonym, she was the president of the association

and her name was Hester Prynne, from the Scarlet Letter. And, um, we would do crazy

things together. We also had this way of communicating with each other where we

would utter this guttural sound. So now, to this day, there are a few friends of mine who

will call me on the phone and the first thing they’ll do is “OOOOO,” which has its own

mystery. It really goes back to my trying to demonstrate what Blanche sounded like

when she was singing the role of “Carmen” at the age of 57. In my freshman year I

played in the Dayton Opera Orchestra and I played Carmen with Blanche. She was

famous at the Met but she was 57 years old and, for me, this just seemed ancient, of

course. And there was this place in Carmen where Carmen hit a high note, she goes

“OOOOOO, da da da da, and when Blanche sang this she had this huge vibrato,

“OOOOOO,” so that’s where that came from. So we still communicate that way at times.

Basically what Caroline did was she helped me to have fun because I was incredibly

serious. I looked at all the guys in the dorm as being immature with their long hair.


MR. BARKER: Are those qualities you took from your father and mother or, reflecting

back on that now, more one than the other?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No it was a combination of the two. At that time I think I

was even more like my mother than my father. My father is really feisty and very

outspoken and I was not necessarily as outspoken as I could have been. My mother was

more gentle. She was the person who had a lot of influence on us in the sense that she

was the one who gave us direction, you know. She, um, if our grammar was not correct,

she would correct it. She didn’t talk the same way as my father did. She never said,

“Don’t talk like your Dad.” She would always correct our grammar and our

pronunciation.

MR. BARKER: A while back you said your father was country. But he took you to the

symphony.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: When I said he was country, what I meant was if you hear

him speak now, he sounds like he just came from the farm. And of course as a child you

don’t, he was a very, very intelligent man and had high ideals. As a child you don’t see

that. You know, you just listen to him. What I was doing is I was listening to his talk

and comparing it to my mother and thinking “You know, why do I have this sophisticated

mother and this country bumpkin father. Why couldn’t she have married somebody more

like herself.”


MR. BARKER: Right.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: I mean, that’s how I thought as a child. You know,

fortunately I lived long enough and he lived long enough for me to be able to understand

how fortunate I was. Because growing up, there were time that I really would pray,

“Please send me another father.” Not only did he take us to the symphony, but he took us

to the children’s theater. We went to the ballet. And always, on the weekends, he

devoted his entire time to us. On the photographs, on Sundays, he would take us in the

car, we would go out, he was a quintessential family man. That was really important to

him. My mother was much more of a free spirit, not a free spirit, a nonconformist. She

came from this family that had connections to its roots from the very beginning. It had a

family reunion for all these many years. She wasn’t appreciated until later in her life.

She was always considered to be the outlier, the independent one.

MR. BARKER: How did you decide and what were you looking for?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, there are many things in my life that are somewhat

complicated. What actually happened is that in my third year of graduate school, um,

when I was at Yale, I was actually working on two doctorate degrees, a PhD and a

Doctoral Musical Arts degree. So my third year would have been my last year in the

DMA program and it was my first full year in the PhD program. I decided to apply for a

Fulbright because I had always wanted to go to Germany. Lo and behold, I got the

Fulbright. So I asked for a leave of absence from the PhD program, went to Germany for


one year thinking it was going to be one year. In the meantime, being the kind of person

that plans ahead, I wanted to be certain to have all my ducks in a row just in case I

decided not to go back and get my PhD, to apply for jobs. I wanted to have a job. So I

applied for, and interviewed, for a job at Carleton College. Actually, I received a

contract in December of 1972 and that would have been my first year with the Fulbright.

I received a contract for $10,500 to be an instructor in music at Carlton College.

The next month the Fulbright Commission gave me a year extension of the Fulbright. So

I wrote to the president and asked him if he would rescind the contract, which he did.

But he said, we’ll rescind it but the job will be here when you come back. And then I

decided I didn’t want to come back because the Fulbright Commission gave me another

extension, not for a year, but for less than half a year. But, by that time, I had a job in

Germany. I had a job teaching in the music school there. In my second year as a

Fulbright I got this job. I always tried to have several backup plans. And so the

Fulbright Commission allowed me to take a lesser amount of money from my stipend and

teach. I taught in the Bonn Music School. I played in the orchestra and it was going

really well. And so I just decided, “You know, this is great. This is a wonderful

experience for me,” still thinking I would go back to the United States and become a

college professor. In my mind, this was the kind of experience I thought I needed. This

was the real world experience. I was teaching at a music school. I was playing in an

orchestra, playing solo concerts, just being a musician.

In the meantime, all of this experience counted towards my DMA because of the

way the DMA degree was structured. You didn’t get the degree at the end of three years.

You had to go out into the real world and prove to them that you could have a career as a


musician, submit documentation of that, and then come back to do a final recital and

choral exam. So I was there and there came a period of time where I thought, “I never

want to go back to the United States. I love the life here so much.” I felt as though I was

back home. And then I just had this epiphany where I said, “You can’t do this. You have

to go back to the United States.” And so I decided to leave half of my belongings there,

brought half of them with me. I called the travel agent and said I wanted to use my return

flight for the Fulbright. Within a week or less, I decided to leave and I left, just like that.

I left half of my belongings with my landlord. I’ll also tell you that I was also very

fortunate in finding a family to live with. I lived with the same family for three years.

She was American, he was German, they had four children. They were like my surrogate

family. And I’m certain that I probably wouldn’t have stayed there or felt as

comfortable staying there had I not had that situation.

But I came back to the United States. I didn’t have a job. I had talked to the St.

Louis Symphony about a position there. I went there, but then, they were about to go on

strike. So out of desperation I started writing letters to friends saying, “Can you help

me?.” Someone told me about a position as a counselor and advisor. When I was at Yale

I had advised undergraduate students so I applied for it because I needed a job. So I

applied for this job and, to make a long story short, there was a guy who I had known in

Miami who was now at Wittenberg University, who was the Affirmative Action Officer,

I think, for the University or something like that. He saw my resume for this other

position and realized that I was in music. It turned out that the cellist who had been

teaching there was taking a leave so they needed someone there. He sent my information

to the music school. They offered me a job in the middle of the year as an Assistant


Professor, not on a tenure track to begin with. This other person was a part time person.

They said, “Don’t come back.” I conducted the orchestra. I taught Music Theory. I

taught all kinds of courses. I was the head of the string program at Wittenberg.

Specifically, it wasn’t as though I had a lot of choices. I needed a job.

I also had an opportunity to go to Texas, through some contacts that I had. I went

out to Texas for two weeks. While I was there, they offered me the job at Wittenberg.

The job in Texas would have been playing as principal cello in the Texas Chamber

Orchestra and teaching at Texas Christian University. But I tell you, I had never been to

Texas before and it was like being in a foreign country. I just thought if I’m going to

come back to the United States at this point in time here, I needed to be in familiar

territory. Wittenberg was familiar because I had played in Springfield Symphony when I

was in college. It was not that far from Dayton, where I had relatives. It wasn’t that far

from Cincinnati, for that matter, where my parents were. So it seemed natural and I

could rent a house from the college. I lived right on campus. I didn’t have a car in my

first year. I turned out to be a great situation. It was like my entrance into the academy.

I still have friends from those years.

MR. BARKER: Going through all of this, it sounds like a lot of the time maybe you

were the only African American male, maybe in Germany, throughout your whole

experience. How did that affect you? How did you deal with it? How did that

adjustment occur?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: That’s a good question. I would say that it affected me in a

lot of different ways. As I just said, in Miami I really think that it was one of the

contributing factors to my not having performed up to my expectations. And I felt very

insecure as a first year student. And my goal at Miami, and I knew it very clearly, I just

wanted to be more confident in myself because I felt so out of sorts when I first went

there. There were only 80 black students out of 12,000 on campus to begin with. My

parents didn’t go to college. I really didn’t know a lot of people. I just felt totally out of

sorts altogether. My goal and prayer was that by the time I became a senior I wanted to

feel much more confident in myself then I felt in my first year there. I wrote down all the

stuff I wanted to accomplish but I basically didn’t feel any different, I thought. I

discovered that I was different, but it just wasn’t apparent to me at that time. So I guess,

in a nutshell, and I also say this to you Mr. Barker. It wasn’t just being in predominantly

white situations where I felt by myself or alone. I felt that way in Junior High when I

was separated from those kids who had gone to school with me from the first through the

sixth grade because of a mandate of the state that we didn’t find out until years later.

And so there I was in what I would essentially call a ghetto school. And in my home

room there was a man who eventually went to prison for life, Harold Davis, at this

school. This was Samuel Junior High School. And so what I learned to do then was to

go within, you know, introspective and I was overweight and then I started playing the

cello. People really laughed at me and thought that I was out of my mind to carry this

thing home. I had to go up a hill and down a hill to get to my house.

But what got me through those years was getting to 3447 …, that was my parents

address. “If I can get to 3447, I’ll be fine.” Anytime people would taunt me or laugh at


me because I was overweight, um, I would just tune them out altogether and focus on

3447. That’s what got me through. And then at Woodward High School, when I went to

high school, I was able to go to high school outside of my school district. So I went to a

school that was a predominantly Jewish school that was way, way, away from my house.

I had a special transfer there because had I gone to my local high school, I wouldn’t have

been able to have access to certain classes that I needed to take. So I went to that school

and there I was, suddenly you know, in a predominantly Jewish school and in a situation

where the population at that time was probably about 10-15% African American and 85%

Jewish; there was this little place of Appalachians. And then ten plus or so of people of

color because there were Hispanics there too. And in most of my classes there were no

African Americans. Yvonne was in my French class. Otherwise, there were no other

African Americans. And I really didn’t associate that much with African Americans.

African American kids used to gather in one of the… At that time it was a rather new

school and they’d call it DeVille. And I just thought it was, there was something that just

seemed really, I don’t know, just, I wasn’t a gathering type person and I’m not the kind of

person that goes and hangs out. I would avoid going through there when I went to

school. I would go through some different area.

So you can imagine that I was not necessarily liked by a lot of the African

American students. Although, having said that, I had a lot of really close friends there,

but most of them didn’t know me so I was kind of an enigma to them. So, again, I was

just on my own, doing my own thing. By the time I was a senior in high school, I was

accepted into the Dayton Philharmonic Orchestra. So there were times when I would

actually leave school to go play concerts. I would do cello concerts. And so I think,


probably, over a period of time through my spiritual life and through the love of my

family I just figured out a way to just go on my own, in terms of strength, to get me

through. And along the way I had people who supported me, mentors. Miss Potteiger at

my high school. A counselor who saw something in me. Mrs. Schwartz was her name. I

thought she hated me because I literally begged her to let me get out of the advanced

placement math class where I was really struggling and she wouldn’t let me do it. She

said, “You’re not leaving. You’re going to stay right in there and you’re going to figure

out a way to work it out.” And I thought she was really mean. But she had told the

person who took her place to look after me and that I was a very special young man. She

really looked after me. So I had people looking after me which was helpful.

MR. BARKER: So, we left off a little while ago talking about your first academic

appointment. When was your first administrative appointment and how did your

academic appointment lead to your first administrative appointment?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: My first administrative appointment was at the University

of North Carolina, Greensboro. I was the Acting Assistant Vice Chancellor for

Academic Affairs. It really was a function of my having become active in faculty

governance, quite frankly. When I moved to the University of North Carolina, the year

that I moved to the University of North Carolina I was married and my wife, I went there

in July and we married in November. My wife moved down in March and it turned out

that she was offered a job there as Assistant to the Chancellor of the University. She was


the one who, basically, convinced me that, rather than complaining about this, that or the

other, with respect to the University, that I should become involved, you know, get

engaged and try to be a part of, at least to participate in faculty governance. So rather

than staying at home and complaining about it, I could have some role to play.

And so I became a member of what was the Faculty Senate. What I learned in the

process was that a lot of times if you want to be engaged, you first have to make the

decision that you want to be engaged and then you have to be proactive. I naively

thought that when the nominations came out for people who wanted to be on the senate

that someone would come up to me and ask me if I wanted to be nominated. That’s not

the way it works. You know, you get the forms and then you go to someone and you say,

“Nominate me.” When I figured that out, I asked someone, I was nominated, I was a

member at large and then I wanted to be on the Promotion and Tenure Committee

because I thought the whole process was fascinating, the whole process. And so I asked a

colleague, “How do you get on the Promotion and Tenure Committee”? And he said,

“Do you want me to nominate you?” I said, “Sure.” And so I was elected to the

University Promotion and Tenure Committee. This is after I was tenured.

I was tenured in ’83. And so I got involved in Promotion and Tenure. In the

meantime, we had hired a new Provost, a new Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

We didn’t have a faculty development program at the University. She put together a

committee. I served on the committee to develop a new Faculty Development Program.

And at the end of that year she asked me if I would become part of her team. Now, I’ll

share this with you. This is something that I learned about leadership in general. At the

time that she asked me to become a part of her team, I had become very disgruntled about


being at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and, since then, I felt that it’s a

fine university, the Chancellor had done a great job of improving the physical plant, the

grounds, raising money for endowment, but there was something about the quality and

interaction in the community and I felt something was lacking, the soul was lacking,

particularly for people of color. I just didn’t think it was the most nurturing place, I

guess, is one way of putting it.

So, the University Senate had a whole session on cultural diversity at UNC

Greensboro. They asked me, because at that time I was the head of the Black Faculty

Staff Association. They asked me to speak on behalf of the faculty and staff. They asked

a professor from A&T which was a black campus from across the railroad tracks to come

and speak and then they had a student. In my presentation I decided that I was just going

to lay it on the line, I’m just going to be honest, because I’ve had it to here with this. If it

means I don’t get promoted to full professor, so be it. Maybe I’ll look for another job, or

whatever. And so I was very respectful to the Chancellor and I started out my comments

by thanking him and appreciating him and what he had done in terms of the physical plan

of the campus, raising money, etc.. But I said, you know bricks and mortar, do not

necessarily, a university make. The people make the university and it’s the quality of the

interaction of the people of the university that determine the character of that institution.

And that’s where I think we’re lacking, in particular with respect to cultural diversity and

I went on and on. You know, and I just decided to put it on out there. I wrote everything

down. I did a speech. After I finished, the Chancellor was a Princeton and a Harvard

grad, a good, good man but very emotionless, I’ll just leave it at that. But he came over

and he thanked me. And then some other people were coming up and talking to me. In


the meantime, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs came running to me, she was

very animated anyway. And she said, “My assistant has been trying to contact you for a

long time to get an appointment.” And I said, “What is this about.” She said, “I want to

talk to you about becoming a member of my team.”

At that point, when I translated what she was saying, I guess I must have been

probably very stressed about the whole thing. I really bent over with laughter. I just

started laughing. She thought I had totally lost my mind. She said, “What’s wrong?” I

said, “I can’t tell you.” She said, “Please call.” I said, “I’ll call. I’ll call.” And, for me,

the reason I was laughing was that, here I was, thinking I was being very honest and

putting everything on the line and that I was going to be, as a result, blackballed, and

she’s asking me to become a part of her team. And the lesson that I took from it is that,

you know, people in general, but particularly if you’re a person of color, sometimes

people have more respect for you if you kick them in their rear end, or if you’re honest

and you’re direct, than trying to be too nice.

MR. BARKER: Right.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: So anyway, that was my introduction. I went. I talked to

her. She offered me the job. I took the job, first as an acting for one year, thinking that I

wanted to try it out because I wasn’t really sure that was what I wanted to do, and I loved

it. I loved the variety of the work. I loved the challenge of the work. I loved the

problem solving. And, of course, in an atmosphere where I was already a known

quantity, I had been there for 8 years, at that point in time, nine years I had been there.


One of my jobs was to start up and implement these recommendations for a faculty

development program. I knew who all the major players were. So it made my job a lot

of fun. My first year I actually continued to teach my cello students. And I found out

that was a mistake, really, because it was hard for me to really give them the full attention

that they deserved. And so in the second year I became Associate Vice Chancellor for

Academic Affairs and stopped teaching. They hired somebody to replace me.

MR. BARKER: To backtrack for a second, do you remember a specific time or place

where you got your voice?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: I think it was probably gradual. It started when I went to

UNC Greensboro. It started with a conversation that I had with my wife. When I was at

Wittenberg, I was kind of a young, renegade professor. I wore jeans. I wore tee shirts. I

was non-conventional in many ways. Of course I wasn’t married and it was my first job.

When I went to UNC Greensboro and I started complaining, my wife would say, “Look,

just shut up. If you’re not willing to get in there and start being part of the solution, then

don’t complain to me about this.” And she was right. And so it was getting engaged in

the faculty governance is where I really started. And it was a gradual thing, not like one

day I suddenly had it. But gradually over time, as one experience built on the next, I was

able actually to draw on experiences I had had as a child, public speaking that I had at the

church and that kind of thing, where you had to be an effective advocate.


MR. BARKER: You had mentioned the importance of your mentors that you had during

the course of your life. What kind of mentors and who did you find in the academic

realm. How did you go about searching for those?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: At Wittenberg I didn’t have a mentor, per se. I had a couple

who were very, very close friends. She was a violist. He was the conductor of the

orchestra. They were my life line in Springfield. At UNC Greensboro, a senior professor

who had been on the Search Committee who was just very impressed with me, you know,

just became someone I talked to all the time. He gave me advice about everything. I

would find myself having conversations with him, you know, several times a week. He

was seen by many of his colleagues as sort of a problem because he had very, very high

standards and he was very opinionated. But I liked his mind, really a brilliant man. And

he and I would talk about the wide range of subjects. But he was my primary mentor

there. He helped me to understand, he said to me early on “Look, it’s not going to be

easy for you here.” I was doing a lot of performing outside of the school and leaving and

he said people are going to be jealous of that because some of them would like to have

the opportunities that I had. They’d like to have the freedom to come and go as I did and

he was absolutely right. He was also a person who reviewed my promotion to tenure

dossier before I came up for tenure and gave me feedback on things to include and things

not to include. He found me. He and I just started talking. And there was another person

who worked with my wife who was a singing professor who my wife found for me. This

woman had been the Chair of the University Promotion to Tenure Committee, Dr. Pearl

Berlin. So my wife asked her if she would spend some time with me. It was my second


or third year there and just to take me through the whole process, which was really, really

an eye opener and very helpful. So she really helped me understand the full extent of the

process.

MR. BARKER: And you later met people like Freeman when you became a president?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: What happened is that every place that I went, I found

someone who would be a mentor or would carry people along. I mean when I went to

Cleveland I had some music people. I knew Bob Freeman at Eastman School of Music I

knew Karen Wolf at Oberlin who were mentors. And then when I went to Texas, you

know, they continued to be my mentors. I would get together a Visiting Committee in

Texas made up of people, some of whom were friends, some of whom were mentors,

who would come in and help me to market the school. And then it wasn’t really until

after Texas, this is after I became an academic administrator, I met Freeman for the first

time in Miami. We were there because we were on a Board of Trustees together and I

mean he is just a very impressive man, I was impressed with him. But he was equally

impressed with me. So he was just someone who, and he was already a president by then

of course, he was just a wise person. He is someone I still turn to when I have many

kinds of issues. We still e-mail and arrange time to talk. A lot of times it’s just to listen

but it’s very important to have somebody like that. I still call Bryce Jordan. He’s older

now, but he’s still someone I call on occasion. With him, it was primarily calling when I

had search opportunities to get his feedback on it. And Robert Burdall is the same way,


the former President of the University of Texas. He was able to give me some useful

perspectives on the search process.

MR. BARKER: What would you say are the most contributing influences to your life and

how you got to this point?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: First of all, my parents obviously. Simply because they

provided the foundation. My father is still with me, thank goodness, he’s still going

strong. He’s 86 years old. He just bought a new house in June. He lives by himself.

And then, you know, Liz Potteiger, obviously because she was the person who really was

responsible for helping me to understand that I had this musical voice. I didn’t know

what it was and I really didn’t pay that much attention to it. And she, if you read one of

my articles, also introduced me to one of my trio colleagues very early on. So, in a sense,

she was the one who set the groundwork for the context in which, for me, to consider a

musical career, that is rather than performing in an orchestra or thinking about being a

soloist, thinking about a career as a college professor. Aldo Parisot, a fine teacher at

Yale. I had been at Miami since the time I graduated and I had done everything you

could possibly do at Miami. I had a sense of accomplishment. I had goals. I was a big

fish in a little pond. When I went to Yale I had to start over from scratch. But Aldo

evidently saw something in me when I went to play for him. I remembered that the first

time I played in cello class, we had cello class once a week, I played this piece in cello

class. Because I was talented and I played a lot in public, I never got nervous. I was

never nervous. Suddenly I played in this cello class, I was so out of control with my


nerves. I could barely play. It was really unnerving. I mean I thought I was going to

collapse. And what was so disconcerting about it was it was a surprise to me.

I just wasn’t expecting that to happen. I was so depressed afterwards. I was there

by myself, everyone else had left. He was walking down the steps with me. In a

performance class what happens is that you perform and then everybody critiques you,

including your teacher, and he was really, really hard. I felt like I wanted to disappear.

And he said, “You know why I was so hard on you? Because you’re good. You have to

figure out a way to get through this. You know, you totally lost control and you didn’t

represent yourself in a way, you didn’t play as well as you possibly can but, you know,

you have to get over it.” And for me it was just so reassuring to hear those words at the

time. And so that was another developmental stage for me because to have someone like

Aldo Parisot to say that “You really are as good as you think you are and we just have to

make sure you’re able to perform consistently.” It was a tremendous influence. It meant

a lot. And beyond that, I would say my parents, Liz, Parisot, I mean my parents have

been helpful to me. Those were the primary influences. And there was one other person

that I haven’t mentioned at all. That was Ellen. She was the one who helped me

understand, she helped me to understand that being introspective and learning how to

center yourself was really important for your own well being, really. That’s the mother

of Erica, a violinist in my trio.

MR. BARKER: What religion?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Quaker. She was Quaker. But she also was connected to

Howard Derman. I don’t know if you know Howard Derman. He was the Dean of

Marsh Chapel at Boston University and a real mystic of sorts, African American. He was

a mentor of Martin Luther King. I met him when I was a little boy in my church. He

came to my church to speak. He wrote several books on meditation. One book was

called “Meditations to the Heart.” In fact, let’s see if I have that. One of his famous

meditations is “As long as a man has a dream in his heart, he cannot lose this …living.”

Just before I took my doctoral exams at Yale, Liz Potteiger sent that to me, that

meditation. I was stressed out because several of my friends had failed their exams.

They went back to take their exams at Yale. They said that their knowledge of music

history was not thorough enough. So I was determined that that wasn’t going to happen

to me and it didn’t. But I think my parents, Liz Potteiger, Aldo Parisot, to a lesser degree

…who was my minister. But when I say to a lesser degree, I think he would have been

much more of an influence had he been not such a disappointment to me because he

turned out to be not the person I thought he was. He turned out to be a philanderer. He

was a black republican minister of our church, very intelligent, not at all like most black

Baptist ministers. He was very intellectual and loved to serve. But he was also going

around screwing all the women, which I didn’t learn until many, many years later.

MR. BARKER: You mentioned fear. Did you how to control it to a certain extent? I

mean, it’s always with us. I’m sure it still comes up.


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Through meditation and centering. That’s one of the

reasons why I like to be consistent with my meditation in the morning. I can tell if I get

off, that is, if I don’t meditate or if I don’t practice, I respond to stress in a way that’s

very different than when I do.

MR. BARKER: Interesting. I asked Paul Burgett before he goes and performs on stage,

I asked him, you know, are you nervous? You do this all the time. Are you nervous? He

goes, “Every single time.” I asked him why does he get up and do it. He said, “Because

I have something to say.” We had an interesting conversation.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well the thing is I feel as though, as a performer, if you’re

not somewhat nervous, there’s something missing. I learned a long time ago, I read an

autobiography of Pablo Casals, a famous cellist, where he talked about the first time he

played in Paris, which was the musical capital at the time. He played the

______Concerto. And this concerto starts out with the, the orchestra has an introduction

and the cello plays by itself. It was a fast piece. When he played his bow fell on his hand

and went out into the audience cause he was so nervous. I thought, “Wow. If Pablo

Casals can be nervous, I guess it’s OK for me to be nervous too.”



Location: President’s Office, Wheaton College


MR. BARKER: So what is your definition and vision of a university or college

president?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: I would say a college or university president, first and

foremost, has to be someone who is passionate about education and passionate about the

power of education to transform lives. That’s my own personal definition. That really

probably applies more to someone who is president of a liberal arts college or an

undergraduate institution because obviously if you were in a larger research institution

you are also interested in transferring some knowledge. It’s not that I’m not interested in

that, it’s just that I’m more interested in a college education transforming lives of young

people.

I feel very strongly about the importance of educational institutions in preparing

our young people. When I say our young people, I mean young people in the United

States, to feel impassioned and empowered about promoting change, no matter where

they end up in the world. I think that the world is in such a bad state right now that we

need individuals who feel empowered to promote change, in good ways obviously. I

think it’s the mission of the president to ensure that the college or university, first and

foremost, has the resources needed to ensure that they have the faculty who can develop

the programs that will be needed in order educate students and then, in addition to that,

have the facilities that you need that are sufficient to provide an environment that is


conducive for a quality education. Those are the basics. And then, on top of that, there

also has to be a vision in respect to the qualities of interaction with that community and

the people that are within the community, the faculty, students and staff will get to

interact and I think that the president can’t be the primary person to determine that, but I

do think that the president has to set the tone and has to model the kind of behavior that

he or she would like to see in the institution and has to be very focused on ensuring that,

and this is the biggest challenge of this position, ensuring that, just watching what you do

basically, watching how you interact with people, how you respond to people. You can’t

afford to kind of be “off the cuff” cause people watch you like hawks.

MR. BARKER: So you can’t afford to be misinterpreted.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah, you can’t afford to, I guess, I’ll put it this way. You

have to constantly be thoughtful in your responses to people and how you respond to

people. And the moment you’re not is the moment you’ll say something that you’ll

regret for years to come.

MR. BARKER: It’s kind of like being in politics.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah. It’s very much the same and that’s one aspect of

these jobs that I really didn’t quite understand, I didn’t understand at all until my first

year as a provost. People listen to every single word that comes out of your mouth. They


interpret using their own lens, obviously, to interpret it. So you have to be thoughtful.

And for me, that’s one of the hardest things for me to do.

MR. BARKER: Did those definitions change? How did your definition of being a

university president change before you became a university president?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, it’s not so much that they’ve changed, but I would put

it this way. Before, I would have, as I looked at a college president and looked at how a

college president used his or her time, I would have focused more on those kinds of

activities that had to do with the interaction of the president with the faculty, students and

staff on campus insuring that the interaction would model the kind of personal

relationships that would want to be modeled. Um, and what I’ve learned is that’s where I

spend the least amount of my time. That is to say, I spend most of my time away from

the campus, which is not what I expected. I spend close to 50% of my time away,

primarily raising money for the campus.

So while I would have said beforehand that, you know, insuring that you have the

resources necessary to support quality of education of the college, that is very important

that you spend a lot of time on that, I didn’t foresee that taking the amount of time that it

does right now. It causes me to wonder that there’s something about that that’s not quite

right. That is, you know, what motivated me to become interested in doing what I do is

education, the education of the students. That’s kind of what I am most passionate about.

And yet, that’s what I spend the least amount time doing. On the other hand, I justify it

by saying I help raise the money to ensure that we can provide quality education and


that’s what keeps me going. I am very passionate about the quality of the education that

we offer at this institution. I think we do a better job than most liberal arts colleges in

educating their students.

MR. BARKER: How important are the relationships that an individual forms during a

four year period?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: How important are the relationships that people form, you

mean like mentors?

MR. BARKER: Yes.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Very important. First, many of them were references. So

my practice was that I would always call to touch base with many of these individuals,

and send them a copy of the job description, send them a copy of the letter that I had

written to have a conversation with them. And generally I would list, you know, five to

eight references, several people. They were very important because they were, you

know, I wouldn’t say each one equally, but certain ones I would depend on for advice or

who I would call on for advice.

MR. BARKER: When did you know that you were ready for the job at Wheaton

College?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: That’s an interesting question. Well, when did I know I was

ready for the job at Wheaton? That’s difficult to say, but I’ll put it this way. I don’t think

I really knew until February the 5th when I made my first visit to the campus, my first

public visit to the campus. That was the time at which the search was public. There were

two finalists. They had all the information on the web site. I came to the campus and

spent the entire day here. And up until that time, in fact, even as the search firm called

me and said, “OK, we’re down to two finalists. This is going to go public. You need to

let us know if you want to go forward.” And I said to them, “I’ll have to call you back.”

Because I really wasn’t certain I wanted to go forward with it, because I had gone back

and forth about whether or not I had wanted to come here for a number of reasons. And I

think I told you, initially, I had declined to be a candidate for the position. But after I

came here and spent an entire day on campus, I was here at 8 in the morning till about 5

or 5:30 in the evening, I went away energized. At that time, I was convinced in my mind

that if they offered me the job I would take it. This was a good fit. This would be

terrific.

MR. BARKER: In your connection between formal education and opportunity, how

much do they compare in finding a good job?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, I’d say that most of my preparation for this job, or for

leadership work, was more a function of my experience than of my formal education. I

think thee are some parallels I could point to from my formal education in music. I could

point to some of those. But really it’s been my overall experience. Once I decided I was


interested in administration, not necessarily the presidency but administration, I actually

started taking some courses. I took a Principles in Management course. I did some

sessions at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. I then just

started talking to people. I just asked people I admired if I could just spend some time

talking to them about what they did. So it’s mainly a function of experience.

MR. BARKER: What do you think of search firms, in general, and specifically?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, from the perspective of the client or institution, I think

that they can be very helpful, particularly when it comes to fitting the candidates

credentials and references, because it’s very important to have an objective person gather

the information from the references, and then to organize it in a way that consistent to

their cross candidates. Good search firms will do that for you. I think they can also help

you cull through candidates so you don’t waste a lot of time. I, um, also feel that, as a

candidate for a position, I’ve had some good experiences with people and search firm

consultants, one in particular who was the search firm consultant for this position, that

was the best experience I’ve ever had, in terms of giving me advice that’s been very

helpful over the years, not just with this search, from in previous searches too. It might

be something that I’d like to do myself after I retire.

MR. BARKER: Really. What were your initial impressions of the search process before

you decided to do it, and after, your presidential search process?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: My first impressions of the search process? What I

remember most about the first one I went through at Sarah Lawrence College was that

they divided the Search Committee up into two different groups, which was very helpful,

because it meant you could concentrate on a small number of people. At first I really

didn’t like it because it meant you had to answer the same questions twice. But in the

end it actually turned out to be a really good thing because of the fact that you could

concentrate on two small groups. The thing that I did learn from the many interviews

that I did is that I began to be able to read search committees very well. It was a lot of

fun and it took me several times over to really figure that out, several bad experiences,

let’s put it that way, before I figured out how to read them. One in particular, where I

basically intimidated the search committee.

In my opening statement, I referenced something like, oh they had something like

18 characteristics they were interested in, and I found a way in my opening statement to

touch on each of the 18. I thought I was doing a great job, you know, I thought I had

covered all the bases. For this particular committee, because of the kind of school this

was, he said that basically, I intimidated them because it didn’t give them anything to ask

me, which I thought was peculiar. But what I learned from that was something basic that

I have always stuck to, and that was don’t put all of your provisions out there all at one

time. You know, hold some of it back for people. And I violated that basic rule because

I was so anxious. It wasn’t even, necessarily, a place where I wanted to be. We said we

had wanted to go back to Cleveland. We wanted to leave Texas and come back to Ohio

because my brother was ill. My father in law lived in Cleveland. I was so anxious that I


blew it. And the search consultant said to me, “You talked your way out of a job.” I

thought it was interesting.

MR. BARKER: So it’s like anything else, the more you do it the better you become at it.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes. Although, you know, I say it on one hand. But, I

mean, this was an example where by the time I went to College X I had had several

interviews. You know, that’s one of the reasons why I say I blew it. I didn’t think

through what I was doing. I was so anxious. I wanted it so badly that I really, really

thought I was doing the right thing and I blew it. But, again, it was one of those lessons

that I learned and I was able to remember it after that fact.

MR. BARKER: Other than reading a dossier, or looking up history of the school, how

else would you describe how much time it takes to prepare for an interview?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, what I always tried to do was to read as much as I

possibly could about the school. Look at the web site. Read through the entire catalog.

And I, you know, I am very good at memorizing data, memorizing information. That

kind of information is important to know, you I just take notes on it. Usually I would,

rather than highlight, I would just take notes on a pad and put them in a folder. I had all

these folders from these searches. You know, just information about how many students,

faculty/student ratio, the breakdown of the trustees, information that was actual and

important. And then looking to the web site and reading other materials to get some feel


for the college or university itself. I think it’s important for you almost to immerse

yourself in the school and it’s culture.

MR. BARKER: How important is a president’s fit to a school?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: I think it’s very important. I think it’s essential. Although

it’s harder to get. But, as I think I shared with you, as one search firm consultant put it.

She put it this way, “The search committee doesn’t know what the fit is until they see

you. They may not even be able to verbalize what they’re looking for, but they know it

when they see you.” And I really didn’t buy that from her. And when I say that I don’t

mean that, you know, when you walk in and they see you they say, “Aha.” It’s not that

easy. It takes time. So, in essence, that’s what happened at Wheaton at their search. The

search committee perceived at the first meeting that it sounded like I might be a good fit.

I felt the same way. I felt that this was going to be a good fit but I had a lot of questions,

so I needed to probe. So you just keep probing until you have all the questions that you

want answered. Then you come to the realization, “Wow. This is the right fit for the

institution.”

And by right fit, I’ll give you one outrageous example. This was a small liberal

arts college. This house that we’re sitting in was built in 1829. Every president who’s

been here has rented this house. So the right fit would not be to come to the search

committee and say, “Well, I’m interested in this job but if I get the job, I really don’t

want to live on campus. I’ll live somewhere in my own house.” Right away, (buzzer

sounds). You know there’s something wrong. (laughing)


MR. BARKER: In the search process, they use terms such as the following. What do

they mean to you in your vision of presidency. Excellence?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Excellence is the highest of standards, academic standards

as well as ethical and moral standards.

MR. BARKER: Clear focus for the academic mission?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: (LAUGHING) Clear. I don’t know what clear means. Um,

I mean, can you, first of all, have a real and intrinsic understanding of what that mission

is and then can develop from that mission a vision that goes beyond the mission,

projecting into the future for the college.

MR. BARKER: And the vision?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And the vision has to be the president’s sense of where the

college can end up over a certain period of time, in our case, it’s a seven year period of

time. What are we going to look like at that particular moment of time. And then you

have to get people to buy into that and work out strategic plans and ways to achieve that.

MR. BARKER: What was the most difficult aspect of the search process for you and

what was the most enjoyable?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: The most difficult part of the search process? Hm. To be

honest with you, I think the most difficult aspect had to do more with just deciding to

continue in the search because there were a lot of times I felt really ambivalent about it.

So the hardest thing, really for us, was just deciding whether or not to continue. Up until

the end of January, I wasn’t certain that I really wanted to accept the position. The best

part of the search was that the search committee was really, really smart about how to

engage the candidates they were the most interested in, more deeply into the process.

And what they did was that the search committee co-chairs stayed in contact with the

candidates in between meetings. I’d get a call or e-mail saying, “Are you OK about the

college? Are there any questions I can answer?” I remember once I had a meeting here in

January on campus. In fact, we met in this room, this living room, for a whole afternoon.

It was the first time I had been in this house. When I walked in I looked down at the

floors. The floors looked horrible. It was very cold, I mean, it was very drafty. And I

thought, “Well this is really going to be interesting.” My wife’s not going to like this at

all. So when I got back home, Tom Hollister the Chair of the Search Committee called

me. And he said, “Well, I just wanted to know how the meetings went and how you felt

about everything. What did you think of the president’s house?” There was this silence.

And he must have intuitively knew that something was up. He said, “Well, let me tell

you we’re not going to have the president move into the president’s house. It hasn’t been

renovated for 35 years. It truly needs to be renovated. So we’re going to find another

place and have the house renovated.” I must have given a sigh of relief (laughing). And

I said, “I wasn’t going to say anything about it because I didn’t want to make a big deal


about it, but there were some issues.” But, the point was that those connections kept me

engaged in the process. What they were trying to do was to insure that, in between these

meetings there was someone there to remind me of who they were and their interest in

me. It was very helpful.

MR. BARKER: What potential differences do you believe exist between candidates of

color and traditional candidates?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Hm. Well, you know, the reality is no matter how you slice

it, a candidate of color, he’s going to be more closely scrutinized. There is no other way

to put it. I mean I experienced it first hand. And I experienced it, not only from this

search. But, I mean, I can remember, another search, where I went and met with the

committee and I came away, you know, just not having good vibes, not good chemistry at

all. And the search consultant called me back and she said, “They’d like you to come

back for another meeting.” And I said, “Well, you know, I didn’t have a good feeling

about this at all.” And so finally I said to her, “Look, they want me to come back because

I’m the only person of color and I’m not interested in doing that.” And I’ll just be honest

with you. I came away with very negative feelings about the experience, about the people

around the table. I can’t tell you why, the visceral response. So I really didn’t want to do

that anymore. Now I can’t tell you what it was, but. Well, I guess I can. It was the kind

of questions that they asked me. And also the body language.

Here, I have to say, the experience of interacting with people during the sessions

were fine, except that they wore me out. The questions were very detailed. I had 5 or 6


different times where I met with the committee where I had these detailed questions I

had. That doesn’t include the day that I spent on campus. The other part of it, for me,

was that I know, for a fact, that they had twice as many references from me as they would

for a normal candidate. The search consultant told me that himself. I used to tell people,

I used to joke and say they talked to everybody, including my dead mother, about me.

Part of it was that it was almost as if they couldn’t believe that I was that squeaky clean.

There must be something wrong. What is it? You know, whether or not all that was

attributed to color. Let me state it in a way that I’ve stated it to group of folks. My first

year here I was in a special group with the Mellon Foundation about challenges facing

college presidents these days. What I said to them was I think, I don’t think, I know, I

have observed in my years working that white male candidates and white male presidents

tend to more easily be given the benefit of the doubt than female candidates or people of

color. I’ve observed it over a number of years. In my own personal experience, I’ve

known at least two presidents who, if they had been women or people of color, would not

have lasted beyond their first year.

And yet both of these presidents were in their positions for more than 10 years.

There were three that I worked for, I forgot about that. One was in his position for

twenty years, twenty years, and was allowed to have many people sort of cover up for his

faults. I don’t get that luxury. I don’t have that luxury. It’s very interesting. It was also

interesting when I made this comment. There was silence around the table. I mean, it

was an observation that, I didn’t mention names. But, I mean, up until my job at Miami I

would have said that it was just conjecture, it’s kind of what I feel. I know, I know, I’ve

learned from Miami. I mean, that’s what happens.


….

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well basically, what he said to me was the reason why they

wanted all these references. Because he said that because I was a black man, some

people had preconceived notions about the way I was supposed to be and that I was just

so different from their preconceived notions that they were a little taken aback by it. And

so he kept saying, “They want to know who is the real Ron Crutcher.” I know I can’t be

any different than who I am. But the most important information that he provided for me,

and this is really what he was getting at, he was encouraging me to be authentic, to be

who I am. And I knew what he meant by saying that. The best advice anyone had ever

given me before a visit to a campus I got from Mr. Barker. He said to me, I don’t know if

I told you this, he said “You have a tendency to understate your accomplishments and

your achievements. That’s noble and great but you’re trying to sell yourself. When you

go to campus, remember that you’re going to be meeting with eight, nine, ten groups of

people. None of the people in each subsequent group will have met you. That means

eight or ten times you’re going to have to go through the same process of selling yourself.

Because, otherwise, they won’t know who you really are.”

Having thought about that, having encouraged me, after I thought about it I

realized that he was absolutely right. You’re going to be talking to several groups of

people and all they know about me is what they see on the paper. And so you have to

figure out a way to be authentic and to present yourself to them in such a way that you

get their attention. And what I thought about is what do you do when you walk out on


the stage and perform. That’s really what it’s all about. You try and get the audience’s

attention right away, you know. But that’s the best advice anyone has ever given me.

It’s not something I would ever have thought of. I wouldn’t have focused on it. It

wouldn’t have been as intentional about ensuring each time I gave the people the same

information so that everyone would have the same background information to make an

informed decision.


push for diverse candidates to be hired, by the faculty and trustees. Do you agree with

that assessment?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes. I agree with it because, unfortunately, unless there’s

some kind of push, you then have same old, same old. And the same old, same old is

white men, quite frankly, unless something accidentally happens and you come across

someone. And it’s just human nature. Most of the college boards in American, still, are

predominantly white. I don’t know what the demographics are right now so I can’t say

whether they’re predominantly male. I don’t think it’s 50/50. I would be shocked if that

were the case. And so, you know, it’s not to say that white males are racist. It’s just that

they look for people who look like themselves. So unless there’s either a push from the

board, or at least, you have to have more than one, some older members of your board

that say, “This is something that we really have to attend to.” Otherwise, it’s just

forgotten.


MR. BARKER: How do you think national geography impacts diverse candidates being

hired?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes, I think that geography has a big impact because, for

instance, one of the reasons I declined to be a candidate here is that I had never heard of

Norton, Massachusetts. I thought it was in the middle of nowhere. Well it is, kind of, but

the road is closer to Boston than probably it was years ago. And so, as a result, or you

know, I’ll never go back to Texas for a job. And it’s not because Texas is a bad place.

It’s just not a place I want to live. It’s just too far away and too very different. It’s like

being in a different country. Or, you know, Idaho is another place. There are people of

color who would be open to being in those places. But they’re in the minority.

MR. BARKER: Right. Do you think those places would be open to a person of color?

There’s only one black football coach in the SEC history.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well it depends upon the area. I mean in terms of, you

know, you’re talking about a specific disciplinary area, football. But I think the same

mentality would spill over into the presidency as well. I don’t ever foresee the president

of the University of Georgia being an African American. Although, you know, the

athletic director of the University of Georgia is an African American man. One of my

board members’ daughters is married to him. Um, but I don’t, you know, I guess, in a

nutshell, what I would say, Mr. Barker, is that we haven’t come as far as many people

would like to see, in terms of race relations in this country, in terms of people being


willing to being open to even considering a diversity of candidates in certain

circumstances. There’s still prejudices about, well with me, “Can he raise money” if

you’re African American. I mean that was a big, big question that people had and that’s

one of the reasons, in my dossier, I emphasized the experiences with money that I had

and was very specific about the amount of money and that kind of thing because I knew

that’s something people look at.

MR. BARKER: To go off tangent for one second, having a first elected black governor

since reconstruction and having an African American man running for president, do you

think this speaks to a change in the population of American?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: For one thing, I wouldn’t say it’s a change in the population

of America. I’ll say that once Barack Obama is voted in as the next president. I think

what it represented, in both cases, were people who were taking on political roles who

were not politicians, who were bright, articulate, charismatic and who had a fresh

approach and who also had the qualities that could get people to buy in to their high

ideals and their hope. I mean Deval is just magnificent. He really just pulled everybody

into his campaign. He’d get people from all parts of the state. And the same thing is true

with Barack Obama in Illinois. You know, he had the farmers and the factory people,

most of whom were not African American, who voted for him. But, that’s Illinois and

that’s Massachusetts. Whether or not they could be that effective in Mississippi or

Alabama or Georgia , I’m very skeptical, or South Carolina.


MR. BARKER: What kind of mentoring did you receive to prepare yourself after you

accepted this position? How long did you take, two or three months?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: That’s a very good question because I was fortunate here. I

was appointed in February. I signed my contract in early March. And then I came back

to campus. They had a big welcoming ceremony here. And the president, whom I had

met in early January here in this house, had said to me, and we tell this story differently.

She says that I asked her if I’d do this and I recall that she said she would do it. It doesn’t

make any difference. She said she’d be happy to provide any kind of information that I

needed should I become president. What she did is that she invited me to campus to

participate in board of trustee meetings. So by the time I came to campus I had already

participated in one full board meeting and two executive committee meetings, including

the meeting in which she did the evaluations of all the college officers, the executive

session, which was very, very helpful.

I had opportunities to be back here to meet with everybody on campus. So by the

time I came here in July, I was ready to hit the ground running. It was almost as if I were

coming back home. There was lots of information that she shared with me and it was

very, very helpful. I did attend the Harvard New Presidents. And I tell you, I had not

planned on doing it because of the time it was being held. It was being held just after I

would have started and I thought I didn’t need to go and spend the time. The president,

my predecessor, said, “No, it’s really worthwhile.” She said, “If you get nothing else

from it, the contacts that you get there will be very important to you.” And she was

absolutely right. It was the networking. And I’m still close friends with several of those


people that I met there. So it was really, really worthwhile. He’s there every year.

Primarily what I took away was the relationship I had with the people.

MR. BARKER: What is it like for you to be a university president?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: You mean what is it like today or what was it like then?

MR. BARKER: You know, everything about the job itself.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: You know, I’ll be honest with you, it seems like it

sometimes changes from day to day. What remains constant is my passion for what I’m

doing, which is important for me. That has to be there. That’s my engine, so to speak.

But when I say “changes” every day, what I mean by that is the relationships are so

complex. It’s almost as if you may look at a situation differently than the way that you

looked at it a week before. Maybe I analyze things too much. I don’t know. I guess

what I’m really trying to say is I’ve been here for 4 years. In many ways things are

routine. And yet, I still feel like I’m new. I mean I don’t feel like I’m a seasoned

president. I feel as though, there’s something about it. In fact I said something about it

in a Christmas card last week. It was a president who had been in it for 6 years. He

asked how were things going. I realized that you’d have to be a president for at least 5

years before you begin to feel seasoned. And he said, “Well I must have failed that test

because I’m going into my seventh year and I still don’t feel seasoned.” And this is

someone who retired from the corporate world as an executive VP at a corporation and


became a college president. And I can’t explain to you why that is. But, I guess, another

way of putting it is that there’s no time when you can sit back and say, “Oh, it’s nice, I

enjoy this job. It’s going very well.” There’s always a lot of stress, a lot of pressure and

things that have to be accomplished.

As I say, last year we raised the largest amount of money in the history of the

college ever, $34 million. Never in one year had we raised that amount of money.

Everyone was saying, “Oh, that’s wonderful.” And I mentioned it to a friend of mine who

said, “You should be so proud of yourself.” And I thought that just means the bar was

raised. So, I mean, it’s just a reality. I’m very proud that we raised 34 million dollars.

That was the largest amount that we had ever raised. And I talk about it. But I don’t talk

about it in a way that says, “OK, we finished that.” It’s just the opposite. I feel there’s

more pressure now to keep up with that. So I think that it’s things like that that lead me

to make that statement that I feel like a novice.

MR. BARKER: How, or if at all, has the racial climate in the institution changed from

your first days till now? You’ve been here for a few years now.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: That’s a very tricky question here. Let me explain why that

is. I know when I first came here, I think the people felt that the racial climate was far

better than what I perceived it, actually, to be. They were very proud of the fact that they,

the faculty, had recruited a large number of junior faculty who were faculty of color.

Over 50% of our non-tenured faculty were faculty of color, not even including the

women. They had done really well recruiting students of color. But what I noticed my


first year here was that the focus on diversity here had been primarily from a social

justice perspective. “We’re doing this because we want to be sure that all people, even

people of color, have access to this education and we want to recruit faculty and staff

who are of color because we want the students to see that.” In my first year actually, in

my inauguration, I pointed out to the community that it’s OK to have those social justice

reasons for diversity, but really your reason for wanting to be a diverse institution needs

to be much broader than that.

It has to focus on the educational purposes. That by having a diverse student,

faculty and staff population, you’re enriching the college by inviting what Howard would

call “Inviting your unknown brother and sister into your midst.” But when you do that,

then you also have to be cognizant of the fact that you’re going to change. And if you

don’t change, then you’re not taking advantage of the educational purposes of diversity,

because that’s the whole point. You don’t invite people who are different into your

community and then say to them, “Don’t be so Jamaican.” You want the person to be

Jamaican or West Indian or African or Filipino, or whatever it is, because it adds a little

something new to the stew, so to speak. But when I made these challenges to the

community, the one thing I can say is that the response wasn’t that people took offense at

what I said. The response was rather, “Aha, it makes a lot of sense.” And so even

though we still have a way to go, what I would say the difference today is people on the

campus are more aware of the importance of diversity as an educational asset, or an

educational component of the community, or the culture, than they were the first year.

Now how that plays itself out varies. But I think just that awareness, in and of itself,

helps to get us to one plateau. We just did a climate survey this fall. We’re going to


release the results and we’re going to be doing some dialogue sessions. Hopefully, that

will help us get to another level.

MR. BARKER: Do you think the expectations were higher for you because you are a

person of color, to kind of promote diversity within the faculty, to promote diversity

within the student body?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: I would say I felt more pressure to do that in Miami than I

do here. And I say that because at Miami I felt I was the only person. Whereas here,

there are many people that I can turn to who are kind of on that battlefield. Um, you

know, it doesn’t mean that it’s all as effective as it could be.

MR. BARKER: Um, how would you describe your relationship with the campus and the

local community?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: They’re two separate issues, campus first. Well, interesting

question because it’s difficult to describe my relationship with the campus in the sense

that, um, I think that even in my fourth year, there are still some people who are still, or

at least claim that they’re still trying to get to know who I am, which I find very curious.

I am not a “touchy, feely” kind of person. When I came here I did something which I

think I would do again if I were going back into an institution. I’m old fashioned. I don’t

like people to call me by my first name without asking my permission. And so I said to

the faculty, you know, you may call me President Crutcher, Doctor Crutcher, Mr.


Crutcher. I never wanted it to be just Ron. It’s just old fashioned. It’s just the way I am.

Well, in this community, because people claim to be so collaborative and cooperative

here, it is a very collaborative institution but not quite as collaborative as they would like

people to believe. At any rate, um, some of the faculty got upset with me and said, “Well

look, if the staff can’t call you by your first name, then I would prefer not to call you by

your first name.” I said, “Whatever, if that’s what you want.”

This really happened. Now I have to tell you, I was taken aback by this. This

happened in my first semester here. It was percolating so that I actually had to have a

faculty meeting to address it straightforward. I pointed out that in every other institution

that I had been a part of I had had close relationships with every one of my staff, going

back to my first institution. I’ve stayed in contact with them. Last year I did a 360. I

brought in a consultant. It was still an issue that people were bringing up. The former

president everyone had called by her first name. They really didn’t know who I was and

it was very, very interesting to me. So from that perspective, I would say that my

relationship with the campus is OK, it’s mixed. But people that I interact with and that I

know well know who I am and feel very comfortable. I realize that I am the victim of

hearsay in the ways that presidents of institutions are victims of hearsay. I would say

things about presidents of institutions in years past. I always wear a bowtie. I dress this

way. I always joke about it. People will comment when we’re walking or we’re on the

train. “Oh, you look so nice.” I’d say, it’s not new. I put it on every day. It’s just the

way I dress. And somehow, you can tell I’m a little irritated. What irritates me is that

what I find here, and what I find in a lot of small liberal arts institutions, is that there’s a

certain kind of liberal. People think that they’re being kind of laid back and open.


Whereas, when you deconstruct what’s happening, you realize that while they think

they’re so much better than those folks in the corporate world, they’re acting out the same

kinds of behavior. They’re cutting off people at the knees in the back rooms. They just

do it differently here. You know, it may be done more gently, but the result is the same.

And there’s part of that that only my meditation helps me to rise above that, let’s put it

that way. And the way my meditation helps me rise above it is that it helps me not be

cynical about it. With the community, I’m very proud of the fact that we probably, not

probably, I know that my wife and I have developed more relationships with the

community than certainly either of the two previous presidents have. Part of the reason

that happened, though, is that we lived in the community for the first three years. We

didn’t live here. This year we had our Holiday Open House. We invited the community

to come. There were folks who came to this house who have lived here all their lives and

had never been to the president’s house before.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Our fundraising, 34 million dollars, comes from our board

members and donors. But, nevertheless, it is good for good will. I pointed out to

someone in December, I went to make a presentation before the board. So they’re friends

now. They invited me to sit at the table with them. So that part has gone very well. And

I don’t want to be overdramatic about my relationship with the faculty. For the most part

I have a great relationship with the faculty. One of the nice things about this place is that

we always lunch together in the faculty/staff dining room. And so I have an opportunity

to get to know people and for them to get to know me that way.


MR. BARKER: What is your most difficult aspect of your job?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Dealing with personnel issues.

MR. BARKER: In what way?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Just every way. Figure out a way that people who work

with each other interact in a way that’s humane and thoughtful on a regular and

consistent basis. To me, I think that’s the biggest challenge. I guess I have always

thought that you should model behavior that you expect others to exhibit. It’s not that

easy. You have to do more than model it. You have to nudge people. You have to coach

them and coax them. I spend an inordinate amount of time here just dealing with

personnel issues, first in my own office, the office of the president.

MR. BARKER: What is the most pleasureable aspect of the job?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: What is the most pleasureable aspect of the job? Talking

about and talking up the college with our constituents, with donors, with foundation

people. I tell you we’re not perfect, by any means, but I’m very proud of the work that we

do. We had three Rhodes Scholars in six years. Last year we had twenty national

scholars, the third largest number of Fulbrights than any liberal arts college in the nation.

Under normal circumstances, the students who have come through here, left to their own


devices, I’m sure some of the students would have excelled but we wouldn’t have those

numbers, twenty national awards.

MR. BARKER: What are the significant constituencies with which you interact and how

do you manage those?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, what are all the constituencies or just the significant

ones? They’re all significant. That’s the problem. That’s the significant challenge. You

have the staff. Within the staff you have the professors, the professional staff and our

own staff.. So you have the staff, you have the students, you have the faculty, you have

trustees. Number one, these are thirty divisions, thirty people who each have his or her

own needs. Sometimes they can be want your attention and you have to listen to them.

And I’m still struggling with developing some kind of protocol for touching them on a

regular basis, either through calling them. I also do a monthly update, which is

something I started when I came here. Just so they hear from me in between meetings.

The board compromises the largest portion of adults. You also have alumnae. In our

case, you could divide our alumnae into three different bodies. You can look at those

who, before 1960 went to college, are really small. Then the college was no larger than

500 students. It started growing at the end of the 1960’s. And then we got up to over

1000 by 1970. And those are the “before” college group. Then from that point about

1960 to 1988, those are the alums where the college was larger, about 1000 students and

all female. From 1988 on when it became coeducation.


Really, three different kinds of experiences. The one common theme, common

thread throughout, is that theme of transformation. The one thing I notice when I talked

with these alums, my first year here, no matter what they had to say about the quality of

their experience here, when I asked them if there was somebody who really influenced

them, every person pointed to one or two or three people. You know, “she’s the reason I

am who I am today.” You have, obviously, the local community. And here we have, I

would say you could divide the community up into many different parts. You have the

local community, you have the southeastern Massachusetts community, which is another

entity. And then you have greater Boston. We make attempts to connect with the greater

Boston community so more people in Boston know what’s going on here. And then you

have, aside from all those communities, you also have the foundations and corporations

community, because we get a lot of money from foundations. Since I’ve been here,

we’ve come to develop relationships with corporations who have been very, very helpful

and useful. So I guess you could also talk about the parents of students. I was going to

say donors who are not alums or parents. We have a lot of parents who give to the

school. Parents are another group of important constituents.

MR. BARKER: What percentage of your time is spent dealing with trustees, etc?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: I would say a large percentage of my time is dealing with

trustees. I would say 35 to 40%, maybe. Because if you include all the preparation for

the various meetings.


MR. BARKER: Research suggests that there are different types of university presidents

and different types of managerial styles. Can you describe your managerial style?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh my goodness. Well, I would say, for one thing I believe

very strongly in delegating and empowering people to do the job that you hired them to

do. That is to say, when I was hiring people in Miami, when I hire vice presidents here, I

don’t want to do their job. That’s why I hired them. My role is to ensure that they have

the resources they need to get their job done and to help mentor them at the very

beginning of their job and then they need to do it themselves. But I always tell them, I do

not like surprises. So any time there’s something important that I need to know about, let

me know. Send me an e-mail, call me, whatever. I don’t want to find out suddenly from

someone else. So, if I were to describe it I would say that, I’m not afraid to make hard

decisions, I guess that’s one way of putting it. And while I try to, as much as possible,

think about, as I’m making decisions, who needs to be involved with that decision,

whether I need to involve certain constituents with that decision. And I’ve made some

missteps here in that regard because here, I think, people tend to think that they need to

be more engaged in decision making than they really should be, the faculty in particular.

And so I guess my tendency is that I’m very goal oriented. I set goals for myself. So I

want to get the goal accomplished. But I’ve learned over the years that in order to get

goals accomplished, you need to establish relationships with people in the institution,

particularly if you’re a newcomer, in order to help you achieve the goal.

And so what I’ve done, throughout the strategic planning process, is to engage

faculty, staff, students and alums in a deliberate process as we’ve moved ahead with a


strategic plan. There came a point at which we’ve gotten all that input, and then I had to

take that and say, “OK, this is where we’re going to go with it.” I’ve taken that into

consideration. “Do you understand where we’re going.” And some people thought that

was good. Some people thought they should have had more input than they had. So, the

other thing I would say about my style is that I always remind people that I’m a musician

and that means that I also like to improvise. I’m not methodical in the way I make

decisions or in the way I go about doing my job. I try assess each situation and figure out

what I need to do, based on the information that I have and the resources that I have.

MR. BARKER: You’re not being methodical, how does that impact such a rigid kind of

approach?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, what it means is that, in a sense, I can find my own

way. It means you make mistakes. I’ll make an analogy to music. When you come back

to a problem that looks like it’s out of form, you understand what the components are.

But as you’re dealing with the problem, understand what the components are helps you

then decide how you’re going to get to the decision. But my style is that I don’t

necessarily take the same dimension to get to the decision every time because it depends

upon the context, it depends upon the time, it depends upon a lot of different factors. So,

that’s the way I operate. I feel much more comfortable kind of doing it my own way.

Sometimes I get burned doing it that way. People will tell you, I’m not afraid to say I

made a mistake. “Oops, I should have done something a little bit differently.” But my

personality is such that I can operate much better that way. I used to be just the opposite,


early on. My wife has helped me be much more flexible. I used to be very methodical.

And what I found was that the results were not as good because it’s like you’re trying to

apply one pattern to every problem. Life is just not that way and problem solving is not

that way. You have to have that element of improvisation.

MR. BARKER: What do you want to see in a person that you’re hiring? What kind of

personality traits should they have?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, for one thing, I try to look for people with whom I can

develop a good rapport, but not necessarily just like me, maybe has certain attributes that

I don’t have. You can’t have everybody be the same on a leadership team. One of the

things that I’ve learned, in particular, to look for is emotional intelligence. Because I’ve

learned the hard way. If one does not have a sufficient emotional intelligence, no matter

how smart or efficient they are, you have big problems. Because of this issue I just

mentioned about myself, you know. I want to have people who understand how to set

goals and how to achieve goals, but also to understand that in order to achieve those goals

you have to have developed relationships to help you, particularly as a recovering

community, to achieve those goals. Now I haven’t made that many appointments here,

but I had made many in Miami. And the way I’m able to kind of get to know people

better is that I will generally will spend ½ hour with the semifinalists when they come to

campus. And that ½ hour is an opportunity for me to get to know them, for them to get to

know me. And I found out a lot of good information that has nothing to do with what’s


on paper. It’s chemistry, really. A lot of it’s just visceral. You can also learn a lot by

their eye contact, how the person interacts, if they have certain quirks.

MR. BARKER: How does the idea of shared governance impact you from day to day?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, how does it impact my day to day? It’s a pain in the

neck. I’ve always said I have a high degree of respect for shared governance because

that’s really how I became an administrator because of having participated in shared

governance. And all joking aside, I have to say that the one good thing about shared

governance is that even though sometimes I have to remind them, they are very well

aware of where the line in the sand is and where they have no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Now, I say I have to remind them sometimes and I have to be very forceful about that at

times. But, with the exception of a few, most people say, “Hey, we don’t need to be

making that decision anyway.” But, I guess my point is that you still have to remind

them. And you have to expend a lot of energy doing that. You know, we just dealt with

it with our science center. This was one of those situations where hindsight is always

20/20. We involved the faculty in the process of interviewing the architects. Well, some

of the faculty said that they were going to be involved in interviewing everybody all

through the whole process, the contract manager, the construction manager and that was

not my intention at all. And so I had to kind of go back and outline what the procedure

was going to be, what the protocol was going to be and there were some people who felt

that they really ought to be interviewing the construction manager as well. And I had to

basically say, “But you know, we have experts, such as the chairman of our facilities,


who will do that.” So, I mean, sometimes it causes you to work harder and expend more

energy than you need to be.

And I think, here, there is a certain pride that the faculty have in the fact that they,

well you have some faculty members here who will tell you that they really run the place.

Well, that’s not necessarily the case. They are very active and they do a lot of good work

for benefit that has to be done by the faculty and do it quite well a lot of the times. One

of the things that is quite unusual is that the AAUP Chapter meets on a regular basis.

One of the things that they do is that they often will bring issues to the administration for

us to consider that are very important issues. And I’ve found them to be very helpful

since coming here. The Educational Policy Committee, which is one of the essential

committees, excellent committee, do a really perfect job and meet every week for an

hour. They put in a lot of time and effort. So that’s really very good. Search Committee

is a different story. That’s where I had to be very clear about what the role for the Search

Committee actually was and what they were actually recommending, a pool of people for

me to consider.

There is another aspect of weakness that is peculiar to this whole issue of shared

governance. Here there is this mystique that you don’t want to bring something up for a

vote unless you can be sure that you have an overwhelming majority. You know, it’s not

necessarily a plurality of one. And so I had to go on record, when we had a certain

situation, where someone was saying, “Well, I’m afraid that candidate is not going to

have 90% of the faculty.” Well, we really don’t need 90%. We only really need 50%

plus one. That’s a majority. And one of my colleagues, for whom I have a lot of respect,

said, “Well, you know, that’s a very good point, but around here we usually beat people


over the head until they acquiesce, because they’re very proud of the fact that the new

curriculum they approved passed 91 to 3.” So she said the reality is that it passed 91 to 3

but that’s basically after they all basically beat people down. So having said all of that, in

the end though, shared governance is important in a college or university, particularly in a

small college. I think in a large university or a huge research institution, I still think it’s

important. I think it’s important to have faculty views heard and have a venue for faculty

views. But, in a larger institution which are much more complex, like the university of

Texas, my experience there was the opposite of here.

Here, when you become an administrator, you go over to the dark side. Whereas

at Texas, administrators are viewed as somebody who is going to do that work so I don’t

have to do it. One of the common phrases there when they bring you a problem, “I’m so

sorry to have to bring this to you Ron, but that’s why you get paid the big bucks.” I said,

“Yeah, that’s right and it’s not nearly enough.” Whereas here, there is this culture that

the faculty is the college. And therefore this shared governance is very important

because it’s an opportunity for the faculty to express their values and their views. And I

do think that is important. But it has to be in balance.

MR. BARKER: How do you decide to use the bully pulpit?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: When I feel very strongly about something. I’ll give you an

example. This was just last Fall. Normally, here I preside over all faculty meetings.

Generally, if there is a discussion on the floor, all I do is serve as a traffic cop and I try to

stay out of it except when I feel there is an important point to be made. One of the


discussions we had in the Fall, there was a discussion about the first year seminar, which

we do particularly well. A professor made the statement, during the discussion, that well,

you know, “Not all professors are cut out to teach first year seminars.” Well that just

really pushed one of my buttons because I feel that, you know, this is a small liberal arts

college. We have only undergraduate students. And so there shouldn’t be any professor

at this college who is not equipped to deal with first year students. And so I just put it out

there. I just said, “Look, you know, this is the way I feel.” And the person who made

this statement was somebody who I really liked. That was one of my visceral moves. I

just waved my hand like that. I just had to get this out. And I can’t tell you how many

people said “Thank you so much for making that clear.” This is something important.

We all should play a role. I said this.

Everybody may not be as effective, but you ought to be able to do it. So I think

it’s important and I use it in my moderation. I could tell you that the topics that really get

me fired up. They usually have to do with the quality of human interactions and

relations, so diversity or just students treating the housekeepers a certain way, it’s those

kinds of issues that send me over the top. My first year here, there were some guys who

were harassing two lesbian students. Basically, the point I made then was to say, “OK,

this was two lesbian students who were harassed, but they could have been two Asian-

American students, two African American students, a student with a learning disability,

whatever.” It could have been any person or individual who was out of the mainstream

who was being harassed. And this is the kind of behavior that we will absolutely not

condone in this community, period. To me, there is no excuse for that kind of behavior.

And if you want to treat people in that manner, then you don’t deserve to be a member of


our community. We had a wonderful rally right out here in the temple, there were a

thousand people there. It was fantastic. So I do think it’s important. And another

opportunity I used had to do with political views. In my first year here, it became

apparent to me that the conservative students on this campus were really being

discriminated against. They were not being treated fairly.

While some faculty will say, “Well I give them an opportunity to voice their

views.” You may hear one lone voice in a class of twenty-five people of college

freshman. Most people don’t have the strength of character to stand up and say, “I

disagree with you. I just think that abortion is a bad thing.” You know, some will, but

not a lot of people will. So we have to bend over backwards to insure that we, as

educators, provide a classroom culture, or foster a classroom culture that makes it

possible for people from a variety of political and social persuasions to voice their views.

And I think that is happening. So we actually had a forum. It was a debate where we had

one conservative person and one liberal person talking about, you know, should colleges

take a political stance and should college presidents take a political stance. In my view, I

think you have to be very, very careful about that because in a leadership position, what

I’m saying to you, one area where I would not use my bully pulpit, is in the political

arena. That’s what I’m saying. I learned this from a political science professor at

undergraduate school, a man named Leo Christianson, who wrote a book called

“Challenge and Decision.” It’s one of those books that really transformed my thinking

about things. What he did is that he would present arguments, pro and con. On the left

hand side of the page would be the pro. On the right hand side of the page would be the

con. You know, school desegregation, international, all sorts of social issues. And the


class could never get him to tell us where he stood. He would always give us both sides.

I thought of him as being the ideal college professor. Young people are relatively easy to

influence.

If you want to insure that you provide opportunities for both people who agree

with you, as well as those who don’t agree with you, then you have to make provisions

for that in the way that you embrace them. You almost have to invite them into it, you

know. And you have to do more than say, “I know there’s somebody here who has a

different opinion.” You almost have to collude with the person, find out who they are, in

some cases. There are people who are very eager to stand up and tell you. But in some

cases, empower them, to be that lone voice in the classroom. And you don’t do it just for

them. You do it for everybody else in the class too. Because I believe, very strongly,

that if you’re going to hold a specific view on a social or political issue and be an

advocate for that view, you need to know the opposite side’s arguments as well. You

have to know them just as well to be able to articulate them just as clearly as you do your

own arguments.

MR. BARKER: How would you describe your relationship with the university’s board

and to what extent do they help or hinder things that you try to accomplish?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: I think that my relationship has gotten better and better over

the years. But I will tell you that that was the most difficult thing for me to grow

accustomed to, that is to report to a board of trustees, which was a surprise to me.

Because when I was in Miami as a provost, I worked very closely with the board of


trustees. In Miami, I ran the university as the CFO. And so I thought I had the board

thing down. We only had nine board members there. But what I realized, in retrospect,

is it’s a different thing to be the provost, working with the board, you know, than to be

the president working with the board. Because whereas I did work very closely with the

board in Miami, but they didn’t do my evaluation. The president did my evaluation. And

then he shared that with them. It was very, very different.

And the other aspect is that you have to become accustomed to different styles

that people have. I mean I’ve had two board chairs since I came here. The first board

chair was African American, the first African American chair of the board and the first

graduate, in the history of the college, to be chair of the board, that’s Patricia King who is

a Harvard graduate and is also now at Harvard corporation. I’ll tell you an interesting

aside about Pat King. Even though as a board chair she was an ex oficio member of the

search committee, she never said a word about the search process. I remember my wife

said to me once, “Do you get any kind of support from Pat King?” I said, “No, she never

says anything at all. But when I look into her eyes I know that she’s there rooting for

me.” And the interesting thing was that after I had signed my contract, the day after I

signed my contract, I went to Europe to do a concert. She called me in Europe just to tell

me how pleased she was. And she said, “I want to explain something to you. You may

have noticed that, throughout the search, I was very silent and quiet throughout the

search.” I said, “Yeah, I did notice it.” And she said, “But I want you to know that it

wasn’t because I had any concerns. I was quiet because I wanted you to be their

candidate and not perceived that you were my candidate.” I said “I understand totally

what you’re talking about.” In fact, I shared with her what I had shared with my wife.


Because, you know, any comment that would have been made would have been

interpreted a certain way. So she said, “So I just decided, as an ex oficio, just to be quiet

throughout the whole thing.” About a year ago I talked to her about this. She said, “You

know, I’m just so proud of you and so happy that you’re here cause you really made me

look good. You were hired under my watch.”

But I say all that because she was a dream as a board chair. You know, she has

her own life. She’s a law professor at Georgetown. She’s married to Roger Wilkins.

They live in Washington and she’s on a couple of corporate boards as well. So I had

contact with her not even once a week. It was really a good relationship. And the person

who replaced her is just the opposite. There’s much more communication. It’s gotten

better now, the third year. It’s gotten much, much better than it was. It was kind of a

joke because it was so different. But the main point I was making is that I was not at all

prepared for the difficulties of working with the board. I was totally oblivious as to how

difficult it would be. And part of it is human nature. You’re dealing with 31

personalities, 31 individuals, all of whom want to feel close to the president, to know who

you are, how to get to you, that kind of thing. Ron McDavis and I talked about this. He

actually has something that he does that I’m thinking about doing. Every other year, he

goes to visit each of his board members where they are. Now at Ohio he only has nine. I

have 31. My first year here that’s what I did. I went around and met each board person

where they lived and spent an hour with them just to get to know them because I thought

that was important. And it was very, very helpful. It was really helpful.

And one board member, in particular, was helpful. He is our longest serving

board member. He’s retiring this year. He’s one of the former directors of, not Lehman


Brothers, one of the big companies on Avenue of the Americas. I can’t remember which

one it is. His first wife graduated from here. But he’s been on the board for 37 years.

He’s our second largest donor, a terrific man. What he did was he just went down the list

of each board member and gave me his assessment of each board member and it was so

very helpful. The president had done something like that but he was much more direct.

It gave me the kind of information that everybody ought to have, every president ought to

have. But I guess what I’m saying to you is that dealing with the board, working with the

board, is incredibly complex and it’s filled with land mines. Little things like where

people sit at dinner or breakfast. You know, that’s not something that I would

necessarily spend a lot of time on. Incredibly important. And if you get it wrong once,

you will never forget. For that person will never let you forget.

MR. BARKER: Really.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah. And the thing is you’re often blindsided because

some of the people who seem to be just the most down to earth, you know, very nice,

sweet people can turn out to be real pains in the ass with your staff, you know, very

demanding. “Why did you seat me next to so and so last night? I don’t even like him.”

MR. BARKER: Really.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Or, you know, “My steak was cold when it got to the table.”

And it’s not like they just vented this in passing. Just because of the drama. Oh it is a


real, it would be interesting to do some case studies on board dynamics, you know. But

having said that, that’s why it’s so important, that’s what makes the board selection

process so important. You have to really do your homework. And we’ve done a lot to

change the selection process. For instance, we’re a lot more up front now and are very

clear about what our expectations are especially with the fundraising, or giving monies to

the college, than we were before. And you do need, most college presidents have

someone who serves as secretary to the board and it has to be an essential individual.

Because that’s the person who, basically, coddles the board. And if you don’t have that

person doing it, then they expect you to do it.

MR. BARKER: Do you solicit for the individual or do they come to the university?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No, we solicit. It’s done through the board governance

committee. We have a whole list of people that we’re interested in and we have

developed, I think, a very effective process for getting them. You know, first I usually

have a conversation with them, if I don’t know them, to see if this is someone I want to

have on the board. It’s not like you call up a person and say “I want to have a

conversation with you.” These are usually people that you’ve developed relationships

with either because they’re an alum, or because they’re a parent or friend of the college.

We’ll organize a lunch or a dinner with a small group of board members and that’s where

you talk about the expectations.


MR. BARKER: In your opinion, is race a factor in your interactions with your senior

administrators?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Is race a factor between me and my senior administrators?

You know, I think that, I’ll put it this way, I think that race is less of a factor than gender

because the two presidents before me were both females. And this past president was not

only a female, but unlike the person before that. Tish Emerson was the first female

president, believe it or not, of the college. And after that came … Tish was much more

like me. Actually I’m not like either of them but she was much more formal. They

called her Mrs. Emerson. And she was very direct and had lots of fireworks. She was

here for 16 years. And then Dale Marshall came. So there were three men and three

women who were presidents or vice presidents. Well, the women had a very good

relationship. They used to travel together and stuff like that. I don’t do that. So it’s been

problematic. Some people feel that they want to get to know me better. The house has

provided that opportunity. But, that was part of it too. I wasn’t here. I was out there.

Now we have all these people come here. That has helped a lot. We had a retreat last

summer for two days. We went to the Berkshires and worked together.

MR. BARKER: Does the concept of race affect your leadership decisions?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Impact my leadership decisions? To the extent that, uh.

Well let me put it in the following manner. I’ll share this anecdote with you. Every

president as been tested by the faculty. I don’t know if that’s true in all other colleges but


that’s true here. My predecessor they gave a really hard time. For me, they let me go to

March. There was an issue that came forth. Fortunately, I had someone who told me

what was going on so that by the time I got to the faculty meeting, I knew what all the

issues were. And let me tell you what the issue was. At that point in time we were

working on the strategic plan I had put together to put a group of faculty, staff, students

and alum that I called the Presidents Coordinating Council that would meet every other

week early in the morning, trying to find out what the values of the college were,

strengths, weaknesses. It was great.

In January we were to have had a retreat with that group and the Vice Presidents.

We had this huge storm and everything got cancelled. We had showed them this date in

January because we don’t go back to school until the end of January and so everybody

was free. So we could take a full day and a half and not have any problems. Well it was

on and then suddenly how do you get all of these people together for a half a day, let

alone a full day. So I think we couldn’t find a day until February the 18th. In the

meantime, we had all this stuff out there, analysis and all that sort of stuff and the faculty

was wondering when they were going to have an opportunity to chime in and that was to

have happened after we had had this retreat. So I got wind of this. Essentially, this was

the basic question. Is he like Tish or is he like Dale? That’s really what the basic

question was. And, of course, the answer was is that he is like neither. Tish was almost

dictatorial. Dale was loosey, goosey. I’m not like either of them. But, at the same time,

and this is where the race issue comes in. The reason that I was able to get the

information about what the concerns were is that there had been a meeting about the

strategic planning. There were some faculty sitting at this meeting. And then people got


into this conversation about when they were going to get a chance to chime in. And then

someone said, “We need to train this president and teach him how we do things around

here.” Now some of the younger faculty of color really took offense to that. So that’s

when a group of people of color took me aside and said, “We need to have a conversation

with you.” They took me into a room and sat me down and then there were two faculty

members who were not of color. They said these are the concerns and these are what you

need to address.

So what I did is that I decided I was going to address all the issues from the get

go. Before so doing, I felt that I needed to remind them of just who I was. And, you

know, in retrospect I don’t know if it was a good thing or a bad thing, but in end I felt I

needed to do it. And I basically just put it out there. When I came here for the interview

I told everyone that I don’t do what I do because I want to be popular. When I grew up

my father taught me not to have any kind of illusion of grandeur. He said that not all

white people are going to think you are as experienced as I think you are, but that

shouldn’t impede what you do. You should go on and try to be the best you possibly can.

But, you know, don’t think they don’t like you because they don’t accept you in the way

that I accept you. And it doesn’t mean that you have to dislike them. I felt that I needed

to put it out there. And so what I was saying is that I am a strong black man. I know

what I am and what I’m all about. I am who I am. I’m not going to change. Now, I

understand that you have some concerns. And we had this long discussion. We must

have talked for about an hour.

Then some said, “Well President Crutcher, I have to say to you, thank you so

much for listening to us and letting us voice our concerns.” And so I said, “You don’t


have to thank me for that. That’s why I’m here. That’s part of my job. I’m supposed to

listen.” And then some said, “Well, if we could, we should just give you a vote of

confidence.” It was an interesting moment because what I felt was necessary, what I had

learned from a previous president is when she came to this point, she kind of caved in.

Not kind of, she did cave in. And, for my own integrity, I just wasn’t going to do that.

And so I said, “Listen, you have to understand, there is a process I am following.

Unfortunately, the process got delayed because we had the blizzard. It was out of my

control, totally out of my control.” One of the issues was “Why aren’t there any full

professors as part of the faculty in this group?” So I said, “I asked the provost to give me

some names, she gave me some names and I chose from them.” And I said I wanted to

have people who were going to be here for a longer period of time. And a full professor

said “Well we’re not ready to die yet.” And I said, “That’s a good point. If you want to

have a couple of full professors, we can have a couple of full professors. It’s not a big

deal.” So we added two full professors to the group. So that turned out to be one of the

issues.

But what was really telling about that was in that same meeting, I had said to

them, this was in March, my inauguration was in April, and I was giving them an update

on my inauguration, I said “I want you all to realize that I have a very large family, a very

close knit family and you’re likely to see on this campus, next month, more black faces

than have ever before been on this campus at any one time. So you just be prepared for

that.” My father was bringing a whole bus of people from Cincinnati, Ohio. So, surely

enough, at my inauguration the first four or five rows, nothing but black. But what was

really sweet was, and I was still out of it on the day of my inauguration. Inauguration is


like a wedding. You go through the motions and you experience it but you’re not really

there.

Apparently, all the men wore bow ties, in solidarity, for me on that day. I had not

even noticed it. I had noticed that Bill had on a bow tie and Mr. Barkerson. But the chair

had sent me an e-mail saying, “All of the bow ties to show solidarity.” So my point is

that, I guess, there is a sense about me that race is always like a subconscious memo, but

my wife will tell you this, I don’t use it as a crutch, I guess, is a way to put it. I’m aware

of the reality. For instance, I happen to think that one of the reasons why, to some

people, I’m an enigma has to do with I’m a formal black man, but I’ve never said that to

anybody. I really think that there’s something about that that makes it difficult for them

to connect. And I have worked on myself in trying to be less formal. But part of it is

that’s just the way I am. And then the house has helped a lot. We have a whole protocol

at dinner. My wife and I have developed this “ice breaker” where we ask people to tell

us their middle names and where they were born, where their home town is. It’s amazing

what you can learn about people just by learning those two things. Your middle name

and the significance of your middle name and your hometown. We’ve had some really

rich conversations. It’s amazing.

MR. BARKER: Is your relationship different with faculty of color?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes. Well, for the first three years we were here we had

potlucks at our house for faculty and staff of color. We haven’t done that yet this year

because, unfortunately, the woman who organized that left us. Her husband got another


job. She was the first black person to be tenured. She was tenured about two weeks ago.

There’s a sense of pride, you know. But it worked both ways. You asked me the

question about the climate on campus and attitudes towards diversity. My first year here,

there were people who were white faculty, staff and students too who would say things to

black students, “You shouldn’t complain about this, that or the other now that you have a

black here as president.” It was interesting because you’re, you know, you’re a protector

now. “You shouldn’t have anything to complain about.” Very, very interesting.

My first interaction with alumni here, May of 2004, my predecessor had invited

me to come to graduation and graduation was on the weekend. And one of the older

classes, I don’t know which class it was, and this woman comes, she was about 85 years

old, and I can’t really tell you exactly what she said but it was something like “You don’t

look black.” And I told Dale Marshall. But, interestingly enough, since I’ve been here,

that’s the only time that anything like that has happened with alum. I’m sure there have

been people who have said things to each other. And in fact I know that there was a

misunderstanding that a few of the alums had over, well someone had started a rumor that

I came to the university because I was only interested in African American students. So I

pointed out that in one of my columns where I had talked about that very issue and talked

about diversity that is broadly construed and not just talking about students of color, but

religion and the whole nine yards. But those things have happened. Fortunately, I have

to say that the former president has been very helpful. She was a civil rights scholar

herself and has a very good relationship with a lot of these older alums still.

For instance, one time there was a subject that came up. A woman had said, “You

know I wrote to the president’s commission. Did you know that we have a house that’s


for men of color on campus? Surely they wouldn’t have established anything like that

with you as president.” And this president had to say, “Well I don’t think it was

established by the president.” And it was true. She had started it. And the other rumor

was that I was interested in helping students of color who had come from lower economic

echelons, when the president knew that my concerns were just the opposite. I felt we

didn’t have enough middle class students of color on campus. Let’s put it this way. I felt

there was tension between the upper middle class students of color and the other students

of color. That doesn’t ever go away. So it is what it is. Fortunately, I have a wife who

cuts to the chase. From the very beginning, they were aware of it.

I’ll share this with you too. We came here in March of 2004 for the opening

ceremony. The chair of the search committee had a dinner for us at his home, a very

lovely dinner. They had two tables. They had me at one table and my wife at another

table, and then we switched. That’s something we have done when we entertain here.

We switch tables. Apparently, at one point in time, a wife of a member of the search

committee, a wife of a faculty member, started talking to one of our board members,

Jamie Hoyt, as though he were I. And I can’t remember how it came up. She just said,

“You must really enjoy your wife.” And no one said a word. And so Betty, as only Betty

can do, she said “You know, we’re all kind of family here. And I feel, since no one has

said anything about this, I need to point out to, what’s your name again, this is not my

husband.” And of course, the poor woman didn’t know what to do. Whereas I might

have found a different way to approach it, she just touched right on it. But, you know,

she said “We’ve all become a family.”


MR. BARKER: Most presidents came from a different generation and educational

background, more than likely one that was segregated, how do you speak to the next

generation of presidents who do not come from that same era or background?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well I think that the immediate generation is not going to be

that much different and I’ll tell you why. Even though they did not grow up under the

same circumstances. I grew up in Cincinnati and Cincinnati wasn’t segregated. But

because I had family in Kentucky, I experienced segregation in Kentucky. But what I’m

finding is what happens is that these upper middle class students of color who have gone

to the private schools or to the very nice suburban schools, when they get to college or

university, they get to go away, they either find a community of people of color that they

can identify with and finally there are more than a handful and they rejoice in that or if

they decide, and it can be one of two ways, if they decide not to embrace that community,

what happens eventually, I’ve seen it happen time and time again, those that decide not to

embrace it, eventually hit the wall and they may not even hit the wall until they’re out of

college. What I mean by that is that they learn, unfortunately, they learn what it means to

be a black man or a black woman or a Hispanic man or a Hispanic woman in ways that

are often transforming to them because it’s like a bolt of lightening hits them because it’s

not supposed to be this way.

You know, “I’m dressed. I’m not supposed to have a problem getting a taxi.”

They figure it out. And so while the experience is different from my experience, having

grown up in the 50’s, they too, then, are informed about the negative impact of race. It’s

not an overwhelming factor in their life, it’s just a reality. It is what it is. And they’re


aware of it. What I find, at least with this generation that they are more proactive. If you

look at the black students at Harvard, if I could be young again, Harvard is a wonderful

place to be right now for a young black or Hispanic student. They’re so very socially

conscious and so aware of wanting to make a contribution, wanting to give back, wanting

to help those who have not had the privileges that they have had.

And I’m only experiencing this vicariously through some friends of mine who are

there. I mean, one young man who went to Hunter High School, and never had more

than two or three other black people in his class in the whole time at Hunter, he’s like a

kid in a candy store, to realize that there are all these other black and Hispanic students

who feel as passionate as he does. And he’s had all the privileges of anyone, traveling,

but he’s committed to helping out those who have less. And he’s not like an isolated

case. And a lot of it has to do with the faculty, Charles Ogletree there and people like

that. My point is I think that while their experience will have been somewhat different

from mine, they won’t be at the same place I am, but they will be as conscious about race

as I am, having got to it in a different way. Now I think the generation after that should

probably be different, but I wouldn’t bank on it. And I wouldn’t bank on it because I,

um, in 1969 I truthfully thought that by the year 2000, there would be no need for black

history courses. All of black history would have been folded into the history courses and,

obviously, that didn’t happen. And now, in 2007, you know, some of the students on this

campus and on other campuses, are experiencing some of the same kind of ignorant

comments that I experienced as an undergraduate 45 years ago, more than 40 years ago.

So I don’t have a lot of hope for change, even in this century.


Now let me tell you what’s going to come. Towards the end of this century, or

the next century, the change is going to come, you know why? Because there’s going to

be so much intermarriage on the one end, and the Hispanic population growing, that by

the time, I’ll be long dead, the 21st century comes, the 22nd century comes, white folks

will be in the minority. It’ll be all different. But will it make it any better? I wonder, you

know, I wonder about that. Just because, you know, the color differential changes, it

doesn’t mean it’s going to be better. Cause you look at what goes on in Africa.

MR. BARKER: I want to ask one final question. When you look at the present state of

African American youth, you see a 50% high school graduation rate, and about the same

graduating from college. And those African American boys who do go to college go to

junior colleges and most of them never go to a four-year school. Moving to graduate

education, a disproportionate number of those are in the field of education. What do you

have to say about that? How does that speak to you and how is that going to affect the

academy over the next significant number of years?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh boy. That’s an issue I could talk, I could do a

dissertation on that. I’m just trying to think what time the post office closes. Uh, it

causes me concern in many, many areas. I mean, I’m deeply troubled by the number of

African American and Hispanic men who are incarcerated, who are incarcerated unjustly,

I think, for a kilo of cocaine, or whatever. Whereas if you go to Beverly Hills in some of

the houses, you know, it’s a serious problem because it means it’s going to make it

difficulty for, it’s difficult for my daughter, now, to find a decent boyfriend. And it’s


going to be even worse the next generation. It means the virtual disappearance of the

African American male leadership at all levels, at all kinds of institutions. At the current

rate that we’re going, you know, and it seems to be getting worse and worse. I don’t see

that it’s getting any better. That’s what’s most troubling.

And coming at a time when there is so much influence, so much focus on popular

culture and athletes, etc., so that even our young men who are not being incarcerated are

not being well educated. You have to start that, the education, at an early age. And if

you don’t start at an early age, you have to have an intervention at least by seventh,

eighth or ninth grade. By the time you’re a sophomore or in junior high school, you

don’t have certain skills, it’s going to be very, very difficult. It’s possible for you to go

on to get a good education but it’s very, very difficult. So it is, in my estimation, I think

for the country, it’s a problem of great proportions and it’s one that we just haven’t

chosen to deal with. When I say we, I mean the government. I think that African

American community needs to find a way, I think we’ve abandoned our young people in

the sense that there has to be a way that we can develop some kind of safety net for those

kids who are now in the inner city who don’t have any parents to look after them, whose

parent or parents are working so much they can’t take care of them and therefore they’re

out on the streets. Surely, through the churches or social organizations, we ought to be

able to find ways. Even the Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs can help them to some extent.

But it really, and I’ll tell you this last thing. If there’s one thing that would make me

want to go back to a segregated society, this is it.

Quite frankly, I think we’re better off in many ways, it’s a simplistic view, in a

way. But I do think there were certain aspects of our lives, back in the 50’s, when we


lived in segregated communities, and I’m not just talking about in the south. You know,

because my parents’ community changed from being the first or second black family on

the street, within 10 years, totally black community. But yet, as I said to you yesterday,

we had lawyers, doctors, university professors, all living in that community. And people

looked out for each other in those communities, looked out for the children. I couldn’t do

anything on the street that was anything out of order without being interrupted by an

adult. And they didn’t care who my momma was. If I was out of order, they’re going to

pop me in the head for doing it and that doesn’t happen anymore. Now that’s very

simplistic, I realize, but it is very, very troubling and I don’t see any solutions right now.

MR. BARKER: I see the numbers in graduate school, 2:1 African American females to

males, PhD, law and every other field. It’s pretty much across the board.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And the sad, really sad thing is that if you go into these

prisons, there are some really young black men incarcerated, brilliant, just absolutely

brilliant. It hurts me to the core to think that they’re wasting away. We have failed them


Location: President’s House, Wheaton College


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER:….different versions. In fact, it started out as, the first

version of that was really the graduation remarks for the Hitimu Ceremony at Miami,

which is the ceremony that they have for the students of color, the graduation ceremony.


That’s really where it began. And then I reworked it and used it at a Cum Laude society

keynote speech at the Columbus Academy. And so it’s been through lots of different

iterations and then when they asked me to do the thing at AAC&U I was thinking, you

know the primary audience there were faculty and staff of color. And that’s where I

came up with the title actually. Because it originally started. I’m sorry, I forgot. There

was one other important integration and that was in 2004 in February I was asked to be a

speaker at a meeting of the black caucus of the AAHE, American Association of Higher

Education which is no longer existing. There used to be a black caucus there. They had

a conference in Greensboro, North Carolina and the subject matter, the theme was

something like cracking or breaking through the glass ceiling…

MR. BARKER: I saw a version of that at the Compact for Faculty Diversity when you

spoke there.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: That’s right. That was it.

MR. BARKER: I was there.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, then that was, what I did there was exactly, well not

exactly but similar to what I had done at AAC&U except I changed the beginning to

tailor it for that audience. But really when that speech coalesced was for that AAHE

meeting. That’s where I gave it the title because I hadn’t called it that before and I didn’t

like “cracking the glass ceiling” “breaking through the glass ceiling.” I didn’t like the


‘breaking through’. I had a deadline and the AAC&U people wanted a title that they

could put in brochure and I was trying to think of something to call it. And I said to my

wife, “why don’t I just say spiraling? How about spiraling through?”

MR. BARKER: When you’re formalizing speeches, it depends on your audience, but is

it something that has to be created? How much time does it take you? I mean, is the way

you would talk to faculty different than the way you would talk to young academics?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah. It depends. For the AAC&U presentation, also for

the presentation at the Compact, I tried to think about it long in advance because I wanted

it to be just right. It changed a lot. For instance, I tried to find some other kind of

analogies to spiraling and in my mind came that poem from Langston Hughes, and I

thought, ‘that symbolizes it to me very well.’ I had to use it. And of course then I had to

go find it cause I’d read it and I knew I had it in one of my books but I didn’t know where

it was. And then for the Compact in particular, I wanted the introduction to focus on that

audience. And I took some time to do that. And when I say I take time, because what

usually happens no matter how you plan it, I generally have lots of ….by the time, just

before I go to give the speech my calendar is really impacted. So I assume now that I’m

not going to have time just before it to do any kind finishing touches. So I try to get it

done early enough so that I can spend the time just before it, practicing. Just going

through it in my mind so I can be certain that the pacing is right and the emphasis is right.


MR. BARKER: Is it your style to read a speech or is it depending on how new it is or do

you do it from memory?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: I do a combination of both. My preference is to do it from

memory because I speak much better that way. Or as in the case with by the time I did

the spiraling one, I was so familiar with that while I didn’t necessarily do it from

memory, I didn’t really need the text.

MR. BARKER: Right.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: At that point in time cause I had practiced it a lot. Cause

that was a huge audience for me. So, it was more difficult to communicate to a big

audience and so you really have to really have your act together so to speak. But my

preference is and I did the same thing with my inauguration speech. I practiced it over

and over again. I actually practiced it in front of a camera because I wanted it to be just

right. I didn’t want to leave anything to chance. Whereas Alumni Weekend, I have to

give, God knows how many speeches. And usually what I do there is, for the ones that

are really crucial, the fund-raising ones for instance, we have various receptions for

donors and things like that, I take, the communications people give me bullets, and I take

those bullets and I just memorize them and then I weave that into what I’m going to say.

I’m just much more effective if I’m not reading from a page. I know that.


MR. BARKER: That’s interesting. President McDavis said that when he talks to

different constituents, like if its alumni, they don’t want to hear anything negative. They

want to hear about the football team and the positive so he has to give them that kind of

reference. And when he talks to obviously the students it’s a different message about the

vision of the university and why it’s so important to get involved in your own educational

experience. And he went through and it’s the same thing, just in a different way.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And it is. And I do have different messages for different

audiences. And I’ll tell you, this is interesting and this just happened. I hadn’t planned

on this happening. In my very first focus group with faculty here, I was explaining to

them why I was wanting to have these focus groups It is my fourth year here and when

I first came, I went around to each department and met with each department

individually. And now this is my fourth year and I’m away a lot more than I am here and

so this is an opportunity for me to connect with people and I just really said, as an aside, I

also thought it might be of interest for you, what did I say, to hear from you what you

think is distinctive about the college cause when I go around to speak to donors they want

to know what’s going on at the college. And one of my colleagues said, “well, what do

you say? Why don’t you tell us what you say?” And I thought ‘this is interesting’ so I

said ‘well it really depends.’

If it’s a donor who has been connected to the college and is a regular on-going

donor all I have to do is give them the positive good news cause they know everything

else. And bring them up to date on what’s happening. If it’s one who has not been that

close to the college, particularly someone who was disaffected because of co-education, I


have to go back to 1992 and bring them up to date. What I generally say is that one of

the truly distinctive qualities of this campus is the fact that there is such close

faculty/student interaction that students, most graduates when they leave here perceive

that there’s been one or two people who have truly changed their lives, transformed their

lives. And we did a great job of that, the college did, with women starting back in 1834

and then in 1988 when we became co-educational we had to recalibrate because suddenly

we put men into the mix.

But one of the good things that Wheaton did is that when we brought men onto

campus they made a conscious decision not to change the culture which was a strategic

decision and it was very important because it meant then that you were inviting young

men to study in the same culture that the young women had studied in for all those many

years. In fact that was, Tish Emerson explained to me that she felt, you know she had a

son, the president two presidents ago, and she felt her son would have grown and

blossomed here as a young man had he been able to go here at that time. And so we had

to recalibrate when young men came and it took us a bit to reach our stride but now you

know we have, and then I give them all the statistics, the national scholars and that kind

of thing. And they usually want to know what the young men are doing so that’s a little

bit long and drawn out for that particular group of people. And primarily because, and

particularly if you have men on campus because they really, many of the women who

haven’t been on campus who were here when it was an all woman’s college, think that it

is really different now than it was then. And it is in terms of the demographics but it has

that same feel about it. That’s the one thing that truly is distinctive about this place.

There’s a quality of interaction here that’s different from any other institution that


I’ve ever been in before and it’s real. And that’s both positive and negative but primarily

positive. But we spend a lot of time talking about speeches and messages. We spend a lot

of time, we meaning I and my staff, my President’s council, my communications person,

about messages and communications, because that to me is one of the most difficult

aspects of this kind of a job. And the surprise, not surprise but the curious discovery that

I’ve made here at Wheaton, is that it’s no different at a small liberal arts college than it is

at a 50,000-inhabitant college or university which you wouldn’t think is the case. In fact,

its more difficult here to communicate because here, so much is transmitted by word of

mouth and I declare, people just don’t read. It amazes me how difficult it is or the

challenge it is to communicate with people. But we have now a routine so after every

Board meeting I send out a communiqué to the community where I outline the actions

taken at the board meeting so people understand what the Board is doing. Any major

decisions that are made I do the same thing. I have open office hours. I have time set

aside where I go and sit in the Student Center and they can come and just meet with me.

MR. BARKER: So it’s something that takes a lot of time?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Takes a lot of time and effort. You really have to attend to

it. It doesn’t just happen.

MR. BARKER: Okay.


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And as I was saying yesterday, since I’ve learned that every

word you say, people take likes it’s the word of God. You do have to be careful about

what you say and how you say it.

MR. BARKER: Now, do you have like a stockpile of speeches in your head that you

know, depending on where the conversation goes you can pull out particular facts or

reference this or when you see somebody talking you kind of identify with where the

conversation is going?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, there are some stock things that I have that are more

useful for conversations with Alums or with newcomers, people will ask you questions

about the college. Like I’m in Boston and people will say, “Oh, I’ve been reading a lot

about Wheaton. What’s happening there?” That kind of thing, but mainly I just try to

listen very closely to what the question is and then respond spontaneously.

MR. BARKER: So when you’re traveling and somebody says, “What do you do?” and

you say, “I’m the president of a university, are they surprised? Are they generally,

what’s the reaction?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, I rarely say that. I rarely say that I’m the president of

a University. Because I don’t, remember I told you, I learned a long time ago, don’t put

all the information out there.


MR. BARKER: Right.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: You have to hold some of it back. And so, for one thing

people know that I have some kind of affiliation with Wheaton College because I always

wear my baseball cap. I’ve got a Wheaton baseball cap. That’s my signature no matter

where I go. And so, they’ll ask, ‘oh are you at Wheaton College?” “ Yes, I work at

Wheaton College.” And if they ask further, “Are you a professor there?” “Well, kinda.”

But, interestingly, this is what happens more likely than not. People will see me with that

cap on and just, on December 31st in Montclair, New Jersey I was sending a package

back home, some gifts that were given to us while we were there and it was I think 2:30

in the afternoon or something like that and all the post offices had closed at 1 so there

was this long line at the package mailing store with people trying to send stuff out. So I

had been in the line for about an hour standing in front of this couple. Finally we got up

to the counter and I think it was the husband who said, “Aren’t you at Wheaton College?”

or maybe it was the wife who said it. Their daughter had graduated from Wheaton two

years ago and I knew their daughter. That happens a lot. People say, “aren’t you the

president of Wheaton College?” And in that case obviously I have to say, “yes, I am the

president of Wheaton College.” What am I going to say? No?

MR. BARKER: If there is an answer to this, what is the typical day? As you know, this

interview is about the day to day.


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: It’s interesting that you ask that because on Monday, the

staff is having a staff workshop, what’s it called, an open house. And each division is

supposed to come and have a display about their division. And so, my staff has a display

and one of the things they did is they took my next week’s schedule and they blew it up

so people could what I do every day. But I mean, you know there is no typical day. I

wish there were. No I don’t. I actually like the fact that it’s different every day. But I

can tell you next week what it looks like. On Monday, I have promotion and tenure for

half the day probably from 9 until about 11 maybe 12. And then in the afternoon I have a

training session that I am going to sit in on. The President’s Advisory Committee on

inclusive excellence is going to go through a study circle training. We’re not calling it

study circles but that’s what they’re going to be doing. And then they will, after we share

with the community the results of the campus climate survey, they’re going to have some

campus dialogue sessions which will actually be study circles but we’re not calling them

that. And then the people who are going through training will be the facilitators.

And then I have, as soon as that’s over I have a meeting with the technology

person from the library and information services about something having to do with the

community and then at 3:30 I having a group of staff here to do the same kind of

meetings with them as I’m doing with the faculty, a small group meeting, where we’ll

talk about the strategic plan and the upcoming review in 2009. And then on Tuesday, and

this is typical before I go out of town, the day before is generally jam-packed because I

have regular meetings with my vice presidents every week. A half-hour with each one

and generally an hour with the advancement person and so, on Tuesday I start with the

Provost. We have a meeting from 8:30 to 9:30 because I’m doing her mid-term review as


well and then I have the CFO, the Dean of Admissions or the Vice President for

Enrollment and Marketing, the LIS person, Library and Information Science, Dean of

Students and then thrown in there in the middle of the morning is an ACE board

conference call cause the ACE is getting ready to, I hope, announce the new president.

We’re supposedly going to be voting on this person, whoever it is, I’ll know on Tuesday

morning which is I think very good. They’re being very secretive about it.

And then more individual meetings in the afternoon with a couple of meetings, a

planning meeting for the President’s commission and then another meeting, on Tuesday

night we have the Harvard Senior Common Room event. My wife and I are members of

the Senior Common Room at Elliott House at Harvard but we very rarely go because we

just don’t have enough the time. But I’d like to go on Tuesday because it’s an

opportunity for us to get to meet Harvard faculty and Harvard students. And then on

Wednesday I start out the day with the President’s council meeting from 9-11 here and

then at 11 o’clock my coach, my executive coach is coming and we’re going to have a

session from 11-1 and then at 1:30 I’m meeting with my CFO.

MR. BARKER: Executive coach, what’s?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Executive coach, this is a woman, her name is Bea

Mulholland. She’s a Harvard graduate, she does coaching and consulting mainly with

businesses but since she’s a higher education person she does some in higher education.

And she was suggested, recommended by one of our board members who does coaching

but it’s something that people in the corporate world have used for many years, executive


coaches. The Center for Creative Leadership does executive coaching and in the past

five years I think it’s just begun to manifest itself in higher education. In fact there is a

whole organization called The Academic Presidency or something like that. The

Presidency Consulting Group that does that only, they focus on new presidents. But this

is the same woman who did the 360 for me. Really, really great. Really terrific. Whereas

I have a set of goals that I give to the board, I also have a set of personal goals that I

develop with her.

MR. BARKER: Interesting.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: So she’s coming and then I have a meeting with my CFO

and then I’m having tea with a donor here who’s going to be on campus from New York

City. And then I go off to a plane or a train to go to New York City. No, the tea is on the

23rd. I’m a week ahead of myself. I have my meeting with Rick and then I go to the train

station. And I go to New York and then I have a dinner on Wednesday night. A dinner

with one of our board members and then on Thursday I have breakfast with someone,

coffee with someone, lunch with someone. Thank goodness my afternoon one cancelled

so I have a little time to breathe in the afternoon and then a dinner with another.

MR. BARKER: So you have one person taking care of your calendar completely?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes, in fact my Administrative Associate, Susan Pace that’s

her primary job. She’s a scheduler. She does all the calendaring, all the trips. She is

fantastic.

MR. BARKER: I notice that secretaries, Administrative Assistants, Executive Assistants,

guard the president’s time as if it was their own for the most part.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Uh huh. They do.

MR. BARKER: And that’s the toughest part of doing this, is getting through those

people. They’re the gatekeepers and try to gain access, which is interesting. So, your

day begins at about 4:30 - 5 o’clock and ends typically when?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: 10 o’clock. I go to bed at 10 o’clock religiously cause I

need a certain amount of sleep. Not always, if I’m at an event I sometimes stay up later

obviously but I can’t do that too many days in a row.

MR. BARKER: Yesterday we asked the question, what is it like to be a university

president so today we’re focusing on what does it mean to be a university president.

What does it mean to you? Looking back on your life at this particular moment, what

does it mean to be a university president?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, you have to understand that for me, the motivation for

what I do, that is the motivating factor for my making a decision to be a college president

has to do with the transformative power of education. And the impact that will have,

hopefully on future generations of young people in the country. So, for me then in terms

of meaning it means that I am serving an institution about which I have a firm belief that

we are doing a better job than the majority of colleges in this country, of transforming the

lives of the young people who come through these doors. We could do it better. You

know nobody’s perfect. I am very, very proud of the way that we engage students here

and for me that’s what it has to be all about. The students.

And I tell students all the time, the event that I look forward to every year is

commencement and the commencement at Wheaton is just a magnificent event because,

and again you know every school has it’s own traditions but one of the things that I like

here is that we march, it’s outside, and we march around and as we march, we, the faculty

march around and the students line up on the walkways and they applaud us as we walk

through, we come around and then down into the dimple and then when we walk out the

faculty and staff and alums line up on the walkways and applaud the students as they

walk out and that’s really nice with the bagpipe. And every single time I shed a tear. I

start crying. It’s very emotional to me. And in fact, my first year here, it was so funny. I

was trying not to, to be very objective and you know how a tear will come on your cheek

and I was trying to brush it away but there’s a routine, a rhythm here, and so I take the

diploma in this hand from the woman who is standing there, hand it to the student and I

shake with this hand and so I was trying to do that and brush the tear and it goes by. The

Dean of Students here is fabulous in terms of being able to enunciate the names of the


students very clearly and she does it in a really great rhythm. But it’s, to me that’s what

it’s all about.

Watching those students, watching them transform from sometimes very insecure

individuals, very bright but unsure of themselves. Not certain what they want to do.

What their direction in life is going to be. To very confident young men and women

who, thought they may not have found their final direction but they have found a passion,

they have discovered something that they are passionate about that they want to do that’s

going to lead them at least for a few years and they may change that. I don’t know if I’ve

told you this but I have a group of young men that I mentor and I’ve been doing that

since I was in Miami. But when I first came here I asked the Admissions Office and the

Dean of Multicultural Affairs to put together a group and I said I don’t want all the top

students, I don’t want all African-American, all Hispanic, just give me a mixture of

people. And I had ten, two really could not participate, one flunked out and six are

graduating this year. One is not graduating this year because he took a leave of absence

and went to another college and then came back and he’ll graduate next year. But there’s

one young man in that group who I think epitomizes what motivates me. Kind of what

gives me that fire in the belly.

This was a young man, Hispanic from New York City, didn’t know his father, his

mother married someone else, a man who was really close to him and then that man died

or was killed. I can’t remember. His mother has not been well. And at the end of the

first semester I asked each of them to look back at this semester and think about what you

would have done differently had you known in August what you know now. Just give

me one or two things. And this young man said “I would have gone to get some


counseling to help me control my anger because I am very, very angry.” And I said

“Okay, tell me about it.” He said, “I get really angry and it manifests itself if I get some

criticism from a professor then I lash out at them.” And this young man, he just came

back in the fall being away for a year, he was in Spain for a semester and he was in

…Beach for a semester. And he is so very different now. It’s just amazing. And in

September I took him aside and I said, “do you realize how much you have grown and

developed?” He said, “I think last year that I did.” And I said, “No, David you are so

different and I reminded him of this conversation.” He’s going to go places. I mean he is

just flying now. He’s working on his thesis now and every time we get together he

comes in with a lot of enthusiasm. But that to me is what it’s all about. And if it were

only David, if that’s the only person that would be enough for me. But there are several,

I mean he’s not the only one. There are several in that group and then there are others

who aren’t even in the group.

MR. BARKER: Do you do group activities or is it individual mentoring?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: It’s not, I mean what we do, it’s a very simple concept

because at Miami it was a little bit more involved because I tried to make it a little bit too

academic. And what happened is that it wasn’t as successful. I wouldn’t say it wasn’t as

successful but I couldn’t do everything that I wanted to do because I didn’t have the time.

And so basically, what I say to them is we get together once a month here at the house,

we have dinner, I check in with them at the beginning of the year. Every year I add a

few, a couple of freshmen and for the freshmen we do a time management exercise and I


have them set some goals. And then I asked them to write down the goals and put them

in an envelope, write their names on the envelope and then give the envelope to me. And

then I send it to them. But it’s really an opportunity for them to know that they have a

connection with me. They can always get in contact with me. With the seniors this year,

I’m working with them on their vitas and just having conversations with them like, okay,

what is it that you want to do.

What kinds of things are you thinking about? And that will start actually at the

end of this month. So it’s fairly informal but at each, one of the things I do is to take

advantage of having this multi-racial group there, by really bringing up topics there that

have to do with inter-group dynamics just to see how they respond to them. And it’s

amazing what you learn from them.

I mean, there was one other guy, I’ll tell you this other story. One guy, a young

man who is from Hawaii, he’s from one of the most prestigious prep schools there and

he’s a skateboarder and he has that kind of Hawaii-California sense. And I never was

sure I was getting through to him. Nice, I mean really nice kid. His attendance was

haphazard and it turned out he was working and so, this year he had one of the lead roles

in the musical “Chorus Line.” He was the stage director and he was brilliant, really

brilliant. And so I went to see him and I said to him, “Chris, you know I’ve missed

seeing you and I hope you can come the next time when we have our meeting.” And he

apologized and he said he was working and he had the play. So he came and we were

having a conversation at the table and I was explaining to them cause they were asking

me, “What does it mean to be a role model? You know, you’re our role model but how

does that feel to you?” And I said, well, the way I view it is that rather than thinking


about what I’m doing and thinking, ‘am I being a good role model today?’ I try to live

my life in such a way, and I gave them the example like I try to interact with people, treat

people in a certain way that people will then see how I’m interacting with people and that

will send a message to them. And I said to them that basically, well there’s this Bible

verse “Let your life light so shine and men will see your good works and glorify your

father which art in heaven.” And Chris said something profound to me, he said, “well if

you have any concern about whether or not you’re being effective, I can tell you from my

perspective you are cause I’ve learned a lot just watching you and I’ve changed my

behavior just watching you.” I was astounded. And I took him aside later and I said, you

know, thank you for making that comment cause I wasn’t really sure if I was getting

through to you or not. And that’s not even giving credit for what he said cause it was

much more profound than that. And what I saw in him was, again, a completely different

person than what I saw four years ago. It was astounding to me but that to me is why a

career in higher education can be so fulfilling and worthwhile.

MR. BARKER: Yeah. What does your presidency signify, as an African-American man

at a PWI about the current state of American education?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, from what I think, one simple fact is that we’ve made

a lot of progress because it wasn’t that many years ago, in the early 50s when the few

black students on this campus had a miserable existence. They all went home on the

weekends or went somewhere if they didn’t go home they went to someone’s house on

the weekends cause it wasn’t that people necessarily discriminated against them, it’s just


as though they didn’t exist. And so we’ve come along way to that that one of “those

people” could be at the helm of a predominantly white institution. Now, having said that.

I think at this point in time it’s still kind of at the symbolic level and I think we are

evolving into making it more impactful than symbolic. That is to say, where it has a real

impact on the institution itself or at least on the culture of the institution. And I see that

happening little by little. I mean, this year it will be interesting to see this Spring how

people will respond once they get the results of the Campus Climate survey cause there’s

some information in there that some of the people are going to be shocked to read with

some of the stuff they’ll read in there. But I look at it as, that transformation takes time, I

guess is one way to put it. But I’m determined, and again this is from my perspective,

I’m determined that if I’m fortunate enough to be here until 2014 that by the time I get

ready to retire people will look at this institution as a model with respect to an institution

that truly embraces inclusive excellence in terms of everything that that means. So that

people will want to come and find out what it is in the water at Wheaton that has

produced such an academically vibrant institution that truly embraces inclusive

excellence.

MR. BARKER: I’ll definitely be calling him. Have you ever been tired of being

identified as a black president?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No, I mean if I got tired of it I’d be tired of living.

MR. BARKER: Would you just rather be known as President Crutcher rather than…


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh, I see what you’re saying. Do I get irritated by people

saying I’m the black president?

MR. BARKER: Yes.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: To get to your other question, I would rather be known just

as the president of Wheaton College but the fact is I’m African-American. And the fact

is, this is America. And the other fact is that race, race trumps every thing else in

America it seems. We haven’t gotten any further than that. So, what is interesting is

that, quite frankly, the really interesting thing is I haven’t had to, with my constituents

that has not been an issue. That is, that’s not the way they talk about it which is

interesting. I don’t know whether they’re being PC or what. It’s very, very interesting.

But yes, while I prefer, you know, for people to just think of me as the president the

reality is, and even if they don’t verbalize it. That’s what I mean by, maybe they’re being

PC about it. Maybe they’re talking about it amongst themselves but not to me. It is what

it is.

MR. BARKER: How do you feel the minority population on campus perceives you in

different aspects? I mean we’ve talked a little bit about faculty yesterday, but from

students to staff to all of the campus community.


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, I know the students are very, very proud. And I think

the faculty and staff as well. They’re proud and hopeful still that my presence will have

an impact on the quality of their experience here. That’s what I’d say in a nutshell. And

we do have, even though I haven’t this year had any with the faculty and staff of color, I

have had lots of time to meet with students of color through various means. At the

beginning of the year I always go to the orientation for the students of color. They come

in a couple of days before every one else, students of color, international students,

students with disabilities, athletes, and I think that’s it, come in two days before and I go

and have breakfast with them at the Marshall Intercultural Center and have a chance to

mingle with them. We have a Posse group here, I don’t know if you know what that is

but we’re on our eighth posse so I work very closely with them. [The Posse Foundation

recruits and trains youth leaders from urban public high schools and sends these groups

as cohorts to selected colleges and universities to enhance diversity.]

MR. BARKER: It’s a significant measure of commitment, Posse.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes, yes it is indeed. But it’s been great having them on

campus.

MR. BARKER: Interesting. University of Rochester, my prior institution, we looked

into that but the provost and dean of the college didn’t think the return on our investment

was worth….


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh yeah, there is a big return on the investment believe me,

because these kids, they are the movers and the shakers. You know, one of our Posse

members, in fact in this group, in this class, founded our investment club, first time ever

we had an investment club. Last year’s SGA president was a posse member. Three of

our Fulbrights, we had nine Fulbrights last year and three of them were Posse students.

They’ve done a great job here.

MR. BARKER: Okay. How do the four topics that I’m going to list, impact your

presidency and how have you have improved in these areas since you started?

Fundraising.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, as I said to you yesterday, I spend 40 – 50% of my

time, and how have I improved? I think that even though I have been fund-raising since I

was at the Cleveland Institute of Music, up until I came here I didn’t have to do it on a

regular basis. I mean it was, even at Miami, I had to do it but it wasn’t like I was out

there every week. Whereas here, it’s much more regular and what it has done is, it has

helped me to come up with some protocols for making the ask, figuring out how to gauge

the conversation, and I’m known by my staff as being relentless in asking for money

because that part, I guess what I could say, has become a lot easier than it was before.

It’s never been hard for me cause it’s, if I feel strongly about something than I’m not

bashful about asking people to help. But depending upon the amount of course, and the

project, you know, you have to structure the asking in a certain way. So, I’ve had lots of

experience here and that has rebounded to my credit, I’ve gotten better at that.


MR. BARKER: Lobbying. Do you do a lot of that here? State or federal?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Not really because, that’s an interesting one. I did a lot of

that at Miami. I had to do a lot of it at Miami. Here, our lobbying is done by a

consultant. And so, the only role that I play would be to have meetings with like Senator

Kennedy, or the Chair of the House Finance Committee now, he’s from here, he’s gay,

Barney Frank. I’ll be meeting with him next month. But most of the lobbying is done by

the lobbyists and we hire someone.

MR. BARKER: Finance and your fiduciary responsibility. Did you have a good grasp of

that leaving Miami.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah, I think that being at Miami helped prepare me for the

job up here. Because at Miami the way that the University was run, basically I and the

Chief Financial Officer ran the University. The major decisions were made in Detroit by

the President, I and the Chief Financial Officer but he and I really did most of the work. I

had to be much more hands on with the budget than I am here. So it made this somewhat

easy in the sense that I basically don’t even see the budget. I sit with our CFO when we

put the budget together and then he gives me reports every other month. But there are

other people who track it much more closely than I do.

MR. BARKER: Okay. And dealing with athletics?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Um, the Athletic Director doesn’t report to me. He reports

to the Chief Student Officer, the Dean of Students. But I have had to be very much

involved with athletics obviously, and one of the challenges here has been getting to

athletic events. Especially when we’re living five miles away. Being here already, since

we’ve moved to this house, I think in this year I’ve been to more athletic events already,

and it’s only half the year, than I would have for the whole year the three years before.

Cause I can just go to the tennis courts are right back there, soccer is right across the

street. But I really don’t deal directly with the athletics.

MR. BARKER: Okay. What areas of the job or your personal skill set, do you still work

diligently to improve?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Personnel. That is sorting out personnel issues. Cause as I

said to you yesterday, those are the most difficult and so, I mean just yesterday I spent an

hour with our Human Resources person just talking through an issue that I have to deal

with someone. And it is, what I’ve learned is that throughout my career at various jobs

I’ve been able to just use my experience that I’ve built up or my knowledge of human

nature and people to resolve certain issues and that worked very, very well for me. It

seemed to work incredibly well. But here, as a president when suddenly everybody

reports to you, it’s a lot more complex. A lot more complex. And so, I find, and maybe

the stakes are just higher. Maybe that’s part of it too. And so rather than kind of relying

on my past experience, I’m more prone now, where I wasn’t necessarily and probably


should have been at Miami and at Texas too, I’m more prone to seek some advice.

Someone to listen to me, what do you think about this approach. And when I say

personnel, I mean personnel across the board including trustees, I mean they’re not

personnel but there’s that dynamic too because, what do you do with information that you

receive where someone tells you, where a trustee has said, has misrepresented a situation.

Those are delicate issues.

MR. BARKER: Right.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And so I find a lot of time is taken with that. With those

kind of issues. And I guess they’re personnel and interpersonal relationship issues. A

whole bunch of time. Whereas, I think in every other job I’ve had before I’ve never, you

know I’ve sat down and thought it through and somehow have been able to reach into my

past experience and come up with a solution, that has, knock on wood, always worked.

Every time except one situation that I had in Miami where I had to, which was a legal

situation, but other than that. But here it has been, I’ve spent a lot of time, I’ve brought

in consultants, starting with my own office staff because I basically inherited a situation

that was, I’ll just say, it wasn’t the best and leave it at that. And it took me, it took me

two years, two and a half years really, to get it turned around. And again, personnel

issue, and what I should have done, in retrospect, is I should have made a change at the

very beginning rather than giving people the benefit of the doubt but I didn’t do that.


MR. BARKER: We talked a lot yesterday and you referred to in past interviews of

always being “on” and what I mean by on is always having to represent the University.

What do you do when you’re off? I mean, how do you relax, stay healthy, stay mentally

clear? You know, it’s a very demanding job. So how do you stay healthy all the time?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, one of the things, that’s one of the reasons I play

Earth, Wind and Fire. But seriously, on the weekends I exercise. I go to the gym. This

morning I went to the gym for two hours. I ride my bike. I like to go to our

condominium in Boston and our condominium is right next to the Harvard Club and it’s

right around the corner from Newbury Street and it’s a very vibrant area of Boston.

There’s lots going on there. And then my wife and I schedule times that we can just be

away. Sometimes it’s just going to our closest friends in New Jersey for a weekend. But

it’s like a refuge going there.

Last year we actually went to Martha’s Vineyard for a long weekend or once we

went to another place on the Cape for a long weekend. And then I schedule in, the week

after graduation, I put in my calendar “I’m gone – I’m on vacation for a week.” I don’t

even know what we’re going to do this year. Last year we went to Charleston, South

Carolina to the Spoleto Festival. We may do that again this year. I don’t know what it

will be but it will be something. And when I do that I take my computer so I’m in

contact but I set aside a certain amount of time in the morning to devote to work and

otherwise, I’m gone. I’m out. Can’t reach me unless there’s an emergency. And then

three weeks of vacation during the summer. Last summer, Martha’s Vineyard. I always


like to go to Martha’s Vineyard cause that’s where I can really, really relax. And that

was advice from one of my mentors by the way. That was not my own.

MR. BARKER: Martha’s Vineyard directly or…?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No, three consecutive weeks of vacation. Bob… was the

one who recommended that cause, he said that it takes you one week to wind down and

so that you have one week of vacation and by the end of the second, the third week

you’re already thinking about what’s coming up.

MR. BARKER: How do you stay, I know you still perform, but how do you stay

connected to your academic discipline?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Mainly through my performance. I’m also, I stay connected

through Chamber Music America, which I used to be the President. I’m not as active as I

was. I didn’t go to their meeting this year because it was too early but I generally go to

their annual meeting. And I also get, I still belong to the National Association of

Schools of Music. I get their mailings and so I read, that’s an administrative organization

made up of all music executives. I don’t go to their meetings anymore but I read about

them. But it’s mainly through my chamber music.

MR. BARKER: I envision this dissertation as a source of information for young

administrators and faculty who might want to move into the top levels of administration


over the course of their careers. What advice would you give them on charting their own

individual career trajectories and paths? Just, you know, so many times so many

administrators don’t get the necessary mentoring because of lack of black representation

or lack of interest in their own careers. It happens at historically black colleges more

obviously than at white institutions, but it doesn’t happen a lot. So, you know, this is

going to be disseminated hopefully, this dissertation and so, what advise would you give?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well first I would say that they need to, if they’re really

interested in becoming an administrator of any type, to find someone who is in that

position who they can go and talk to, I mean just call and say I’d like to come and just

shadow you. Most people are very open to do that, I mean, you don’t want to say I want

to come and shadow you for two weeks, but I want to shadow you for one day. Open to

that and then definitely, if that person is imitable try to learn something from that

individual, perhaps have them as a mentor. And depending upon the chemistry you have

to be bold and just ask them if they would be willing to be your mentor. The worst that

can happen is that they will say no. You haven’t lost anything, you won’t have them as a

mentor but at least you’ve asked the question. And I think that there’s so many different

ways you can go in terms of getting experience. I would also encourage, well the first

thing I would say is that it depends upon where you are in your trajectory but even as a

beginning assistant professor, if for a number of reasons, who knows what, you have any

interest whatsoever, shadowing is the first step.

But truly, the first step is getting tenure because really, one piece of advice I’d

give to anybody is that you do not want to get in any kind of administrative position, no


matter how glamorous people make it seem to you, full time administrative position until

you have established yourself in terms of tenure. Unless you decide you want to be a

fulltime administrator and you really don’t want to teach, like in Student Affairs. You

want to be an Associate Dean of Student Affairs where you wouldn’t have a teaching

assignment. Or Business, you want to be a CFO and that’s a different kind of a situation,

but if you want to be on the academic side and it’s the academic side from which most

people choose their presidents even still today. You know there are a few people who

come from the corporate world, there are some who come from Student Affairs, a few

who come from Development, but the majority still come from Academic Affairs, then

you have to get tenure period. And there’s just no way around that. And then I would

say, let’s say you’re on your way to tenure and it looks like you’re going to get tenure, if

you’re really serious about seeking or trying to become an upper level administrator in an

academic area, try to learn as much as you possibly can about programs like the ACE

Fellows Program, the Hers Program that’s for women. They have a summer program and

also a year-long program, just so you know what some of the options are. ACE is an

excellent program.

MR. BARKER: A high number of African American candidates have come from ACE

Fellows.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes, and you know it depends on where you are in your

career. I just decided not to apply for it because at the time when I was, because quite

frankly Elizabeth asked me to be her Assistant Vice Chancellor at about the time I was


thinking about becoming an ACE Fellow. And after my first year there, it just didn’t

make sense. Why should I? I was already in the job by that time. Why take a step back?

So, I never did do it but it’s an excellent program and I’ve actually had two ACE Fellows

work with me.

MR. BARKER: Okay. We have one at Miami right now.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Really.

MR. BARKER: Yeah, he’s working in the Provost’s Office.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes, it’s an excellent program. And then the other advice I

would say, is if you’re really serious about becoming, doing a leadership position then

join an organization like AAC&U since AAHE doesn’t exist anymore, cause that’s a

good way to network with not only other faculty but because they do have this

networking breakfast for faculty and administrative of color. Great place to network with

administrators. So that’s a place where you can find some potential mentors for you, for

a potential mentor. Because everyone who comes there is really open to doing that. I

find that, I was just looking at the schedule the other day and this year it’s going to be a

luncheon and I wouldn’t miss those events for anything just because you reconnect with

the same people every year and you can compare notes. And I always end up, after those

meetings there, I have a group of people who are sending me emails asking my advice on

something or that kind of thing. So I think that would be really important. And that, the


good thing about AAC&U is that as a young faculty member, if you work it right you can

become one of your institution’s affiliate members. The institution gets a number of

people that they can put on their affiliate membership, which means that you get all the

publications, you get a reduced rate when you go to the meeting. You can go cause you

get to go as a group and that kind of thing.

MR. BARKER: Anything else? I don’t want to cut you off.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No, I think the only other thing I would say is that, another

piece of advice would be, if you’re seriously interested in administration then you need to

be engaged in faculty governments because that’s an opportunity for you to observe close

up the workings of the high level administrators in your university or college. As well as

to see if this is the kind of interaction that you think you might enjoy.

MR. BARKER: What are the skills or attributes that you may need to learn that aren’t

always articulated or understood on a CV? You know, those interpersonal skills that ….

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Patience. In abundance. And another one which is not

unrelated to patience, which I think is so crucial and that is, you really have to hone your

listening skills. There are a lot of people who claim to be good listeners but you know

people, there are certain people. There’s a person I have here, you’re talking to them,

they’re looking at you as if they’re listening but you can tell they’re not. You know? I

think that one of the principal things that I tell folks all the time is that I’ve had to, in fact


I’m going to have to say it to somebody next week, is that you. How can I best put this?

If as a president, the title is so important to you that it becomes who you are, then, again

this is my humble opinion, then you shouldn’t be in that job. That is to say, what you

have to do is be able to separate yourself from the title and the job. And the way I

articulate it often is that I am very proud to be the president of Wheaton College but I

also am smart enough to know that if I were to die tomorrow, they would find a way to

continue. I mean it’s not, I’m not irreplaceable so to speak, therefore I have to have a life

of my own. I have to have a being of my own. I am who I am – Ronald A. Crutcher and

I’m a lot of things in addition to being the president of Wheaton College. And that’s

another way of saying you have to, or another aspect of separating the personal from the

professional so that you have to have, some people say you have to have thick skin. I

would articulate it that you have to be able to use, have you read the article where I talk

about my “S” shield? Well, you have to use the “S” shield. [“Spiraling Through the

Glass Ceiling: Several Critical Lessons for Negotiating a Leadership Position in Higher

Education,” published summer 2006, Annual Meeting of the AAC&U.]

You have to be able to take criticism or hear people criticize you and not take it

on as an attack to your personality or to your being. You have to be able to take it all

with a grain of salt. And that for me means separating who I am, all that stuff that’s

going, that’s the president, you know. I’m over here. And so, by separating myself, what

is does it also gives me the opportunity, and that’s what the “S” shield does, it gives me

the opportunity that if I don’t take it on personally, than I can think clearly and therefore,

hear what they’re saying and hopefully understand. Come up with some rational

understanding of why they’re so upset or why they have that perspective. And it’s hard


to do that and I’m usually successful at doing it. One faculty meeting this year, where I

had to, in the middle of the meeting, fortunately I had an opportunity to turn my chair

around because there was a presentation being made by the architect and I had to work on

myself because I realized I was taking all this stuff personally. And it was because I

hadn’t meditated that day, I didn’t get to meditate that morning. And so I turned my

chair around, and let me tell you how I knew I was vulnerable, because what I was saying

to myself, as these people were complaining about these things, was you ungrateful sons

of bitches. And that’s what I wanted to say to them and I thought, no – no, you have to

turn around and take a deep breath and just get yourself together. But my point is, if I

personally, I don’t know how other people deal with this but if I responded that way

every time that happens, I’d have a heart attack. My personality couldn’t deal with it. I

don’t know how other people are…

MR. BARKER: That’s interesting.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And that’s what the “S” shield is all about. The “S” shield I

used at Miami, because at Miami I had to run the faculty senate meetings each week and

they were, those were some rough meetings. There were times when I had to yell in

those meetings. It was a very different kind of situation than I have here, these people are

docile in comparison to what I had in Miami. Sometimes I had to just totally chill out,

which is important, as long as you don’t do it all the time. But that’s where I developed

this concept of the “S” shield and what the “S” shield does is it’s my own way of

reminding myself not to take it personally. Because what it does is, you put the shield up


and any invective that comes at you is deflected by the shield. And what that does is that

while it’s being deflected it gives you an opportunity to think, ‘now what on earth could

possibly have motivated the person to make that statement.’ And so it means that you

don’t respond, but you listen. And a lot of times what happens is that they end up

apologizing or someone else takes up for you while you’re doing that.

MR. BARKER: Okay. What would you like to impart to those individuals about

navigating the higher education structure? Anything you would like to elaborate on any

further?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well I think that we’ve talked a lot about some of the

aspects, again well the final thing I guess would be. And again this is my own personal

way, one of the, there are three tenets that kind of provide me with, there are three axes of

my compass for navigating these kinds of positions. And I developed them in my very

first job when I was at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro as acting Assistant

Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. I wrote a note to myself and the note said, “first,

remember how you got here and for me now what that means is remember, never to

forget what it was like to be a faculty member cause it’s very easy in these jobs to do that.

And since the faculty, faculty/staff although I was never really a staff member so it’s a

faculty member, I think that’s really important. And since being able to do that is what

helps me when I’m thinking about, “why are they making these comments?” And at that

meeting that I told you about, after I became rational I was able to understand after the

fact, why it was they were asking the questions and why they were so upset. I mean, it


was clear as day but I couldn’t think. So remember how I got there. Remember why I’m

there – to serve. And again that goes back to my tenet of it’s not, you know I’ve

separated the presidency from who I am as a person.

I don’t need to be president of Wheaton College in order to be proud of myself as

a black man in America. It was a goal that I had in my life and had I not become a

president there would have been some disappointment but I’d actually dealt with that

before I had actually accepted the Wheaton presidency. I had made a decision to stay at

Miami and if I don’t become president, I’ll enjoy being the provost. But my point is

separating the title from the person and always be focused on the principal purpose of

your job – to serve. And not to serve the institution but to serve the people of the

institution, the faculty, students, staff, alumni, etc. And then thirdly, do not become

obsessed with power. Power and position, because that is, for me it’s important to

remember that because it’s so easy to cross over that line. Because obviously as a

president there is this huge power differential depending on whom you’re interacting with

and so you always have to be cognizant of that. I always have to be cognizant of it

because I’ve seen it abused so often. And it’s helpful to me, even when I’m dealing with

situations that are very, very tense where I might want to act a certain way. I’m always

focused on thinking about that.

MR. BARKER: I did a pilot interview with President Jackson at the University of

Rochester who’s on my dissertation committee and one of the important things that he

talked about was never have any illusions that people liked him other than the position so

that when he went back to the faculty he didn’t have any misgivings or


misunderstandings about what the position was and who he was. And he helped me a lot.

He’s actually been tremendously helpful.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh yeah. You can’t. It’s like what I said to the faculty,

‘never have any illusions of inclusion.’ And I’ve thought about it. I’ve often wondered if

maybe that was the wrong thing to say but I was being very honest quite frankly. And I

just don’t because I’ve been in too many settings and it can be for a split second where

still even now where you realize if you’re not really right on it and proactive, suddenly

you’re being left out. It is incredible how quickly it can happen and people are not even

aware of it. And it happens to women and it happens to people of color, that is, if you’re

in the minority. And it can happen so easily.

MR. BARKER: That’s true. What is it going to take to see an increase in the number of

African American males in leadership positions at Research 1 and selective institutions

across the country?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh wow. Well it’s going to take a huge transformation of

our entire K – 16 system and of our whole social system in the country. I mean it’s

overwhelming to think of what it will take, quite frankly. That is to see anything other

than small incremental change because of the state of affairs in the schools to which most

young black and Hispanic men attend. Mainly inner city schools where they’re not, and

then their family situations contribute as well. I mean it’s a whole host of things,

however there have been some, already been some good inventions. I just, I don’t think


our country really has the wherewithal, truly has the wherewithal to fix the problem.

Because I really think it’s not because we don’t have solutions but we don’t have the will

really to use it. You know, Dr. James Anderson from, he’s at, been a lot of different

places, he’s at Albany right now. Used to be at North Carolina State.

MR. BARKER: Psychology?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes, psychology. Since early in his career when he was

working at what’s the name of that school, Dodge? I think it was Dodge Elementary

School where he was able to see real changes in the quality of the students in terms of his

test scores over a period of time by getting parents involved and you know, changing the

teaching styles. Its not rocket science really but it takes the will. And by that I mean, it’s

not just the government, we have to be willing to act too. It would also take the

involvement, the engagement of many of our minority social organizations but it could be

done.

MR. BARKER: And what is the responsibility of universities to step in and have some

kind of impact? Is there one?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yes. I think there is. And I think one of the best models of

that is Clark University in Worchester, Massachusetts which is they’ve taken over one of

the schools there and they’ve done a phenomenal job of transforming the whole


educational experience for these kids. The majority of them go on to college, they do

very well and of course, it’s only one school but it’s better than none.

MR. BARKER: Yeah. Rochester modeled a program, I was part of the initiative at

Rochester working with the Jefferson Entrepreneurship School.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh, okay.

MR. BARKER: And working at the university we adopted a high school and to try to

wrap around some entrepreneurial concepts, risk aversion and this is a very tough

community that these kids are growing up in and any kid who makes it out of there and

goes to Rochester has a full ride so things like that, but still it’s a process.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah, it’s a real, and we don’t do as - I mean at Miami, we

had some fabulous partnerships with schools. There was one that I was really, really was

fond of, it was a back on track program. And it was a program that was truly a holistic

program because it involved, well this is what it did. It took young boys and girls who

had failed a year in school and they and their parents had to sign a contract between them

and the school system. And the contract first guaranteed that they would get the kids back

on track but the kids had to go to school for a full twelve months. The parents had to be

involved in this program and they actually gave the parents Proctor and Gamble coupons

so they could buy diapers and stuff like that if they came to these parent meetings you got


these coupons but you didn’t get the coupons unless you came to the meetings. And it

was a fabulous program. Just fantastic.

MR. BARKER: There are a lot of individual programs like even “They Call Me Mister,”

a teaching program and then, I’m going next week or in two weeks to Clemson for the

annual conference on Black Student Achievement.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And do you know about Geoffrey Canada, he was in New

York? That’s another very interesting.

MR. BARKER: Our superintendent at Rochester was coming to Boston to take over, I

forgot his name, but he went to work for the governor of New York and he was going to

come here and he’s good friends with Goeffrey Canada cause they went to Harvard

together so Jeffrey came to Rochester a number of times. Interesting, interesting.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah.

MR. BARKER: Only a few more questions, and then we’ll probably end early today.

We already talked about, well maybe we didn’t. Do you have anything to add about

some of the most pressing issues in higher education today? What do you think there

are?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah, well I mean, I think that right now the one that is

most pressing to me is financial aid access. And it’s most pressing to me because of the

actions that Harvard has taken in the last month. Harvard and now Yale…

MR. BARKER: They have the endowments.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah, they have the endowments but that’s going to have a

big impact on small liberal arts colleges because in a sense what that has done is that it

has removed a cover from us. And I mean, we’ve always heretofore when we’re talking

about tuition increases we can use Harvard and Yale and Princeton as a cover cause they

charge just as much as we do. That’s not going to be the case any more starting next year

where if you make up to $200,000 now you only pay 10%.

MR. BARKER: That’s incredible.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And it’s a much, you know you don’t have to declare your

real estate, you don’t do the FAFSA or anything. I mean it’s a brilliant move but it’s

going to have a real impact on schools like Wheaton because schools that are tuition

dependent, which we are. We only have $200 million endowment for 1,500 students and

while it’s better than nothing. I mean I’m not complaining about the endowment, it’s

still, in comparison to our peers, we need three times as much minimally, as we have. So

that’s a big, big problem and that leads to another issue which is related to diversity,

economic diversity because if we don’t find a way to address the financial aid issue many


of our colleges are going to become what one alum said to me which I thought was a

great way of putting it, ‘bookend colleges” where you have lower income students and

then high income students and very few in the middle.

MR. BARKER: And that’s already with junior colleges and the separations already,

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Yeah, and that’s what, we had last year we had the mini-

campaign called Project Scholarship to raise $6 million dollars of monies that could add

incrementally $1.2 million a year to our scholarship package over the next five years so

that we could really offer the same kind of packages that some of our peers offer. And it

was very successful. We raised, we needed six million and we raised almost 6.4 million.

But now, this Harvard decision squashes that in a way. Cause, I’m glad that we have the

money, don’t get me wrong, rather than not having it but it just makes it much more

difficult because our students still have to take out loans. We cannot afford to give

packages to students that do not include loans. So, that and then the other thing is, it has

to do with the arms race.

There has been this tendency for the past ten or more years, for schools to have

been in this arms race. It’s like keeping up with the Joneses. One school builds a fancy

fitness center and then they all have to have fancy fitness centers. And we’ve chosen not

to get into that because we can’t afford to do it. But it seems to me that as we face this

problem with financial aid and access and also face the reality that public, we’re getting

very close, I think to the tipping point where the public is just going to say, you know,

I’m not paying that amount of money to go to that school when you can go down here to


the community, and in some sense we are already bordering on that now. It’s going to

really change the dynamics among colleges and universities. And I’m hoping, on the

good side of that, it will mean that we’ll move away from all the glitz and glamour and

there will be more focus on qualities of interaction and engagement of the students. But

that’s my own pie in the sky, but I hope for that.

MR. BARKER: What else to you want to accomplish during the rest of your tenure here

at Wheaton?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Oh, my God. What else? A lot. Well, for one thing, I

talked a little bit about inclusive excellence and the qualities of interaction in the

community. And we’re heading in that direction. One aspect of my interest in inclusive

excellence has to do with ensuring that when you look at cohorts of students that there are

no differentials, no demonstrative differentials in terms of grade point averages and

overall academic achievement. And we’re already on that road and really quite frankly, it

was interesting. All I had to do was call attention to it. For instance, I pointed out that

we have all of the national scholars but we don’t have any national scholars of color.

And some of the students had said to me, ‘well, you know we don’t really feel

comfortable going to the filing center.” Well, I’m just hearing this from these two

students, there happened to be two really outstanding, two of our really top students but

you know, if they’re saying this to me, they’re saying it to other students as well. And so

whether this is actually true or not is irrelevant.


The point is, that’s the perception that they have and if that’s their perception,

they’re not going to come there to get help. And it was amazing, the difference that

made. Just sending that message and then she sent it on to the people there and

fortunately because they were good people, they were proactive. And I really think that

one of the reasons why we had three Fulbrights of color last year was because of that

initiative. Because what they did was, rather than wait for people, the students to come to

them, they went after the students. Which is what they do with the white students, quite

frankly. They just didn’t do it with the black students.

MR. BARKER: Interesting. This cohort, looking at different cohorts, is this something

that you organized and is it a plan or is it just something that,

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, this is where it started. I had heard Estela Bensimon,

do you know her?

MR. BARKER: I’ve heard the name.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, she was on the board with me at AAC&U and I heard

her give a presentation and she really made me think. And her presentation was, you

know, you have to do more that just kind of give averages, you need to disaggregate the

data and look at cohorts. And so, you know while at Miami for instance we were very

proud of the fact that our graduation rate for students of color was one of the highest of

any state university in the country. But then when we looked closer and looked at the


grade point averages we realized that while the graduation rate was really terrific, the

percentage of those students graduating with 3. and above was not all that impressive.

MR. BARKER: I agree. We did the same thing at Rochester. That’s why I asked. And

it was a push by us in the McNair office because we were looking for students of color to

go into PhD. programs and we needed there’s this kind of GPA requirement here. So we

looked at the sophomore and junior class and found that there were probably eight or ten

African American boys who had a GPA that was acceptable for what we wanted and we

started looking at disaggregating the data and looking at the differences and it was

staggering. So that cuts people off from various opportunities.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Right, that’s what, we did that here two years ago. We just

got all the information and looked at it very closely and part of it’s just presenting the

information. You know, this is what it is. It raises people’s awareness and then having

conversations about well if the person doesn’t show up then maybe you need to be more

proactive and go after them. And we have some wonderful people working. I’m very

confident that we will be able to achieve. But I also want to say the same things not just

for students but also for faculty as well. I want to be certain that our faculty of color are

being pushed to apply for the various awards and scholarships and fellowships and things

of that sort. So, we’re coming along in that area. My big, big hope for the college and

dream is that I want to minimally triple our endowment cause that’s big. By 2016, I’m

certain that I will be able to do, but in fact there’s one donor who says to me all the time,

‘well, you know I’m worth a lot more to you dead than alive.’ And unfortunately we


can’t get him to tell us exactly how much more. But initially I had said I wanted to

double the endowment but tripling it is what we really need to do. Which by the time

2016 comes around it’s not a huge amount of money. I mean it’s a lot of money but it’s

not a lot of money.

MR. BARKER: Yes, and if inflation keeps going.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Not a huge amount. But the college has done an excellent

job of utilizing its resources incredibly well over the years but what has happened is, now

as I tell folks, we have hit our stride as a college. I mean we’re really hot right now. Our

applications have sky-rocked and we had a 39% acceptance rate last year, which is the

lowest in the history of the college. 71% in 1999. And so this was in 2006, 39%. About

4,000 applications for a class of about 410. And so, we’ve hit our stride and the problem

now is, we can’t get any larger. That is, we could get larger but the incremental revenue

that we would get is either going to have to be used to build another residence hall, hire

new faculty. It’s not, the payoff isn’t going to be what it would have been had we done it

ten years ago. So, we’re really caught between a rock and a hard place right now and so

our biggest challenge is how to continue to be an outstanding college and at the same

time deal with the challenges that we are facing. The external challenges that we face.

How to do that in a way that will continue us on this upward trajectory.

MR. BARKER: It’s very early in your presidency to ask this question but as it stands

today, what do you hope to leave as a legacy here at the college?


PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, I think primarily it has to do with the culture of the

college. What I would like people to be able to do is to come here and for the alums to

say, well it feels just like the Wheaton that I experienced as an undergrad except that it’s

in Technicolor. That would be the only difference. Because there is a quality here that

I’ve not ever experienced on any other campus before and it is, I think it is a result of this

having been a women’s institution. And then when it became a coeducational institution,

making the conscious decision not to change the culture. And so, I want those qualities

to remain while we simply make it more colorful, if you will. And continue to raise the

academic standards. The other thing, the other legacy is that I want people, and this is

not unrelated to the culture itself, one of our assets is that we have a beautiful campus and

so what I want people to look back in fifty years in that in spite that the campus has

grown a little bit, we have some new buildings, it still has that same quintessential New

England college campus feel about it. That the new buildings fit organically into the

campus. That’s why we developed the campus master plan. Cause that is important,

that’s something I feel very strongly about in terms of my legacy. And then the thing

we’ve already talked about leaving it in a better financial situation than when I came.

MR. BARKER: That concludes all of the questions that I had. Do you have anything

you’d like to add in closing that I might have missed or forgot to ask?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: No, except that I was thinking last night that you had asked

a question about my leadership style. And I guess I’m always reluctant to talk to people


about that because in one sense I want to say its evolving but on the other hand, I’ve been

doing this for so long there has to be a style, there’s definitely a style there. But, part of

the reason why I’m in a kind of quandary right now is that I’m trying to figure out, there

has to be an easier way to deal with these personnel issues, I hope. And maybe, we just

celebrated our first year of sanity in the president’s office. That is where we have a team

that is working really well together, that’s very supportive of me and where information

is not coming out of the president’s office like a sieve. Like flour through a sieve, or

water even through a sieve. So, maybe I’m just not accustom, maybe it’s been too soon

to have that kind of tranquility and maybe a year from now I’ll look back and think, well

maybe it’s not as difficult as you think it is. But right now it seems I spend a lot of time

on those issues. Still, a lot more time than I want to.

MR. BARKER: I’m just wondering how would that improve?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: Well, I think part of the reason I’m spending the time is just,

has to do with a particular person.

MR. BARKER: Okay.

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: And so, either we’ll have to see some change or I’ll have to

make change. But the challenge is, that’s coming at a time when I’ll have to make

another change already because somebody is retiring. So I guess that’s to say that the

other difficult aspect or the job and that should not be underestimated is that it’s really,


really important to have the right people on the bus when you put together your team.

Your inner circle of people because having one person who is the wrong person on the

bus can be a real pain.

MR. BARKER: And how many people are there from the transition from the last

president who are still in your administration?

PRESIDENT CRUTCHER: There actually are, of the six vice presidents, there are four

and after this year there will be three. I’m searching for a new Student Vice President.

My Chief Financial Officer is the person who is, he’s my rock of Gibraltar. He’s a

Dartmouth graduate and is an unusual person in that position in that he has an intrinsic

understanding of and a commitment to the mission of the college. He is phenomenal and

he is the person who, when I am away, starting this spring cause I’m going to be gone so

much, will be the officer in charge of the college. But if you have one of the people on

the bus that’s not quite right, it really can take a lot of time.

MR. BARKER: Well, thank you.


Chapter 6

President Pelton Interview

Overview of Willamette University12

Located in Salem, Oregon, Willamette University’s motto is “Non nobis solum

nati sumus” (usually translated as “Not unto ourselves alone are we born”). The school

was established in 1842, and is the oldest private university n the western United States.

As of June 2006, Willamette’s endowment was $285 million. It employs a faculty of

313, and enrolls 1,810 undergraduate and 659 graduate students.

Willamette’s College of Liberal Arts is the undergraduate school on campus. The

school was rated 63rd among American liberal arts colleges by US News and World

Report for 2008. The oldest of the graduate programs is the College of Law, founded in

1883 and located in the Truman Wesley Collins Legal Center. In 1834 missionary Jason

Lee came to the Oregon Territory to establish a Methodist mission for Native Americans

living in the Willamette Valley. One of the mission’s primary operations was a school

designed to “educate and civilize” the Native children. As was standard with most

missionaries of the times, Lee and his followers failed to acknowledge that the Native

American tribes of the Pacific Northwest had settled the area thousands of years prior and

that these advanced societies had been successfully hunting, fishing and trading for

generations. This lack of cultural understanding on the part of the missionaries

contributed significantly to the failure of the mission school. While a few Indians took

advantage of the education offered by the missionaries to learn English and hence

12 Informational overview of Willamette University, Presidential Succession, and Biographical information obtained from institutional website: http://www.willamette.edu/.


become more effective treaty negotiators in the years that followed, most Indians found

little of value in what the missionaries had to offer. In the early 1840s, the missionaries

began to shift their focus from serving the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest to

serving the rapidly increasing number of white settlers.

Willamette University is closely associated with the beginning of law and

government in the historical Oregon Territory, which now comprises Oregon,

Washington, Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming. It educated many of the

Northwest’s first leaders, artists and business people. Willamette established the first law

school (1883) and the first school of medicine (1866) in the Pacific Northwest, which

later merged with the medical school of the University of Oregon.

Willamette was one of the earliest coeducational institutions in the United States,

and its first graduate was a woman. Women were attending the School of Medicine as

early as 1877.

Presidential Succession Willamette University has been led by 24 individuals, four of whom were interim

presidents who served during searches; they are all listed below in reverse chronological

order. Lee Pelton is the first African American president to lead Willamette University.

24th M. Lee Pelton 1998–

23rd Bryan Mr. Barkerston (interim) 1997–1998

22nd Jerry E. Hudson 1980–1997

21st Robert Lisensky 1973–1980

20th James H. Corson 1972–1973


19th Roger J. Fritz 1969–1972

18th G. Herbert Smith 1942–1969

17th Carl Sumner Knopf 1941–1942

16th Bruce Richard Baxter 1934–1941

15th Carl Gregg Doney 1915–1934

14th George Henry Alden (interim) 1914–1915

13th Fletcher Homan 1908–1914

12th Mr. Barker Hamline Coleman 1902–1908

11th Willis Chatman Hawley 1891–1902

10th George Whitaker 1891

9th Thomas Van Scoy 1880–1891

8th Charles E. Lambert 1879–1880

7th Thomas Milton Gatch 1870–1879

6th Nelson Rounds 1868–1870

5th Luther T. Woodward (interim) 1867–1868

4th Joseph Henry Wythe 1865–1867

3rd Leonard J. Powell (interim) 1865

2nd Thomas Milton Gatch 1860–1865

1st Francis S. Hoyt 1853–1860

President M. Lee Pelton

M. Lee Pelton was appointed Willamette University's 22nd president July 1998.

Under his leadership, the university has increased its academic profile, successfully


employing strategies to attract the best faculty and the brightest students from the state,

the nation and the world. President Pelton is a recognized leader in higher education and

has lectured and written extensively on the topic. He has served as a member of several

leading national educational boards and committees, including the Harvard University

Board of Overseers (former vice chair), American Council on Education (chair),

American Association of Higher Education, the Association of American Colleges and

Universities, Oregon Independent Colleges Association (chair), Oregon Symphony

Association, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, Oregon World Affairs Council, Oregon

Humanities Council, and Oregon 529 Plan.

President Pelton holds a doctorate from Harvard University and an undergraduate

degree in English and psychology from Wichita State University, where he graduated

magna cum laude in 1974. His area of academic focus is in 19th century British prose and

poetry. Prior to arriving at Willamette University, President Pelton served as Dean of the

College at Colgate University (1988-91) and Dartmouth College (1991-98). At Harvard

he taught in the English Department and was the dean of one of Harvard's 13

undergraduate colleges. In 2005, President Pelton created a vision for centers of

excellence. These centers, which are rare for a small independent liberal arts university,

will strengthen opportunities for faculty and student development, research and

scholarship in several different disciplines. In 2007, Dr. Pelton announced the

establishment of four academic centers: Center for Ancient Studies and Archaeology,

Center for Asian Studies, Center for the Study of Democracy, Religion, and Law and

Center for Sustainable Communities.


President Pelton is committed to advancing Willamette University's academic

profile. Under Dr. Pelton's leadership, the number of College of Liberal Arts faculty will

increase by 20 percent over the next few years as part of an effort to reduce faculty

teaching loads in order to increase capacity for faculty research and enhanced pedagogy.

Dr. Pelton also seeks to enhance Willamette's contributions to the greater Salem

community. He has partnered with other community leaders and employers to find ways

to foster economic growth and infuse energy and vitality in Salem's downtown business

core, such as creation of a downtown arts and cultural district.

Before Willamette, Dr. Pelton served at Dartmouth College from 1991-1998 as

both dean of the college and professor of English literature. Between 1986 and 1991, Dr.

Pelton served as dean of students and later as dean of the college at Colgate University

and as a senior lecturer in the English department. While at Harvard, Dr. Pelton was first

a teaching fellow and instructor of English and American literature, and subsequently a

lecturer on English and American literature.

Dr. Pelton has always relished the intellectual vitality of higher education. Very

early on in his academic career, he thought that the life of a professor would be an ideal

fit. As he states, “I soon discovered, however, that the social activist within me would not

be content with such a lifestyle.” Dr. Pelton found that while he enjoyed the intellectual

pursuits of the collegiate environment, he was too often the only person of color among

his colleagues. While he respected the work they had done, he believed - and still does -

that truly meaningful academic discourse comes through a diversity of perspectives. He

realized that if he wanted to diversify the racial geography of higher education, he could

not be an academician alone.


For this reason, in every previous position Dr. Pelton has occupied, he has played

a dual role as both a teacher and administrator. This has allowed him to continue his

intellectual pursuits while being an advocate and agent of change at the same time.

During his career, he has also been a pioneer, becoming the first African-American dean

at Colgate, the first African-American dean at Dartmouth, the first African-American

president of Willamette University and only one of three African-Americans to head a

private, independent university (excluding historically Black colleges and universities).

At each of these posts, his first priority has always been - and will continue to be -

strengthening diversity and ensuring that institutions of higher education reflect the

geographic, racial and cultural variety inherent in our world.

Transcriptions of President Pelton Interview


Location: President’s Office, Willamette University

Date: February 18, 2008

MR. BARKER: I’ve asked each of my participants the same opening question: When did

you realize that you wanted to become a University President?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Probably either in my last couple of years at Harvard or when I

went off to Colgate University as Dean. So, somewhere between 1986 and 1990. I don’t

remember precisely.


MR. BARKER: Okay. And when did you think it was plausible, from wanting to

actually be a university president, when did you think you could do it?

PRESIDENT PELTON: As soon as I thought the thought, whenever that was. I mean,

once I understood that that’s something that I wanted to do it never occurred to me that it

would not happen. It was always a matter of when it would happen. And I put myself on

kind of a silly schedule, which was to be a president before I was forty.

…

MR. BARKER: We left off at when did you think it was plausible.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, it was as soon as it occurred to me; I just assumed it

would happen. And I think I was being encouraged at that point. People who were

around me. I know one of the things you are going to ask me is what sort of support I

had and I never had a mentor. I just never had a mentor but there were people around me

who were supportive.

MR. BARKER: So, can you tell me about your educational and social upbringing?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I grew up in Wichita, Kansas, born in 1950, entered

kindergarten in 1954 right after the summer of Brown vs. Board of Education in Topeka

Kansas. And went to a predominantly white grammar school, went to a predominantly

white middle school and a predominantly white high school. Wichita, Kansas when I

was growing up was a city of about 150,000 folks. It is a very working class town. Its


dominant industry then was the aircraft industry. Boeing had a home there and Cessna.

And the city sort of rose and fell according to the vicissitudes of the airline industry.

When things were good people had jobs. When things were not so good, people didn’t

have jobs. It was a very populous culture that I grew up in. For which I am enormously

grateful, it really shaped my life. There were not large class distinctions in Wichita

Kansas, whether you made $20,000 a year or $100,000 a year everybody drove the same

cheap, working car. Lived in a one-story ranch style house with a basement. And so

that’s had a big influence on my life. An enormous influence in my life growing up in

that kind of atmosphere.

These things have created - shaped my world view of diversity and social justice.

It has also meant that I’m not impressed by hierarchies or celebrity status or prestige.

And the other thing I want to say is that black folk in Wichita or the part of what

Malpierre called the “Exodus-ers” agrarian Americans who migrated from the South up

North. Some of them stopped off, in my case, in Oklahoma, which is where my mother

is from. Some of them stopped off in Kansas, some stopped off in Nebraska, places like

that. And so my ancestral home is in Little Rock, well not Little Rock but little, tiny

agrarian towns around Little Rock, Arkansas where my great-grandparents were

sharecroppers who picked cotton. I picked cotton when I was a little kid. I’d spend my

summers, a lot of my summers, in Arkansas. And my mother finished high school. My

father did not. He got a GED. He never told me that until later in life. I think he was

embarrassed. My mother worked cleaning houses as a housekeeper for all of her life.

Well, she’s still alive but up until about ten years ago. My grandmother lived next door

to me. She cleaned houses for all of her life. My father was a laborer. He was a butcher


when I was growing up. He was a butcher in a meat packing plant in back of a deli. That

was a hard, hard job. It was not as mechanized as it is today. And then he went from

being a butcher, to owning a gas station, to becoming a warrant officer, to becoming the

head of the warrant office. That happened when he was about forty. Had to make the

transition because he had lost his gas station. And we lived in a little black enclave in

this white section of town. There was a larger African-American community but we

didn’t live in that community.

We lived in what was then on the outskirts of town and as I think of it now, it was

because it was agrarian and I could see, not farm fields but open spaces. A lot of people

raised chickens. At six o’clock in the morning they’d be doing their thing. And so we

lived in this enclave of kind of working-poor, blacks, whites, and Hispanic working-poor.

But within that group, my father, he had kind of a royalty status because he was just seen

as a natural leader. He still is seen as a leader and that’s how he got these successive jobs

and once he got this job with the warrant offices. The warrant office is the office that

issues warrants from the bench. And within two or three years he was running the whole

thing. Brilliant, brilliant man in many respects. The center of our life and the center of

my family’s life in Wichita is the church, no doubt. Nothing is more important than that.

We went to church twice on Sundays and once on Wednesdays and then everything else

was organized around the church. All the friends we had were church folks. All the

friends that I had mostly were church folks – boys and girls.

PRESIDENT PELTON: At one point I wanted to be a preacher. I thought I would be a

preacher.


MR. BARKER: Any similarities between this job and the ministry?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, yeah, yeah……..the oratory. And you can hear it. Even

with somebody like Obama, he and I are similarly educated. But, he’ll be in the heat of

the moment and you can hear that. You can hear that black preacher oratory coming out

and that’s for me too, you know. And I love it. I love it. I love doing it in front of white

audiences too. Which I’m always in front of white audiences. Yeah, I like the pulpit. I

like being behind the pulpit. I like talking and speaking. It’s fine. And that’s what

oratory for me is, it’s inspiration, moving people. So, that was my growing up. But my

response, being an African-American boy in a sea of white folk was to be the best

always. Always be the best and let everybody know that I was the best. And that being

the best has shaped me. It has driven me actually. I don’t think I am the best but yes, it

has been a motivator.

MR. BARKER: And the academic push, was that from your family as well?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, it was always assumed. And I was a smart kid so it was

always assumed that I would go to college. And when I went to college I really didn’t

give it a lot of thought. And if I had given it a lot of thought, if I had a mentor or

someone to provide some advice I probably would have gone to school in the East. I’m

sure I would have. I’m sure I would have gone to some Ivy League school as an

undergraduate. I mean I’m certain, I’m certain of it. But you know, I didn’t really….. I


just did what everyone else did and just go to a local college. My parents wanted me to

go to one of those Christian colleges but I said no, not doing that, sorry. That’s when

they pretty seriously wanted me to be a minister and do the Lord’s work. So I just went

to the local college which was a metropolitan university, mostly commuter university, 10

or 12 thousand students. So that’s what I did. I went the first year, started out as a math

major and almost flunked out of school. I almost flunked out, not because I wasn’t

intelligent but because I lacked direction and had no support.

MR. BARKER: What kind of support?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I had no support on campus. I remember to this day, the first

day I went in and sat down with my academic counselor and started talking to him about

being in the honors program. He just looked at me and said no. He didn’t even look at

my transcript. If he had looked at my transcript and what I had done in high school I’m

sure, I don’t know where I graduated in my high school but I’m sure within the top ten,

top 15 at least. Even 20th from the top if not closer. I know I had to be because I had all

A’s. I don’t remember receiving a single, I may have gotten a B in a science class or

something like that. But you know, he just made this racist assumption. And, I took it,

which was ridiculous. So, he upset me and I didn’t know anybody there. I was anxious,

afraid in many respects. I think it was the Omegas that wanted me to pledge but I said no

cause I was philosophically then, and still am today, opposed to fraternities. So I didn’t

pledge and that made life hard for me. Because of that and there was a small group of us

anyway and I had made this decision not to participate in that mainstream, in that group.


And be a part of that predominantly male culture. And so, it was a pretty cold, friendless

place and I stopped going to classes my second semester. I just stopped. Oh and by the

way, I had an academic scholarship and which was important cause that was the only

way. That was what induced me to go to Wichita State University.

So I just stopped going to classes and then, I didn’t tell my parents that I had

stopped going to classes and then I quit. I told my father and he was very upset. So I

quit and then I started to work. I worked in a clothing store. And one summer I went to

Germany to see a friend of mine, a girl, a woman who was a German exchange student

and she invited me over to Germany. And she was at the University of Heidelberg. And

I fell in with all of these German intellectuals who…we’d sit around and we’d just talk

about ideas. And they all spoke two or three languages and they knew more about

American politics than I did. And had traveled the world. And I knew that this is where

I want to be. This is what I was missing from my education. Being a part of an

intellectual community. Where ideas matter. Some people say they matter more than

they should in my life. And so, after that I came back…..I think I actually took two years

off. I can’t remember, I’ll have to go back and look but I think I may have taken two

years off. But I came back and finished up my program in two and a half years. And

when I came back I was focused. I had asked myself the fundamental question, why.

What are you doing here? What is the purpose of this? What do you hope to get out of

it? What can you contribute to it? You know, all those questions I should have asked

when I went in.

MR. BARKER: Did you get your scholarship back?


PRESIDENT PELTON: No. But I had made money cause I had been working two jobs

and I paid for it. I paid for my education. And I realized I had some thoughts of going

into being a lawyer because being a lawyer was, that was the ticket to the middle class.

For white folk its being an engineer. You know engineer work, and so that was the

ticket. So that’s why I thought I’d go to law school. So when I got back I thought, that

doesn’t interest me. But what does interest me? Well what interested me was two things

– writing and reading, especially poetry. And why poetry, because for me I knew the

Bible backwards and forwards and the King James version of the Bible was and still is

for me, the most beautifully written document. For whatever you think of that, but it was

beautifully written and I love the cadence. And I’ve always been a good writer, so I

decided to go into English. And I’m not going to do contemporary English, cause this is

all something that shaped my life.

I need to start from the very beginning. I need to know where things begin. I

need to know the architecture of things. I need to know what moves the thing and so, you

can imagine this is in the 70’s. The early days of what we call Black Studies and I took

one class in Black Studies. It was okay. It was poorly taught. But I wanted to know

about literature and the beginnings of literature so, American stuff was too new, too

recent. And then I kind of became the starting graduate in the program. And then, I

should back up. I did have two mentors actually, teachers, both of them the smartest two

in the department. And they gave me a real freedom. They allowed me to design my

own curriculum because I had exhausted all of the upper level courses real quick. And so

essentially my senior year I was doing independent research or doing research for a


faculty. She allowed me to, and this is an exaggeration to say that I co-taught a class with

her, but she allowed me to give three or four lectures in a class that she was teaching in

19th century Romantic poetry.

MR. BARKER: Did you know you liked teaching at that moment…..or did it take

longer?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yes, I loved being in the classroom and I loved the engagement.

And I came to love the kind of – the discovery process. The students don’t know it. They

think they’re just doing what they’re told and they don’t fully understand, that especially

in a small classroom say, that the professor is also being carried along by the process of

discovery. And I remember that the best days are when you walk out and you have new

ideas and new thoughts, new ways of seeing something. You’ve probably had those.

You know when you think, ah yeah, I get it. I’d never seen it that way before.

And so, that’s a beautiful thing. For me that’s the most beautiful thing on earth. I

mean I don’t know what’s better than that. I just don’t know. I’ve not found anything

that gives me more pleasure than that. So, yeah I knew I wanted to be a teacher, a

professor. And so I applied to several graduate programs, the ones that seemed to have

the best fit for me. Yale, Indiana, Wisconsin, even Minnesota were the places. Yale was

my top choice. Yale was recruiting the hell out of me. And Jim Hill was a prominent

Yale professor and he called my house one day. And so that’s where I thought I was

going to go. And then a week before the deadline to get these things in I thought, “you

know, I’m going to apply to Harvard just to see.” And what happened is that I didn’t get


into Yale after all but then I got into Harvard. And that was providential because I was

better off at Harvard than I would have been at Yale. They probably knew that because

at the time it was the rise of all this French linguistic theory and that wasn’t my thing.

Yale was steeped in it and Harvard was not. I mean, Harvard is what it is. It’s a very

conservative place and it took a more historical approach to literature.

MR. BARKER: Brothers and sisters?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Three sisters, all younger. One is two years younger than me,

one is ten years younger than me, one is eighteen years younger than me.

MR. BARKER: What do they do?

PRESIDENT PELTON: They are all or at least they were, managers, like my father.

We’re all managers of some kind. We manage people. We are our father’s children. My

oldest just retired. She managed the Water Department in Wichita. My middle sister

manages the IT operations for Raytheon. And my other sister used to be the manager of

one of the departments of one of those drug stores, like CVS or something.

MR. BARKER: You spoke to having the resilience to you after your freshman year, of

going to Germany, is that where you learned the kind of cultural & social capital that you

will need to persist through academics? Where did you pick that up along the way going

back to Wichita State and graduating, how did you learn to navigate the system because


early enough you couldn’t, in your freshman year, but when you went back you did.

PRESIDENT PELTON: That’s a great question. Well, I think that what I picked up in

Germany was not how to navigate the system. What I picked up in Germany was a more

complete understanding of what motivated me. What my interests were. What my

inclinations were. And what I learned there was that I loved the world of ideas. In terms

of navigating, the cultural navigation, you know, given my, what I describe as my liminal

existence. I’ve always occupied this space on the outside, not really that but the outskirts

between two cultures. I’ve always occupied that. From the smallest, I was never wholly

part of the African-American culture because we didn’t live there. I was never wholly

part of the white culture because I ain’t white. And so I’ve always lived this, and that’s

how I have just always defined myself culturally and socially is liminal.

I’ve occupied that little narrow band. At times it’s lonely there. At other times

it’s a great virtue because I can go back and forth. I can put this mask on, take that mask

off and put it down, and put on the other mask. And, to be really personal here, part of

my moral growth which is on-going, has been to integrate those various cultural places

which I have one foot in and one foot out of. To integrate those and feel comfortable,

and for many years I did not. I had a real sense of my being on the periphery and not

belonging.

MR. BARKER: I think we covered this but I just want to make sure that you have said

what you want to say about your family life?


PRESIDENT PELTON: Oh absolutely. Salt of the earth as they say. You know…

religion in the middle. And the family, I should say this because this goes back to being

part of the exodus-ers. I was raised in a village. My grandmother lived next door. My

grandmother’s brother lived across the street. Her sister lived down the street. My

father’s brother lives down the street. And everybody else was cousins. It was always

cousin this and cousin that. I couldn’t quite figure out how that worked but I was, you

know, raised by a village. And you’ve heard these stories. I don’t know if that exists any

more. Don’t mess up cause somebody’s going to know even before you get home. You

can just expect to get the whooping cause they’re gonna know. And that’s the way it

was. That was part of my moral development. So, what I’m trying to say is that all, that

whole village, these are all a part of that exodus-er agrarian folk. They were all related to

one another. Very tribal. If you’ve been to Africa, I don’t know if you’ve ever been to

Africa but you understand that. Nelson Mandela talks about his growing up and how his

tribal growing up helped him in developing these democratic virtues in him. The love of

democracy. That’s what he’s talking about. The community. The oral tradition. The

discussion. The talking. The sense that we all belong together and that’s how I grew up.

MR. BARKER: How and when did you come to the decision to stay in higher

education? Who, if anyone did you talk to? How did you know you wanted to get a

PhD.?

PRESIDENT PELTON: The two mentors, the two English professors both of whom

were white. A male and a female and they encouraged me. And also I spent a lot of time


with them outside of the classroom and I saw how they lived and I loved the lifestyle.

MR. BARKER: So after graduate school, how did you decide to take your first position?

And if we can back up just a little bit, how was graduate school for you?

PRESIDENT PELTON: It was good. It was good. I did well in graduate school. I did

very well. I had a decision to make; first of all you have to understand that Harvard is

very idiosyncratic. It is not like any other institution of higher learning, in the nation,

probably in the world. So those of us who have been part of Harvard, we don’t

understand how the rest of the world works. And I really didn’t understand the way the

rest of the world worked. I didn’t. I mean, I thought every other institution was like

Harvard and it’s not.

MR. BARKER: Meaning what, is it…..

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, let’s talk about it administratively. For instance, there is

no – there wasn’t then and probably there is a little bit at this time – I mean there was no

demarcation say between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs at Harvard. Never

existed. If you ask, well what do you mean Student Affairs, what is that? Is that, well

this is all Academic Affairs, isn’t it? Well what about Student Life? Well, that’s part of

it, right? I mean, you know. The whole college system, the house system, the old kind of

Oxford-Cambridge, it was all one, it was a seamless home. And so administratively, you

know that’s the way it was. In a sense of education as being intentionally integrated. So,


I say that to say this – when I came to this crossroad I turned to my wife and I said,

‘listen, cause I was living in Harvard housing. Great Harvard housing. I was Dean of

one of these undergraduate colleges. I mean it was palatial. Three fireplaces overlooking

the Charles River. But I turned to my wife and I said, ‘you know I’m tired of living in a

place that has an exit sign over the door. Because, you know, it’s institutional and I said,

‘we’ve got to go”. And so, I had two choices. I could go to Tufts as an assistant

professor, where I had some friends. I had made some acquaintances. Or I had stumbled

onto this job at Colgate University and the job was Dean of Students. And I really didn’t

know what a Dean of Students was cause it wasn’t part of my culture.

…

PRESIDENT PELTON: So, they had this position and I said, ‘but what about this other

position? Dean of the College? That’s the position that I want.” And they said well,

he’ll probably be leaving in a couple of years. So I said, ‘okay, I’ll come and be Dean of

Students for two years and when he leaves I want you to give me that position.” And so

those were my choices. So I went to Colgate. I was Dean of Students and then in two

years he left to be the Director of the Natural Museum of History in New York.

MR. BARKER: So, if I can back up. We skipped over your entire graduate career and

somewhere in there you got married and somewhere in there you successfully became the

Dean of…


PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, we were called Senior Tutors but now they’re called

Deans. They’re called Undergraduate Deans, I think that’s what they are called.

MR. BARKER: Okay. So, starting at when you get into Harvard and what was that like?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, it was hard. Looking back on it now, it was harder than I

expected. I was more anxious and afraid than I wanted to admit then.

MR. BARKER: How did that manifest itself?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, probably ….the way it manifested itself was that I didn’t

participate in a lot of things and I kept to myself. It was sort of comforting being on the

periphery. And that’s a comfortable place to be but it’s a very comfortable place for me

to go back to. I can retreat to that mentally and I did too much of that at Harvard so I

didn’t develop. I didn’t, even at Harvard develop mentorships. I didn’t reach out to

professors and I should have. But looking back, so it was good. I think I got a B+. Not

an A. I got a B+ from a guy. You know I turned in a paper two days late and he docked

me. I tried to talk him out of it but he said, this would be good. Teaching character.

Yeah, so then I got married. I married a woman from Harvard College. To this day she’s

known as the most beautiful woman in the class. I had guys walk up to me and say, ‘you

married Kristen Wilson?” She’s white. We were married twenty plus years.

…


MR. BARKER: So when you went to Colgate, how was that transition coming from a

rigid institution?

PRESIDENT PELTON: It was hard the first year cause I didn’t know what I was doing.

I didn’t do the Assistant Dean, the Associate Dean step. I just went straight to the….

MR. BARKER: What did you spend most of your time doing? What was the

expectation of the job?

PRESIDENT PELTON: It was so different than Harvard. Colgate was so different than

Harvard because I was dealing with these Student Affairs things and I had never

really…and there was this whole sort of higher education personnel administration. I

didn’t know any of that. Fortunately I had a lot of folk who worked for me and who had

come from that background and we learned from each other. And the first year was a

hard year for me and I worked very hard. Culturally – it was culturally very hard. I

mean I had to learn a whole sort of Student Affairs language which I hadn’t known.

There was a whole set of issues around alcohol and fraternities, and there were no

fraternities at Harvard when I was there so it was just unbelievable. And stuff would

happen that was just so…..

…


PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, my goal was to do both but to be primarily an

administrator. And so, where I’ve been I have taught. Because being an administrator

engages so many more parts of me. Research and teaching. Love teaching. And the

things that I love about teaching, even when I’m not teaching, I can do them as president.

I just did it this morning. Engaging 400 people behind a podium. And so being able to

inspire those students and parents is good for me. And there are other things that I want

to engage. Now I’m not a lawyer but I’m involved weekly in legal issues where I have to

make decisions and give guidance and I think I do a pretty good job of that. A lot of my

job of course is human resources kinds of things. Managing people in places. I love

managing the budget and aligning the budget with strategic priorities. I love the

architecture of planning – the strategic plan and building something. The idea of being

able to leave a legacy and so, all of those things. I knew that early on. That’s why I

made the decision. I knew that as much as I love teaching and the possibility of research,

I knew that contemplative life would not fulfill – it would not be complete and wholly

fulfilling for me.

MR. BARKER: So the administrative skills that you have mentioned are not innate, so

how did you learn them?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I mean it’s just something you learn as you go. You just have to

be smart. It’s not complicated, really. It’s not complicated stuff. But in terms of shaping

environments and providing leadership and inspiration to people and groups of people,

I’ve been doing that since I was a little kid. That’s my father, that’s my father – he’s that


kind of guy. And so, I wanted to be busy so I had a teaching appointment at Colgate and

I had a teaching appointment at Dartmouth and I taught every year in addition. But I

can’t do it here. I did it a little while but it’s just my schedule. Especially now with this

fund-raising thing. So, I knew that, when I made the decision to go to Colgate rather than

Tufts, that’s why. I knew that, that’s why.

MR. BARKER: Just to kind of go over a question again so that we don’t miss anything,

can you tell me what you think the most significant influences in your life have been to

lead you to this position? You had mentioned your parents, mentioned the village and the

community, two mentors. Anybody that you talked to, to get advice?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, the closest thing I ever had to a mentor later in life was

the President of Dartmouth. [James O. Freedman, President of Dartmouth 1987-1998]

He was great. When I interviewed for that job at Dartmouth we didn’t even talk about

Dartmouth. We talked about all the great books we had read and why they were

important to us. You know he died about 2 years ago, 23 months ago actually. And he

was a mentor. I looked to him and his leadership. There were certain things about his

leadership that I thought I could do better and there were certain things that I thought he

was just the best in the world. So I would watch him closely. …. The Dean of the

College position at Dartmouth, we have the largest administrative group at the

University. And I ran it like a subsidiary of Dartmouth and I just ran it as if it were mine.

But Jim was a mentor. Coming to Atlanta was a big move for me. It was a big risk.

You’ll say, well why? When I left Harvard and I told people I was going to go to Colgate


they said I was crazy. You don’t go from Harvard to Colgate. And if you do from

Harvard to Colgate you can’t come back. I said well, I’m not sure I’ll want to come

back. Well, if you leave Harvard and you go to Colgate, you won’t be able to come back

to the Ivies. I said, well watch me. After five years I was back at Dartmouth.

And then when I came here people said, you know you’re not going to be able to

come back and you’re going off to this outpost. And you’re leaving all these institutions

and this rich educational culture, liberal arts and educational culture. And I said, “but I

want to go where I can be challenged, tested.” And I like Willamette because it was the

first college established in the West. And so just as there’s a history of these great New

England institutions in the East, there’s this other history that hasn’t really been written

about the founding of colleges in the West. And all it all begins, imagine, it all begins

right here. In this building, right here. First college established west of Missouri, right

here, in this building. And that appealed to me. Being part of where something

originates – the history, has always mattered to me. I said, you know the place kind of

looks like a New England college. You know, the red brick buildings. It’s a really

modest place but I think that I can make something. I think that I can make it better than

it is. I think that I can inspire the institution to be better than it is. So I’m going to go.

And nine and a half years later, here I am.

MR. BARKER: What is your definition and vision of a college president? What it

should be? What it should inspire? What it can represent?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, the single most important thing for a college president is


to, in league with the University college community, develop and articulate an aspiration

vision and then bring resources – human resources, capital resources and financial

resources – to the aid of that vision so that it becomes a reality. That’s what leaders do.

MR. BARKER: And the idea in the first part of that it sounds like shared governance.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, you can call it that. I mean it gets very complicated at

the detail of the granular level – it gets very complicated. But, yeah it’s obviously

shared. Different presidents do it, you know – Gordon Deed, I think he would describe

himself as part of the shared governance but I don’t think everyone would see him as

sharing as much as he should. Whereas someone like Lee Bollinger at Columbia would

be seen as some would say, well he needs to be a little more assertive, a little more bold.

So, but yeah. Faculty are independent contractors, that’s what they are. And they’re not

beholden to the institution. They weren’t even trained to be teachers. They were trained

to disseminate, understand and develop a piece of knowledge, a discipline. That’s what

they were trained to do. They have to be persuaded and inspired by your leadership. But

I think that’s what we do. You work with the community to establish a vision, not just a

vision but an aspiration vision and that’s my job to bring all of those resources to bear

and that vision sort of becomes a reality. And the thing that presidents have to struggle

against more than anything else, is not being swallowed up by the minutiae of the day.

And that’s a hard damn thing to do. It’s just hard. And it’s so easy to be distracted by all

the meetings and all the tugs on your time.


MR. BARKER: Like me. (laughter)

PRESIDENT PELTON: (laughing) Yeah. No, but I mean people that work here. I mean

I think that’s leadership and I ….the other thing that I’ve learned, and I learned this from

Jim Freedman and I learned this from Lee Bollinger when he was at Michigan, which is

to do the right thing. If you believe in something, you need to do it. And don’t be fearful

of the consequences. And you say, what are you talking about? Well, you take Lee….I

knew Lee when he was Provost at Dartmouth and we were close friends. He’d come

from being Dean of the Michigan Law School and came to Dartmouth. He was there just

a short period of time and then he went back to University of Michigan as President. And

he took on the affirmative action piece. He and Nancy Cantor [current president of

Syracuse University] who is now at Syracuse.

…

PRESIDENT PELTON: So, I remember when this was…..I was thinking, ‘my God,

what are you doing.” But I learned from him to do the right thing. Do the right thing and

especially with respect to things that matter to the nation. So I became part of that cohort

for two years and I was giving talks and speeches everywhere about affirmative action.

And I also learned it from Jim Friedman too. He, about two years before he retired he

began to speak out about how Jews were treated at Dartmouth. Which then ignited a kind

of conversation among his colleagues about how Jews were treated at Harvard and other

places and discriminated against. And to do that at Dartmouth took a lot of guts. To do it


at Harvard doesn’t take a lot but to do it at Dartmouth which is a really entrenched,

muscular, white male kind of place. It took a lot of fortitude to do that. And he took it

on. And I think I’ve been guided by that. That’s why I took on diversity when I first

arrived. In a variety of forms. We’ve rewritten the history of this institution. We

understand and acknowledge that when the white missionaries came out in the 1830’s

here, to Christianize the natives, that they brought with them diseases and killed millions.

That the missionaries were not good listeners and they were not interested in dialogue.

They did a lot of harm. And now we acknowledge that in our history. We now have a

founder’s day program, which I started which was February 1, 1842 to acknowledge the

founding of the institution. And, we dedicated that day, really to the truth of our history.

So we have a series, we have a Native American lecture series. And we have a whole

series throughout the year called Indian Country Conversations. It’s all about doing the

right thing.

MR. BARKER: How big is your discourse community? When you have these questions,

it’s probably follow your gut, but…

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah. I can. I can pick up the phone, yeah. And yeah, I can

pick up the phone. And you know, I’m not like Friedman of course, who’s been at this

for a long time and who has sort of come up through circles. I just sort of appeared on

the scene. And so there are folk who know me and folk who don’t. But you know I was

chair of the AC Board of Directors and I was on the Board for six years. And even as

Director I spoke about diversity, as Director and as Chair, pretty vigorously. So, I’ve got


this network of people that I can call and who call me a lot. I didn’t have that before.

And one of the reasons is because the Ivies don’t participate in these discussions.

MR. BARKER: Why don’t you think they participate?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, because they are so wealthy.

MR. BARKER: Right.

PRESIDENT PELTON: And a lot of the issues don’t apply to them. You’re never going

to have a discussion with Harvard or Yale or Dartmouth about retention.

MR. BARKER: Right.

PRESIDENT PELTON: They should because there are students there who struggle. But

they just don’t participate. I would like, if there was some way that we could bring them

in to these discussions. That would be good.

MR. BARKER: When did you know that you were ready for the job?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Here?

MR. BARKER: As President of a University.


PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, you know I’ve never applied for a job, ever. I didn’t

apply for the job at Dartmouth. I didn’t apply for the job at Colgate. I was recruited for

the job and I was recruited for the Tufts job too. So I’ve never applied for the job. Here,

when I was at Dartmouth I had been contacted several times to come out and apply but I

said, “no, no way.” And then, in the fall of 1997, Jim surprised me by saying he was

going to resign by the end of the year. And, I said at that point, “I think I’m going to

leave.” Either I become the next president of Dartmouth or I’m going to leave. You

know it became clear that I wasn’t going to be the next president. Because I knew who it

was going to be. If I wasn’t going to be president, I knew who was going to be president

and I did not want to work with that person. And so I came out in November, finally for

an interview and I came back and I said, “well, I got the job.” And I did.

MR. BARKER: How important, you had said before, individuals before your interview

not a search.

PRESIDENT PELTON: No, it was not…it didn’t. The person on the search committee,

for the presidential search, was the head librarian at the Law School. He went to

Dartmouth and he knew about me and he’s the guy who kept calling. I was very naïve

about how these things work. I didn’t – and I guess I just expected to get it and so I

didn’t – I would have done it a lot differently today than I did at that time. I mean, I

would have looked very carefully at who’s on the search committee and are there any

connections there that I could work to my advantage. Are there any other people there


that are associated with what I’m doing? But I didn’t do any of that. Now part of that is I

just didn’t know where…I didn’t know the institution. It was outside of my sphere of

people. Today, I would do all the sorts of things that you would expect a candidate ought

to do to get ready for the job. To do the things that are advantageous. To make it more

likely that I would get the job.

MR. BARKER: Okay. You haven’t had the traditional, I mean if we look at it you know

by the Chronicle standards, if we look at the president he’s a 54 year old white man who

votes Democratic, who has spent seven years as a faculty member. How much did your

formal education prepare you for this job? I mean, you know, not necessarily, I would

say you had a more non-traditional approach to becoming president.

…

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I don’t think it prepared me in any way except that, I

think it had just kind of a marginal and then I’m not really traditional, there’s no doubt

about it. It was all sort of that peripheral thing and I just sort of marched to the beat of

my own drum. Didn’t come out of the Professor, Associate Dean, Dean, Provost lineage.

MR. BARKER: And if can ask, why do you think you were able to do that? By not

following the traditional path. What do you think it is about your characteristic, your

style?


PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, if I can be boastful its cause I think people understand

two things about me. One thing is that I am a leader and two is that I’m firmly

committed and firmly dedicated to the core commitments of the institution, of teaching,

learning, research.

MR. BARKER: What do you think of search firms?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I think in today’s world, if you want to be a President obviously

you can’t without a search firm. And I think it is important to develop relationships with

search firms. I think that what’s search firms do that may or may not serve individuals

well, is that they write a story about you. They create a narrative about you. My

narrative for many years was Lee left Dartmouth, and by the way my leaving was

reported on the New York Times story – where is this guy going and why? That Lee left

Dartmouth to go to Atlanta and he’s going to be there for five years and then he’s going

to come back. That was the narrative. And so they create these narratives for you. And

sometimes they can be helpful and sometimes they can box you in. What I would tell any

first time presidential applicant is always remember that the search consultant works for

the University, not for you. It’s so easy to forget that because when you’re in the search,

you get so much attention. They are so solicitous. There is so much love bestowed upon

you, that you begin to think that this person is working for me. Working on my interests,

but they’re not. Their job is to simply build a robust pool of applicants from which the

University can choose and the love and attention is to keep you in the pool. And they

will love you and pay attention to you until you are no longer in the pool. And then


you’re out. It’s very important to remember that. And you say, what does it mean

practically. Well, it means that you must be very careful what you say to the search

consultant. Be very thoughtful about that because you may say something that you feel

like, you know like you’ve developed a sense of confidence, kind of a deep relationship

with someone and so you want to say something in confidence. Well, you may find that

that is going to harm you because the consultant doesn’t work for you. He works for the

college or the University. You must always keep that in mind, always. And they talk to

each other and they know who’s in the search and who’s not in the search. And once

you’re in their basket of potential candidates they’ll carry you around to sort of try to

match up your interests with what the University is looking for. And I know some of the

best.

MR. BARKER: How important is institutional fit to a president? Or should the president

adapt to the institution?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I think that this notion of fit is insidious and because the

language that I prefer to use and I do this with my faculty, is a match. Because “fit”

suggests that the person coming in must fit in with the dominant culture. But a match

recognizes that a person can come in with a set of attributes that don’t necessarily fit but

they match up with what the institution is trying to do. And so as a candidate I would

encourage for president to, as part of their presentation, to give them straight that they are

a match, not a fit. A fit suggests status quo, a match suggests something else. Because it

is like a marriage, it really is. It’s like two people getting comfortable with each other


over time. And like any marriage its not the feeling that makes it important, that makes it

survive, it’s the action that each person takes towards the other. This is a commitment

that the institution makes and this is a commitment that the President makes. And the

best universities look for a match. They look for a president that has a set of abilities and

capacities that are going to move it in a different direction. Going to help it to see a set of

issues that are critical to its well-being. Help them to see them differently. So, I just

think that the institution “fit” thing is just an insidious thing and it is the fit culture that is

non-inclusive. A match is inclusive because it suggests that women and folk of color,

who don’t have the traditional resume or the traditional lineage, still have something to

contribute to the institution. Not because they fit but because they match what the

institution is trying to do. So, you understand what I’m saying.

PRESIDENT PELTON: This is great. Well, the only way that I can answer that is to say

that when we use those terms, we ought to construct them in a way that the performance

is measurable, and most of us don’t. And so, academic excellence includes a big basket

full of goods that have to be related or driven by the mission of the institution. The

mission of excellence at Willamette is different than the excellence at Portland State

University because we have different missions. Portland State is a metropolitan

University where its mission is very much community based. We’re a small, private

liberal arts college.

MR. BARKER: Another African American President, right?


PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, it was Dan Bernstein, he came from Howard but he’s

now back. And so, but it has to be measurable. How do we measure excellence at

Willamette? Well, what’s in our basket? It’s, what’s the student faculty ratio? Ten to

one is better than sixteen to one. We’re ten to one. What’s the per capita, not just the

size, what is our per capita basis? At Willamette class size is important. We don’t have

any classes that have more than fifty students. Average class size is twenty or something

like that. At Portland State the research budget, it would be very different here. So the

only way it seems that I can answer this question is one, that excellence is mission driven

and excellence has to be tied to some performance that is measurable. And the basket of

measurable things will be different institutions because they have different visions.

MR. BARKER: Last question and answer as much as you can. Understanding that every

presidential search is different in the processing sense, what are the contextual

differences between candidates of color and other candidates?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Because it’s an issue, I mean people, you…it’s inescapable. I

mean if you’re a candidate of color at a predominantly white institution it’s just

inescapable. Can the guy raise money? Does he know how to interact with white people

of means? Does he or she have the capacity to move freely and comfortably in the

cultural settings that are part of the fabric of the institution…part of its history? What is

his or her position on diversity? I mean, I had a time in my career where I know there are

some who said, “Oh God, there he goes again talking about that diversity thing. Can’t he

just talk about something else?” Well, I was talking about a lot of other things but that’s


all they heard. That’s all they heard. I’d give a speech and people would say, ’why do

you have to keep talking about that?” And you know, you have to walk this very fine

tightrope.


Location: Presidents Office


MR. BARKER: So, we usually start very broad so we’ll start very broad again. What is

it like for you to be a University President?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I can’t imagine a better job. It’s just a tremendously

fulfilling job. It just brings, as I said yesterday, it gauges many aspects of me and it

engages me in many skills. And I very much enjoy that. The strategic planning which I

love, the oratory, and making speeches. Interactions with faculty of course and being

able to participate in faculty colloquia and conferences, interactions with students, which

is always marvelously exciting. Fund-raising, I enjoy that very much. The problem

solving, I spend a lot of time trying to solve problems. So I love all of it. It is very

exciting.


push for diversity. By the trustees, by the faculty, do you agree with this assessment?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yes, it requires the leadership at the highest levels for that to


happen. And even then, it’s one thing to make pronouncements, it’s another thing to

sustain efforts for long-term and that’s difficult. So in my case, when I came in, I made

the claim that diversity was a core characteristic for the best learning in the nation.

MR. BARKER: Why? I mean how does diversity broaden the education?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, because especially in today’s world it’s impossible to

think of excellence without having some appreciation for understanding and engagement

in the diverse cultures, people and persons that are found in each nation in the world.

And it’s just impossible for me to conceive of excellence without diversity. And so,

that’s what I told the trustees, that excellence and diversity were synonymous in my view

of higher learning. I also told them from my own experience that the very best students

come to a university with high expectations about diversity. That has been my

experience. So it was really quite an easy sell for me here. And I think that within a

three-year period, I focused primarily on diversifying the student body. Which was

something that I could do administratively. I didn’t require a lot of working with the

faculty. And so within a three-year period we increased, we doubled the presence of

students of color at the undergraduate level. We went from, not quite doubled, we went

from 11% to 20% and at 20% we had the most diverse undergraduate population in the

region, actually. I know that’s remarkable when you think that but in the Pacific

Northwest.

MR. BARKER: And I’m sure you did that without lowering standards.


PRESIDENT PELTON: Yes, in fact standards increased. The academic profile went up.

The SAT scores went up, as did the average GPAs, as did the percentage of students who

came to us from the top ten percent of their high school class. I’m glad you reminded me

of that because that made it easier because the trustees could look at that and say okay.

This is okay.

MR. BARKER: Your general notion of excellence residing in diversity seems to go in

the face of our society and the direction in which we are moving. We look at the

statistics of out of a Harvard Civil Rights Project, looking at segregation of high schools.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yes, I know that very well and I know his work.

MR. BARKER: So, I mean what does that say about the efforts in our education? Will

students soon go to selective institutions or schools that cost significant amounts of

money from very homogeneous communities?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yes, they come from very segregated…and white students

come from the most segregated schools. I know that and so we have an obligation to try

to correct that at the college and university level.

MR. BARKER: Were you mentored in preparation for the job? Did you go to the

Harvard new presidents meeting?


PRESIDENT PELTON: I didn’t and I didn’t because I was told by people that I trusted

that I didn’t need to go to that and so I didn’t do it. I asked Jim Friedman at Dartmouth if

I should do it and he said, “No, you don’t need to do that.” And he teaches there or used

to teach there. And then I did go to, Bill Bowen, a former Princeton president who was

the president of the Mellon Foundation, invited me and four other presidents to a two-day

orientation and you know that was useful. The president of Dennison University was

there and it was useful. And I think it was Pat McPherson who set this up and it was

focused on liberal arts and that’s what was particularly useful for me. Because it was

focused on that segment on higher education and so, no I didn’t have any preparation.

Several years before I became president I went to an ACE, I was invited. But I was

invited to go to this program preparing folks for the presidency and it was a whole kind

of deal with search firms and there were search firms there. How to deal with a whole set

of issues and I found it mildly useful, but not particularly useful.

MR. BARKER: Along this same line of questioning, do you participate in the Chronicle

of Higher Education’s meetings for the presidency or anything like that?

PRESIDENT PELTON: No, I would like to do those but those of us on the West Coast

are handicapped just because of the time travel. But of course, as I said I’ve been an

active member of ACE and I was for six years and I was on the Board of AAAG before it

went under. And I’m on the Board of American Association of Colleges and

Universities. So I try to stay involved in that a little bit.


MR. BARKER: We addressed this a little bit about the student population, but how has

the racial climate of your University changed since you first arrived?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I think there’s a greater awareness of these issues but we

still have a long way to go. And, the Pacific Northwest has many virtues and attractions

and it is by and large a very liberal and progressive region of the country. But it’s devoid

of lots of ethnic and racial diversity. And so it turns out, that I’ve found being here, that

folk who live here are just remarkably naïve about those issues. Unlike the East or

maybe in California I suppose, where there is great diversity, especially racial and ethnic

diversity, is present. So that’s been something of a struggle. So people are open to it but

its absence has created this sort of dilemma in this area. We’ve made lots of gains at the

undergraduate level but at the faculty level in the College of Liberal Arts we’ve not done

nearly as well as I would have liked us to do.

MR. BARKER: Is that a national problem?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, yeah, there is a pipeline issue. Of course, but that’s not

the only thing. But some of the other things that I did, yeah the faculty accepted readily

when I said, “we need to have an ethnic studies program.” And so we now have one and

it’s growing. And that program has enlivened in just great ways discussion around

diversity and social justice. The program has empowered students in terrific ways so I’m

pleased by that. I introduced here, for the first time, a graduate dissertation fellowship.


You know it’s not a new deal at all, with pre-med graduate students to complete their

dissertation…graduate students of color. They come to campus and we give them a

stipend, it’s a pretty sizeable stipend actually. And they have the opportunity to do their

dissertation.

MR. BARKER: Sounds good. Do you have any open positions (joke)?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, we do. And so in that program, we now have four folks

in that program. And there’s a national consortium that has grown up around this and

we’re part of that consortium now. And so the pipeline of students that come to us come

through this consortium and my Dean is on the steering committee. I’ve also created a

program called Willamette Academy in which we have partnered with public high

schools. And we’ve got a college preparatory program. It’s a five-year program starting

in the 7th grade and it’s a really holistic program. And it’s focused, not just on students

of color but disadvantaged, I’m not sure if that’s the right word, but students who might

not otherwise go to college, whose parents didn’t go to college. For the vast majority of

these students, English is the second language spoken. And so we just graduated our first

cohort of those students and of that cohort 92% have gone on to college and three of them

actually are here as students.

MR. BARKER: Nice. What’s the size of a class?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Thirty students. It’s small but you know we are a small place


and it’s rare, probably not unique, but it’s rare for a small, liberal arts college to reach out

in this way. If we were Portland State or Metropolitan University that was sort of a

community-based thing, which is a natural part of their mission. But this is not a natural

part of our mission but it’s…so, those are some of the things that we were able to do and

I’ve not gotten any pushback from the faculty on any of those efforts.

MR. BARKER: How do you overcome the idea of a diversity of one?

PRESIDENT PELTON: (laughs) I don’t know. I’m not sure if I have actually. I was in

a faculty meeting today, it was so funny, you know I’m meeting with the faculty in a

series of meetings. I’m calling them “faculty dialogues” to talk about the future of the

University. And what I’m trying to do is to gear up for a planning process. And so the

issue of diversity came up and of course, one of the newer members of the faculty, it’s an

all white faculty – I’m the only person of color. And so, one of the newer members she

says, ‘well, what is diversity?’ And again she’s well-meaning, and “what is diversity and

I don’t know what it means and does it mean this and does it mean that?” And of course

a person from an older generation says, “Well, I know what it means.” And they say,

“what?” and he says, “look around. There are only Caucasian people in this room.” And

I said, “Well, no not really.” But he didn’t mean it that way. What he was trying to say

to her was ‘we got a long ways to go. Look at the faculty here. You know, there are no

faculty of color in this room.” And so, anyway it was just funny. So, I don’t know.

We’ve made some gains but not nearly enough. I’m working with the faculty now to

create, the Dean and I, something that we call “opportunity hires” and this will allow the


Dean, myself and departments to recruit and hire faculty outside of the normal process.

So, if there is a, for instance, a prospective faculty of color who is available to us. Who

comes to our attention in a particular department, this would allow us to work with the

department and our Personnel committee to pursue that person outside of the regular

process.

MR. BARKER: Does that add a line to the department or how is that received by other

faculty?

PRESIDENT PELTON: In all instances it would have to be a process that wouldn’t

disadvantage a department. And, it might add a line – it might not add a line but it cannot

be seen as disadvantaging the department or it will not work. Now, you would think that

this would be an easy thing to pull off, but it’s not because there are faculty, even my sort

of left-wing socialists who are concerned that, concerned about two things. One is that it

gives the president and the dean sort of arbitrary power, or potentially. “Well, Lee we

don’t worry about you but what about the next president?” You know, that sort of thing.

And there’s a worry that it bypasses the kind of vetting process that goes on here when

we hire. Because we still value teaching and that is, the way I see it is that there is no

substitute for excellence in teaching at Willamette. And so, values teaching and so we

want to nurture good teachers who do wonderful research but teachers and so there’s a

sense that this may degrade that vetting process. So we’re working on this now with my

hope by the end of the term we’ll have language.


MR. BARKER: I think a lot of schools are experimenting with what works best for

them.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, sure.

MR. BARKER: Do you feel your presidency carries a special significance or weight due

to the fact that you’re an African-American?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Absolutely. Well, I mean, I’m not just Lee, I’m representative,

clearly. And I feel that as an extra weight on a daily basis. You know obviously there a

double consciousness and I feel that, and so I feel that I have a special obligation to my

wonderful African-American heritage and community. I feel that. I sense that. And

there’s always the sense, at least for me personally, there’s still a kind of sense that I have

to do better than.

MR. BARKER: Right.

PRESIDENT PELTON: That the bar is just a little bit higher.

MR. BARKER: I haven’t asked this question of any of my other participants but it seems

appropriate right now. If you, broadly defining success and failure, if you were not as

successful as people would have liked you to have been or, do you think that the chances

of hiring another diverse candidate would have been more difficult.


PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, it would have been more difficult. And I think there

would have been, spoken and probably also kind of unspoken, sort of resignation. People

might not have come out and said, ‘well, what do you expect?” But I think, I just feel

that there would have been the expectation that, “I’m not surprised.”

MR. BARKER: How do you feel about being a role model to other African-American

men and young boys?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Absolutely love it and probably don’t do enough of it. But I do

serve as a mentor. I have a number of mentees around the nation who stay in touch. And

it’s a great pleasure to talk to them about a variety of things. How to navigate particular

institutional environments, how to work with search firms, issues around timing, when’s

a good time to be thinking about things. I enjoy that and that’s why I have those

relationships.

MR. BARKER: How would you describe your relationship with the campus community

and the local community at large?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I would describe my relationship as a really good relationship.

I have my detractors on campus, any president has detractors on campus. I have faculty

who believe that I’m not forceful enough and I have faculty who believe that I’m too

forceful. But it’s enormously isolating, just enormously isolating and I have zero


anonymity because I just stick out like a sore thumb wherever I go, and so I have no

anonymity. And at times I find that very difficult cause it’s so… it’s so ubiquitous. And

there is no, here – now in Portland it might be different, but there is no community that I

can easily retreat into because the African-American community is really very scattered.

It’s a small number to begin with but it’s very scattered and dispersed. That’s why I like

going to Portland, to hang out with real folk.

MR. BARKER: How far is Portland from here?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Forty minutes.

MR. BARKER: Okay. How do you decide when to use the bully pulpit and how much

of your presidential capital to use?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, that’s always difficult and you know, I don’t have a

formula for that. It’s just a matter of, it’s often times situational but there are certain

things that I believe in and I’ll always use the pulpit for those things. Diversity being at

the top of the list. But it is….it’s a great question because you know you don’t want to

over use it because then it becomes devalued. And so you have to use it either

situationally or for those one or two or three issues, social issues, public affairs issues,

whatever it might be that you think are just so very important. So, I don’t have an answer

for that. I mean there’s no formula for that. A lot of the work that I do as a leader,

leadership is not formulated, it’s not out of some textbook. It’s just based on my best


thinking at the time. What my experience and my instincts tell me.

MR. BARKER: Do you pay special attention to the moveable middle, what I mean by

that is that I look at most things as a normal distribution and no matter what you do, five

percent are going to love you and five percent are going to hate you. But there’s that

moveable middle who you have to kind of convince.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, yeah – I think so. I hadn’t thought about it in that way

but yeah, I think so. And you know, the thing, at least about the years that I have a lot of

respect and so I am listened to and now that I’ve been here nine and a half years, that

also, there’s a kind of seniority here that I bring to anything and so people tend to listen.

MR. BARKER: Which is a longer tenure than the average presidential…

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, yeah it is although I’d like to see that by sector because I

suspect that in private liberal arts colleges I’m sure it’s at least seven to eight years or

more. And I saw some numbers that suggested that the average tenure nationwide is

growing actually, not getting smaller. I’m not sure if that’s true but I just saw it. Do you

know the answer to that?

MR. BARKER: It’s five and a half, in I think, the last Chronicle. It’s five and a half –

six years, that’s the national and it wasn’t broken up into sectors.


PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, well see you need to look at it in sectors. I mean if you

look at an ivy league school for instance, I know that the average over the last thirty

years, I’m sure that the average tenure is at least somewhere between ten and twelve

years. And I think it’s going to get longer because so much of our tenure now is tied to

fund-raising and the giving and completion of a fund-raising effort is probably about a

nine year effort.

MR. BARKER: How is fund-raising complicated by being African-American among

white constituents?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I don’t know. I don’t know that. You’d have to ask other

people. I don’t have any sense that it has been. My personality and my demeanor just

makes it easy for me so I have never felt that – no let me take it back. I’ve never felt –

well, let me put it this way. There have been some occasions where I have felt that

assumptions have been made about my politics based on my race and so in those

instances I have a sense that there are some conservatives of one mind who won’t give,

haven’t given and with whom I just haven’t been able to make any inroads. So, I do have

that sense.

MR. BARKER: What is the most difficult aspect of your job?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I think it’s what any college president would tell you. It

is the management of one’s time. And no matter how hard we try we just can’t get it


right. I mean, that’s saying that something is sacrificed in this job. It might be, for those

of us who have families, it might be times that you have with your children. I was talking

with a friend of mine last night who, she was a lawyer, now she’s no longer a lawyer,

now she teaches math at sixth, seventh and eighth grade level, she has two children, she’s

a single mom and she was telling me about how she comes home at night and she spends

the entire evening with them. And I thought what a glorious thing that is cause I don’t

get to do that. So, the most difficult thing is managing your time and because there are

just sacrifices to be made.

MR. BARKER: What’s the average day? What’s the time? Up at when? Done at

when?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I’m up at 6:30 am, I’m not an early riser so today my day

will end at about 10:00 pm or 10:30 pm and it will start tomorrow at 8:00 am. And then

tomorrow end at about 9 pm.

MR. BARKER: How do you stay healthy?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I try to exercise. Not nearly enough. I used to jog but I don’t

jog as much as I used to. Try to watch what I eat. I lift and I run. I run because running

is a very efficient use of one’s time because all you have to do is put on a couple of

pieces of clothes and some tennis shoes and you’re out the door. And in forty-five

minutes you can get all that done and you’re back.


MR. BARKER: What’s the most pleasurable aspect of your job?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, clearly it’s the interaction with faculty and students. And

I don’t mean just individually although that is fine, but also interaction with the work that

they do. That’s just enormously satisfying. So, why is it satisfying? Because, you know

I’ve been in a job where I am learning every day. There’s an opportunity for me to learn

something every day. Imagine that, you get up in the morning and by the end of the day,

there’s stuff that you’ve learned that wasn’t there previously. I’m doing this thing tonight

on these families. And what a joy that’s going to be. What a wonderful opportunity it is

for me to talk to the descendents of these women and men, young at the time who were

shipped off to concentration camps. What a kind of understanding, the kind of

understanding they will have about what it meant to be Japanese-American in the late

40s.

MR. BARKER: I was a history major and I wrote a paper on it. The loss of their homes

and their refrigerators and how everybody just jumped on the bandwagon.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, and so you know. And then tomorrow night I’m

meeting, I’m having dinner at my house with one of our major faculty government

committees and I will engage with a philosopher or an environmental science person or a

biochemistry professor or history professor or English professor, and you know I’m

like……what you’re doing, tell me about what your doing, what you’re working on.


‘Oh, I didn’t know this. Explain that to me’ – that is just the most satisfying, that’s why I

love this job. Those opportunities to learn and to grow and to actually get to be engaged

in ideas is – I don’t know what’s better than that. I don’t know.

MR. BARKER: Are you always a president or is it the fact that it’s just who you are?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I’m always a president, even those times when I thought that I

wasn’t a president, in my head, I’m a president and I’ve come to understand that. That

took me a while to understand that. I understood that when I got, I got divorced when I

was here. And, the divorce itself was difficult itself but having to deal with that publicly,

it was just really difficult. But I learned in that process that, in a way that I hadn’t really

understood, in that people watch what you do and they talk about it. And even things that

you do or say that seem innocuous or off the cuff, or ironic, humorous, they get picked up

and talked about. And so, it’s a pretty friendless place and that has been the most

challenging part of this, just kind of the isolation. I don’t think it’s that way, or it need be

that way for every president.

I think for instance if you are a president who has been at an institution before you

became president, as a faculty member or something like that, came up through the ranks,

I do think that you have these relationships with people that are important that will see

you in a different light. But everybody should have a relationship, a connectivity but I

didn’t have that and so you know. I’m not going to get invited to any dinner parties

cause I’m the person they want to talk about. So, I don’t get invited. And this small

town without other very visible professional groups, its hard. And my best friend here is


African-American, General Counsel for the hospital. He went to Yale, I went to Harvard,

you know we’re buddies. But that’s about it.

MR. BARKER: What are the significant constituencies with whom you interact and how

do you manage those dynamics?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, the board is very important. I think that managing the

board, working with the board is probably the area where first time presidents are least

schooled in that area. And it’s an important function of being president. And it’s time-

consuming and difficult at times. So that’s an important constituency. I’m not sure that

the board will like to think of themselves as a constituency. Certainly the faculty don’t

think of themselves as a constituency. But I think I work with the board very well and

I’ve been given a lot of power with the board so I’ve been able to shape the board myself

since I’ve been here. And I’ve been able to shape how the board is organized and I’ve

been able to shape how our meetings are conducted and so I’m very grateful for that. My

relationships with faculty is as complex as the faculty is pretty much and because I have

different kinds of relationships with different parts of the faculty.

You know, the relationship I have with junior faculty is very different than the

relationship I have with senior faculty. I’ll give you an example of something that went

wrong for me once. I had a dinner party at my house and was having a series of meetings

with faculty and after dinner, with spouses there, which was a mistake. What was a

mistake was that I tried to use a social occasion to conduct business and I’ve now learned

that that’s not good. That’s a formula for disaster. Having the party is great but trying to


conduct business at a party, especially when spouses are there is just difficult. So, I had

this after dinner conversation with faculty and I was trying to talk about a set of issues

that I thought were kind of germane to the, central to the institution, but they just all

wanted to talk about something else and particularly wanted to talk about salaries and

compensation and they were all pissed off. And I mean to a person and there were

thousands who were pissed off and they let me know it. I was frustrated, very frustrated

and so these meetings were arranged by discipline and so this was the Humanities group.

And then when it was over, I couldn’t figure what in the hell happened here. Why did

this turn out so bad? Because I hadn’t had this experience with sciences. And then

afterward, a senior member of the faculty told me, he said, “Lee, what you had in the

room, you thought you had humanists in the room. That’s not what you had. You had

senior faculty. These were all people who have been here for a long time.” And I

thought, “oh yeah, that’s right.”

And so these people, they’ve been around here for a while and the salary issue has

been on their mind for a while and they feel no compunction to be other than

straightforward, honest even if that leads to confrontation. And so, I had to do some

healing there with that group and it took a long time because faculty can be very

unforgiving, as you probably know. And so, some healing has taken place. With one

member that was there though he won’t speak to me, he hasn’t spoken to me, in however

long this has been. He’ll see me walking down the sidewalk and he’ll go out of his way-

all out of that meeting. But it was my mistake for not understanding who my audience

was. Because my frustration was showing and I think that some of them felt that I was

demeaning and not appreciative of them. And so, the kind of relationships that I have


with junior faculty is different and the kind of relationships that I have with the associate

faculty are different. And that a group that I pay attention to is that middle group because

that middle group, they’re going to be the leaders and so I try to pay attention to that

group and I think I have a good relationship with that group.

MR. BARKER: Research suggests again, that there are different types of university

presidents with different types of managerial styles. How do you define yours or can you

describe your managerial style, if you have one?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, I do and it is that I try to get things done by persuading

the various stakeholders that one, this would be in their best interest and two, its where

they can have ownership for it. And so, I tend not to make big declarations although I do

have a State of the University address that I give each year and each year I try to focus on

a particular issue or topic. I am not perceived to be a threat as a leader but as I said, there

are some faculty who think, ‘well gosh I wish you could do these things quicker or

sooner and be more forceful.’ And there are others who would say, ‘well that’s about

right” or others who would say, “well, you’re trying to impose your way on us.” So I feel

that I’ve gotten it just about right. The last sort of toe to toe that I had with some

segments of the faculty was when I invited Colin Powell here to campus to kick off our

fund-raising campaign and he was no longer Secretary of the State and I think he had

been out of the office for about….I think he stepped down in the spring or summer, I

can’t remember but they were really pissed off by that. They saw him in a way that I

didn’t see him. They saw him as a warmonger.


MR. BARKER: The same thing just happened at Rochester. He came for Meliora

Weekend and faculty wrote a protest letter.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Really? Yeah, we’ll they actually had a vote when I wasn’t

there. I saw it as a kind of referendum on my presidency and the, whatever the resolution

was passed, it was very narrow….by two or three votes. If I had been there I don’t think

it would have passed because I would have been there but I had to stand up for a whole

set of issues that I thought were important. But you know he spoke on campus but they

were really concerned that I had invited him to sort of, as they said, represent the

university in fund-raising. That they didn’t want him to be the face of our fund-raising

effort and after that I went to meetings where faculty members were in tears. They

thought that I had just let them down.

…

MR. BARKER: We’ve already touched on your relationship with the University

governing board, to what extent do they hinder or help you?

PRESIDENT PELTON: They give me a lot of freedom and for that I am very grateful.

We don’t have a lot of conflicts. So I am very grateful. My board gives a lot of leeway

to me and they look to me as a leader. And by and large they don’t seek to overly

influence management decisions. In ten years I’ve never had the board or the chair say to


me, ‘that was a mistake’. I’ve always had their full support and everything I’ve asked for

from the board in terms of compensation and other sorts of things they’ve given me. I

mean their fear is that I’m not going to stay.

MR. BARKER: In your opinion, is race a factor shaping interactions between you and

your senior administrators, such as your deans, vice presidents?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I would say, the overlying joy of the job …I sometimes think

that on these issues, say diversity for instance, it is sometimes difficult to have a really,

deep conversation because those who have really different views from mine… because of

my race...and I have a steadfast view about what ………dialogue………….being able to

tolerate also different perspectives on an issue even if I happen to disagree with those

perspectives. That’s what we do in higher education and we should be able to do that.

So, I guess the short answer is no, but when it does occur it’s more subtle………….and I

don’t have a sense that however it occurs that it has had negative influence on

decisions…………..management process. Nor has it had a negative influence on my

relationship with the community of senior officers. I may be totally wrong. I mean that’s

the whole issue. I have a friend who wrote a book about black/white relations in

America. He was a writer for the New York Times, he won a Pulitzer for a book that he

wrote and there was this whole chapter in there that was so familiar to me, to black folks.

There are times where things happen to you with the dominant culture and you just really

don’t know if race is part of it or if its not. You know, you just really don’t know. And

so you have to make those judgments and you live in this kind of world where you have


these encounters where you have to stand back and say, ‘whoa, what was that all about?

What really was that all about?’ So, you don’t know and so fundamentally I may not

know at all. I’m not the person to ask. That’s just my sense of it but I may be completely

wrong about this. It may play a huge role that I’m not even aware of.

MR. BARKER: We’ve talked about this a few different ways, does the concept of race

impact your leadership decisions? I mean I think that we’ve talked about your quest for

diversity, willingness to accept social justice, but does being black affect your leadership

style and how you interact with people.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, yeah….as I say, it’s a sense of, you know, this is my

particular, idiosyncratic way of having dealt with this all my life, which is be the best.

Walk into a room and be the best. To be the smoothest, to be the smartest, to be the most

articulate, to show that I am in control, you’re not in control, I’m in control. Yeah, so

that definitely influences how I interact and seek to lead on a daily basis. Not only here

but in the community as well.

MR. BARKER: It’s a lot of pressure though?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, it is. I mean, I’m asked to do a lot of these programs

where they drag out old black presidents like myself and we get to talking about ……a

totally different experience and that’s fun.


MR. BARKER: Do you do that a lot?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, I try to. I’m asked to do it a lot. And whenever I’m

asked I do it.

MR. BARKER: How big is that audience?

PRESIDENT PELTON: There are lot of groups that sponsor these so sometimes it’s a

small group. Sometimes it’s a group of 100 – 150 or 200 hundred. There’s a group, I

forget what it’s called, they did that a couple of years ago and one of the women in that

group is now the president or the chancellor of the community college here and she came

out of that group. And she and I have stayed in touch. She was applying for this job.

We stayed in touch. I tried to give her some background information. What were some

community issues that she ought to be aware of. I hope was helpful to her as she went

through the process.

MR. BARKER: How do you stay connected to your academic field?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I don’t anymore. And I regret that but I don’t. I have not

taught in five or six years. So, I don’t. That’s just the way it is. When this campaign is

over I hope to go back to the classroom but I don’t know what I’ll teach. I don’t know

what courses I’ll develop. I have a real interest in South Africa so I may develop a

course there which is very far from ….. but I have a real interest and I’ve put a lot of


effort into understanding.

MR. BARKER: When issues of diversity are discussed on campus or brought up, do you

feel that there is a different expectation of you?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I don’t know if there is a different expectation but I am

looked to as the leader of this issue on campus by faculty and students.

MR. BARKER: That’s because you chose to be?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yes.

MR. BARKER: Has anybody cast that on you?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Probably. Yeah, probably. Not probably, I’m sure they have

but it doesn’t bother me so much because it’s a role that I gladly accept. And so it’s

interesting cause I was talking with my assistant about this the other day because we had

some issues on campus, which I won’t go into, and they flared up. And I thought it was

great because we had students on campus who were protesting and they had a big thing

out in the square. And I got wind of it, that they were having this protest. And by the

way, they had created, through the wonders of the new electronic age; they had created a

list serve. Well they had put me on it and I could monitor what they were talking about

which was great. And so they had this rally and it was in the morning and I didn’t know


about it. They were essentially going to try to shut down the college and so I said, “well

I’m going to go.” And she said, “no, you don’t want to do that. Don’t do that cause it’s

just going to be confrontational.” But I said, “no, I want to go. I have faith in these

students and I think they have faith in me.” So, I went and it was a beautiful thing. I got

lots of applause and lots of support and she just kind of stood back shaking her head like I

don’t even understand how this works, this dynamic. “How are you able to walk into this

hostile crowd and get all this support?” because you represent the institution and they’re

pissed off at the institution. And I said, “well, they may be pissed off at the institution

but they’re not pissed off at me.” So, yeah that’s a leadership anthem of mine that I

accept gladly.

MR. BARKER: How do you prepare for your speeches? Do you incorporate a lot of

material? Do you have a core set of values that you try to go back to?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah. It’s sort of core values about excellence, about diversity

and I try, I think people would describe me as an inspirational speaker. I’m not just

saying that but I know that to be the case.

MR. BARKER: Do you read most of your speeches or do you go with the crowd?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I read them, depending on the audience and if it’s – it just

depends. It depends on my sense of what is required. Do I need to stand behind the

podium and address 700 people or do I need to step outside the podium and I can do that.



Location: Presidents Office


MR. BARKER: So, day before yesterday we asked the question, what is it like to be the

university president. Today we ask what does it mean to you, individually to be

university president? However you want to answer the question.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well for me, being a university president is an enormous

responsibility. Obviously education is one of the nations great resources – perhaps the

greatest in terms of its capacity to shape a society, the views of society. It also represents

a human need in the same way that we need energy, food – we need education. It’s basic

to the fulfillment of our existence as humans so being a leader in such an important

resource and something that represents a basic human need, is significant. And I carry

that responsibility with me every day. You know, as a president who grew up as a poor,

African-American kid I also have a strong sense of responsibility to support and provide

opportunities for young folk who don’t necessarily have the opportunities that others

have and for whom the paths of leadership are less visible.

If you grew up in Greenwich, Connecticut and went to the public school or you

went to Groton or whatever prep school there might be in Fairfield County, the path to

leadership is visible to you from the day you’re born. You come to think of it as a

birthright – something that you are entitled to. If you grew up in the south side of

Chicago, it’s not visible to you and so I see part of my role as president as making the


invisible, visible to young people. This is most ……young people of color do not

……it’s those who have social and economic cultural barriers that impede their progress

towards their dreams and hopes and goals. So, taking on that mantle is very important.

MR. BARKER: What does your presidency signify about the present state of American

higher education?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Higher education has made tremendous gains in opening its

doors to folks of color and folks from a variety of economic and social backgrounds. In

the 70s, I don’t have these numbers completely in my head but I know that if you went to

the Civil Rights project website you can get these numbers. But in the 70s, higher

education, I mean the student population was almost exclusively white. I mean more

than 90%. I mean, imagine that – more than 90%. And over the years there has been a

radical shift and access has grown. And I don’t know what the numbers are today but it’s

radically different. In 1974 we had the California Bakke case, we had of course the 2003

the University of Michigan case, both of which seemed to reaffirm the notion of diversity

as being of compelling national interest and could in fact be included in the admissions

process. So that’s good. That’s affirmative.

If you look at four year private institutions, take out the historically black colleges

and universities, I think that there is probably, I know there is less than a dozen, but

something closer to a half dozen African-American presidents. That’s it. And so in

terms of the higher education community providing channels for talented African-

Americans men and women to assume positions of leadership in these private


institutions, which are predominantly white institutions, that pipeline is small, it’s very

small. And it is in need of some radical change. There are some organizations that have

been doing good work trying to increase the pipeline. Of course the ACE and the

Fellows program is a terrific program. I know that ACE had or maybe still today has a

program, kind of a preparatory program for administrators and faculty of color who are

interested in pursuing a presidency. So there are some efforts out there but we’ve made

some progress. And it’s not just African-Americans, there are some other groups. Let’s

take Asian-Americans. I mean how many Asian-American presidents do you know? I

only know one. He’s at Buckley University. So you know there’s a big gap between the

progress that we’ve made at the student level and the leadership level.

MR. BARKER: Looking at the small number that you were talking about of African-

American presidents, do you think you need to have an academic pedigree?

PRESIDENT PELTON: In what sense?

MR. BARKER: Selective institutions for instance, you going to Harvard, Dr. Crutcher

going to Yale.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Oh absolutely. We have to be certified, that’s not the word, but

we have to be certified. We don’t get a pass on that.

MR. BARKER: Have you ever been tired of being referred to as a “black president”?


PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, of course. Sometimes it’s weary. But, as I said, all I

have to do is remind myself of my particular role and it’s really not a burden. But from

time to time it gets very weary but I do think that I have a particular role to play. And

that’s unlike my white counterparts and so I’m really grateful to be able to that role.

MR. BARKER: How do you feel the minority population on campus perceives you?

Black students, staff and faculty.

PRESIDENT PELTON: That’s a good question. It is my impression that by and large

that ……my being here. And it is my impression that my being president makes it easier

for them to be……predominantly white …..I say ………it makes it easier. It legitimizes

their stake and claim in the institution. There is an emotional and psychological piece but

there’s also a kind of visibility piece here. So I legitimize their stake and claim in the

institution. I think it’s more difficult for those folk to be taken for granted because they

have an African-American president. You know we hang together and we help each

other out. Often times and most often in subtle ways, not overt ways. But you know we

have our little private conversations. It helps me too and I should say that the reverse is

true too. Because it has always been my experience that during times of stress or turmoil

I can always go back to my community and the love and support is understood. And that,

just knowing that is there is a great comfort to me psychologically, and I’ve had to do it

from time to time on campus. When there was particularly stressful things, you know,

some events on campus and so it’s been, I’ve been able to rely on that community for


support.

MR. BARKER: Do you also have a community amongst other African-American

college presidents? Are you able to pick up the phone and call?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah, yeah. We do that and we see each other. Yeah, we’re

able to do that. We do it in a variety of ways.

MR. BARKER: Did you get an email saying welcome to the club?

PRESIDENT PELTON: No, nothing like that. Maybe other people did but I didn’t. But

it’s you know, these connections are – I mean, I could pick up the phone now and call

Deval Patrick who is governor of Massachusetts and talk to him. We’re friends but not

as close as we used to be many years ago. And he has a direct line to Obama of course. I

think that they went to Harvard at the same time. Overlapped or very close at Law

School. I didn’t go to law school so I missed out.

MR. BARKER: Do you subscribe or have an educational philosophy or educational

mission that drives you?

PRESIDENT PELTON: None other than, well, I shouldn’t say that. The driver is what I

described earlier making me invisible to those who might not otherwise avail themselves

to these paths to leadership. That’s the biggest drive. If you mean by educational


philosophy, a strategy, the only thing strategically, the architecture of the University is

like the architecture of a house. You build your house from the inside out not the outside

in and by that I mean, you build your house around the framework of core commitments.

In this case, at Willamette and I think all institutions of higher learning, the core

commitments revolve around teaching and learning and these are rewarding differently at

different institutions of course. And so, that’s how I’ve shaped my thinking about

Willamette, is to make investments in teaching, learning and research which simply

means making investments in faculty and students. And assuming that if you make those

investments to the inside of the house, then the skin of the house will take care of itself.

You’ll get the recognition you need, you’ll get the students that you want to come to your

institution. If you build excellence, the institutional capacity on the inside and if you

don’t all of the sort of smart marketing that would like to do to attract students won’t

matter. So, I’m not sure if that’s what you’re asking but that’s how sort of think about it.

MR. BARKER: How do the four topics that I’m going to list impact your presidency and

how have you improved since you first started in these specific areas? Fund-raising.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I’m more adept at it because I’ve done it now. I’m noted

as a good fund-raiser in the region. And, what is fund-raising? Fund-raising is matching

up someone’s interest and inclination with your needs, that’s what it is. And the way you

do that is by constructing a compelling case for support or a compelling story that will

inspire and persuade folk to let go of their monies on behalf of an institutional need. And

my capacity to tell a story and make the case for support has certainly gotten better over


the years. It’s like public speaking, the more you do it the easier it gets and the more

adept you become at it.

It takes up a third of my time. If you include all of the, not just the solicitation,

because if you think about it the solicitation is just a micro-second. It does not take me

long to ask you for a million dollars. It’s all of the prospect research that goes into that, it

is the cultivation obviously, that is so important. And once someone has given you a gift,

they need to be reassured from time to time that the gift is being put to good use. It’s

being put toward the uses for which it was meant, so stewardship is also an important part

of that. So if you look at the continuum of the gift from cultivation to stewardship, the

solicitation is just a little bit, it’s a little beep on that spectrum so what takes, what

requires time for a president is not the solicitation, it’s the cultivation and the stewardship

of the giver. So that’s why in your presidency it takes up a third of your time. That’s

really what they’re talking about.

MR. BARKER: Okay. Lobbying. I don’t know how extensive you have to lobby to the

community.

PRESIDENT PELTON: No, no we don’t. I don’t lobby. Community relations and

public relations is key and that means everything from speaking at the rotary club lunches

to getting to know my state legislators, now, the state and federal government is not

unimportant to a private higher education, of course it is and if this was a research

university then of course the federal piece of this would be really very important. But I

don’t have to do direct lobbying. We have a lobbyist, in fact two that represent higher


education, private higher education in this state. So we work with those groups. We

have an association in colleges and universities and the biggest part of the president of

that association’s job is government relations.

MR. BARKER: Backing up a second, you mentioned that public speaking gets better as

you do it. Was there ever a time in your career when you’d get nervous about public

speaking?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Oh yeah. When I first started out. Not here though. I got

pretty adept at it at Dartmouth because the great thing about my job at Dartmouth is that

the dean of the college represented the voice of the college. The dean was the conscience

of the college so I had to be able to distill the Dartmouth experience into some core

values and be able to talk about those a lot both on campus and off campus. So that was

a great training ground for me. Now I don’t get nervous. It’s fun, it’s exciting. For those

who don’t speak a lot, I mean the most important thing, in addition to brevity, the most

important thing is to know to whom you’re speaking, know who your audience is. You

could give a great speech to an audience that’s not in the room but it’s not going to go

very well. Yeah, I’ve gotten better. People say that I inspire.

MR. BARKER: Back to our list……….finance, fiduciary responsible to the institution.

PRESIDENT PELTON: I’ve become very adept at that and that was not a skill that I had

in large measure when I arrived here. I had some skills in that but I had not overseen an


entire university; I was not a provost, I mean I had a academic unit at Dartmouth and I

was the administrator, but, again a budget, you shouldn’t think about a budget in the way

that an accountant would think about a budget. Think about the budget as a strategic tool

towards a means, towards a set of outcomes which you’d like to achieve. But once you

think about the budget that way then it becomes, your perspective on it becomes a lot

different. So that’s how I think about the budget. As a strategic tool to achieve those sets

of priorities that I have set out for the institution. So, it’s fun. I like the budget process.

Now luckily, we’re not beholden to state governments so we never have a case where a

year, where mid-year we’re told ‘you’re told that you have to take 10% out of your

budget because the forecast, the budget forecast for the year suggests that unless you do

that you’ll have a deficit or something like that. So that’s one of the great virtues of

being at a private university, you don’t have to face those vicissitudes of government,

state governments.

MR. BARKER: Now, dealing with Athletics

PRESIDENT PELTON: You know, I’ve had lots of experience with athletics at the

national level when I was at Dartmouth, the NCAA was going through a period of

reformation. And they revised their constitutionally driven structure. And I was there for

a part of that at the tail end of those discussions. So, and I was appointed the chair of a

very, very important committee. I don’t know if it still exists but it was a committee of

amateurism and agents and this committee’s charge was to examine, fundamentally what

it meant to be a student athletic, this is division 1 so, and I was there for two years as


chair and I think we did some really good work and I mean we made some pretty far-

reaching changes in regulations. And after that I was on the President’s council for

Division 3 so I have some experience in that regard. I think I have a good perspective on

athletics and some decent experience with it. We don’t have athletic scholarships here so

it makes athletics, it serves a different function here than let’s say at the University of

Miami or the University of Texas. So I’ve not had to face those issues as President. It’s

still a matter of scale, some of the issues are the same. They’re just at a different scale. I

mean, I’ve got my football coaches complaining all the time about not getting enough

institutional support so they can go out and recruit the students that they want to invite.

There are facilities needs, there are fund-raising needs, I mean all of those issues.

The thing that we probably don’t face that some large university division one’s

face, is we don’t face on a regular basis the kinds of academic support issues that some

bigger universities would have to deal with. I mean, our students are students first. They

may be recruited here to play football but if after the second season they don’t want to

play football, they don’t have to and they’re not disadvantaged in any way whatsoever. If

they have a conflict between practice and a chemistry lab, the chemistry lab always wins

out. And they’ll never get any pressure from the coach to do anything other than go to

their chemistry lab first. So I’m blessed with those circumstances of being in a Division

III institution.

MR. BARKER: What areas of your job or your personal skill set do you work diligently

to improve?


PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, the area that worries me the most and where I’ve never

felt like I’ve achieved what I wanted to achieve is faculty relations. There never seems to

be enough time to develop the kinds of relationships that I would like to have with the

faculty, both corporately and individually. Each year my staff sits down and we map out

the priorities. Their job is to support me and make me look good and do my job

effectively. So we map out a half a dozen things that we need to do to achieve those

ends. And each year at the top of the list is the president’s relationship with the faculty.

And we work at it and it’s a priority but I never have a sense that it is, that I've done good

enough. Maybe I have, maybe I’ve just set the bar too high. But you know, when I came

here I thought well, all you have to do Lee is just seek out the faculty leaders and you

kind of have your faculty kitchen cabinet. You go to them for advice and they’d be kind

of supportive of you, but that just never happened.

MR. BARKER: Okay. I envision this dissertation as a source of information for young

administrators and faculty who might want to move to the top levels of administrative

jobs and chart their individual presidential career paths. For the lack of direct mentorship

for African-Americans, that exists, there is a lack of direct mentorship programs from

most perspectives, so I have two questions. What are the skills and attributes that they

may need to learn that cannot be articulated or understood from a CV?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, probably the most important capacity or skill that any

leader has is the capacity to communicate well, that is to speak and write plainly and with

grace and persuasively and that is on and off campus. You know, higher learning is


driven by people. People make up 70-75% of the budget in an institution of higher

learning. And so that ability to communicate is very important. If you can’t do it you’re

not going to be successful. If you don’t have the capacity to develop relationships and

sustain relationships over a long period of time, if you don’t have the capacity to be able

to tell a story about the institution that is compelling and provides a case of support for

that institution, you’re not going to be successful. If you don’t have the capacity to

understand human and social dynamics, you’re not going to be successful because you're

being tested in that way all the time. No matter where you are, with your board it’s

figuring out what’s really going on in the room, what is this conversation really about.

And you have to have those kind of critical thinking, critical cognitive skills and there’s

probably no place where you can go and learn that well. I mean it's through experience

and through whatever innate leadership talents that one brings to that position.

MR. BARKER: The second part is, what would you like to impart to those individuals

who are navigating the higher education structure, if you had anything to tell them?

PRESIDENT PELTON: I think the most important thing, do what I didn’t do. Which is

to develop mentoring relationships, develop a lot of them and sustain them over time

because those relations will become very, very important to you at every stage of your

ascension to the presidency and after you're president.

MR. BARKER: So, you're talking about developing mentors and you mentor people, so

how often would they contact you or stay in contact with you?


PRESIDENT PELTON: On an as needed basis and of course there are these sort of tribal

gathering places, right? ACE or this conference or that where the tribe comes together so

you'll run into each other or see each other serendipity or we say, 'you're coming to ACE

yeah, I'll be there or I'll see you there' or I'm coming to town' that sort of stuff. But

developing those relationships of mentors and advisors and sustaining those throughout

your career is critical, just critical.

MR. BARKER: Is it as informal and easy as walking up to someone and saying, 'you

know I'd like you to be a mentor of mine?'

PRESIDENT PELTON: Absolutely.

MR. BARKER: That has to happen.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Yeah and we love to do it. Love to do it. I’ve never turned

anybody down. People do that all the time, 'can I talk to you?' 'Yeah, sure here call me.'

Let's talk, let's stay in touch, tell me what's going on.

MR. BARKER: What is it going to take to see an increase in the number of African-

American males in leadership positions at research and selective institutions?

PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, I think the institutions are going to have to change and we


were talking yesterday when we talked about the fit rather than the match. We're going

to have to have more institutions who understand the value of the match and how the

match can add value to the institution in a way that fit will not necessarily going to add

value because it will just be the same old place. So the institution is going to change, the

board of trustees is going to have to change. Not just a change in their attitude but the

whole construction and who sits on those boards is going to have to change.

MR. BARKER: So is it fair to say that in a time when the SEC just got its first African-

American football coach, that most institutions of higher learning are not ready or willing

to accept.

PRESIDENT PELTON: They're not. They're just not. Although I have a prediction that

if Obama becomes President of the United States I think it will be a sea of change in this

country around race. I may be naive in that regard but I think it will be a sea change.

MR. BARKER: I think it has to be. If it's not going to happen then, it's never going to

happen.

PRESIDENT PELTON: Right, right.

MR. BARKER: Okay, what do you think the most pressing issue in American higher

education is today? And how do those issues impact your particular institution?


PRESIDENT PELTON: Well, they're the three A's, you know what they are. They're

access, affordability, and accountability. This nation is undergoing, I guess we've talked

about this before, but it's undergoing a demographic tidal wave and the pipeline of the

student population that's coming to higher education looks radically different in the next

ten years than it did twenty years ago. These will be young men and women who in great

numbers will be first generation kids. Many of them will not be as prepared as they

should be in terms of achieving excellence at four-year institutions. Their capacity to

afford a college education will not be great. And they are coming in great numbers and

they'll have different expectations about outcomes. I predict, they'll want practical

outcomes. They'll want outcomes that can catapult them into the middle class. So, we

have to be prepared for that at all levels and community colleges, obviously are going to

have to think, and some smart states like Oregon and other places understand this and

they are putting more resources into their community colleges because they know that the

community colleges will play an increasingly active role in this access pipeline in

preparing these students for a four year degree if that's what the students wish to have.

The cost of higher education, I mean, the tuition price exceeds the CPI each year, it has

for the past several years.

So, those are the issues, I mean access, affordability and accountability and

accountability is high, obviously after the Spellings report. I mean if they try to use that

report to leverage a kind of national accountability standards which would be ridiculous

given the diversity of higher education and the diversity of our institutions. I mean you

can't apply a sort of cookie cutter approach to higher education which is one of the great

virtues of American higher education is that it is so diverse and is not an arm of the state


and those are it's strengths. But never the less the accountability piece is there and

prospective students and their families will want to know about outcomes. Will my son

be able to complete his degree in four years; can he get a job, what kind of job? You

know those sorts of things. How is he prepared for the work force? So those are the big

issues. You know there are other issues as well. The internationalization of our

campuses is slowly happening. It's got to happen. If you ask the CEO of Hewlett

Packard you know he's saying that I need men and women who come to work expecting

that in short order that they will work not only in America but in Europe or Southeast

Asia. You know, that's the world and so our students need to be prepared to work in

cultures not their own. And if they don't know the languages well they at least better

know the cultures and how to navigate their way through those cultures and have an

appreciation for them. So that's another issue but the big three are affordability,

accountability and access and I'm sure that's what you've heard from everybody else

you've spoken to.

MR. BARKER: Yes. So, what else do you want to accomplish during your tenure?

PRESIDENT PELTON: What else? Well I'm at a stage now where I'm beginning to

think about the "L" word. The legacy.

MR. BARKER: Oh, that's the last question.

PRESIDENT PELTON: What is the legacy going to be? You know over all the legacy


will be that they are seeing this time here as transformative. That the institution has

greater visibility, that our academic profile has improved, our financial position has of

course improved and that the education that students have received and that their

opportunities post-Willamette have been enhanced through my presidency. We are about

to enter a major capital investment phase. Probably 80 or 90 million dollars over the next

seven years will be invested into our facilities. And that will be fun cause those are

visible markers of excellence and those are visible legacy markers whereas some of the

intellectual things that you do are not so readily visible. I want this to be, I would want

the legacy also to remark on that it is a more diverse place. That we have a greater

appreciate for diversity and the diversity is more presently in activities outside of the

curriculum. That we understand it to be an enduring core value and that at the institution

it is an important part of our mission. Yeah, if I can walk out the door and turn out the

lights and have a sense that most of what I've said has been achieved then I'll feel pretty

good.

MR. BARKER: One final question then, how does your personal educational mission or

personal philosophy impact the present state of African-American male education in the

US? More specifically what, if any responsibility do people like yourself and other

members of the higher education community have to our African-American boys?

PRESIDENT PELTON: We have enormous responsibility and as I've said, I mean, we

preside over these great national treasures which are recognized as part of a basic human

need and so we have an enormous responsibility. So, I've tried to fulfill that


responsibility through our recruiting but also by creating programs that reach out to

students, African-American young men in the seventh grade for instance, to reach out to

them. This line of making the lines about making the paths of leadership visible, that's a

paraphrase from Sandra Day O'Connor's, you know she wrote 'the majority opinion' in

the University of Michigan case and she talks about making those paths of leadership

visible. Yeah, that's our responsibility. Making those visible. Opening those doors of

opportunities is important, it’s an enormous job, and we have so long to go.

MR. BARKER: That concludes our interview. Thank you.


Chapter 7

Case Analysis and Discussion

This chapter consists of a thematic analysis of three oral history interviews

completed with Presidents McDavis, Crutcher, and Pelton. Several categories surfaced

time and again through the three cases: a family structure rooted in the Black middle

class, acceptance of campus diversity, the influence of the board of trustees in the search

process, the importance of presidential charisma and academic accomplishment,

connection with campus constituents, and the contextual difference of being a African

American president at a PWI. Their experiences of being a president are in line with what

the literature suggests; each describes a heavy schedule of meetings, and the necessity of

tact and clarity when dealing with their varied constituencies. Additionally, these

conversations reveal a different side of the story in regards to the presidential search

process than is found in much of the literature. The search process is both demanding and

thorough from an institutional perspective; my participants also describe a careful,

methodical process of becoming a strong candidate for the presidency. Furthermore, each

president has a somewhat nuanced relationship to the academic pipeline, described in

Chapter 3: while each promotes the need for equity and access to higher education, and

works in one way or another to correct the leaky pipeline for African American boys, in

particular, most do not define themselves as a product of any special efforts, other than

those of their families. A detailed discussion of each of these themes and pertinent sub-

themes follows.

Fewer differences between and among the participants emerged than I expected to


find, and these will be discussed within each pertinent theme later in this chapter.

Furthermore, it was not evident that the differences in length of tenure among presidents

substantially impacted their opinions on the role and influence of race in their presidential

duties, or on any of the other domains under scrutiny in the present study.

Following the oral history methodology, I made a conscious and informed

decision to allow my participants to speak for themselves, and have therefore published

the interviews in their entirety. Therefore, the analysis section that follows does not

contain narrative that retells their stories, but rather, this section highlights themes that

emerged in analysis.

Family Structure Rooted in the Black Middle Class

Each participant grew up in what can generally be described as a Black middle

class value, family, and economic structure. This fact bears out Jackson’s (2003)

explication of the leaky academic pipeline for academics. A substantial percentage of

participants’ secondary educations took place in racially segregated neighborhoods;

however each spent some significant portion of their time during childhood interacting

with White children in their age groups. In fact, each participant spent some part of his

primary and/or secondary education in both segregated and integrated environments.

Currently, researchers describe a correlation between growing up in highly segregated

areas and low educational achievement (Orfield, 2004). Thus, this research illustrates,

albeit with a very small sample, that even in earlier decades, the converse can also be

true: that is, growing up as an African American, at a middle class income level, in an

integrated environment, can lead to high educational achievement.


As might be expected of such high achieving individuals, each feels similarly

comfortable in predominantly White, predominantly Black, and integrated educational

and social settings. This level of comfort in different kinds of atmospheres is critical to

the ability of a college president (or, indeed, any other CEO or political leader) to

converse with and understand the needs of very different constituencies. Their similarity

in this regard suggests that such cross-cultural comfort might best be achieved in

childhood. As pointed out in Chapter One (Massey, 2003) intergenerational resources of

social capital, cultural capital, and human capital are inseparable from the ability to

successfully navigate the academic hegemony. Each of my participants attended a

predominantly white college or university, and each decided at an early point in his

career to seek an academic presidency. All have demonstrated a clear sense of self-

confidence, preparation, and the ability see oneself as successful, as well as an intimate

knowledge of the academic structure. From their tangible experiences within the

academic culture, they had obtained and absorbed a mastery of institutional norms, as

well as the appropriate credentials to obtain an academic presidency.

Not only is education an important source of human capital, just as important is

the ability to know how to maximize productivity, and succeed in society. As pointed out

earlier in the dissertation, regardless of the theoretical model one uses, there exists a

tangible difference between the experiences of the African American president and those

of their white counterparts, in the way that they negotiate the system and utilize their

capital to achieve success. Thus, each participant describes an almost instantaneous shift

from wanting to become a president to believing that such a goal was plausible.

Each participant describes having grown up in an intact nuclear family, headed by


a strong-willed father and a mother who worked outside of the home. While none of the

participants had a parent who was an academic, each describes strong parents who both

personally demonstrated and expected a strong work ethic from their children.

Interestingly, regardless of the way in which the participant described his relationship

with his father, each describes a father who throughout his work life took on consistently

more responsible work positions, and who often was seen as a leader within his

community or workplace. All described parents who made sacrifices of time, energy, and

sometimes-scare resources to further their academic pursuits and talents. While their

parents may not have had the necessary knowledge or skill set to provide direct

information or education, they all made sure to find those resources elsewhere for their

sons, through enrichment programs, classes outside of school, or other means. For

example, President Crutcher spoke at length of the sacrifices made by his parents, in

particular, his father, when he needed new instruments to continue his musical education.

Exemplifying the role of social, intellectual and human capital as described by Massey

and others, and the importance of focusing on breaking the intergenerational cycle of

poverty through education, the families of each participant provided a rich set of

resources and support. What is even more poignant is that they did so in an era in which

an educated Black citizen was seen as an affront to many majority Whites, and prior to

the enactment of any national civil rights legislation.

Like most things in life, talent and the willingness to take part in educational

opportunities can be cultivated, specifically when there is a family expectation of

academic performance and achievement, and an effort on the part of parents to secure

those additional resources. The literature defines African American males as a vanishing


species in higher education (Massey, 2003). Of the various theories for Black male

underperformance and underrepresentation in academia, Coleman’s oppositional culture

(1988) and Bourdieu and Wacquant’s social capital theory (1992) are confirmed by the

experience of the individual presidents. Furthermore, these case studies illustrate that the

African American male dropout and underperformance trends in American culture can

likely be reversed by attentive male parenting and securing external resources for young

men. What is also striking is that none of my participants describes having been

discouraged by their families from pursuing higher education and/or an academic life.

Thus, this study has implications beyond the initial impetus to learn about the trajectories

of African American male presidents, and could provide fertile grounds for assessment

by those concerned with the academic experiences of successful African American

students, regardless of gender or class.

Ultimately, each of the presidents demonstrated an understanding of his unique

position in higher education, and in society, as an African American university president.

Each described an early understanding of the ability of college presidents to call for and

to enact social change. All grew up in the segregated era of the civil rights movement,

which cultivated in both them and in their families that the idea of success, however

individually defined, was dependent on their interactions with the dominant White

culture.

Acceptance of Campus Diversity

The local climate of the individual campuses played a significant role in the hiring

of each president. Each president described a close relationship with the campus and local


communities; in each instance they described a willingness and acceptance of their

respective visions for the college or university campus. The presidential participants in

my study were from institutions and geographic locations that are considered more

progressive and tolerant of individual perspectives: their institutions are located in the

northeast and west, which many consider more liberal and accepting of cultural

differences than the south. The history and culture of the South are important factors to

consider when scanning a list of African American presidents. None exist at four-year

institutions in the Deep South. As President McDavis speculated, the experience of a

Black president at a southern PWI is probably much different than his own. Having

applied for several presidential positions in the south, he made an informed decision to

apply to his alma mater located in the northeast.

Each participant explained the need to expand diverse programs that impact

faculty and students at their institutions. Clearly, their efforts to increase access and

equity for underrepresented students have grown out of each president’s clear

understanding of the national and local data and current research on the academic

pipeline as presented in the literature review above. Although not intimately

knowledgeable of Orfield’s theory of intergenerational social problems (2004), all

understand the pressing issue of African American male underperformance, and all are

seeking to address it on both local and national levels. Each school has a different

mission, yet each president in some way foregrounds the need to diversify faculty and

student populations. They may have started new programs, allocated additional financial

resources, or individually mentored students. When asked the question “what do you

think your role is in the success of African American boys in this country?” each replied


that they had, in their own way, a role in and responsibility for increasing the success of

African American boys.

Willamette University is the only one of the three institutions that explicitly states

in their strategic plan a goal of increasing the diversity of faculty and students. While all

three included diversity as paramount in their vision for the institution, Willamette is the

only school that started doctoral fellowships for minority students; they also increased

their underrepresented student population to 20 percent, while at the same time increasing

academic standards. Willamette also created an outreach program, and adopted a high

school that deals specifically with low-income students.

At Wheaton College, President Crutcher implemented POSSE, a program

designed to foster diversity by introducing a cohort of diverse students that work to

change the culture of an institution from a student perspective. President Crutcher also

does individual mentoring with African American males, and has worked diligently to

increase the diversity of the faculty by making Wheaton College a place that welcomes

cultural and intellectual diversity.

At Ohio University faculty and student diversity is also an issue. President

McDavis’s emphasis comes in the form of student accessibility; that is, ensuring that

education is affordable for all students. These efforts often target urban areas, but are not

specifically just for African American students. When McDavis was asked the question

“can you speak to your concerns about losing greater than fifty percent of African

American boys from our K-12 education system” he responded:

I think our greatest challenge is the African American family. I believe that we’re

spending, as a community of families, a lot of time mentoring and nurturing


young women in our families and in our communities. I don’t think we’re

spending equal time mentoring and nurturing young African American males.

We make assumptions in our community about males that they can learn how to

fend for themselves because there’s always been that kind of macho thing about

African American males that, somehow we can make them tough and it’s OK.

But we have to protect, nurture and mentor our young ladies in ways that help

them become successful. I think the pendulum has swung too far to the side of

African American males can make it on their own. They can’t. And that’s not a

weakness of the gender or family. It’s the reality of the experience of more

African American males in jail today than there are in college. We’ve got to look

at the data and hard facts and say that the assumptions we’ve made, the way

we’ve raised our males, is not working. We’ve got to spend a lot more time with

young African American males, nurturing them, mentoring them, protecting them

and disciplining them. We need to do all the things that we assumed, for far too

long, we didn’t need to do. We did it with our African American women. If you

look at all the data today, there are more African American women in college.

There are more that have gotten into presidencies, not only in universities, but in

major corporations. We have to allow the data to speak to us. That’s what we’ve

failed to do. I guess where I’m going with this is to say that I think we have to go

back to our family. We have to go back to our community. We have to change

the way we’re rearing and raising African American males and to invest in them

the same time and energy that we have invested in African American women.

President McDavis, like each participant, looked for ways in which to impact his local


community, while at the same time holding diversity as a basic tenet of his university

policy.

Participants referred to a connection with the local and campus community that is

sensitive to the issue of race. Each president expressed an openness and willingness to

work with the campus community, confirming what the literature suggests is expected of

any college president (Cowley, 1980; McLaughlin, 1990; Jackson, 2003; Olscamp,

2003).

Influence of the Board of Trustees in the Search Process

As the literature review suggests would be the case, each presidential participant

in the study identified a committee member who advocated on his behalf in the search

process (McLaughlin, 1990; Corrigan, 2002; Perry, 2003). Each president interviewed

commented extensively on the support he has had from their respective boards of trustees

and their close working relationship. For example, President Crutcher mentioned that

during his first year, he visited each of his Board members in their homes or at their place

of business. Because the success of a presidency is intimately connected with the level of

freedom and responsibility bestowed on the president by the board, this kind of personal

connection, while time-consuming, was identified as of premier importance to each

president in this study. Even before their hiring all participants recognized and

commented on the importance of having a board of trustees that was willing to push to

keep diverse candidates in the selection pool during the search process and credited board

members with their selection. While each participant deeply understood the importance

of campus climate and the historical context of his presidency at his individual institution,


his willingness to identify the board as important - illustrates that the governing board

that appointed the president was willing to influence the campus’ racial climate by

appointing an African American president. Regardless of race and diversity, each

president acknowledged that boards tend to hire presidents who share their vision.

The relationship between a board and a president is truly dynamic and

complicated; while it would seem that each presidential selection of a diverse candidate

was a defining moment in the participant’s life, it was also a defining moment in the life

of the college or university. The colleges and universities in some ways must be proud to

acknowledge a diversity of one; meaning that African American president at a PWI is a

relatively rare position. Hiring a diverse candidate must be a beneficial exchange; the

university would not have selected a candidate who did not add value to the institution.

The question is how did an African American candidate add value to the participating

institutions? Maybe it was as simple as acknowledging the death of Jim Crow and the end

of separate and unequal policies in American history, or maybe it was the fact that they

were turning away from racist and exclusionary institutional history. These presidents

recognized the symbolic benefit to having a black male at the top position of a PWI and

so did many institutional stakeholders, specifically the board of trustees. The value

added, and or goodwill, to an institution that can advertise itself as having an African

American president can neither minimized nor accurately measured.

The Importance of Presidential Charisma and Academic Accomplishment

Each of the presidents is extremely charismatic. Charisma can be defined as:

“compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.” In all of my


conversations and interactions with these men, it was very clear that they had a high level

of interpersonal skill that gave them a clear aura of authority. In no way is charisma a

substitute for qualification or skill; to the contrary, their life experiences as demonstrated

by their extensive CVs, illustrate their varied professional abilities. They each espoused

qualities of charismatic leadership, as the literature refers to as academic “stars,” they

also cultivated relationships between campus constituents (Perry, 2003). There was a

sense that their race, in some ways, positively influenced the perception of the university

amongst their supports on campus. Race seemed to be a positive affirmation to the bold

spirit of the institutions. University presidents made diversity a hallmark or pillar of the

presidential platforms; their constituents seemed to support their vision, and to a degree,

expected it.

Presidential charisma and academic accomplishment in many instances was of

larger importance than racial perceptions. The presidents felt that their academic

pedigree, the type of institutions where they were educated and had previously worked,

led to their individual credibility and a general perception that they were highly

intelligent and non-threatening (Perry, 2003). Once he decided to pursue a presidency,

each one crafted a clear internal roadmap of promotion, and actively sought specific

academic appointments that would provide the appropriate qualifications and

connections.

The presidents shared very mainstream experiences in higher education, two

presidents having previously attended Ivy institutions and one being a president of his

undergraduate institution. These academic pedigrees seem to have provided them with

considerable credibility. It seems that the combination of their educational experiences


and their charisma diminished the primary perception of them as African American men,

and enabled their candidacy for the presidency. I would not characterize any of my

presidential participants as being radical; in fact, I would say that they represent a fairly

centrist approach to higher education. Furthermore, I would posit that their progression

through the academic hierarchy had vetted them in a manner that almost without

exception precludes radicalism. Individuals with radical viewpoints or research agendas

would be eliminated in the arduous process of promotion, tenure, and advancement

through academia. As is true of approximately seventy percent of American college

presidents, each defined the issues of access, the rising cost of tuition, and diversity as the

most pressing issues in American higher education (Chronicle, 2005). However,

increased diversity, access, and equity are significant components of each of their

intended legacies to their institutions.

It wasn’t by accident that any of my participants became the president of a PWI.

Each described a decision early in his career to actively prepare himself to become a

president. Although their career trajectories vary slightly from what is described in the

literature as the typical path, each participant in fact worked his way through the ranks of

faculty and administration prior to seeking a presidency. President McDavis describes

his trajectory in this way:

People come to me and say, “You know, I kind of think I want to do what you

do. I want to achieve what you’ve achieved.” My first advice is, “What’s your

goal? Where do see yourself ending?” Because, for me, I was selected as

president when I was 55. And yet, when I was 25, I sort of had the vision of

what I wanted to become. Now, did I know that it would take thirty years? No.


Did I think it would take at least 15 to 20? Yes. I knew that it would be a

journey, that you don’t just sit down one day and you have your doctorate degree

and say, “I think I want to be a president” and that’s going to happen like

yesterday. It’s a journey of 1,000 miles and you literally have to take each mile

along the way. So, I think the part of it, you know, that I realize is that you have

to be able to identify your goal. And then you work backwards. You say, OK I

want to be a president. What are the things I’m going to have to do to get there.

Maybe somebody just wants to be a dean. Maybe somebody else wants to be a

provost, chief academic officer. So you set that goal. And then you determine

what are the things I’m going to have to do to get there. And then each year

you’ve got to monitor your progress toward that goal. And there are different

places along the way where you know whether you’re being successful or not.

President McDavis had the most typical path to the presidency, by first being a faculty

member, then moving into administration as a dean, and finally working his way up the

academic hierarchy.

None of this is surprising; one would suspect any college president to have

exceptional academic credentials. However, what is not immediately apparent to either

the participants or the researcher is how much additional scrutiny their credentials

received during the search process, because of their race.


Connections with Campus Constituents

The presidents in the study exhibited very strong relationships with their student

populations. Crutcher and Pelton go out of their way to interact with, speak to, and

engage with students in ways that were more extensive than most presidents in the

literature. They met with students regularly and structured significant amounts of time to

meet with large student groups on a regular basis. President Pelton went so far as to take

part in a student protest on his own campus. Not only did these presidents connect with

students from their own institutions, they also made significant attempts to connect with

students from the larger community as well, specifically male African American youth.

The presidential participants use students as a way of deeply connecting with the

culture and ethos of their respective institutions. Student interactions seem to invigorate

them and serve as a way of escape from their highly detailed and stressful jobs. Each

participant exhibited a strong willingness to talk about the importance of student contact

and their roles in shaping the “hearts and minds” of the future leaders of America. The

presidents’ cultivation of their relationships with students is another example of

promoting good stewardship. Students are an integral constituency of any university, and

can help or hinder a college president. Each of the participants spoke extensively about

gladly working with students and listed doing so as an enjoyable aspect of his presidency.

Students were not interviewed for this study, so their views of the presidents cannot be

conclusively determined. This, however, might be an interesting and fruitful area for

further research.

Faculty members are another major constituency within the university structure

and a major time commitment and concern of all of the university presidents interviewed.


All participants commented on the importance of including faculty in the decision-

making processes of the university. The concept of shared governance was talked about

as more of a courtesy that should be extended to faculty that represented a good

management style rather than a doctrine that presidents should live by. To keep faculty

informed of any major policy or institutional changes would alleviate any unforeseen

backlash by concerned faculty, and in that way, would make their jobs somewhat easier.

The diversification of faculty was another area of concern for African American

presidents. Each talked about his individual successes in recruiting, and more

importantly, retaining underrepresented faculty. President Pelton acknowledged that he

worked closely with the provost to promote diverse hiring amongst the faculty, putting

pressure on the academic deans of departments to facilitate change. McDavis and

Crutcher spoke in terms of bringing a more communal leadership style to the office that

emphasizes relationships with faculty, staff, and students regardless of their position on

campus. Each spoke about the importance of establishing deep relationships with students

and staff.

While on campus the presidents were respected by faculty, students, and staff,

each had his share of detractors but race seemed to have little or nothing to do with

effectiveness on campus. All constituents accepted their leadership and the students held

them in high regard. Given the sensitive nature of race in the current society, White

stakeholders may be less reluctant to challenge African American presidents for fear of

being perceived as racist. Based on this research, the campus culture is different from

those accounts mentioned in previous accounts of African American male presidents at

PWIs. The context of race seems to be less of a factor once the presidents have reached


office, which could prove significant in future studies. Given that the presidents in this

study could be less racially sensitive than those previously published accounts, and may

not have seen attempts to challenge them as being racially motivated.

Contextual Differences of Being an African American President of a Predominantly

White Institution

All three participants understood their unique positions within the realm of

American higher education. They were reared in the segregated South, were children and

teenagers during the height of the Civil Rights Era, and all of them attended PWIs in the

1960s and early 1970s. All acknowledge the importance of the “bully pulpit” in fostering

change in higher education, and was proud of the fact that they had achieved a personal

and professional goal of being one of a small number of African American men leading

PWIs. All acknowledge the fact that race has played and will continue to play a role in

their individual presidencies. McDavis acknowledges the issue in the following quote,

I know that some of the opportunities that came my way came my way because I

was African American. I don’t have any illusion about that. I don’t think that I

got here because of my degree, my talent and all those things only. Some of the

opportunities as an administrator that I was given, I was given because that

institution or that situation called for or the people wanted a person of color. So,

with that clear, the other side of that, I think that the challenge has been that all

but one administrative experience I had, I was the first.

When the participants were asked their thoughts on why so few African American

presidents exist at PWIs, three different reasons were expressed: institutions and the

boards of trustees are not ready for an African American president, the pool of qualified


minority candidates needs to be increased, and racism is still an issue. All participants

observed that they had been solicited for other searches and were able to speak at length

as to the presidential search process. This is one area in which participants believe that

race plays a significant role.

The conversation with McDavis delved more deeply into the search process. I asked him

if he believed that he had been a token minority candidate in early searches, and he

replied, Absolutely, there’s no question. I even got to the point where institution X

looked at my credentials. I said, look; let’s not waste your time or my time. If the only

reason you’re asking me to be in the pool is to satisfy the desire of either you or the

search committee to have a diverse pool, I don’t want to be in it. If I have a better than

average chance of landing this presidency, I’m willing to pursue it. Now, the obvious

question. How did I know? I didn’t. I had to trust that when I challenged people, they’d

tell me the truth. To this day, I’ll never know. I was probably in a couple, even after I

went through this process, where I was just there to satisfy a diversity requirement. I

mean, it got to the point for me, after four or five of these searches, especially when I

started finishing second, that I just backed up and said. You know, maybe I should just

take a year off. In fact, this was the last one that I was going to test. I said, all right, this

is my alma mater. I know some people. They know that I’ve been on other searches that

I’ve finished second. If I can’t get this one, I’ll probably back up and wait for another

cycle. And I was fortunate enough to be offered this presidency.

Although I did not ask this question of all the participants, their discussions of the search

process were similar.

However, each of these individuals made a decision to seek a presidency,


knowing that individual and institutional racism is real in higher education. They

actively sought to enter this arena, to pursue a position of the utmost authority, with full

knowledge of the minefield that they were entering. They each had to deal with tokenism,

with search committees who were not serious about the prospect of hiring a Black

president, and with what they all describe as additional layers of scrutiny they assumed

White candidates would not have to face. They also describe a system of informal

mentoring/advice-giving among Black males in leadership positions in higher education.

It seems that without such a system, of having a senior person to turn to with questions

throughout this process, that even these three exemplary individuals might not have

succeeded in the search process.

The fact that the three men were Black did not seem to impact the effectiveness of

their leadership. As the literature suggests would be true of all presidents, they each

seem to fully understand the importance of keeping primary stakeholders informed, and

building strong constituencies seemed to be a important part of the job that each grasped

early in their presidencies. Each president believes that he has been able to accomplish

major tasks on his agenda, specifically those that have strong connections to race and/or

diversity.


Chapter 8

Summary and Implications

Summary

This study set out to document the oral histories of three African American

presidents at predominantly White institutions. Their success is instrumental to

identifying where the current system nurtures or blocks potential advancement for

African American males in American academia. Race was examined to determine

whether it was a factor that impacted their individual rise to the presidency. This study is

significant due to the fact that it is an actual oral account and description of how three

individual presidents reached the highest level in higher education administration.

A limitation of this study is that my participants are all college presidents who are

always aware of their own location. In all of the interviews, their words were carefully

crafted so as not to reflect negatively on their own institutions or personal reputations.

The qualitative method of interview was used to acquire descriptive information

about participants. Individual narratives were presented to develop a deeper

understanding of relevant factors. A multiple case design was used to provide compelling

evidence, increasing the data of the study (Yin, 1994). Multiple cases also provided a

contrast that further explains trends between participants. During the three step interview

process, typically during the third interview each participant asked to go off the record

and proceeded to have additional conversation with me that was not recorded and there

for is not in the transcripts.

The ability and willingness to participate was used to select participants. There

are only a limited number of national candidates who would be eligible, and because of


their position as a college president all have substantial constraints on their time and

limited accessibility. Having selected three different participants allowed an opportunity

to observe senior administrators and the role of race in their presidential trajectories. It

also gives those administrators of color who lack the personal interactions and direct

mentoring an opportunity to gain insight into how African American administrators

become college and university presidents.

Case study analysis requires different multiple types of data collection; the data

consisted primarily of interviews and only secondarily of document analysis. Presidents

were interviewed using a three-step oral-history interview process consisting of: (1) life

history interview, (2) a detailed account of the contemporary context, (3) reflection on

meaning interview. Once I completed the interviews, I constructed the case studies of

each president that form the basis for my analysis.

I present these interviews in their entirety to lend clarity and depth to the

individual experiences of the university presidency; to publish only segments of the work

would limit the impact that the conversations can have on the insight and development of

those who are looking to the personal trajectories for inspiration, and for future scholars

to be able to add additional interpretive frameworks to this discussion. In addition to the

themes identified above in the oral histories of the three African American presidents,

some additional, concluding observations may be made about the process in which these

individuals reached the presidency: (1) Community and family structure played a

significant role in the lives of each participant; (2) An institutional “match” was

important for the African American PWI president in this study, with particular focus on

the geographic region and an institutional support of diversity; (3) African American


presidential success is closely linked with a significant relationship with the board of

trustees; (4) Each participant feels a personal connection to his campus constituents as

well as a specific responsibility and stewardship in the development of African American

male youth; (5) Each participant acknowledges that their race plays a significant role in

their presidential appointments and the ability to move a presidential agenda.

As an African American male researcher in the field of higher education I

recognize that my ability to gain access to these presidents and their willingness to speak

both on and off the record, may have been influenced to some degree by my gender and

ethnicity. This is both a strength and a limitation in the current study; although my race

and gender are visible characteristics I endeavored throughout this process to maintain

professional objectivity.

Implications and Recommendations

Research in the area of the African American presidency needs to be expanded to

explain the many current and relevant questions that remain. Other factors may impact

the trajectory of an African American male’s rise to the office of the presidency. Some

additional factors that should be examined are the presidential differences between men

and women; perceptions of African American presidents by African American students,

faculty, and staff; the connection between or differences among African American

presidents of HBCUs and PWIs; the impact of race on fundraising, and the existence of a

community among African American college and university presidents. Such topics need

to be explored more fully in order to understand the experience of presidents in this

context. The role of trustees that emerged from this study illustrates the need for research

on the interaction of African American presidential candidates and the board. Examining


the role of trustees at a PWI and their deliberations in hiring a Black president could be

advantageous and inform the work of presidents in this context.

The literature review completed for this study examined programs and national

efforts to increase the diversity of our colleges and universities after the passage of the

first Higher Education Act in 1965. Significantly, all of my participants came of age

prior to the enactment of this landmark legislation. Thus, it will remain for future

scholars of higher education, or for a future work by the current author, to examine the

impact of the civil rights and access to higher education had on succeeding generations of

African American academics and administrators.

Qualitative research in this area can be time consuming and complicated given the

level of access one has to the participants. Current presidents are busy and often require

considerable advance notice in gaining access to their calendars. They are also members

of the public eye who deal with complex issues that can be sensitive in nature and some

that should not be exposed to the public.

This study was not an attempt to identify and analyze discriminatory behavior in

academia, but to chart the career trajectory and success of men who can to be

characterized as exceptional, simply due to their limited population in American higher

education. The participants in the study acknowledge that race undeniably surfaces as a

factor when examining their individual life histories. This study shows that African

American males are successful in leading PWIs; however, they need proper support from

the board of trustees and a campus culture that affirms diversity. Several organizations

such as American Council on Education, the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education,

and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities have minority


leadership development programs. Data would suggest that there are additional well-

qualified candidates of color who could currently lead universities, but they are either not

being sought after or are uninterested in this type of leadership position.

Another implication is that valuing and creating a positive environment for

diversity on campus is best-advocated from the top of the administrative ladder (Bridges,

2004). The presidents in this study have promoted diversity at their respective

institutions, while at the same time, maintaining or increasing academic standards and

access of underrepresented students. Representing a ‘diversity of one’ comes with both

challenges and advantages, in this case African American presidents were given a pass on

diversity; it was assumed that one of their presidential initiatives would be in the area of

increased access for underrepresented students.

Recommendations for African Americans leading PWIs focus on four areas:

understanding the institution’s context, institutional match, and the racial history of the

institution and region. In addition, presidents must cultivate a good relationship with the

university governing body and assess and analyze racial matters before risking valuable

political capital. It is the case that successful presidents understand the importance of

institutional fit or match; I would conclude from the three presidential oral histories that

this is more of an imperative for African Americans leading PWIs than it is for majority

presidents. Cultivating existing relationships with the board and faculty is vital to the

survival and effectiveness of African American presidents.


References

AAUP. (1990). Statement on government of colleges and universities: 2000. Retrieved

May 15, 2007, from

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/governancestatement.htm.

Ambrosius, L. (2004). Writing biography: Historians and their craft. Lincoln and London:

University of Nebraska Press.

Austin, B. W. (1996). Repairing the break: Key ways to support family life, reclaim our

streets, and rebuild civil society in America's communities. Chicago: Nobel Press.

Backscheider, P. (1999). Reflections on biography. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baddemeier, S. D. (1998). Female community college presidents: Career paths,

experience and perceptions of the presidency. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,

North Carolina State University.

Bailey, D. F. (2003). Preparing African American males for postsecondary options. The

Journal of Men's Studies, 12, 15-25.

Bailey, D. F. M., J. L., III. (2004). Emotional isolation, depression, and suicide among

African American men: Reasons for concern. (In C Rabin (Ed.). Pacific Grove:

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Bashaw, C. T. (1999). “Stalwart woman”: A historical analysis of deans of women in the

South. New York: Teachers College Press.

Basinger, J. (2001). Staying power. Chronicle oh Higher Education, 49(3), 28-30.

Benezet, L. T., Katz, J., & Magnusson, F. W. (1981). Style and substance: Leadership and

the college presidency. Washington, D.C.: ACE.


Bensimon, E. (1989). The meaning of “good presidential leadership”: A frame analysis.

The Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 107-123.

Bensimon, E., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership: Teams and

teamwork in higher education. Baltimore: Mr. Barkers Hopkins University Press.

Berendzen, R. (1986). Is my armor straight? : A year in the life of a university president.

Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.

Bernstein, R. (1996). Colleges led by African American presidents at institutions that are

not historically Black. Black Issues in Higher Education, 13(25), 20.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). Presidential searches and the discovery of organizational goals. The

Journal of Higher Education, 59(5), 489-509.

Birnbaum, R. (1999). The dilemma of presidential leadership. Baltimore: Mr. Barker

Hopkins University Press.

Blackwell, J. E. (1988). Faculty issues: The impact of minorities The Review of Higher

Education 11(4), 417-431.

Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An Action strategy for increasing minority faculty.

Academe, 75, 8-14.

Board, C. (2001). Trends in student aid: 1984 to 1994. New York: College Board

Publications.

Boorstin, D. J. (1983). The discovers (1st ed). New York: Random House.

Bornstein, R. (2003). Legitimacy in the academic presidency: From entrance to exit.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). Outline of a theory of practice. New York:

Cambridge University Press.


Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of

considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton

University Press.

Bowen, W. G., & Shapiro, H. T. (1998). Universities and their leadership. Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Education reform and

the contradiction of economic life. New York: Basic Books.

Bowles, T. M. (1999). Socialization factors and African American women college

presidents. Dissertation, Eastern Michigan University

Brantlinger, E. (2003). Divided classes: How the middle class negotiates and rationalizes

school advantage. New York: Rutledge Falmer.

Bridges, B. K. (2003). Presidents, perceptions, and race: A comparative case study of two

black presidents at predominantly White institutions. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Brown, S. V. (1988). Increasing minority faculty: An elusive goal. Princeton, NJ:

Educational Testing Service.

Budig, G. A. (2002). A game of uncommon skill: Learning the modern college and

university. The College Board, American Council on Education.

Bush, V. B. (1999). The seventh daughters: African American women presidents of

predominantly White four-year colleges and universities. Claremont Graduate

University, Claremont, CA.

Carnevale, A., & Rose, S. (2004). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective

college admissions. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.


Chase, P. (1987). Black women college presidents: Perceptions of their major job roles,

problems, expectations and experiences. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Chenoweth, K. (1998). African American college presidents. Black Issues in Higher

Education, 15, 20-25.

Choy, S. (2002). Access and persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal research

on students American Council on Education. Center for Policy Analysis.

Chronicle. (2003). Almanac Issue.




Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college

president. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Cole, S., & Barber, E. (2003). Increasing faculty diversity: The occupational choices of

high achieving minority students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of

Sociology, 94, s95-s120.

College, B. (2002). Trends in college pricing. Washington, DC: Author.

Committee, A. H. P. o. G. A. A. (1996). The path to the PhD: Measuring graduate

attrition in the sciences and humanities. National Academy Press.


Conley, D. (2003). Understanding university success: A report from standards for

success, a project of the association of American universities and the pew

charitable trusts. University of Oregon.

Conway, J. K. (2001). A woman's education (1st ed.) New York: A.A. Knopf.

Cooper, J. M. J. (2004). Conception, convention, and comparison. Lincoln and London:

University of Nebraska Press.

Corrigan, M. E. (2002). The American college president (2002 ed.). Washington, DC:

American Council on Education, Center for Policy Analysis.

Cowley, W. H. (1980). Presidents, professors, & trustees. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, J. (1994). Coloring the halls of ivy: Leadership and diversity in the academy.

Bolton: MA: Anker.

Davis, J. D. (1994). Queenie: A case study on racial, cultural, and gender dimensions of

leadership (In J.D. Davis, (ed.), Coloring halls of ivy: Leadership & diversity in

the academy ed.). Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Davis, J. E. (2003). Early schooling and academic achievement of African American

males. Urban Education, 38, 515-537.

Die, A. H. (1999). Reflections on presidential longevity. The Presidency 2(3), 32-37.

DiMaggio, P. & Ostrower, F. (1990) Participation in the arts by Black and White

Americans. Social Forces, 68, 753-778.

Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Press.

Dowdall, J. (2003). Presidential pay from the board's point of view. The Chronicle of

Higher Education. 50(12).


Dowdall, J., Perry, R. H., Perez, M. M., & Weary, W. A. (2002). Roadblocks on the road

to diversity. Trusteeship, 10(3), 13-18.

Drummond, M. E. (1995). Minorities in higher education leadership positions: A report of

eight years of disappointment, 1986-1993. Black Issues in Higher Education,

12(2), 43-47.

Eatman, T. K. (2002). Constructing higher education policy for equity and parity in the

next century. (In the L. Jones (Ed.), Retaining African Americans in higher

education: Challenging paradigms for retaining student, faculty and administrators

ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publications.

Ellis, J. (2001). Founding brothers: The revolutionary generation. New York: Alford A.

Knopf.

Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury

Park: CA: Sage.

Farkas, G. (1996). Human capital or cultural capital? Ethnicity and poverty groups in an

urban school district. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Farris, V. K. (1999). Succeeding as a female African American president of a

predominantly White college. In W.B. Harvey (Ed.), Grass roots and glass

ceilings: African American administrators in predominantly White colleges and

universities (pp. 57-70). New York: SUNY Press.

Ferguson, R. F. (2003). Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test

score gap. Urban Education, 38, 460-507.

Fife, J. D. (1987). Higher education leadership (ASHE-ERIC Report). Washington, D. C.:

Association for the Study of Higher Education.


Fikes, R., Jr. (2004). African American presidents of predominantly White colleges and

universities, 1873 to 2004. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (42), 121

Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). For whom? In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 107-131). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fischer, C. S., Hout, M., Jankowski, M. S., Lucas, S. R., Swidler, A., & Voss, K. (1996).

Inequality by design: Cracking the bell curve myth. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Fisher, J. L. (1984). Power of the presidency. New York: American Council on Education.

Fisher, J. L., & Koch, J. V. (1996). Presidential leadership: Making a difference. Phoenix,

Ariz.: Oryx Press.

Fisher, J. L., & Tack, M. W. (1988). Leaders on leadership: The college presidency (Vol.

62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fitzgerald, B., & Delaney, J. (2002). Educational opportunity in America. New York:

Praeger Publishing.

Flawn, P. T. (1990). A primer for university presidents: Managing the modern university.

Austin: University of Texas Press.

Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Flowers, L. A. J., L. (2003). Exploring the status of Black male faculty utilizing data from

the national study of postsecondary faculty. The Journal of Men's Studies, 12, 3-

13.

Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising

practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.


Foundation, C. (1987). A classification of institutions of higher education Princeton, NJ:

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Frisch, M. (1990). A shared authority: Essays on the craft and meaning of oral history

and public history. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description. Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C.

Geertz, The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-32). New York:

Basic Books.

Gibbs, J. T. (1988). Young, Black, and male in America: An endangered species. Dover,

MA: Auburn House.

Gladieux, L. (2004). Low-Income students and the affordability of higher education. New

York: Twentieth Century Fund.

Gladieux, L., & Wolanin, T. R. (1976). Congress and the colleges: The national politics of

higher education. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.

Gluck, S. B., Ritchie, D. A., & Eynon, B. (1999). Reflections on oral history in the new

millennium: Roundtable comments. Oral History Review, 26 (no.2 Summer/Fall,

1999), 1-27.

Goodley, D. (2004). Researching life stories: Method, theory, and analyses in a

biographical age. London; New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Golde, C. M. (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of

the discipline, carnegie essays on the doctorate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grantham, T. C. (2004a). Multicultural mentoring to increase Black male representation in

gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 232-245.


Grantham, T. C. (2004b). Rocky Jones: Case study of a high-achieving Black male's

motivation to participate in gifted classes. Roeper Review, 26, 208-215.

Greenwood, J. D., & Marlene Ross. (1996). So you want to be a college President.

Educational Record, 77(Spring/Summer 1996), 24-30.

Greenwood, M. (2002). A reality check on presidential searches. Trusteeship, 10(5), 14-

16.

Gregory, S. T. (1995). Black Women in the academy: The secrets to success and

achievement. New York University Press of America.

Grele, R. J. (1991). Envelopes of Sound: The art of oral history. New York: Pager.

Griffiths, D. E. (1988). Handbook on research on educational administration. New York:

Longman.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.

(1ed.) Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

Hahn, R. (1995). Getting serious about presidential leadership. Change,

September/October, 13-19.

Haley, A. (1998). Black history, oral history and genealogy. York, New York: Routledge

Press.

Hamilton, K. (2004). Are you presidential material? Black Issues in Higher Education,

10(21), 24-26.

Harlan, L. R. (1972). Booker T. Washington: The, making of a Black leader, 1986-1901.

New York Oxford University.

Harlan, L. R. (1983). Booker T. Washington: The wizard of Tuskegee, 1901-1915. New

York: Oxford University Press.


Harlan, L. R. (1988). Booker T. Washington in perspective: Essays of Louis R. Harlan.

Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Harper, S. (2007). Seeking out success: University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Shaun Harper

expects his extensive research will create a new paradigm of how Black males

adapt and succeed in college. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. September 6th,

2007.

Harrington, M. (1962). The other America: Poverty in the United States. New York:

Macmillan.

Harvey, W. B. (Ed) (1999). Grass roots and glass ceilings: African American

administrators in predominantly White colleges and universities. New York:

SUNY Press.

Harvey, W.B. (2001). Eighteenth annual status report on minorities in higher education.

2000-2001. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Heller, D. (2002). Condition of access: Higher education for lower income students.

Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1996). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in

American life. New York: Free Press.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1971). A response to "Emerging Concepts of the Presidency". The

Journal of Higher Education, 42(5 May), 368-373.

Hoffer, T. B., V. Welch, Jr., K. Webber, K. Williams, B. Lisek, M. Hess, D. Loew, and I.

Guzman-Barron. (2006). Doctorate recipients from United States universities:

Summary Report 2005. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. (The report


gives the result of data collected in the Survey of Earned Doctorates, conducted for

six federal agencies. NSF, NIH, USED, NEH, USDA, and NASA by NORC.)

Hoffman, K., & Llagas, C., & Snyder, T.D. (2003). Status and trends in the education of

Blacks. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Educational Statistics.

Hofstadter, R., & Smith, W. (1961). American higher education: A documentary history

(Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hollis, E. V., & Eels, W. C. (1961). The college president 1900-1960: An annotated

bibliography.

Holmes, S. L. (2004). An overview of African American college presidents: A game of

two steps forward, one step backward, and standing still. The Journal of Negro

Education 73(1), 21-39.

Hrabowski, F. A., III, Maton, K.I., & Greif, G. L. (1998). Beating the odds: Raising

academically successful African American males. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse

learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher

education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 26, (8).

Ibarra, R. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher education.

Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Jackson, J. F. L. (2001). A new test for diversity: Retaining African-American

administrators at predominately White institutions. Stering, VA: Stylus

Publications.


Jackson, J. F. L. (2002). Retention of African American administrators at predominately

White institutions: Using professional growth factors to inform the discussion.

College and University, 78(2), 11-16.

Jackson, J. F. L. (2003). Toward administrative diversity: An analysis of the African

American male educational pipeline. The Journal of Men's Studies, 12(1), 43-60.

Jackson, J. F. L., & Flowers, Lamont A. (2003). Retaining African American student

affairs administrators: Voices from the field. College Student Affairs Journal,

22(2), 125-136.

Jackson, J. F. L. (2004). A crisis at the top: A national perspective. Journal of Negro

Education, 73(1), 1.

Jackson, R. L., III, & Crawley, R. L. (2003). White student confessions about a Black

male professor: A cultural contracts theory approach to intimate conversations

about race and worldview. Journal of Men's Studies, 12, 25-41.

James, J., & Farmer, R. (1993). Spirit, space & survival: African American women in

White academe. New York: Routledge.

Jencks, C., Bartlett, S., Corcoran, M., & Dunanc, G. J. (1979). Who gets ahead? The

determinants of economic success in America. New York: Basic Books.

Jones, D. (2000). Developing intercultural communication competence for leadership.

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Jones, L. G. (1997). Preventing lawsuits: the role of institutional research. New Directions

for Institutional Research, 96.

Jordan, V. E. (1988). Blacks and higher education: Some reflections. Daedalus, 117(3),

273-281.


Judson, H. A. (1999). Grass roots and glass ceilings: African American administrators in

predominantly White colleges and universities: New York: SUNY Press.

Kahlenberg, R. (2004). America's untapped resource: Low-income students in higher

education. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kerr, C. (1986). The many lives of academic presidents: Time, place & character.

Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Killian, J. R. (1985). The education of a college president: A memoir. Cambridge, Mass.:

MIT Press.

Koch, J. L. F. J. V. (2004). The entrepreneurial college president. Westport, CT: Praeger

Publishers.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown

Publishers.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leckie, S. (2004). Why historians need well-crafted bibliographies more than ever.

Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

Lee, J. C. (1995). Navigating the topology of race. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller,

& K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the

movement (pp. 441-448). New York: New York Press.

Leon, D. J., Dougherty, K. A., & Maitland, C. (1997). Mentoring minorities in higher

education: Passing the torch. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.


Lewin, R., & Birute, R. (2001). Paradoxical leadership. New York: Texere LLC.

MacDonald, D. (1963). Our invisible poor. The New Yorker, January 1963(48), 82-132.

MacLeod, J. (1995). Ain't no makin' it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income

neighborhood. Boulder: Westview Press.

Madison-Colmore, O., & Moore, J. L., III. (2002). Using the H.I.S. model in counseling

African American men. Journal of Men's Studies, 10, 197-208.

Maerriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Majors, R., & Billson, J. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of Black manhood in America.

New York: Touchstone.

Mann, H. (1867). Lectures and annual reports. Cambridge, MA: Author.

Marsh, D. (2003). Leadership for policy change: Strengthening communities of color

through leadership development. Policy Link.

Massey, D. (2003). The source of the river: The social origins of freshman at America's

selective colleges and universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Massey, D., Condran, G. A., & Denton, N. A. (1987). The effect of residential segregation

on Black social and economic well-being. Social Forces, 66, 29-57.

Massey, D., & Denton, N. A. (1985). Spatial assimilation as a socioeconomic process.

American Sociological Review, 50, 94-105.

Mayes, B. E. (1987). Born to rebel: An autobiography. Athens: University of Georgia

Press.

Mayes, B. E. (2002). Dr. Benjamin E. Mayes speaks: Representative speeches of a great

American orator. Lanham, MD.: University Press of America.


Mayhew, L. B. (1971). Emerging concepts of the presidency. The Journal of Higher

Education, 42(5), 352-367.

McAdam, J. (1992). Summary of title IV provisions of the conference agreement on The

Higher Education Amendments Act of 1992. Washington, D.C.: The McAdam

Group.

McKinley, R. I. (1997). Mordecai: The man and his message...Mordecai Wyatt Mr.

Barkerson [President of Howard 1926-1960]. Washington, D.C.: Howard

University Press.

McLaren, P. (1991). White reign: Deploying whiteness in America. New York, NY: St.

Martin's Press.

McLaughlin, J. B. (1990). Choosing a college president: Opportunities and constraints.

Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

McLaughlin, J. B. (1996). Leadership transitions: The new college president (Vol. 93).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McLaughlin, J. B. (2004). Leadership amid controversy: Presidential perspectives (Vol.

128). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McMahan, E., & Kim Lacy Rodgers, (1994). Interactive oral history interviewing.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

McMillen, L. (1986). Presidential search committees advised to tap candidates actively

through informal contacts. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 31(January 22,

1986), 19+.

McWhorter, J. (2000). Losing the race: Self-sabotage in Black America. New York: Free

Press.


McWhorter, J. (2003). Who should get into college? City Journal, Spring 2003(13.2)

McWhorter, J. (2003). Authentically Black: Essays for the Black silent majority. New

York: Gotham Books.

Medhurst, M. J. (1996). Beyond the rhetorical presidency. College Station: Texas A&M

University Press.

Meier, K., Stewart, J., & England, R. (1998). Race, class and education: Politics of

second generation discrimination. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2004). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new

methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miller, M. T., & Creswell, J. W. (1998). Beliefs and values of women in community

college leadership. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(3),

229-237.

Miller, S. L. (1995). American imperative: Accelerating Minority Educational

Advancement. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Moody, J. (2004). Faculty diversity: Problems and solutions. New York, NY:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Moore, J. L., III. (2003). Counseling African American men back to health. Herndon, VA:

Stylus.

Moore, J. L., III, Flowers, L. A., Zhang, Y., & Staten, D. L. (2004). Investigating non-

persistent African American male students' experiences in engineering:

Implications for academic success. National Association of Student Affairs

Professionals Journal, 7, 105-120.


Moore, J. L., III, & Herndon, M. K. (2003). Guest editorial. Journal of Men's Studies, 12,

1-2.

Moore, J. L., III, Madison-Colmore, O., & Smith, D. M. (2003). The prove-them-wrong

syndrome: Voices from unheard African American males in engineering

disciplines. Journal of Men's Studies, 12, 61-73.

Mortenson, T. (2002). Fact sheet: what's wrong with the guys? Excerpted data from

Postsecondary Education Opportunity, November 2002.

Murphy, M. K. (1997). The advancement president and the academy: Profiles in

institutional leadership. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press.

Nason, J. W. (1980). Presidential search: A guide to the process of selecting & appointing

college & university presidents. Washington, DC. Association of Governing

Boards of Universities & Colleges.

Nelms, C. (1999). From cotton picker to university CEO. In W. B. Harvey (Ed.), Grass

roots and glass ceilings: African American administrators in predominantly White

colleges and universities (pp. 39-56). New York: SUNY Press.

Nelson, S. J. (2000). Leaders in the crucible: The moral voice of college presidents.

Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.

Neumann, A. (1990). Making mistakes: Error and learning in the college presidency.

Journal of Higher Education, 61(4), 386-407.

Nettles, M. T. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore: Mr. Barkers


Nidiffer, J. (2000). Pioneering deans of women: More than wise and pious matrons. New

York: Teachers College Press.


Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of

environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African

American males. Urban Education, 38, 431-459.

NSOPF. (2002). 1999 National study of postsecondary faculty. Washington, DC: Author.

Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural

perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Minority responses and school experiences. The Journal of

Psychohistory, 18, 433-456.

Olscamp, P. J. (2003). Moral leadership: Ethics and the college presidency. New York:

Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Inc.

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to

the 1990s (2 ed.): New York: Routledge.

Opp, R. D., & Gosetti, P. P. (2002). Equity for women administrators of color in 2-year

colleges: Progress and prospects. Community College Journal of Research and

Practice, 26, 591-608.

Oral History Association. (2000). Oral history evaluation guidelines: 2000. Retrieved

May 15, 2007, from http://omega.dickinson.edu/organizations/oha/pub_eg.html.

Orfield, G. (1993). The growth of segregation in American schools: Changing patterns of

separation and poverty since 1968. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards

Association.

Orfield, G. (2004). Dropout in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.


Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. E. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of

Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press.

Padilla, A. (2005). Portraits in leadership: Six extraordinary university presidents.

Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Poussaint, A. (1974). The Black administrator in the White university. The Black Scholar,

6(1), 8-14.

Parham, T. A., & McDavis, R. J. (1987). Black men, an endangered species: Who's really

pulling the trigger? Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 24-27.

Parke, C. (1996). Biography: Writing lives. New York, New York: Twayne Publishers.

Parker, K. (2003). Achieving diversity in graduate education: Impact of the Ronald E.

McNair Post baccalaureate Achievement Program. Negro Educational Review,

Ja/Ap. 2003.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Paul, F. (2005). A presidential perk that rankles professors. The Chronicle of Higher

Education, 51(36).

Penney, S. H. (1996). Five challenges for academic leaders in the 21st century. The

Educational Record, Spring/Summer, 123-142.

Perry, R. H. (2003). When times call for an interim president. Trusteeship, 11(2), 29-32.

Perry, R. H., & Koenig, A. K. (1998). Go the extra mile in a presidential search.

Trusteeship, 6(4), 20-23.


Polite, V. C., & Davis, J. E. (1999). African American males in school and society:

Practices & policies for effective education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Portelli, A. (1998). What makes oral history different? New York, New York: Routledge

Press.

Poston, M. E. (1997). Presidential search committee checklist. Academe,

83(September/October 1997), 2-30.

Poussaint, A. F. (1974). The Black administrator in the white university. The Black

Scholar, 6(September), 8-14.

Prator, R. (1963). The college president. Washington: Center for Applied Research in

Education.

Quezada, R. L., & Louque, A. (2004). The absence of diversity in the academy: Faculty of

color in educational administration programs. Education, 125(2), 213-221.

Rainsford, G. N. (1972). Congress and higher education in the nineteenth century.

Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Ravlin, A. M. (1961). The role of the federal government in financing higher education.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Ribeau, S. A., Baldwin, J. R., & Hecht, M. L. (2000). An African American

communication perspective. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural

communication: A reader (9th ed., 128-136). Belmont: CA: Wadsorth Publishing

Company.

Ripley, R. B., & Franklin, G. A. (1991). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public-policy

(Rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.


Ripley, R. B. (1987). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy (4th ed). Chicago, Ill.:

Dorsey Press.

Ritchie, D. A. (1995). Doing oral history. New York Maxwell Macmilliam International.

Roach, R., & Brown, L. M. (2001). A presidential class matriculates. Black Issues in

Higher Education, 18(9),18-21.

Robinson, D. P. (1996). Black college and university presidents at predominately White

four-year institutions: Factors which hinder and facilitate advancement. Marquette

University.

Roadblocks on the Road to Diversity. (2002). Trusteeship, 10(3) 13-18.

Rolle, K. A., Davies, T. G., & Bannings, J. H. (2000). African American administrators

experiences in predominately White colleges and universities. Community College

Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 79-97.

Roscigno, V. J. & Ainsworth – Darnell, J. W. (1999). Race and culture / educational

resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education,

77, 158-178.

Rosenzweig, R. M. (1998). The political university: Policy, politics, and presidential

leadership in the American research university. Baltimore, MD: Mr. Barkers


Ross, M. (2000). The American college president. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education.

Rosser, J. M. (1990). The role of the university president in realizing the multicultural

university. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(2), 223-231.


Schuman, D. (1982). Policy analysis, education, and everyday life. Lexington, MA:

Heath.

Seidman, I. (2006) Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences (3rd ed). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sheldon, A., & Pappworth, J. (1983). By word of mouth: "a elite" oral history. London;

New York: Methuen.

Shaw, K. A. (1999). The successful president: "Buzzwords" on leadership. Phoenix, Ariz.:

Oryx Press.

Schultz, T. W. (1963). The economic value of education. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Schuman, D. (1982). Policy analysis, education, and everyday life. Lexington, MA:

Heath.

Simon, P. (1985). Education cuts don't heal. National Association of Secondary School

Principles, New Orleans, LA (Jan. 25, 1985).

Simon, P. (1994). We can do better: How to save America’s future--An open letter to

president Clinton. Bethesda, MD: National Press Books.

Simon, P. (2003). Our culture of pandering. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University

Press.

Sommer, B. W., & Quilan, M. (2002). The oral history manual California: Alta Mira

Press (AASLH).

Sontz, A. H. L. (1991). The American college president, 1636-1989: Greenwood.

Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and

performance. American Psychologists, 52, 613-629.


Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the

self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 261-

302). New York: Academic Press.

Steele, C. M. (1999). Thin ice: 'Stereotype threat' and Black college students. The Atlantic

Monthly, 284 (2), 44-47,50-54.

Stricklin, D., & Sharpless, R. (1988). The past meets the present: Essays on oral history.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Swail, W. S. (2002). Retaining minority students in higher education. Educational Policy

Institute.

Swindler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological

Review, 51, 273-286.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And

other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

Thompson, P. (1998). The voice of the past: oral history. York, New York: Routledge

Press.

Thwing, C. F. (1926). The college president: The McMillan Company.

Tierney, W. G. (1988). The web of leadership: The presidency in higher education.

Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition

(2nd edition ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tucker, C. H. (1980). The cycle, dilemma, and expectations of the Black administrator.

Journal of Black Studies, 10(3), 311-321.


Turner, C. S. V. (1994). Guests in someone else's house: Students of color. The Review of

Higher Education, 17(4), 355-370.

Turner, C. S. V., & Meyers, S. L. (2002). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet

success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Urban, W. J. (1994). Black scholar: Horace Mann Bond. Athens: University of Georgia

Press.

Vaughn, G. B. (1989). Leadership in transition: Community college presidency. New

York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Vaughn, G. B. (2004). Diversify the presidency. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

51(10), B.14.

Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ware, F. A. (2003). Managing confidentiality in an Academic presidential search.

Advancement Management Journal, 68(3), 5-30.

Wessel, R. D., & Keim, M. C. (1994). Career patterns of private four-year college and

university presidents in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 65(2),

211-225.

Will, S. L. (1990). The pursuit of race and gender equity in American academe. N.Y.:

Praeger.

Williams, A. (1989). Research of Black women college administrators: Descriptive and

interview data. Sex Roles, 21, 99-112.

Williams, C. G. (1997). Role models and mentors for young black administrators, faculty,

and students at predominately white campuses. In Recruitment, retention and


affirmative action: Policy, practice & assessment. College Park: Trotter Institute,

University of Maryland.

Wilson, R. (1989). Women of color in academic administration: Trends, progress, and

barriers. Sex Roles, 21, 85-97.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantage: The inner city, the underclass, and public

policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolanin, T. R. (2001). Rhetoric and reality: Effects and consequences of the hope

scholarship. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Higher Education Policy, Ford

Foundation, Educational Institute.

X. Malcolm (1992) The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley.

Introduction by M.S. Handler. New York: Ballantine Books.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA:

Sage.

Yow, V. (1997). "Do I Like Them Too Much? Effects of the Oral History Interview on the

Interviewer and Vice-versa.” Oral History Review, 24 (no.1), 55-79.


Appendix A

President (Insert Name), I am the new Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Education at the University of Miami and a PhD candidate from the University of Rochester. I was referred to you by President Crutcher, who believed that you would be an ideal subject for my doctoral dissertation study, entitled “African American Male College and University Presidents of Predominantly White Four-Year Institutions: A Biographical Examination.” I will be interviewing three sitting university presidents in an attempt to explain the under representation of African American males in the position of president. My intent is to study the lives of these men in order to ascertain the economic, political, educational, and societal factors that they feel most nurtured or obstructed their inherent abilities and led them successfully to the academic presidency. My other participants are as follows: I would love to have a short conversation with you in order to gauge your willingness to be a participant in my study. The time commitment will be approximately six hours: ideally, three, two-hour interviews -- which will be scheduled over the course of a few days, according to your availability. I have attached a copy of my dissertation proposal abstract and the introduction of my proposal. I understand the time constraints of university presidents and should you agree to participate, I will of course be flexible in working with your schedule. Please let me know if you need any additional information and I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Mr. Barker


Appendix B

Informed Consent for Participation in Social Science Research

I consent to participate in a dissertation project on the effect of the search process

on African American male college and university presidents.

The researcher, Mr. Barker, has explained the purpose of the study, the

procedures to be followed, and the expected duration of my participation. I acknowledge

that I have had the opportunity to obtain additional information regarding the study and

that any questions I have raised have been answered to my full satisfaction. Further, I

understand that I am free to withdraw my consent at any time and to discontinue

participation in the study without prejudice to me.

I have been assured that strict confidentiality will be maintained in all uses of

material collected. Audio taped interviews will be transcribed by the researcher or by a

typist who will also be committed to confidentiality. Pseudonyms will be provided for my

name in all interviews and writing samples. In any situation in which the researcher may

use my material, he will not revel my name, names of people affiliated with me, or the

name of my college, university, or city.

I understand that in addition to the dissertation itself, the researcher may use some

of the material collected from me for journal articles or conference presentations and may

also write a book based on the dissertation. If, in these projects, the researcher wishes to

use any materials in any way not consistent with what is stated above, he will ask me for

additional written consent.

Finally, I acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the consent form,

and I agree to participate in this study under the conditions stated above. I sign it freely

and voluntarily. A copy has been given to me.

Date:__________________________Signed:_____________________________

(Participant)

Signed:_____________________________

(Researcher)


Appendix C Interview One: When did you realize that you wanted to become a university president? When did you think that it was plausible? Can you tell me about your educational and social upbringing? How was your family life? Was there both a personal and family expectation for college? When and how did you decide to continue with your education? How did you come to the decision to stay in higher education and who if anyone did you talk to about that choice? How did you decide to take your first position after graduate school? How and why did you get involved in administration – what led you to administration as a career path? Who were your mentors in your life (K-12, undergraduate, graduate, professional)? Can you tell me what you think the most significant influences in you life have been to lead you to this position? What is your definition and vision of a college president? Did they change before and after your tenure as president? How important were your relationships that you formed with individuals before your interview/search? When did you know you were ready to interview for the job? In the connection between your formal education and your work experience --- how much did they prepare you and how much did they matter? What do you think of search firms?


What were your initial impressions of the search process – before you went through it? And after? How did you prepare (What did you read, what kind of mentoring did you receive, how well did your prior positions prepare you to take the helm of this institution)? Do you agree with Vincent Tinto “it might be just a matter of fit”? If and how were you mentored in preparation for the job?


Appendix D Interview Two: Detailed Account of the Contemporary Context Search What were your initial impressions of the search process – before you went through it? And after? Research would suggest that their needs to be some type of institutional push for diverse candidates to be hired – by either the faculty or trusties? Do you agree with that assessment? How did you prepare (What did you read, what kind of mentoring did you receive, how well did your prior positions prepare you to take the helm of this institution)? In the search process when people used terms such as the following — What do they mean to you and your vision of the presidency? Excellence Clear focus for the academic mission of the university Vision Understanding that every presidential search is different in a proximate sense – what contextual differences do you believe exist between candidates of color – and traditional candidates? What was the most difficult aspect of the search process for you – and what was the most pleasurable? Contemporary Experience What is it like for you to be a university president? If and how were you mentored in preparation for the job? Did you go to the Harvard new presidents meeting? You have a unique perspective being an alum of this institution – how has the racial climate changed from the past to the present? How important is institutional fit to the effectiveness and tenure of a president? How would you describe your relationship with the campus community? The local community? What is the most difficult aspect of your job?


What is the most pleasurable aspect of your job? What are the significant constituencies with which you interact – and how do you manage those dynamics? Research suggests that there are different types of university presidents and different types of managerial styles – Can you describe yourself? How would you describe your relationship with the university’s governing body? To what extent do they help or hinder you? In your opinion, is race a factor shaping interactions between you and your senior administrators (i.e. deans and vice presidents)? Does the construct of race impact your leadership decisions? How are you still connected to your academic field? When issues of diversity are discussed on campus – do you feel that there is a different expectation for you? Is there anything that you would like to talk about or discuss in our last interview? Looking for one last participant? Do you know of any other president who may be interested?


Appendix E Interview Three: What is the typical day like in the life of a president? Yesterday we asked the question what is it like to be a university president? Today we ask, what does it mean to you to be a university president? What does your presidency signify about the present state of American Higher education? Have you ever been tired of being identified as a Black president at a PWI? How do you feel the minority population on campus perceive you? Black students, staff, and faculty? How do the four topics that I am going to list impact your presidency and how have you improved since you first started? Fund raising, Lobbying, Finance Dealing with athletics What areas of the job/or your personal skill set do you still work diligently to improve on? I envisioned this dissertation as a source of information for those young administrators and faculty how might want to move into top level administrative jobs and chart individual presidential career paths but lack the direct mentorship from an African American perspective – So two questions? What are skills/attributes that they may need to learn that can not be articulated/understood from your CV? What would you like to impart to those individuals about navigating the higher education structure? What is it going to take to see an increase in the number of African American males in leadership positions at Research 1 and selective institutions? What do you think are the most pressing issues in American higher education today? How do they impact your university? What else do you want to accomplish during the rest of your tenure? What do you hope to leave as a legacy at your University?

Documents

How African American Males Become Presidents of Four-Year