HBCUs and the Problem of Leadership Selection

Perhaps more so than any other time in their history, Black colleges need visionary leaders who understand and are committed to the dual role of HBCUs as institutions of higher education and as critical agents in the struggle for racial equality. Leaders with such an understanding would work to create an academic and intellectual environment conducive to the development of curriculums that would give students not only technical skills required to negotiate the job market and climb career ladders but also a critical understanding of the reality of power and racial domination, both domestically and internationally. The leadership selection process for most HBCUS does not elevate persons so inclined. Rather than selecting leaders who are immersed in the history and culture of Black education and the role of HBCUs as critical agencies in the struggle for racial equality trustees seem to move in the opposite direction. Candidates who have had only limited connections to Black higher education or those who may have had some connection but who believe that Black colleges should only aspire to be swarthy versions of idealized majority white institutions seem to be favored in presidential sweepstakes.

The fact that presidential candidates have no or only limited experience in Black higher education seems to enhance their qualifications to direct HBCUs. Frequently the new presidents come to the job with little respect for those already at the institutions and proceed to fill critical positions such as provost and vice president for academic affairs with persons who share their limited exposure to and understanding of the history and culture of the institutions over which they rule.

This results in presidents who pontificate about the special role of Black colleges in serving those who have been disadvantaged by the existing system without developing any particular plan or program or allocating significant resources to insure that Black colleges perform this special role.

Indeed some may argue that the governing boards themselves are part of the leadership problem. In some instances where state supported HBCUs have their own governing boards, as is the case with institutions such as Southern University, Alabama A & M, Texas Southern University and others, all too often board positions are political plums used by dominant political forces (usually white ones) to reward their supporters and pay off political debts. Accordingly, board membership may change in tandem with change in the governor’s mansion. This has resulted in boards populated by persons are who are ill equipped to offer the broad oversight and guidance expected of trustees. Rather then offering such oversight, board members come with narrow personal and political agenda and interpose themselves in the minutiae of university business. As one wag observed, under such circumstances everything becomes a matter of board policy, from hiring secretaries to allocating seats in the sky boxes at football games. It is said that at least one president lost his job because he resisted efforts of board members to involve themselves in scheduling football games.

The quality of leadership exercised by governing boards over HBCUs that are part of state-wide or regional systems is equally problematic. The criteria used to identify candidates for the presidency are not transparent but there are ample reasons to believe that criteria used in the selection of HBCU presidents are not the same as those used at other institutions in their respective systems. And once a president has been selected governing boards are much more indulgent of bizarre presidential performance and behavior than they might be at other state supported institutions. I am aware of numerous instances when faculty and other stakeholders have presented such boards with compelling evidence of indefensibly unacceptable presidential behavior only to be ignored by the board.

Thus the selection of HBCU presidents is a critically important function crying out for serious analysis and investigation. In my forty years of service to these institutions I have observed sufficient anecdotal evidence to suggest that it may be the primary problem to be confronted. For example, a few years ago a major land grant HBCU selected its new president from a list of three finalists all of whom had been let go by their most recent employer. After three tumultuous years, the new president was fired from his new job for cause. But as I write this (April 2010), this same often-fired individual has surfaced as one of three finalists in a search for a chancellor at another prestigious HBCU land grant institution.

It appears that university search committees increasingly rely on the assistance of a few executive search firms to identify candidates. Apparently a core group of candidates routinely apply for all openings and their names are recycled from search to search. University search committees make little or no effort to conduct their own vetting but are content to rely on data provided by the search firm and the candidates performance at the job interview session. As a consequence they are surprised when the performance their new president turns out to be substandard when even a cursory Google search would have forewarned them.

Returning to the issue of presidential performance and leadership, HBCU presidents are quick to take credit for admitting youngsters who otherwise might be denied access to college and turning them into competitive polished graduates. However, except for having virtual open admission policies, few systemic initiatives are undertaken at the level of top academic leadership to insure the desired outcome. No critical systematic assessment is made of the preparedness of the students and little is done to insure the appropriateness of the various curriculums for the student population being served. Departments and individual faculty members are left to devise ad hoc methods to try to produce competitive graduates. In this vacuum occasioned by inept academic leadership some faculty respond by simply reducing the rigor of their courses in order to accommodate the perceived academic deficiencies of their students while others teach at what they believe to be the appropriate level for college instruction and routinely fail as much as half of their students. The disproportionately high failure rate is then offered as a sign of their commitment to rigor and excellence.

To be sure there are many departments and scores of faculty members who have developed their own systems for helping students overcome their prior deficiencies and leaving as competitive graduates, but they do so in spite of rather than because of top level leadership at their institutions.

If HBCUs are to continue to admit students with demonstrated deficiencies, and I think they must, academic leadership at the top level in conjunction with the faculty should mandate the development of a plan and curriculums designed to address the problem. Given the myriad duties incumbent on presidents, giving the academic vice president or provost responsibility for insuring that such systems are developed and implemented would be a logical thing to do. There is no readily available evidence, however, that this has been done.

Moreover, the selection of chief academic officers is also a matter of concern. The leadership ascension process does not favor the elevation of persons who have been immersed in Black higher education and who are, therefore, in a position to lead efforts to enhance the quality of education made available to our students. Indeed the problems attendant to the selection of presidents may be even more acute at the level of the selection of chief academic officers.