the world are located in the United States" ( 1990, p. 29). But if U.S.
colleges and universities are the best in the world, why do so many
observers detect decreasing public support and trust?

There are two important possibilities: First, the university has
become like any other business enterprise in the way it conducts and
presents itself, losing in the process the special favor bestowed upon
it by a respectful public. Second, the university presidency has been
transformed in large part from an academic to a public relations
position. These changes did not happen overnight, and they will not
be reversed quickly.

The enormous number of books and articles crowding our offices
and libraries (see, for example, the reference section at the end of this
chapter) that detail higher education's perceived ills and offer
prescriptive remedies for leadership, management, and planning
suggest my point of view is not only simple-minded, but naive (and
perhaps elitist). My defense is twofold: simple answers are often the
best, and I am not so naive as to suggest either that universities
abandon sound business principles or that presidents eschew skillful
management and public relations practices in favor of the pure and
narrow (that is, academics alone).

My point is simply that, as universities have become increasingly
industrialized in outlook and operation, they slowly have given up
what has served them well: the aura of integrity and special high
purpose. Higher education must learn what televised religion has
lately discovered about the consequences of altering public perception
of mission and character.

Of course university leaders must manage their institutions
properly. But they must also lead. Balancing the budget is essential,
but so too is determining what that budget should support. It is not
enough to insure institutional survival. The institution must stand
for something. In order to appreciate what the institution can be-
come, presidents must be of the university as well as for the uni-
versity ( Rosovsky's fourth principle to ensure reliable performance in
university governance is "those with knowledge are entitled to a
greater say" [ 1990, p. 269]). Therefore, the currently fashionable mod-
el of the external president surrendering meaningful academic in-
volvement to the provost or vice president for academic affairs (who,
in effect, becomes the internal president) should be discarded. Presi-
dents must not abandon the academic arena in favor of the larger,
public arena; they must, instead, bring the two arenas together. No
one else can. As one president of a large university wrote: "Being able
to communicate the academic enterprise to the outside world is a
very fundamental responsibility of the president. Moreover, being
able to interpret to the faculty the needs and trends of the larger
society is also a very key role." Some faculty and presidents will
consider this bad or useless advice. Others will consider it obvious.

-4-