Many American higher education leaders just want Trump to go away and a friendly Democrat to replace him so they can get back to business as usual — plenty of government funds flowing their way and no interference in their ideological agendas. But there are no doubt some who see that their institutions and the system in general suffering from serious problems and are thinking about change.

For those leaders, Rick Hess has some ideas in today’s Martin Center article.

The shifting landscape poses new challenges and opportunities. It means that reform-minded college leaders must rely more on their own devices but also that those who master the (small-“p”) politics may find new openings and potential allies.

The shifting landscape poses new challenges and opportunities. It means that reform-minded college leaders must rely more on their own devices but also that those who master the (small-“p”) politics may find new openings and potential allies.

One suggestion Hess has is to listen to critics rather than dismissing their points of view. Is faculty politicization a reality? Don’t blow off those who say it is. And it’s important to rebuild trust. That means working with people “on the other side.”

Another challenge is the faculty. Hess observes:

The most striking conversations I’ve had over the past year have been with campus leaders wondering why faculty aren’t more invested in efforts to tackle problems on campus. The answer? It’s because, professionally speaking, university faculty tend to identify as members of a dispersed disciplinary community much more than as members of their home campuses (although things are often different at boutique liberal-arts colleges or teaching-oriented institutions). Faculty know that it’s their disciplinary peers who decide which work is published or funded, who gets short-listed for good jobs, and who stands where in the academic pecking order. This is why campus leaders run headlong into faculty apathy or resistance.

The most striking conversations I’ve had over the past year have been with campus leaders wondering why faculty aren’t more invested in efforts to tackle problems on campus. The answer? It’s because, professionally speaking, university faculty tend to identify as members of a dispersed disciplinary community much more than as members of their home campuses (although things are often different at boutique liberal-arts colleges or teaching-oriented institutions). Faculty know that it’s their disciplinary peers who decide which work is published or funded, who gets short-listed for good jobs, and who stands where in the academic pecking order. This is why campus leaders run headlong into faculty apathy or resistance.

Hess also points out that change won’t happen unless and until key actors have an incentive for change.

© National Review