make money in administrative posts.rnAt private schools, boards of trusteesrnhold the actual reins of power and —ifrnthey exercised them sufficiently—couldrninstall presidents and administrationsrncommitted to better education. Thoughrntrustees have behaved less responsibly atrnthe institutions I know, they have done sornnot because they hunger to be like facult)’.rnRather, they have turned down legitimaternpower because of a lack of moralrninterest, abdicating their rule in favor ofrnthose imsuited for the work of runningrneducahonal institutions. Trustees havernalso picked presidents who shun criticalrndecisions and who hide their lack ofrnleadership behind therapeutic gibberishrnand bureaucratic process. Almost allrncollege presidents of my acquaintancernfit this unhappy description. But therernwas an age of highly activist presidents.rnThough not all of them acted in arnway we might approve, one might dornwell by trading today’s typical collegernpresidents for leaders like Robert MaynardrnHutchins, Charles Eliot, NicholasrnMurray Butler, and James B. Conant.rnAll of these presumed autocrats enhancedrnlearning at their institutions andrnacted from an ethic of responsibility.rnUnfortunately, the problems that confrontrntoday’s academic institutions gornwell beyond anything Hutchins or Conantrncould have imagined. Many collegesrnare more like resort hotels thanrnplaces of learning. Others have been disfiguredrnby the triumph of victimologyrnand irrationality, and by weak-kneed administratorsrngoing with the flow.rnOrdinary leadership is not enough.rnThis situation calls for what Carl Schmittrncharacterized as “provisional dictatorship,”rnthe suspension of quotidian procedurernand the delegation of extraordinaryrnpowers to those able to make universitiesrnrun properly. Universities have a fixedrnfunction: to transmit an agreed-uponrnbody of learning and the tools for analyticrnthinking. Schools which subordinaternthese tasks to sensitivity to kinky lifestylesrnand self-esteem for the incompetent arernnot academic institutions but enclaves ofrnemotionally crippled individuals or crassrnrecruiters of lazy adolescents.rnColleges and universities can only bernbrought back to an academic mission byrnhaving one imposed from above. Thisrnwill often require unapologetic authoritarianrnrule by those enjoying the supportrnof their superiors, and admirable indifferencerntoward faculh’ grumbling and thernoutbursts of the American Association ofrnUniversit}’ Professors.rnAs a young professor, I had the pleasurernof working for John Howard, formerrnpresident of Rockford College and thernfounder of The Rockford Institute. Descendantrnof an illustrious Midwesternrnfamily and a man of considerable financialrnand moral resoiuces, Howard ranrnthe college as a dutiful autocrat. Hernhired outstanding young scholars torngrace his departments, built an entirelyrnnew campus without incurring debt, andrngave back his salary each year to underscorernthe purit)’ of his service. His stiffrnMethodist manner offended the politicallyrnfashionable but contributed to hisrnreputation of incorruptibility. Howard’srnsuccessor, who began as a darling of thernfaculty, spent millions of dollars onrngrandiose projects (as well as on his ownrnlifestv’le) before dilatory trustees finallyrngot rid of him. He left the college disastrouslyrnin debt and having to sell most ofrnits property to stay open. But as a generousrnpartygiver and the husband of a selfdeclaredrnfeminist, he remained popularrnamong the facultv’ until his fall.rnAs a sociological generalization admittingrnexceptions, it may be argued that thernbest college and university presidentsrnhave been educated nonacademicians —rnor marginal members of the professoriaternwithout its dominant social attitudes.rnBourgeois patricians have been particularlyrnhonest and effective leaders, but ascendingrnfrom the faeult)’ is not a hopelessrnobstacle for academic leadership, asrnlong as the leader has an independentrnsense of social worth and a critical viewrnof his subordinates. The least desirablernsituation is that he feel dependent onrnthem politically or emotionally. One infersrnfrom Lieberman’s works on unionizedrn”education” that more than materialrninterests unites his subjects and allowsrnthem to adulterate their products whilernremaining morally arrogant. They sharernan esprit de corps derived from their inflatedrnstatus, one that cannot be shakenrneven when its bearers reduce instructionrnto feel-good pabulum and restructurerntheir personalities to fit student evaluations.rnIt is therefore imperative that thosernwho seek to reform their activities neitherrnthink like them nor crave their approval.rnOnly then can provisional dictatorsrnsave college faculties from their allrntoo apparent lower natures.rnPaul Gottfried is a professor of humanitiesrnat Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown,rnPennsylvania.rnWhy EvangelicalrnColleges Aren’trnby Douglas WilsonrnTwo separate educational movementsrnexist within the evangelicalrnworld, one old and one new, and they arernclearly on a collision course. One thingrndoes lead to another, and he who says Arnmust say B. The widespread parentalrnchallenge to the tax-financed secularismrnof the government school system is byrnnow common knowledge. By the thousands,rnparents are saying, “Not with myrnkid, you don’t,” and have enrolled theirrnchildren in private academies, have startedrnto homeschool, have taken advantagernof tutorial services, and so forth. However,rnthis growing challenge to secular educationrnwill have some ramificationsrnin the years to come, ramifications forrnwhich established evangelical collegesrnare singularly unprepared. The reasonsrnfor this are legion, but all reduce to thernembarrassing fact that there is far toornmuch “jelly” in “evangelical.”rnParents are not about to spend yearsrnsacrificing themselves to provide a privaternChristian education, only to give itrnall away when an “evangelical” collegernoffers to undo all they accomplished inrnthe previous 12 years. A graduate of anrnevangelical establishment like Wlieatonrnhas a far better chance of receiving arndiploma in trendy leftism than his counterpartrndown the road at Leviathan StaternU. Colleges like Westmont, Cordon,rnand Bethel all have a fine reputationrnto uphold; unfortunately, upholding itrnthese days can mean schmoozing it uprnwith the spirit of the age. And even whenrnnothing overfly objectionable is done asrna result, the college has to remain blandrnenough not to cross accrediting agenciesrnwith anything like a distinctively Christianrnview of the world. Brer evangelical,rnhe lay low.rnBut studied neutrality is impossible,rnand obnoxious examples are croppingrnup more and more frequently, in fulfillmentrnof a collegial application of therndictum that a man who doesn’t standrnfor something will fall for anything.rnWe now find the Zeitgeist appearingrnin raunchy requirements for classes,rn”revivals” that resemble group therapyrnconfessionals, and urbane professorialrnmuddling about with postmodern relativism.rnAt Leviathan U, the Christian studentsrnSEPTEMBER 1998/47rnrnrn