In ‘Fait Accompli,’ Chancellor Nancy Cantor is quoted as saying she doesn’t understand various matters debated on campus. Perhaps I can help. Her puzzlements concern perceptions of her responses to criticism, fear of retaliation and why the 2007 hearing case is still discussed.

Cantor’s supporters, and those who wish to appear as such, could applaud her accomplishments on the merits. They do her no service with impulsive outpourings easily refuted. Online commentators wrote, ‘Where are the voices in this article that are supportive of Cantor’s leadership? ….This article….does to supporters exactly what the detractors claim Cantor is doing to them – silencing their perspectives.’ And ‘This piece is essentially an opinionated piece, since there’s only one viewpoint expressed.’ Yet the articles identify 44 initiatives by Cantor and quote many supporters, including Diane Murphy, Kal Alston and Mary Lovely. Such online commentators are not persuasive but silly. Similarly, a comment complains, ‘They manage to focus exclusively on her temperament’ when they are clearly about the consequences for academic quality of Cantor’s leadership.

Cantor sees her critics as ‘a handful of outspoken male faculty members’ discontent with their loss of power. I’m an outspoken male faculty member who neither has nor wants any power. Quoted critics such as Deborah Pellow, Brenda Wrigley and Jaklin Kornfilt, like nearly all the rest of us, support Cantor’s basic objectives but are not content with a management style that pursues her goals with toxic consequences.

We investigate the hearing case from 2007 because we do not believe what the administration said about it. We discuss the departures of Potter, Wells and others because we do not trust in the integrity of the administration’s personnel practices. We know how easy it is to obtain the consultant’s reports one wants and hide behind the confidentiality of personnel matters. We discuss intolerance of critics because we have seen or experienced many examples of critics being treated disrespectfully. We speak of retaliation because we have seen actions by the chancellor that have themselves been described by major donors as, to use Cantor’s own words, ‘a personal vendetta.’ These are the points Cantor says she does not understand. I believe her.

But failure to understand can be culpable. In law, medicine, military and business, leaders have a positive obligation both to know and understand. The ability to hear, empathize with and respect critics and dissenters is crucial to excellent leadership. What is most ominous about Cantor’s puzzlements is that she does not understand how serious it is she does not understand.

Sam Gorovitz
Professor of philosophy