Iconic Leaders in Higher Education

Roger L. Geiger

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351513937
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Iconic leaders are those who have become symbols of their institutions. This volume of historical studies portrays a collection of college and university presidents who acquired iconic qualities that transcend mere identification with their institution.The volume begins with Roger L. Geiger's observation that creating and controlling one's image requires managing publicity. Andrea Turpin describes how Mount Holyoke Seminar's evolution into a modern women's college required reshaping the image of Mary Lyon, its founder. Roger L. Geiger and Nathan M. Sorber show how College of Philadelphia provost William Smith's partisan politics and patronage tainted the college he symbolized. Joby Topper reveals how presidents Seth Low of Columbia and Francis Patton of Princeton mastered the modern art of publicity.Katherine Chaddock explains how John Erskine the Columbia University English professor responsible for the first Great Books program and his unusual career inverted the normal route to iconic status. In contrast, Christian Anderson's analysis of John G. Bowman, chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, shows how he substituted architectural vision for academic leadership. James Capshew explores the background that made Herman Wells a revered leader of Indiana University. Nancy Diamond details how building Brandeis University involved a challenging series of decisions successfully navigated by founding president Abram Sachar. Finally, Ethan Schrum depicts how Clark Kerr's controversial understanding of the role of contemporary universities was formed by his earlier career in industrial relations. This study of iconic leaders probes new dimensions of leadership and the construction of institutional images.

College Presidents, Public Image, and the Popular Press: A Comparative Study of Francis L. Patton of Princeton and Seth Low of Columbia, 1888–1902

Joby Topper

Presidents Seth Low of Columbia and Francis Patton of Princeton have been neglected figures, but this study reveals how each advanced his institution by mastering the modern art of publicity. They channeled much of their publicity effort into three topics of the time that captured the interest of the public and the mass media—large-scale philanthropy for higher education; intercollegiate sports; and the popular demand for professional and technical education. Their attention to public relations helped guide Princeton and Columbia through the 1890s, a critical period in the evolution of the college and university.

Introduction

In his inaugural address at Harvard in 1869, President Charles W. Eliot described the successful college president as one who ensures that his or her university adapts to “significant changes in the character of the people for whom it exists” and who seizes opportunities to “influence public opinion toward the advancement of learning.”¹ By 1890, the old endowed colleges of the East whose leaders had ignored Eliot’s advice seemed aloof and hide-bound compared to state-supported universities like Cornell and Michigan, which reputedly were meeting the industrial, professional, and technical needs of modern America. With a growing public preoccupation with higher education, it was crucial for leaders of such colleges as Princeton and Columbia to modify their missions and to make their efforts known to potential students, alumni donors, and the general public.

Perspectives on the History of Higher Education 28 (2011): 63-114

©2011. ISBN: 978-1-4128-1859-9

This paper compares how presidents Francis L. Patton of Princeton (1888–1902) and Seth Low of Columbia (1889–1901) used the popular press during the 1890s to bolster the public images of their institutions. Patton’s and Low’s appearances in the press strongly suggest that both men perceived the symbolic importance of the office to the reputation of the college; in the public forum, the president was the institution’s face and voice.

Patton’s and Low’s predecessors—James McCosh at Princeton and Frederick A. P. Barnard at Columbia—orchestrated substantial reforms but failed to clearly and consistently inform the public of their progress.² Thus, by the time of McCosh’s retirement in 1888 and Barnard’s death in 1889, both Princeton and Columbia were still saddled with reputations for conservatism and parochialism that they did not entirely deserve.³ Princeton was most widely known for its football team and by the well-publicized debates in 1885 and 1886 between McCosh and Eliot on the elective system and moral oversight in higher education. McCosh’s defense of the traditional curriculum and religious education brought him acclaim both inside and outside of Princeton; but, perhaps unintentionally, he had made himself and Princeton seem much more conservative than they truly were. In reality, well before the public debates with Eliot, McCosh had introduced progressive reforms at Princeton to meet the growing public demand for the applied sciences and, though not to the same extent as Harvard, for electives as well. As for Columbia, it was perceived as “a rich old institution, much behind the times, which neither deserved nor desired any assistance from the city or the city’s residents”⁴ —despite the fact that Barnard had initiated organizational and curricular changes to make Columbia more inviting and inclusive. By the early 1880s, he had even convinced the trustees and faculty to add electives to what had been a fully prescribed curriculum.⁵

Their successors, Patton and Low, represent a transitional phase in university leadership and university public relations. Of the biographers and historians who have paid any considerable attention to Patton or Low, Gerald Kurland, Robert A. McCaughey, Bruce Leslie, and Daniel A. Clark provide the best clues for understanding their public persona. Kurland, Low’s principal biographer, mentions that, under Low, “Columbia acquired a brighter reputation and was brought into closer touch with the community.” Low, says Kurland, convinced New York’s wealthy businessmen “that Columbia was worthy of support”—but he provides few details to explain how Low managed to do so.⁶ McCaughey credits Low for implementing and expanding Barnard’s university plans and for enhancing Columbia’s scholarly reputation.⁷ Leslie notes Patton’s enthusiastic support for intercollegiate athletics and his concern for alumni opinion, and thus implicitly calls into question the prevailing notion that Patton was simply an uncompromising Calvinist who paid little attention to the opinions of constituents or of the general educated public.⁸ Clark refers to Patton’s article, “Should a Business Man Have a College Education?” in which Patton sought to dismantle the public’s image of the college man as “elite, effeminate, and idle” and replace it with the image of a hard-working, self-reliant, and sophisticated man of affairs. But this is Patton’s only appearance in Clark’s work.⁹ Besides Clark, no one else has explored the role of public relations in Low’s or Patton’s stewardship of their institutions through a period of rapid change.

Patton and Low channeled much of their publicity effort into three topics of the time that captured the interest of the public and the mass media—large-scale philanthropy for higher education; intercollegiate sports; and the popular demand for professional and technical education. This paper addresses these three topics in turn.

Philanthropy

Headlines that included the names of America’s great philanthropists— men like Leland Stanford, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller—caught the public’s attention and tended to sell papers. As “captains of industry,” these men were much admired by those who saw in them the achievement of the American dream, living examples of the always-inspiring “rags-to-riches” story. As “robber barons,” on the other hand, these men were despised by those who saw rampant greed, shady business practices, the abuse of power, and sometimes blatant disregard for public opinion.¹⁰ Newspaper and magazine editors knew that, either way, the tycoon-philanthropists were bound to draw a strong emotional response from their readers—business was business.¹¹

By the late-1880s, Carnegie and a number of other American millionaires realized that they looked much better in the public eye when they were giving away their money to build or support recreational parks, public libraries, and institutions of higher education.¹² The much-criticized endowed colleges of the East were similarly in need of image rehabilitation. Thus, the great tycoons and the presidents of such places as Columbia and Princeton needed each other. Sharing the limelight with the rich and famous, presidents could raise their institutions’ public profiles (and, too, their institutions’ wealth), while the tycoons could foster a reputation for kindness and public service. In short, philanthropy—the more spectacular the better—was good publicity for both parties. And in fact, the 1890s saw an unprecedented surge of philanthropy in higher education.¹³

Carnegie crystallized the American philanthropic impulse in two widely read and profoundly influential articles published in The North American Review of June and December 1889: “Wealth” and “The Best Fields for Philanthropy,” known collectively as “The Gospel of Wealth.”¹⁴ In sum, he argued that entrepreneurs should accumulate massive amounts of capital (free of government interference), invest it wisely, and then, during their lifetimes, return their fortunes to the American people in the form of parks, art galleries, libraries, and, above all, colleges and universities. Carnegie believed that the ultimate gesture of philanthropy was to found a university, yet he recognized that “adding to and extending those in existence” would result in comparable benefits to American society.¹⁵

In 1890, John D. Rockefeller put Carnegie’s highest priority—“the founding of a university by men enormously rich”—into practice when he established the University of Chicago. Over the next twenty years, Rockefeller gave a total of $35 million to the University. His faithful financial support and his willingness to leave internal matters to the discretion of the school’s administrators allowed President William Rainey Harper to very quickly develop Chicago into one of the finest institutions in the country.¹⁶

Francis L. Patton at Princeton

When President McCosh retired in 1888, there was much discussion in the Princeton community on what qualities were needed in a successor. The two leading candidates were both on the faculty: Patton, a Presbyterian minister (like McCosh) and professor of ethics, and William M. Sloane, professor of history. Most of the younger faculty believed that Sloane was the more civic-minded of the two and would expand the school’s mission into that of a bona fide University. The Sloane supporters feared that Patton was neither able nor willing to implement the administrative changes and raise the funds to build a University. Ultimately, the trustees chose Patton, who, in March 1888, charmed a skeptical audience of New York alumni with his storytelling skill and lively sense of humor.¹⁷ Referring to his well-known lack of administrative experience, he joked that, if he could grade student exams, then surely he could “understand a balance-sheet.”¹⁸

Patton had won the crowd—and an important crowd it was. The New York alumni were a highly influential group. Several years earlier, on their own initiative, they had completely re-organized and had begun assembling more often at dinners and other formal events, to which Princeton professors were also invited. These events not only extended and strengthened the New York alumni network, but also provided the College with good press, which, in the early-1880s, was perceived as being all too rare for Princeton. “Previous to this,” said one writer for the Nassau Literary Magazine, “the papers had been accustomed to represent the college in a very poor light, seldom saying anything in its favor, and frequently casting slurs upon its reputation.” The writer also claimed that several alumni met with New York newspaper editors and apparently persuaded them to occasionally print some good news about Princeton.¹⁹ The New York alumni sparked similar alumni movements in other cities like Philadelphia and Chicago. In Pittsburgh, alumni distributed copies of the Princeton catalog, the Nassau Literary Magazine, and the Princetonian to private and public schools and libraries. Said the New York Times: “This has been the general principle by which the aggressive work of the college has been accomplished in the last few years, and not only is the means of bringing increased numbers to the educational advantages of the university, but affords many social advantages for men coming from different sections of the country.”²⁰ Thus, Patton’s publicity efforts in the 1890s were facilitated by the work of New York alumni during the late-1880s. Alumni support—and alumni power—would continue to grow throughout Patton’s time in office.²¹

Patton’s first significant gift came from the sister of an alumnus, Susan Dod Brown. In February 1889, she gave $75,000 toward construction of a new dormitory to be named in honor of her brother, 1822 alumnus and professor of mathematics, Albert Baldwin Dod. The following year, she gave another $100,000 toward construction of yet another much-needed dormitory, this one to be named in honor of her late husband, David B. Brown.²² Also in 1889, the legatees of the estate of John C. Green—a wealthy businessman who, though not an alumnus, was arguably the most generous supporter of the McCosh era— purchased 155 acres adjacent to the campus and thus quadrupled the size of the grounds.²³ In September 1891, the Times reported the laying of the foundation for the $250...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Iconic Leaders in Higher Education
• copy
• Contents
• Introduction: Iconic Leaders of Higher Education
• Tarnished Icon: William Smith and the College of Philadelphia
• Memories of Mary: Changing Interpretations of the Founder in the Secularization Process of Mount Holyoke Seminary and College, 1837–1937
• College Presidents, Public Image, and the Popular Press: A Comparative Study of Francis L. Patton of Princeton and Seth Low of Columbia, 1888–1902
• The Making of a Celebrity President: John Erskine and the Juilliard School
• Building an Icon: The Rise and Fall of John G. Bowman, Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, 1921–1945
• Encounters with Genius Loci: Herman Wells at/and/of Indiana University
• Clark Kerr’s Early Career, Social Science, and the American University
• The “Host at Last”: Abram Sachar and the Establishment of Brandeis University
• List of Contributors