Best Duke Presidents

[johnb]

I was thinking about Gee at Ohio State and the lapses at Penn State and Rutgers, and I was wondering if this site might provide some insight into how recent Duke presidents were/are viewed by students and alumni.

I have some thoughts and will add them, but any initial takers?

[-jk]

Dr. Deryl Hart (of course, I might be biased). He spent 30 years as Duke's first Chair of the Dept of Surgery, building it from the ground up. He didn't want to be the president - turning them down twice and then only agreeing to be an interim president. Once on the job, he completely overhauled Duke's administrative and governance structure, dramatically increased faculty salaries, and started race-blind admissions (earning the full title of President, no longer interim). All to make Duke more competitive nationally. And all in just three years.

And he also launched the committee that standardized "Duke Blue".

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

Uncle Terry.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Uncle Terry.

Head and shoulders above the rest.... and to think that some would have disqualified him because he graduated from UNC! Terry Sanford brought a combination of ambition and reality that's hard to beat. He could relate to all sorts of people and knew how to lead.... a rare combination, especially in university administrators.

[jimsumner]

We loved Uncle Terry.

[sagegrouse]

I published this a few years ago (2005?), and I believe it has stood the test of time. Please go to the bottom for my update.


Here is my view (somewhat irreverent, natch) based on nearly [edit: "more than"] 50 years of connection to Duke. First, we'll concede that Wm Preston Few, who was the president of many decades and instrumental in creating Duke out of Trinity, was a peerless leader. Following him, however, the picture is not so sanguine--

1. Hollis Edens was president in the 1950s and had such disagreements with the faculty over his (very limited) view of a university that he had to resign. The Duke Board retaliated by removing Provost Paul M. Gross from his chief academic position.

2. Dr. Deryl Hart then assumed leadership on an interim basis that extended nearly four years. He was chmn. of the Dept of Surgery and a great man, IMHO. However, in our interviews by the Chronicle, he routinely referred to "students" as "patients" and was really more of a caretaker.

3. Douglas Knight came to Duke from Lawrence U. in Wisconsin. A wonderfully verbal person and a reasonably distinguished scholar, he seemed a perfect fit. However, he was a bit thin-skinned in dealing with faculty and had trouble getting very good ideas on curriculum etc. implemented. Although I liked Knight, I am afraid he was the principal cause of the demise of the football program from being the best in the ACC to being mediocre, at best. He, like most of his presidential peers, was a casualty of the Vietnam War. With the campus protests mounting in the late 60s -- most of these guys threw in the towel -- as did Doug Knight.

4. He was replaced by Gov. Terry Sanford, who related well to students and apparently did a good job of calming the troubled waters of Duke U. in the aftermath of Vietnam. Uncle Terry had a very limited view of Duke's mission (yes Mr. Sanford, you are not a top academic institution unless you have a first-rate grad school. No, Mr. Sanford, good law and medical schools are not enough.) Gov. Sanford, it is fair to say, was a bit out of his depth (think Eisenhower at Columbia).

5. Keith Brodie was the appropriately academic successor to Sanford. Objections to Brodie are many -- my impression is that he was not a stand-up guy that dealt well with the burdens of a university presidency. Not too many mourned his early retirement.

6. Nan Keohane was definitely a stand-up girl with experience as president at Wellesley IIRC. I liked her a lot and thought she did a good job (my daughter was at Duke then). However, this board is full of critics of her squelching of campus social life (goodbye, kegs) and her lack of interest in athletics (hullo, Joe Alleva).

7. Now we have Richard Brodhead, with great instincts for people and a love of students. He is apparently not very popular with some on this board, altho' his record is unproven.

Now we have the punch line. With 50 years of failed presidents, Duke's academics and reputation have soared to being a top-ten university in the US

Here are my amendments.

1. This was written before LAX. I am willing to give Brodhead the benefit of the doubt on his academic vision and leadership. He did, however, totally screw up the response to the crisis. He gave all authority to the university lawyers, who have the political and public relations instincts of hermits in a cave; as a result, he hunkered down, and left the lacrosse players out to fry in the media sunlight. Terry Sanford, for all of his deficiencies in academic leadership, would have handed it with aplomb: the university officials say all the "right things" about being appalled, while saying the right things about due process and presumption of innocence; the President says, however, that all of the players and parents came to him and swore on a bible that none of this stuff happened; then he lets the athletic department and influential alumni carry on a rousing defense of the players, including some not kind words about the ludicrous allegations. But, a lot of univ. presidents would have had problems with this hot potato.

2. I gave short shrift to Dr. Hart, who saved the university from the horrible debacle inflicted by the pea-brained Hollis Edens. His service was invaluable, much as Terry Sanford's was needed after the upheavals due to the Vietnam War.

3. Keohane is my choice of best -- by a mile. Brodhead, despite the LAX problem, has to get an incomplete because his other contributions will not be known for many years.

Anyway, my two cents -- change freely given.

sagegrouse

[Wander]

My impression has always been that Brodhead is pretty popular with the current students. His detractors mainly seem to be from the older crowd. I wonder what his reputation would be like amongst alums without that one incident.

[Bluedog]

My impression has always been that Brodhead is pretty popular with the current students. His detractors mainly seem to be from the older crowd. I wonder what his reputation would be like amongst alums without that one incident.

Yeah, me too - I was a student under both Keohane and Brodhead (and during the LAX case) and I'd actually say Brodhead was far more popular among the students. He has a really good dry wit and affable personality; students routinely chant for him and look up to him as a solid leader. Some people resented Keohane because of the perception that she was trying to change Duke's social atmosphere although she made good strides in fundraising (Campaign for Duke) and continuing to improve the academic prestige of the university. I've spoken to Brodhead a couple times (including this April) and have heard him talk on several other occasions, and I have to say that he is REALLY good at connecting with various contingents (I guess that's a major job of the president...to schmooze everybody). Having said all that, obviously some lament his actions during the LAX case (as he actually does himself). I personally don't think he did a masterful job in the situation, but wasn't as terrible as some portray (not trying to re-open the LAX case discussion incidentally). From my historical understanding, it seems like Uncle Terry was the one to really build Duke's reputation into a national powerhouse, so I would vote that he's the best president, but I'll admit ignorance on most of the presidencies.

[jimsumner]

I published this a few years ago (2005?), and I believe it has stood the test of time. Please go to the bottom for my update.


Here is my view (somewhat irreverent, natch) based on nearly [edit: "more than"] 50 years of connection to Duke. First, we'll concede that Wm Preston Few, who was the president of many decades and instrumental in creating Duke out of Trinity, was a peerless leader. Following him, however, the picture is not so sanguine--

1. Hollis Edens was president in the 1950s and had such disagreements with the faculty over his (very limited) view of a university that he had to resign. The Duke Board retaliated by removing Provost Paul M. Gross from his chief academic position.

2. Dr. Deryl Hart then assumed leadership on an interim basis that extended nearly four years. He was chmn. of the Dept of Surgery and a great man, IMHO. However, in our interviews by the Chronicle, he routinely referred to "students" as "patients" and was really more of a caretaker.

3. Douglas Knight came to Duke from Lawrence U. in Wisconsin. A wonderfully verbal person and a reasonably distinguished scholar, he seemed a perfect fit. However, he was a bit thin-skinned in dealing with faculty and had trouble getting very good ideas on curriculum etc. implemented. Although I liked Knight, I am afraid he was the principal cause of the demise of the football program from being the best in the ACC to being mediocre, at best. He, like most of his presidential peers, was a casualty of the Vietnam War. With the campus protests mounting in the late 60s -- most of these guys threw in the towel -- as did Doug Knight.

4. He was replaced by Gov. Terry Sanford, who related well to students and apparently did a good job of calming the troubled waters of Duke U. in the aftermath of Vietnam. Uncle Terry had a very limited view of Duke's mission (yes Mr. Sanford, you are not a top academic institution unless you have a first-rate grad school. No, Mr. Sanford, good law and medical schools are not enough.) Gov. Sanford, it is fair to say, was a bit out of his depth (think Eisenhower at Columbia).

5. Keith Brodie was the appropriately academic successor to Sanford. Objections to Brodie are many -- my impression is that he was not a stand-up guy that dealt well with the burdens of a university presidency. Not too many mourned his early retirement.

6. Nan Keohane was definitely a stand-up girl with experience as president at Wellesley IIRC. I liked her a lot and thought she did a good job (my daughter was at Duke then). However, this board is full of critics of her squelching of campus social life (goodbye, kegs) and her lack of interest in athletics (hullo, Joe Alleva).

7. Now we have Richard Brodhead, with great instincts for people and a love of students. He is apparently not very popular with some on this board, altho' his record is unproven.

Now we have the punch line. With 50 years of failed presidents, Duke's academics and reputation have soared to being a top-ten university in the US

Here are my amendments.

1. This was written before LAX. I am willing to give Brodhead the benefit of the doubt on his academic vision and leadership. He did, however, totally screw up the response to the crisis. He gave all authority to the university lawyers, who have the political and public relations instincts of hermits in a cave; as a result, he hunkered down, and left the lacrosse players out to fry in the media sunlight. Terry Sanford, for all of his deficiencies in academic leadership, would have handed it with aplomb: the university officials say all the "right things" about being appalled, while saying the right things about due process and presumption of innocence; the President says, however, that all of the players and parents came to him and swore on a bible that none of this stuff happened; then he lets the athletic department and influential alumni carry on a rousing defense of the players, including some not kind words about the ludicrous allegations. But, a lot of univ. presidents would have had problems with this hot potato.

2. I gave short shrift to Dr. Hart, who saved the university from the horrible debacle inflicted by the pea-brained Hollis Edens. His service was invaluable, much as Terry Sanford's was needed after the upheavals due to the Vietnam War.

3. Keohane is my choice of best -- by a mile. Brodhead, despite the LAX problem, has to get an incomplete because his other contributions will not be known for many years.

Anyway, my two cents -- change freely given.

sagegrouse

Good job, although I'm still mighty fond of Sanford. Permission to amend the Knight profile? Vietnam did indeed hurt him but so did civil/labor rights, the source of a number of protests that were not handled well in the opinion of many.

[77devil]

Good job, although I'm still mighty fond of Sanford. Permission to amend the Knight profile? Vietnam did indeed hurt him but so did civil/labor rights, the source of a number of protests that were not handled well in the opinion of many.

I am fond of Uncle Terry too and think Sage is overly harsh about his academic indifference. The public policy and business programs were started and flourished during his tenure, and both of became nationally prestigious. For someone "a bit out of his depth," Duke certainly thrived during his 16 year presidency.

[fuse]

As long as Keohane and Brodhead are the bottom two, I can agree with almost any above that.

As others have noted, Keohane was a destructive force with the Duke student culture.
Whatever his bright spots may be, Brodhead cannot be forgiven for his deplorable lack of leadership during the lacrosse incident.

[duke74]

As long as Keohane and Brodhead are the bottom two, I can agree with almost any above that.

As others have noted, Keohane was a destructive force with the Duke student culture.
Whatever his bright spots may be, Brodhead cannot be forgiven for his deplorable lack of leadership during the lacrosse incident.

I was here during the Sanford years, and my son attended during Nan's tenure. Couldn't agree more with Fuse.

Son hated what Nan did to campus social life. He's not a partier, by any measure, but he felt that she ruined the campus social life. As for Brodhead, his actions during the LAX affair were inexcusable. I will never give to Duke whilst he remains President. I know friends of those affected (from LI) and can't possibly forgive him. (Yes I know that the funds help others, but his actions so turned me off that years later I cannot get over them. sorry if that offends some.)

[OldPhiKap]

As long as Keohane and Brodhead are the bottom two, I can agree with almost any above that.

As others have noted, Keohane was a destructive force with the Duke student culture.
Whatever his bright spots may be, Brodhead cannot be forgiven for his deplorable lack of leadership during the lacrosse incident.

This, x2.

Re: Uncle Terry -- he oversaw the university through one of the most turbulent periods of college campus life (late 1960's/early '70's) and its growth from a regional institution to a national and even international institution. He had great relations with students and alum. I usually agree with the Sage one but my view of Terry is much more favorable. FWIW.

[BD80]

Uncle Terry introduced me to the social event of wine and cheese tasting. Although I am certain that the vintages were wasted on my unsophisticated palette (and probably still would be), it left an indelible impression and ignited a passion. He's #1 in my book.

[Lord Ash]

When I arrive as a freshman every party was open, every frat was welcoming. Then Nan started her social pogrom, and by my senior year parties and frats were closed off affairs held most often off campus. It was a really isolating and destructive change.

[sagegrouse]

I published this a few years ago (2005?), and I believe it has stood the test of time. Please go to the bottom for my update.


Here is my view (somewhat irreverent, natch) based on nearly [edit: "more than"] 50 years of connection to Duke. First, we'll concede that Wm Preston Few, who was the president of many decades and instrumental in creating Duke out of Trinity, was a peerless leader. Following him, however, the picture is not so sanguine--

1. Hollis Edens was president in the 1950s and had such disagreements with the faculty over his (very limited) view of a university that he had to resign. The Duke Board retaliated by removing Provost Paul M. Gross from his chief academic position.

2. Dr. Deryl Hart then assumed leadership on an interim basis that extended nearly four years. He was chmn. of the Dept of Surgery and a great man, IMHO. However, in our interviews by the Chronicle, he routinely referred to "students" as "patients" and was really more of a caretaker.

3. Douglas Knight came to Duke from Lawrence U. in Wisconsin. A wonderfully verbal person and a reasonably distinguished scholar, he seemed a perfect fit. However, he was a bit thin-skinned in dealing with faculty and had trouble getting very good ideas on curriculum etc. implemented. Although I liked Knight, I am afraid he was the principal cause of the demise of the football program from being the best in the ACC to being mediocre, at best. He, like most of his presidential peers, was a casualty of the Vietnam War. With the campus protests mounting in the late 60s -- most of these guys threw in the towel -- as did Doug Knight.

4. He was replaced by Gov. Terry Sanford, who related well to students and apparently did a good job of calming the troubled waters of Duke U. in the aftermath of Vietnam. Uncle Terry had a very limited view of Duke's mission (yes Mr. Sanford, you are not a top academic institution unless you have a first-rate grad school. No, Mr. Sanford, good law and medical schools are not enough.) Gov. Sanford, it is fair to say, was a bit out of his depth (think Eisenhower at Columbia).

5. Keith Brodie was the appropriately academic successor to Sanford. Objections to Brodie are many -- my impression is that he was not a stand-up guy that dealt well with the burdens of a university presidency. Not too many mourned his early retirement.

6. Nan Keohane was definitely a stand-up girl with experience as president at Wellesley IIRC. I liked her a lot and thought she did a good job (my daughter was at Duke then). However, this board is full of critics of her squelching of campus social life (goodbye, kegs) and her lack of interest in athletics (hullo, Joe Alleva).

7. Now we have Richard Brodhead, with great instincts for people and a love of students. He is apparently not very popular with some on this board, altho' his record is unproven.

Now we have the punch line. With 50 years of failed presidents, Duke's academics and reputation have soared to being a top-ten university in the US

[sagegrouse[/I]

Let me offer some apologies here. The original post from eight years ago was in response to a criticisms of Nan Keohane, possibly by FormerDukeAthlete. I decided to do a review of the "troops," as it were, since I had had at least some connection to every President since Dr. Hart. My thesis was, "If all the Duke presidents were so terrible, why has Duke grown and prospered?" So, I went out of my way to belittle all of Nan's predecessors -- somewhat unfairly.

Here is a more sober approach (as I recover from last night's wine tasting), and I hope that Reynolds Price would understand.

Hollis Edens was truly a disaster. According to the faculty at the time, he saw Duke merely as a liberal arts college. The faculty visionaries, chiefly Provost Gross, wanted Duke to be a prominent research institution. There was a huge upheaval in the spring of 1960, a few months before freshman Sage Grouse showed up on campus. Edens resigned. The Board of Trustees got so mad at the faculty -- apparently there was a lot of support for Edens on the Board -- it promptly fired Paul Gross from his Provost position, and he returned to the Chemistry Department. The Board chairman resigned over the flap. The new Chairman was Bunyan S. Womble, the founder of the Winstoin-Salem law firm and the grandfather of my freshman roommate.

Dr. Deryl Hart, the highly respected Chairman of the Department of Surgery, became the interim President and served for three whole years in that position. One advantage for Duke was that Dr. Hart lived on campus, in the large home now occupied by President Brodhead. And, of DBR relevance, Dr. Hart was Julio and -jk's grandfather. Until then, the President's home was on the circle in what is now the Undergraduate Admissions office. Dr. Hart did everything expected of him.

Douglas Knight came to Duke from Lawrence University, but for years had been a literature prof at Yale. He was one of the most verbally gifted people I ever met, and I knew him pretty well. He was a bit of a disappointment as President, having a thin skin and unable to make much progress in academic reforms. I am not sure he would have stayed very long anyway, but he, like virtually every other university President, resigned during the campus conflagrations over the Vietnam War. Knight cited health problems, and it is true that he did not work much after leaving Duke at the age of 48.

Gov. Sanford was an inspired choice to lead Duke out of the long nightmare of the Vietnam War. He had been a bright young star in the Democratic Party -- one of the few southerners to back John Kennedy while he was Lt. Gov. of NC. He became governor when Luther Hodges became Commerce Secretary in 1961. Uncle Terry was able to return calm to the campus and deserves a lot of credit. My earlier criticism of Sanford's academic vision and leadership is till valid, I believe, although there may have been leadership from the academic side that more than made up for his deficiencies. And FWIW, Gov. then Sen. Sanford was the second-longest tenured Duke President -- his 16 years as President eclipsed only by the 1910-1940 reign of William Preston Few.

After Uncle Terry became a U.S. Senator, he was succeeded by H. Keith H. Brodie, the chairman of the Department of Psychiatry who was serving as University Chancellor. I don't have a lot of good things to say about Brodie, so I won't say much except that his tenure was quite calm in many respects and that Duke seemed to do well.

Around 1990 the faculty was "up in arms," as one professor told me, about the lack of an academic climate on campus. As Exhibit A, B, C and F, please read Reynolds Price's Founder's Day Address (http://today.duke.edu/showcase/mmedia/misc/foundersday_92.pdf)from December 1992. Here is one passage:


If for instance you can eat a whole meal in a moderately occupied Duke dining hall without transcribing a certain sentence at least once, I will treat you to the legal pain reliever of your choice. The sentence runs more or less like this, in male or female voice – “I can’t believe how drunk I was last night.”

It is not surprising the President Nan Keohane took dead aim at certain aspects of campus life and has received the eternal condemnation of many alumni for it. Of course, I was a Duke parent by this time, and I applauded her actions. But what do I know? Anyway, Nan had some good attributes; raised a lot of money; and Duke prospered during her reign.

It is too soon to evaluate President Brodhead's tenure. I have been very vocal in criticizing his actions during the LAX mess, and I said my piece in the post above. But he clearly relates well to the students at Duke, as he did at Yale. I have some doubts about his overall academic leadership, but I am not close enough to the campus to observe it very frequently.

Anyway, this is a more sober reflection of what I know about Duke Presidents since the 1950s.

sagegrouse

[weezie]

My impression has always been that Brodhead is pretty popular with the current students. His detractors mainly seem to be from the older crowd. I wonder what his reputation would be like amongst alums without that one incident.

Not to start a PP argument but the newer issue of the Kunshan (sic) campus and the mashmillions already wasted over there is causing deep discontent. Especially as this next campaign for $$ gets underway.

[throatybeard]

Richard Nixon.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Uncle Terry was my President, so he is my favorite. http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/devil9f.gif Not saying he was the best, but he is my favorite.

Least favorite? Nanerl. I have the same disaffection for her that she did for Duke's fraternities, including mine, which she had banished after putting it on double secret probation. Some day, my fraternity may return to campus. I hope Nan never does.

I've met Brodhead on several occasions. I've shaken his hand and had brief conversations. Never been impressed with him personally. I think he's a weenie.

http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/devil9f.gifhttp://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/devil9f.gifhttp://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/devil9f.gif

[Duvall]

If you were to list and rank the duties and responsibilities of the president of a word-class research institution, where would ensuring the ready access of alcoholic beverages for undergraduates place? In the top 50? Top 100?

[jimsumner]

Gov. Sanford was an inspired choice to lead Duke out of the long nightmare of the Vietnam War. He had been a bright young star in the Democratic Party -- one of the few southerners to back John Kennedy while he was Lt. Gov. of NC. He became governor when Luther Hodges became Commerce Secretary in 1961. Uncle Terry was able to return calm to the campus and deserves a lot of credit. My earlier criticism of Sanford's academic vision and leadership is till valid, I believe, although there may have been leadership from the academic side that more than made up for his deficiencies. And FWIW, Gov. then Sen. Sanford was the second-longest tenured Duke President -- his 16 years as President eclipsed only by the 1910-1940 reign of William Preston Few.


sagegrouse

One correction on Terry Sanford. He became governor in 1961 because he was elected to that position in 1960. North Carolina governors could not suceed themselves in those days, so Hodges could not run. His position as Commerce Secretary was irrelevant.

I haven't gotten into Sanford's tenure as governor because I didn't want to venture into public policy areas. But let's just say he was a visionary, progressive goivernor at a time when many southern states were electing staunch segregationists, committing to fighting for that position with great enthusiasm.

[fuse]

If you were to list and rank the duties and responsibilities of the president of a word-class research institution, where would ensuring the ready access of alcoholic beverages for undergraduates place? In the top 50? Top 100?

I would very politely and respectfully suggest that there is a difference between ignoring, enabling, and actively seeking to disrupt/destroy.

Most administrations took the "blind eye" / ignoring stance. Keohane decided part of her charter / mission was to eliminate the play hard part of the work hard / play hard culture at Duke.

Probably more than enough said on this topic. I appreciate and respect your perspective.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

If you were to list and rank the duties and responsibilities of the president of a word-class research institution, where would ensuring the ready access of alcoholic beverages for undergraduates place? In the top 50? Top 100?

My dislike of Nan is unrelated to what was done to beer/alcohol consumption. I understand what the dram shop laws are and how Duke and every other University had to restrict open consumption, primarily to protect themselves (the Universities, not specifically the leaders, although they would be held culpable in law suits also). I blame the lawyers for that.

[sagegrouse]

One correction on Terry Sanford. He became governor in 1961 because he was elected to that position in 1960. North Carolina governors could not suceed themselves in those days, so Hodges could not run. His position as Commerce Secretary was irrelevant.

I haven't gotten into Sanford's tenure as governor because I didn't want to venture into public policy areas. But let's just say he was a visionary, progressive goivernor at a time when many southern states were electing staunch segregationists, committing to fighting for that position with great enthusiasm.

Thanks for the correction. I never look this stuff up, and it was 50+ years ago. Let's agree that events of 50 years ago are history, not public policy.

sage

[SoCalDukeFan]

I am one who will thinks Brodhead totally failed in handling the lacrosse mess. I stopped giving to Duke at that time and have not restarted.

I do know a couple of people who live in Durham and they think he handled it about as well as could be expected.

I am rethinking my position on Brodhead. So far, have not changed my mind.

SoCal

[Dev11]

I've met Brodhead on several occasions. I've shaken his hand and had brief conversations. Never been impressed with him personally. I think he's a weenie.

'Weenie' is a great description for President Brodhead. Posters here who say he 'relates well to students' must know different people than all of my friends, as I understood the general consensus on Brodhead is that he is an aloof person. I don't think he connects well with students at all, as any Brodhead discussion I ever was a part of quickly devolved into who could do the best impression of his voice (I think my interpretation is pretty good, but hey, to each his own). He's fine at his most important job, which is fundraising.

I still give to Duke despite thinking that Brodhead is a goof. I believe my contributions go to the folks they are earmarked for.

The Nan days sound awful, if they were more socially restricting than the current administration.

[hurleyfor3]

MBB Championships Won by Presidential Administration

Brodie 2
Nan 1
Brodhead 1
Everyone else 0

[OldPhiKap]

MBB Championships Won by Presidential Administration

Brodie 2
Nan 1
Brodhead 1
Everyone else 0

I am pretty sure we won despite Nan, and not because of her.

Duke's first NC in any sport IIRC was men's soccer in 1986, which I think was H. Keith H. Brodie's H. first H. presidential H. year.

[BD80]

MBB Championships Won by Presidential Administration

Brodie 2
Nan 1
Brodhead 1
Everyone else 0

MBB Championships won by a coach hired during presidential administration:

Sanford: all of them.

Booyah!

[77devil]

MBB Championships won by a coach hired during presidential administration:

Sanford: all of them.

Booyah!

Excellent. The president who makes the hire should get the all credit. I'm not sure Brodie ever found Cameron Indoor.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I was at Duke during Nan's tenure and she was generally not very popular. As trivial as the alcohol policy might seem, she appeared to make it a cornerstone of her tenure, so she brought this grief on herself. I was not a particularly big partier and I recognize that she was dealing with legal issues beyond her control when making these changes, but it was just handled very poorly and left a bad taste in the mouth (like a 2 week old keg from the pre-Nan days).

Along these lines, many felt that she came from the northeastern establishment and tried to jam that mentality down Duke's throat, rather than letting Duke be Duke and embracing what makes the university unique. From all that I heard, what made Sanford a great president was that he managed to balance national/global ambitions for the university while trying to retain its distinctive characteristics. Nan came across as much more aloof.

From what I have seen, Brodhead comes from a similar background as Nan, but has made more of an effort to become part of the existing Duke community rather than impose his views on the school. Granted, the Duke he came to had been shaped by Nan so was a bit more familiar to him than the Duke she arrived at, but I appreciate his efforts. His handling of the lacrosse case was poor, but he has bounced back from that fairly well. I assume that he will complete the current capital campaign and move on.

[CathyCA]

Uncle Terry.

He loved his students. He was accessible to us. He came to all of the basketball games. He invited us to his house when we were freshmen.

[Olympic Fan]

As a student during the Douglas Knight days -- and one who was tear-gassed during the National Guard riot during the Allen Building takeover (I shouldn't complain, the Guard only flipped out and fired tear-gas at the students in the quad ... that was about the same time as Kent State, when in a similar situation they actually fired on the students) -- my view of Dr. Knight is a bit skewed.

The view at the time was that he wanted to turn Duke into an Ivy League South. Together with his supporters on the faculty, they did everything possible to upgrade the academic status of Duke and to denigrate athletics. Did you know that in 1969, the Knight-led faculty approved a resolution calling for Duke to stop giving scholarships and to drop out of the ACC? Luckily, the Board of Trustees disagreed ... but from that point on, there was a very hostile atmosphere toward athletics -- especially football -- on campus. That's obviously when the decline of Duke football began.

Actually, it began when Bill Murray retired. You wouldn't believe the guys lining up for that job. Eddie Cameron sent Wallace Wade to New York to offer the job to Bud Wilkinson (then working for ABC). But Knight wanted an Ivy League type guy and forced Cameron to hire Tom Harp, who had a losing record at Cornell (and he had a losing record at Duke too -- the first Duke coach since 1924 with a losing career record).

I hated Knight.

I was also at Duke when Terry Sanford arrived. The incident I remember most was when a group of students staged a sit-down at the traffic circle. You can imagine the headaches that caused. Sanford didn't call out the National Guard ... he went out and spoke to the students and asked them about their grievances. After listening to them, he told them he agreed with them and wanted to join their sitdown strike. An hour later, it was over ...

Not sure how Sanford was with athletics -- I think he was fairly neutral. Under him, the university continued to cut back direct funding, forcing the creation of the Iron Dukes and the concept of booster support to pay for athletics. Tom Butters -- who ranks with Krzyzewski as the most significant figure in Duke athletics post-Cameron -- started his rise to prominence under Sanford (finishing it under Brodie).

Just one more point. I've been told that the entire Krzyzewski-to-the-NBA furor in the spring of 1994 was designed to send a message to Nan about the importance of basketball (and Coach K) at Duke. In her first months on the job, she sent her toady, Tallman Trask, to try and exert control over the basketball program. After the Memorial Day weekend explosion, she was brought into line. Don't know for sure, but interesting that K's flirtation with the Lakers in 2004 happened to coincide with Brodhead's first weeks on the job. I do know that he was there, singing Coach K's praises at the press conference where K announced he was staying.

Count me among those who will always hold Brodhead's behavior in the lacrosse hoax against him.

[Mike Corey]

Don't know for sure, but interesting that K's flirtation with the Lakers in 2004 happened to coincide with Brodhead's first weeks on the job. I do know that he was there, singing Coach K's praises at the press conference where K announced he was staying.

It was actually Brodhead's first official day in office when the news broke that K was talking with the Lakers. And yes, Brodhead was present at K's announcement that he'd be staying in Durham. Beyond that, Brodhead joined a student vigil to help persuade Coach K to stay in Durham.

"I must say that I am enormously excited that, at the end of the day, that you decide that your place was in college basketball," Brodhead said at the presser.

[Duvall]

Seems like the debate should be over who places a distant second behind Few. Since then Duke's growth and ascent has been smooth enough that it's hard to make distinctions, which I guess is why there's so much talk in thread about relatively trivial factors.

[sagegrouse]

It was actually Brodhead's first official day in office when the news broke that K was talking with the Lakers. And yes, Brodhead was present at K's announcement that he'd be staying in Durham. Beyond that, Brodhead joined a student vigil to help persuade Coach K to stay in Durham.

"I must say that I am enormously excited that, at the end of the day, that you decide that your place was in college basketball," Brodhead said at the presser.

The first time I met Brodhead was at the 2004 Final Four in San Antonio. He had been named President but not yet arrived on campus. I was standing next to him as the event started in the Longhorn Saloon. The next thing I knew, he was on stage hugging the Blue Devil, which may have been his first formal act at Duke.

sagegrouse

[Dev11]

she sent her toady, Tallman Trask, to try and exert control over the basketball program.

I don't think I've ever heard that term before, but if it has anything to do with his physical description, it is a great description.

[duke79]

If you were to list and rank the duties and responsibilities of the president of a word-class research institution, where would ensuring the ready access of alcoholic beverages for undergraduates place? In the top 50? Top 100?

LOL. Very funny. I guess it all depends on who you ask. If you asked the students, I'm sure it would be in the top 5. Parents or faculty or trustees, not so high.

Always hard to rate presidents of a college or university. What criteria do you look at. Fund raising, athletic success, academic rankings, faculty hirings, student applications?

I was at Duke during the tenure of Terry Sanford. Like all good politicians, I think he understood the importance of making the different constituencies on campus feel like they actually had a voice in how the university was run (whether or not they actually did). Plus, he had the "Mayberry RFD" accent and personality that made it hard not to like him.

One of my favorite stories about Uncle Terry is one Halloween when I was there, when there was a controversy on campus about the number of "temporary triples" Duke created on campus (putting three beds in rooms meant to be doubles), three of us from my dorm went to Terry's house off of campus drive and roped ourselves together. We rang the door bell and "Miss Rose" (I believe the name that Terry called his wife) answered the door. We told her that we were there to trick or treat and that we were a "temporary triple", but she had no clue what the hell that meant. Then, Terry came up behind his wife and he had a good chuckle at the costume. He invited us in and served us milk and cookies and assured us that the dorm overcrowding was just a temporary phenomenon due to more student acceptances that they had anticipated.

[Indoor66]

LOL. Very funny. I guess it all depends on who you ask. If you asked the students, I'm sure it would be in the top 5. Parents or faculty or trustees, not so high.

Always hard to rate presidents of a college or university. What criteria do you look at. Fund raising, athletic success, academic rankings, faculty hirings, student applications?

I was at Duke during the tenure of Terry Sanford. Like all good politicians, I think he understood the importance of making the different constituencies on campus feel like they actually had a voice in how the university was run (whether or not they actually did). Plus, he had the "Mayberry RFD" accent and personality that made it hard not to like him.

One of my favorite stories about Uncle Terry is one Halloween when I was there, when there was a controversy on campus about the number of "temporary triples" Duke created on campus (putting three beds in rooms meant to be doubles), three of us from my dorm went to Terry's house off of campus drive and roped ourselves together. We rang the door bell and "Miss Rose" (I believe the name that Terry called his wife) answered the door. We told her that we were there to trick or treat and that we were a "temporary triple", but she had no clue what the hell that meant. Then, Terry came up behind his wife and he had a good chuckle at the costume. He invited us in and served us milk and cookies and assured us that the dorm overcrowding was just a temporary phenomenon due to more student acceptances that they had anticipated.

FYI, her name was Margaret Rose - which is what Terry called her..

[jjasper0729]

I was at Duke during Nan's tenure and she was generally not very popular. As trivial as the alcohol policy might seem, she appeared to make it a cornerstone of her tenure, so she brought this grief on herself. I was not a particularly big partier and I recognize that she was dealing with legal issues beyond her control when making these changes, but it was just handled very poorly and left a bad taste in the mouth (like a 2 week old keg from the pre-Nan days).

Along these lines, many felt that she came from the northeastern establishment and tried to jam that mentality down Duke's throat, rather than letting Duke be Duke and embracing what makes the university unique. From all that I heard, what made Sanford a great president was that he managed to balance national/global ambitions for the university while trying to retain its distinctive characteristics. Nan came across as much more aloof.

From what I have seen, Brodhead comes from a similar background as Nan, but has made more of an effort to become part of the existing Duke community rather than impose his views on the school. Granted, the Duke he came to had been shaped by Nan so was a bit more familiar to him than the Duke she arrived at, but I appreciate his efforts. His handling of the lacrosse case was poor, but he has bounced back from that fairly well. I assume that he will complete the current capital campaign and move on.

Having been at Duke for the end of Brodie (1 year) and start of Nan (3 years), I have to second this about her. Granted that was the period where the "awareness" about over-drinking started and was the start of planned spontaneity around campus. I never much took to the central planning of student socializing. I always felt like Crazy, that she was trying to ram the northeastern mentality down our throats and make us as much like an Ivy wannabe as possible.

I met Gov. Sanford when the public policy building was dedicated in his honor. I believe he died not long after. He was very congenial and pleasant to be around in the crowd and gracious with his time for everyone that came up to speak with him.

[OldPhiKap]

My freshman year (Uncle Terry's last), the author of "Monday, Monday" called for a food fight in the U Room (IIRC). Which of course then happened. Terry was not amused, and in the aftermath issued what I think was the last of his uncular pronouncements.

Ah, Monday Monday . . . . .

[bjornolf]

I was a student/athlete/greek (I mostly joined my fraternity as a junior because I realized 90% of my friends were in it and that it was going to die without more members... I was NOT a partier... I was the eternal designated driver) under Nan, and we were not fans. She fought the greek system. She battled against the social structure. She waged open war on what she called the "anti-intellectual culture" of our school (there were articles in the chronicle about it, including a satyrical weekly editorial called something like "deep thoughts for an anti-intellectual culture"... included things like, "if you smash a smurf against a wall with a baseball bat, is the smear blue? It was very popular). She got rid of one fraternity, and there were many people who saw her taking steps to get rid of a lot more (as a member of the greek council, I saw a few of them myself... her goal appeared to be the end of the greek system at Duke). My girlfriend at the time, a Wellesley student, warned me about her. All of this, we were willing to forgive, or at least begrudgingly tolerate, but when she went after Coach K, we said "nay, nay". That was the line she could not cross. PCU came out about that time, and while not a great movie, many of us joked about "Droz-ing" her. In fact, many of us wondered if the movie's female university president were based on her, the way she targeted certain student groups while rewarding others, and her close minded attitude toward student socialization. She even looked a little like her.

Nan? Not a fan. Sorry. We cheered when she hit the bricks. I always felt she was a little like a politician that is a good governor or state senator (president of smaller liberal arts college), but not "big enough" for the much larger job of US Senator or POTUS (major university president).

Folks comment on how well the university has done under these "failed" presidents, but it seems to me that 90% of a president's job at such a large institution should be fund raising. The success of the school in other areas should fall more to the students, faculty, BoT, department heads, and staff. Micro-managing or crusading presidents rarely seem to "do well" or remain popular at such large universities. I say Duke did well under these presidents thanks to their fund raising efforts, but in spite of the rest of their "contributions".

[throatybeard]

People are still whining about Nan Keohane? Wow.

This is a research university, not a toga party.

[OldPhiKap]

People are still whining about Nan Keohane? Wow.

This is a research university, not a toga party.

You must not have been there during BOG's heyday. . . .

[sagegrouse]

People are still whining about Nan Keohane? Wow.

This is a research university, not a toga party.

I can understand the emotion among those who were on campus when the crackdown occurred... and those who came later that felt cheated. I saw the issue as having two parts:

a. I observed that the faculty from the late 80s on were on the warpath concerning the lack of intellectual atmosphere on campus. I got an earful during my reunion in 1989. And then, of course, there was Reynolds' founder's Day speech in 1992, which I cited above.

b. Major parties at Duke in the early 1990s started on Thursday and went through the weekend. I joked at the time as a Duke Parent that the parties started on Thursday to allow the moneyed class to go to NY or London for the weekend.

This is not a situation that the Dean of Students or the VP of Student Affairs can address alone. Nor can the principal academic officers: Provost and the Dean of Arts and Sciences. So, it fell to Nan. From afar, I thought she handled it well. I credited a forceful performance to her previous experience as a college president, which only one other Duke President had upon arrival (Knight), although we should credit Terry's service as governor as at least the equivalent.

FWIW, president or chancellor, to me, seems to be a very different job than the Dean positions other ascendees have had: For one, the President has to manage and respond to the Board of Trustees. But maybe that's my business and government perspective.

Oh, well, I would get more opprobrium from this audience only with a ringing defense of John Feinstein.

sagegrouse

[dukebsbll14]

Richard Nixon. Wait, this thread isn't about Duke alumni who became president? Ah, well...

I think we all just love the way Brodhead talks. Also, he compared my sister's graduation to giving birth. He said, "The baccalaureate ceremonies are the contractions and then the mighty heave is commencement."

[duke09hms]

I think we all just love the way Brodhead talks. Also, he compared my sister's graduation to giving birth. He said, "The baccalaureate ceremonies are the contractions and then the mighty heave is commencement."

Previous posters have called him a weenie. He's a great talker alright but severely lacking on substance and competence, especially as a leader. Weenie is right.

[Duvall]

Previous posters have called him a weenie. He's a great talker alright but severely lacking on substance and competence, especially as a leader. Weenie is right.

Substance and competence at what?

Almost 50 posts into this thread, and it's hard to tell what people think a university president should do, aside from being sufficiently avuncular.

[duke09hms]

Substance and competence at what?

Almost 50 posts into this thread, and it's hard to tell what people think a university president should do, aside from being sufficiently avuncular.

Leadership - Lacrosse hoax, no presence/statement during the other minor "scandals" besides one email to the students saying "work hard, play well" not "work hard, play hard", leaving the students out to dry. Lack of a strong presence.

Fundraising - Financial aid initiative falls short of modest 300m goal (deficit in overall undergrad aid made up for by more athletic donations), modest 3.25b goal for capital campaign when peer institutions are raising 5b in campaigns that started 5 years ago during the economy bust.

Incompetence - Duke Kunshan University now in discussions for exit strategy after refusing to solicit faculty/student/alumni input and millions spent overseas when Duke is facing budget cuts here, West Union and Page renovations abruptly canceled due to insufficient funding after being planned for years (wasting valuable summer construction time), rash decision to sign contract for online learning with Course2U overruled by faculty once faculty got wind of it.

Lack of transparency/communication with shareholders (students/faculty/alumni) - Brodhead administration has a pattern of making a decision first and then springing it on the university without seeking input from shareholders. Duke Kunshan University is a huge example. Essential questions such as: "Why is this necessary?" "what will it cost?" "why not a major city like Shanghai or Beijing?" "How will it exist with Chinese censorship?" "Why aren't we partnering with a top Chinese university instead of an unranked middling one?" have yet to be answered.

You can contrast the success of Duke-National Univ. Singapore med school conceived under Keohane with the bumbling failure (so far) of Duke-Kunshan University under Brodhead.

Other examples for lack of communication/transparency include the implementation of the new housing model, campus renovations, and lack of honest dialogue concerning the university's dire financial straits, which now necessitate budgets across across all academic departments.

I would say these are important hats that a successful university president/leader should wear.

[duke09hms]

More reasons to question Brodhead's leadership of Duke University.

No transparency or accountability to university shareholders.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2013/09/17/more-questions-about-dku

A struggling fundraising capital campaign. Our target is 3.25 billion. At our best rate of 400m/year, 1.7b raised so far with <4 years left, we will barely make it.
http://today.duke.edu/2013/08/fy13donations

Columbia and Stanford just nailed 6b+. UPenn hit 4b+, and their campaigns started in the middle of the recession. Stanford hit a high of 1b in a year.

I'd say the most important responsibilities of a university president are providing clear vision and fundraising for the university. He is failing at both.

[Highlander]

More reasons to question Brodhead's leadership of Duke University.

No transparency or accountability to university shareholders.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2013/09/17/more-questions-about-dku

A struggling fundraising capital campaign. Our target is 3.25 billion. At our best rate of 400m/year, 1.7b raised so far with <4 years left, we will barely make it.
http://today.duke.edu/2013/08/fy13donations

Columbia and Stanford just nailed 6b+. UPenn hit 4b+, and their campaigns started in the middle of the recession. Stanford hit a high of 1b in a year.

I'd say the most important responsibilities of a university president are providing clear vision and fundraising for the university. He is failing at both.

Interesting. I read both the articles you linked and saw something completely different. The first was an editorial discussing how difficult it is to have academic freedom in China, but was not an indictment of Brodhead in any way. Not sure where your transparency comment came from, as I didn't see Brodhead mentioned at all until the last paragraph.

The second said that Duke had a RECORD year of giving last year of $410M, which was over $20M higher than its previous best. That doesn't really sound like we're struggling. To put it into perspective, Penn's annual giving during their campaign was $459M, which is only about 10% higher than ours. Given that Penn's student population (and I am assuming alumni base) is roughly 25% larger than Duke's (~15K studnets at Duke vs. ~20K at Penn), that's a pretty respectable number.

Secondly, if donations increase at the same rate they did the past two (roughly 6% per year), we'd end up raising around $3.54 billion total, which is about 300M over the goal. That hardly sounds like we'll "barely make it."

Your articles don't defend your point very well, in other words.

[sagegrouse]

Interesting. I read both the articles you linked and saw something completely different. The first was an editorial discussing how difficult it is to have academic freedom in China, but was not an indictment of Brodhead in any way. Not sure where your transparency comment came from, as I didn't see Brodhead mentioned at all until the last paragraph.

The second said that Duke had a RECORD year of giving last year of $410M, which was over $20M higher than its previous best. That doesn't really sound like we're struggling. To put it into perspective, Penn's annual giving during their campaign was $459M, which is only about 10% higher than ours. Given that Penn's student population (and I am assuming alumni base) is roughly 25% larger than Duke's (~15K studnets at Duke vs. ~20K at Penn), that's a pretty respectable number.

Secondly, if donations increase at the same rate they did the past two (roughly 6% per year), we'd end up raising around $3.54 billion total, which is about 300M over the goal. That hardly sounds like we'll "barely make it."

Your articles don't defend your point very well, in other words.

WRT to UPenn's success in fund-raising, I have one word: WHARTON.

WRT Stanford's success in fund-raising, I have two words: SILICON VALLEY.

sagegrouse