Cashing chips at Dartmouth? Dartmouth College did not need the round of controversial headlines that were about to come its way nor the cascade that was surely to follow. Only weeks in office as president, Philip Hanlon found his ...]]>

An expert on the college presidency weighs on on challenges facing presidents at Dartmouth and NYU ...

Cashing chips at Dartmouth? Dartmouth College did not need the round of controversial headlines that were about to come its way nor the cascade that was surely to follow. Only weeks in office as president, Philip Hanlon found his back to the wall. What had happened and so early on his watch? A quickly brewing storm was gathering as a result of the college’s recent appointment as dean of the Tucker Foundation of a high-profile African bishop who until a very recent apparent change of heart, held highly public views not only failing to condemn but arguably no doubt condoning his home nation of Malawi’s criminalization of homosexuality.

Hanlon had very little choice confronted as he was with a looming disaster. Smartly, though having to cash in a lot of chips early in his presidency, he quickly moved to pull the plug on a failed senior administrative appointment. The historically esteemed Tucker Foundation where chaplains, religious life and community service leaders are to guide the “moral and spiritual” life of the whole of the Dartmouth community was going to have as its leader a man with hefty moral and spiritual baggage. Something had to be done.

Hanlon and Dartmouth confronted the reality that it would be nearly impossible for this imported bishop, James Tengatenga to have the stature required of the foundation’s mission let alone Dartmouth’s grander principles of decency, equity and fairness. Given his strong, outspoken negative opinions about gays and lesbians, notwithstanding Tengatenga’s recent protestations of a change of heart, it is impossible to fathom how he could fulfill the role of dean. Needless to say, it is unbelievably puzzling that his appointment got this far along the chain of a search process and formal offer to serve Dartmouth in such a position of religious, moral and spiritual leadership. But indeed, he was about to assume his office.

Freshly minted college presidents, as any new leaders, have honeymoons of indefinite duration. There is a pile of chips at the ready on their desks to be played in the face of inevitable crises and problems. Hanlon acted decisively. Some may applaud the courage of his stand, ready and willing to extend his honeymoon. He has expended chips, but they may turn out to be well spent.

However, Hanlon’s honeymoon could be significantly abbreviated if the wolves decrying political correctness come to the Hanover Plain to condemn his rescinding of the bishop’s appointment. They may say, “Here you go again,” now in the form of presidential action at a college marked over three decades as the epicenter of collegiate ideological battles fought over race, women’s, gay and lesbian and other minority rights and agendas.

But Hanlon cannot be worried about how his staunchest allies and his sternest critics will line up in degrees of support and condemnation. He had to act and he had to act then.

What would this appointment have looked like if it had gone forward? Tengatenga could have tried to remain silent about gays and homosexuality, taking a when in Rome do as the Romans do approach. He could have argued for his recent change of heart. But he still would have been rightly hounded to speak out about whether his new rhetoric was simply a guise to cover long believed and argued assertions for which he is so noted in his home country and in his church community there. He is certainly entitled to believe what he believes, to feel what he feels. But the extent to which he is entitled to do this anywhere, with any audience is the question. Certainly, he is free to return to Malawi and preach to his heart’s desire in favaor of criminalization of homosexuality—or against it, if that is his new position.

The problem for Dartmouth and Hanlon was that they could not have a leader with a questionable, even if more recently mixed batch of assertions about gays and lesbians in their community. If he remained, everything that the college asserts that it stands for would be continually hoisted on a petard as nothing more than mere hypocrisy.

Dartmouth may well be assailed for being politically correct as a result of Hanlon’s decisive action. There will be those who will cloak their criticism of the president’s stand as an infringement of the bishop’s academic freedom. There will be de rigueur allegations that Dartmouth is a bastion of ultra-liberal, progressive intolerance. This despite the counter dose of political incorrectness created by the Dartmouth Review, the independent rightwing campus newspaper that for decades has sought to instill in the public mind an alternate caricature of the college. But the notable reality is that Hanlon has exhibited courageous leadership, cutting is teeth as a new president in a state of affairs that had to be confronted. In the face of those who react by condemning him as a high priest of political correctness, Hanlon can justly wear the outlandish allegations as a badge of honor.

****

Sexton under siege at NYU. While Hanlon confronted presidential challenges at the very outset of his tenure, John Sexton was deep into his time at New York University when he was forced to grapple with faculty upheaval.

Sexton was in the middle of the transition as president New York University (NYU) from appointment to inauguration when the September 11^th 2001 attacks rained a horror and debris over the university. There could be no more inauspicious moment to start a university presidency. Over a decade later and in his 12th year in office, Sexton confronts a rising tide of rancor from his faculty and its vote of no confidence in his leadership. What is to become of Sexton’s presidency? Have his grand, some argue overreaching, visions for NYU created a wake so large that the community can no longer follow his lead?

Sexton’s personal style is impossible to miss for anyone who meets him or even follows his life and career from afar. He can be summed up in a word: passion. He is passionate about life, about NYU, about the academy, about teaching and learning, and when he meets you, about you. He is a fascinatingly high-energy, enthusiastic and epic figure. The tales of his way of doing a presidency are legion. He teaches a remarkable load for a college president, in most semesters between one to three courses. There are other college presidents who teach but not to this degree. Sexton holds open office hours and town meetings on the campus with students and faculty. He dedicates many Saturdays to morning and afternoon sessions meeting individually and in groups with professors about their research, about the issues and problems they confront in teaching, and about who they are as people.

However, despite Sexton’s passion and dedication, yet maybe because of it, all is not well at NYU. If Sexton once looked like he brought about Camelot, harsh reactions from constituents rubbed the wrong way now cast a shadow on Sexton’s future. His plans for the university have always been grand, to his critics, grandiose. The result is a severe test of Sexton’s leadership; fearful faculty arguing that NYU’s over-the-top plans are fashioned by the grandiosity of its president.

The foremost contention is “Framework 2031,” a two-decade plan unveiled five years ago that sets the university’s future sails and now moves into its construction stage. It calls for a gigantic expansion of NYU’s footprint in its already-cramped confines in Greenwich Village that would spread even further to surrounding parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. This shape-shifting strategy already includes Sexton’s highly touted launch of not a mere satellite campus, but truly NYU in Abu Dhabi. To underscore his personal commitment to this venture and how much this piece of Middle East desert no different than NYU in Washington Park, Sexton flies there regularly to lead, to meet, to greet, and to teach courses. But this too only confirms his critics’ contention that he and the university are spread way beyond reality.

Represented by enough of its leaders to create a fuss, NYU faculty have heaved their bodies in Sexton’s path saying, “enough is enough.” The result: a no confidence vote by a large but not overwhelming majority. The hugger-in-chief, the open and engaging Sexton is now viewed as arrogant, detached at least from faculty interests, a CEO having to tolerate his minions, mounding up too many frequent-flyer miles. But in their actions, ironies pile on ironies. Throughout the landscape of our colleges and universities many, joined no doubt by significant numbers of NYU faculty, mourn the passing of the colossal college president of old. “Why can’t we have leaders like that?” is the all-too-frequent cry. We need activist presidents in- and outside the gates of the campus to move us, move our colleges to ever-greater heights and visibility, move our hearts, speak out in the public square.

Ironically John Sexton is one of those titanic figures. Of course, beware what you wish for. When we confront a contemporary giant, especially up close as the leader of our university, then we don’t want them. However, Sexton can take cold comfort because many of these larger-than-life presidents of yore—Nicholas Butler at Columbia, James Conant at Harvard, Robert Hutchins at Chicago--swooned over in many quarters today, were frequently reviled in their day.

Sexton too is a force to be reckoned, a 21st century university president who embraces the classical ideals of the academy, is willing to fight to preserve its best interests and principles and embraces the bully pulpit. He has relentlessly criticized political correctness. He insists on a university that can stand for the social and cultural discourse that we must have in a democracy. He decries the shouting inanities of the masses at the gates and on cable television, not to mention among our elected leaders. And he wants to be remembered as the president who built the NYU of today into what it will be in the future. That is a leader with large visions and intent on generating a legacy.

Sexton is a giant. Maybe with sufficient giant-killers around his feet, he will be brought down. However here the NYU faculty must be careful about what they wish for. They could be left with a much lesser light as Sexton’s successor.

Stephen J. Nelson is associate professor of educational leadership at Bridgewater State University and senior scholar with the Leadership Alliance at Brown University. His most recent book is Decades of Chaos and Revolution: Showdowns for College Presidents. A new work, College Presidents Reflect: Life In and Out of the Ivory Tower, will be released later this year

The current snapshot of New England’s economy relative to other areas is favorable. The region suffered less decline during the recent recession than the national average, and the region’s recovery has ...]]>

There is an exciting new opportunity for universities and colleges to advance the New England economy and at the same time help address environmental concerns.

The current snapshot of New England’s economy relative to other areas is favorable. The region suffered less decline during the recent recession than the national average, and the region’s recovery has been stronger than the national average. Neither of these were true for the previous three recessions. The problem is that having a relatively strong economy in these economic times is not very good. Unemployment rates in the region are still significantly higher than they were before the recession, and with the current rate of job growth, it would take over three years to recover the jobs lost in the Great Recession in the region.

After the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s, the region benefited from significant growth in growing technology industries. In the growth periods after the last two recessions, New England was one of the leading regions in the nation in the fast-growing, technology-based industries of those times. Coming out of this recession, the region has an opportunity to lead in a new technology-based industry: the so-called “clean tech” industry.

The term clean tech describes a group of emerging technologies that provide energy with minimum climate and environmental impact and use resources efficiently. Examples include wind power and solar energy and other new technologies in renewable energy generation and energy, materials and resource conservation.

In New England, the clean-tech economy is already evident and can be expanded. All the states in the region are relatively well-positioned in clean-tech industry development. The industry, however, is still very small compared with other sectors of the economy in New England, and it does not appear to be growing currently at a rate that would make it a very significant sector in terms of percentage of total employment anytime soon (e.g., over the next decade).

Five of the six New England states are among the top one-third of states in employment concentration in clean-tech using the frequently cited Pew Charitable Trust definition of clean tech. Maine leads the region and is second in the nation, behind only Oregon, in clean-tech employment concentration with 0.85% of total employment in clean tech. Massachusetts follows close behind, ranking third among the 50 states with 0.69% of total employment in clean tech, followed by Vermont with the 5th highest concentration (0.59%) in clean-tech employment in the nation. New Hampshire (12th) and Connecticut (16th) are also among the top third of states in clean-tech employment concentration. Rhode Island is the only state in the region with clean- tech employment concentration (0.42%) below the U.S. average overall of 0.49%. The regional average at 0.61% is 20% higher than the national average.

There are many initiatives across the region to try to build on the research oriented clean- technology base in the region to create jobs and enhance employment growth. This article reviews and updates information from a June 2010 New England Journal of Higher Education article on one novel effort, the Green Launching Pad (GLP) in New Hampshire, that has produced significant results in a short period of time and offers a model for other states to consider. It is university-created and based and suggestive of the role that colleges and universities can play in the next industrial revolution in the region.

To help further stimulate activity in clean-tech industries, in February 2010, University of New Hampshire (UNH) President Mark Huddleston and New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch announced the start-up of the GLP project. Green Launching Pad is a strategic partnership UNH and the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding from the U.S. Department of Energy. The GLP is a business acceleration program to commercialize clean technology. Ventures funded under the program are subject to a double-bottom line criteria. They are required to produce economic and environmental benefits. Faculty and students from UNH and Dartmouth and professionals from New Hampshire’s leading businesses including law firms, major utilities, manufacturing, and investment firms have been involved with the GLP.

Since its inauguration in February 2010, the GLP has selected 11 ventures to participate in the program from over 120 proposals. Selection is on a competitive basis and done by an advisory council of judges from industry and the nonprofit sector. The selection criteria include: 1) the potential for ventures to increase energy efficiency, reduce energy use and lower carbon emissions; 2) their potential to contribute to economic development—job creation and growth opportunities; 3) technology capability; 4) market feasibility; and 5) experience and capabilities of the leadership team. Winning teams consist of entrepreneurs, faculty, and students. Winners receive funding up to $100,000 each and receive accelerated business development assistance, including mentorship and coaching from experts in scientific, technical, business and legal areas.

In the first round of funding in 2010 (GLP 1.0), five winners were selected. They included a mix of companies applying a range of different clean technologies. All are based in the New Hampshire. Green Clean Heat in Newton Junction designs and builds fully-integrated “turnkey” efficient wood-fired heating systems for commercial and municipal facilities. EnerTrac in Hudson has developed low-cost smart metering technology and a corresponding monitoring service for propane gas and other uses that can reduce CO2 emissions by 30% or more. Revolution Energy in Dover develops renewable energy projects using third-party financing and creative incentive leveraging. Innovacene in Durham manufactures high-performing organic semiconductors for flexible organic solar cells and organic light-emitting diodes for lighting and displays. Air Power Analytics in Bedford improves energy efficiency of industrial compressed air systems, reducing electric consumption, and saving money while reducing upstream greenhouse-gas emissions.

The five first-round GLP companies have increased employment and developed business and marketing plans. Four of the five companies have begun to sell new products or services. All the companies have used student interns from UNH and Dartmouth. And all the companies are well-positioned for future growth and will be adding employees this year.

In April 2011, the second round (2.0) GLP funding competition was completed. Overall, the applicant pool was stronger than in the first round. There were six winning teams selected, again all New Hampshire-based, and again representing a diverse mix of clean tech.

SustainX in Lebanon provides a new non-toxic technology for low-cost scalable energy storage. The company’s new technology enables efficient storage of renewables (e.g., wind and solar) and can potentially be a game-changer in the economics of renewables. The energy storage technology is modular and allows for siting anywhere, from low-scale to grid-scale storage. Blue2green in Ashland will promote hydroelectric power production by restoring dams to produce renewable energy and attracting investors to suitable dams and mill-restoration projects. The revitalization of hydroelectric power in small- to medium-sized former industrial mill towns can help produce renewable energy, create jobs and preserve community history.

Holase in Portsmouth has developed self-contained, solar-powered LED traffic signal lights that are low-cost and easy to set up and operate. New England Footwear in New Market has developed a sustainable solution to footwear manufacturing and a way to revive shoe manufacturing in the region through new technologies that use organic materials, molds (instead of stitch and sew) and modular design to allow for easy replacement and re-use. ThermaPAVER of Exeter invented an invisible low-cost solar collector and heat exchanger with a diversity of potential applications. Applications include winter time melting of snow and ice off of roofs and summer time cooling pool side pavements and heating pools. Walker Wellington of Portsmouth has developed a hydrokinetic turbine power generation system which will capture and produce off-grid renewable energy for on-site use. Primary users will be municipal waste water treatment facilities and drinking water delivery systems.

The 11 wining GLP teams have generated a lot of excitement across the UNH campus and in the state of New Hampshire. The GLP has been mentioned in the last two state of the state addresses by Gov. Lynch and also highlighted in UNH’s new strategic plan. What is striking is that the excitement and potential for green entrepreneurship (and ventures launched with the GLP) remains high even with all the energy and environmental policy uncertainty in Washington and with the NH state legislature.

Looking forward with the Green Launching Pad and with similar types of efforts that might be undertaken elsewhere in New England what are the lessons from the GLP? First and foremost is that entrepreneurs are well along on the next industrial revolution and that the public sector in general is lagging behind. Many of these entrepreneurs are interested in profit making and also environmental impact (they are both a priority). This provides a significant opportunity for colleges and universities to work with private industry to be in the lead on clean-tech industry development and environmental entrepreneurship.

It is clear that with broadening concern about sustainability comes market opportunities and there are large numbers of entrepreneurs across the region and some with very good ideas for clean-technology business creation. A competitive grant program can help to identify and focus efforts on the highest quality ideas with the greatest market potential and positive environmental impact. What many clean-tech entrepreneurs, particularly those that are academic-based, lack are business know-how and connections, such as connections to legal and marketing advise to help them to identify and then to tap into market opportunities.

Finally, marketing and market development are very important for launching successful clean-tech ventures. Marketing is essential in creating new markets and customers. New clean-tech ventures require assistance in identifying target customers and figuring out how to convince them to buy products or services that they did not know they needed. Marketing assistance is an area in which business students and faculty can help tremendously and benefit from. Clean-tech ventures provide a near perfect opportunity for business students to apply what they learn and in turn learn through their experience working with nascent ventures about clean-technology business enterprise. They can learn about entrepreneurship and how clean technology can be applied by business ventures for profit making and to achieve desired social ends.

A focus on the commercialization of clean technology and ideas and social entrepreneurship, not just on breakthrough research or the invention of new technologies, is a role that many colleges and universities can engage in. It is not limited to the region’s top-tier research institutions. Engaging in clean-tech industry development, with initiatives such as UNH’s Green Launching Pad, can provide an exciting opportunity for students, faculty and others on college campuses across the region to work with private industry to help strengthen the region’s economy and help to address environmental concerns and to learn a lot while doing it.

You can visit the Green Launching Pad at www.GreenLaunchingPad.org
____________________________________________________________________________
Ross Gittell is the James R. Carter Professor at the University of New Hampshire’s Whittemore School of Business and Economics and A.R Venkatachalam is a professor in UNH's Decision Sciences Department, They are the co-directors of the Green Launching Pad.

Following last week's 8.9 magnitude earthquake off Northeastern Japan, continuing aftershocks and a massive tsunami, colleges and universities are keeping a close eye on that part of the world. Below are some updates from New England institutions.