Hamilton College has named its next president.
The private college in Clinton, New York on Wednesday announced Steven Tepper will become the institution’s 21st president effective July 1st.
Tepper, who is currently serving as a dean at Arizona State University, will succeed retiring Hamilton president David Wippman.
At a time when liberal arts colleges both public and private are under financial strain, Tepper, recognized as a national leader in cultural policy, says such an education remains vital:
A liberal arts education is one of our oldest forms of educating. It goes back to the Greek academies. And I don't think we've ever come up with a better way to expand the human mind, to expand human capacity. Like, I think the style of learning, seeking knowledge through exchange rather than just through documents is really powerful. And so, I think the core of what, what a liberal arts college does, you know, needs to be preserved, celebrated. But it also does need revision and evolution. And as you suggest, lots of changes, changes in our demographics, changes in the expectations of students and their families, changes in technology, changes in our democracy. And we want this incredible invention of accelerating human imagination, the thing called the liberal arts, to be as relevant to the future and to our current moment, as it has been. And so, that just requires really trying to investigate and examine, and how to design for that moving forward. And Hamilton has been a place that's embraced innovation. I think its open curriculum model, the way it thinks about your communications, fluency across digital and oral and written communications, its embrace of interdisciplinary learning. So, it already has a core in its DNA, it is an innovative place. And so, what's exciting is to work with the faculty to try to evolve that for the current moment, I guess, you know, why? I mean, Hamilton is fortunate, right? This particular kind of style of learning. It's not like ASU, it doesn't scale to sort of infinite numbers of people, but what it does do, is we know it, it accelerates leadership. So, so many of Hamilton's graduates end up in leadership positions. And so, if we don't get the education right, if we don't give them the skill set to sort of be fully empowered, then we're not able to have the impact in the world through their leadership that we want to. So, yeah, so we have to be relevant, we have to be evolving our design as an institution and our faculty have been known for their innovation, their openness are really ground zero for that thinking.
So, you'll be moving from Arizona State to Hamilton College, and the student population is about a quarter of what it is out in Arizona state. So, is that difference in size going to be a challenge?
I think it's going to be a good challenge for me. Again, you know, Arizona State is sort of like a city of education. But within that city, there are lots of neighborhoods, lots of Bodegas, intellectual markets, if you will. And so as long as you're student-centered, which ASU is and which Hamilton is, then you organize yourself and your objectives and your decisions around what is best for students. And so, in that way, I think there's something quite common that transcends both institutions. But again, I think I want to emphasize that the way you educate in the arts and design disciplines is very much aligned to the core values of a liberal arts education. And you know, Hamilton's need-blind, all needs met approach also means that you have to be thinking about how that education connects to diverse experiences of students. And that's also something that ASU has been a model for. So, in its approach to inclusive excellence, in its approach to innovative student-centered pedagogy, I think there's actually a lot more in common than you would think if you were just sort of looking at the landscape and saying this big elephant over here, and this looks like a, you know, a small mouse over here. They're actually, the sort of, the heartbeat of both of these types of institutions is more similar.
Hamilton College is a small, private liberal arts institution in upstate New York, and unfortunately, we've seen some other schools that could be described in the same way closed or planning to close within the year. The College of Saint Rose in Albany, which is closing in June Cazenovia college in the Syracuse area of upstate New York is recently closed. Are small private liberal arts colleges are a dying breed? What can be done to prevent the future of Hamilton College from ending up like some other of its contemporaries?
Yeah, I mean, I think it's always a design challenge. And so, for many of Hamilton's contemporaries, their economic model doesn't match their pedagogical model. And I don't think it's too late for many of those institutions to redesign themselves, whether that's through partnerships and consortia or through technology or through changing the nature of the residential experience. I mean, I think there's a lot of things. I mean, Hamilton is very, very fortunate to have one of the highest loyalty rates of any alumni, anywhere in the world. And those alumni are passionate about the experiences they had, and they have invested in a college. So, the college, you know, I don't think is in any in the same situation, as some of its peers. It is strong, it is still a place that many families want to send their kids. And it has resources to subsidize the costs. So, for families that can't afford it, they can still attend. But that said, I'm not worried about the imminent threat that some liberal arts colleges face. But again, the world is changing. And we have to always reiterate, and also rediscover our value proposition. And it's not just for liberal arts colleges, I think higher education more generally, has gone the way of other institutions in American society, which is a majority of the people don't necessarily trust the value in those institutions. And that's really on us to prove that value, to communicate clearly, to serve our communities, and to show that this is a model that should persist, that it trains effective leaders and citizens. And if we get out of step, then we should be accountable for that. But I'm confident that we've got a faculty and leadership team in Hamilton that is really eager to investigate and examine, and make sure that we are more in step with what our students need, what their families need, what the future needs.
Dr. Tepper, you spoke about the importance of diversity and inclusivity. And you're credited with tripling the number of Hispanic, Black and indigenous full time faculty. At the same time, we're seeing affirmative action be repealed. Why do you think it's so valuable to consider race and diversity, even as the Supreme Court is doing away with affirmative action programs?
Well, I mean, I'm a scholar of creativity. And everything we know about creativity is that the most transformative ideas emerge from the collision of people and cultures, and experiences and perspectives. And so, groupthink, homogeneity, this the way you're going to invent the next thing, whether that's the next important policy, or whether it's the next company or that's next way to solve cancer, diabetes. So, if we're trying to invent the future, then if we don't have diverse students and faculty, we're not going to successfully be as creative, as innovative as we can be. So, to me, it's just a requirement for achieving our objectives. That's sort of point one. I think the second is that we get diversity when we expand our criteria for what we value, and so I'm not worried about the I mean, I am I regret the decision, because I think affirmative action properly applied has been transformative to education in American society. But we have very specific indicated admissions teams and the more variables they consider, the more broad their criteria are for considering what makes a great student, the more diverse our students are going to be. And so, I think we've got all of our tools that we need to advance the student population and the faculty population that will give us the greatest learning community, the greatest creative campus, the greatest set of minds that can collide with each other, to invent the next thing. And so, yeah, I'm sad that we have a policy lever that's not available to us anymore, but I am completely hopeful and very optimistic that we have sophisticated ways of defining value, and defining excellence and defining who can make a contribution to the community that will ensure that that diversity, not only stays but grows over time.
Colleges and universities are also at the center of the national conversation over free speech. Do you see a need for protection of free speech on college campuses? And what do you interpret as safe and effective free speech on college campuses?
Yeah, well, that's a question that will be a point of inquiry for the community going forward. I don't think there's easy answers. And I think we need to sort of take the liberal arts approach to our own challenges, which is, you know, let's ask hard questions. Let's question our assumptions, let's interrogate, let's reflect, let’s design, let's revise and it's not working. Like I think we can deal with this question of how humans and how communities engage with one another around a really challenging issues without assuming we have all the answers going in. That said, college campuses have gotta remain a bastion of free speech. I'm always of the belief that more speech is better than less speech. I believe strongly that bad ideas shouldn't be invisible, and should be quiet, shouldn't be silenced, because that's not how you overcome a bad idea, you overcome it by putting it in the light and interrogating it. and showing that it's not a good idea. But I do also recognize that we're a community of learners who are trying to feel safe enough to show for our full humanity and to be able to say things and to be able to ask questions without immediate judgment or without silence. But for that to happen, we have to be accountable for our speech. And so, one of the things I don't see enough is that when people harm each other with words they choose, they should care about its impact. So, you know, I think like, as a metaphor, if you're riding your bike across campus, and you knock into a fellow student and knock them down, you would stop and ask them if they're OK. But if we drive by someone with our language, and we knock them over, we don't often help them back up or ask them how they're doing. And so, I just want to make sure that we're all accountable to each other in our community. And that people can be uncomfortable with discomfort, and can make sure that the campus remains a place of interrogation and inquiry and not just politics and posturing. And I guess that, I think the campus should be a place that foments politics and political voice. But the campus itself shouldn't be the object of politics. It should not become the political question. That might be a little naive. And it's harder to make that happen in practice, but I think we all have to work really hard to preserve what's wonderful, about a college like Hamilton, that it can be a place, a democracy makerspace, right? Where we really lean in to having conversations that are better than the conversations that are happening out in the world, right? It's not a tick-tock campus. It's not a place where you just say something and move on. It's really a place for deep interrogation. And so that would be my hope.
Moving on to another topic, Dartmouth College recently announced it would again require standardized testing for prospective students. Where do you see standardized testing, SATs, etc. in higher education? And are they help or hindrance when it comes to admissions?
Well, everything's changing quickly. So, you know, part of the question is who? Who will choose to take a standardized test in the future? And who won't? And how do you make sure you're not limiting the applicants that you want to see? And I don't think we know that answer yet. I think, post-pandemic and post that decision, we're still learning a lot about which students are choosing to opt in and which students are opting out. And so, I think it'd be premature to make a decision. I will say that, you know, standardized test has a history of bias. And I think that's concerning even if it can, in some circumstances be somewhat predictive of success. But I also think the research is really uncertain about that. And even some of the studies that have been quoted are more nuanced when you look into those studies and talk to those authors about under what context. And in the end, I think the power of the SAT to predict success in college is much smaller than we think. And there are many, many variables. And many other things that predict success, and I think we have very, a special place like Hamilton, we have a very sophisticated admissions teams that understand how to look at a complex picture. And so, I think whether we use the SAT or don't use the SAT, it's only one small instrument in that effort to pick an interesting, diverse and capable class. And I think we want to look at all the research and I don't think it's conclusive yet. And, you know, if someone came to me in conclusively could show that we would get a better class by using the SAT, that we'd still have a diverse class, then I think our admissions team and our board and faculty would consider that again, but I don't think there's been that kind of definitive evidence yet.
Just another topic out of Dartmouth, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that men's basketball players at the college are employees of the university and then therefore, have the right to form a union. How do you feel about student athletes being able to unionize?
I don't know enough about that. I guess I would say that all of our decisions should be about optimizing the success of our students. And if you know, a union approach was optimizing success, then I think you look at that very closely. I just, I'm not convinced yet that that, ultimately is what will make our student athletes attain their objectives as students and as athletes. So yeah, I guess, it's an open question be interesting to see how that plays out. I'm sure we'll be watching it.
Colleges and universities across the country have seen non-tenure track faculty vote to unionize. Is this something that you've encountered at Arizona State?
I have not. No. And, you know, I'm just very much pro-work, worker, I think how to support your employees is always a balancing act. And trying to figure out how you use limited resources, give opportunities to the most number of people, deal with salary compression, and try to be fair and try to make sure people don't lose their jobs, and try to sustain a complex institution…So, again, at the 2000 piece, puzzle and unionizing is perhaps one piece that should be considered. There are many other pieces. But in general, I think colleges need to continue to aspire to be models for how we can be better societies and better societies are places that treat their workers fair, places that embrace sustainability, places that show you how to engage democracy productively, how to turn outrage into inquiry, so I wouldn't put work conditions any different, in terms of our aspiration should be to try to be a model for our students, for our community. And just recognize that, you know, all institutions are complex. And the ability to interrogate ourselves is ultimately the first step to figure out how to put those puzzle pieces together.
