BY BRANDEN D. ELMORE

Before a Yale Family Weekend event on October 10, a live microphone captured President Maurie McInnis speaking with Yale College Dean Pericles Lewis. She described an encounter with a student activist as an ambush, referred to the student as someone who “shows up pissed off,” and characterized the university’s trustees as “exhausting.” After the comments became public, McInnis expressed regret and pledged to continue engaging with the Yale community.

The episode raises a broader question about accountability in higher education: How do universities determine when a leader’s mistake warrants correction, public accountability, or removal from office?

I have considered this question since January 2024, when Claudine Gay resigned as Harvard University’s first Black president after six months in office. Her departure followed congressional testimony concerning antisemitism and allegations involving citations in her scholarly work. Harvard’s governing board reported that an institutional review identified issues requiring correction but found no violation of its research misconduct standards. Amid sustained political and public pressure, Gay resigned.

The circumstances differ considerably. Gay faced questions involving academic integrity and congressional testimony, while McInnis faced criticism over a private conversation. Liz Magill, the white president of the University of Pennsylvania, also resigned following her 2023 congressional hearing. These distinctions matter. Still, the controversies invite examination of how universities evaluate leaders, communicate institutional confidence, and respond to external pressure.

As a Black higher education scholar-practitioner, my interest in these questions is informed by research examining racial identity, organizational culture, and institutional leadership. My earlier scholarship in communication explored how university responses to racial crises can reinforce prevailing organizational norms. My doctoral research subsequently examined identity negotiation among Black administrators at a predominantly white institution.

Using narrative inquiry, I studied the experiences of seven Black administrators navigating their racial identities and the professional expectations associated with their institutional roles. One finding, which I characterized as “always being on,” captured the pressure participants experienced to maintain exceptional standards of professional performance, appearance, and conduct.

Other findings concerned the need for recognition of administrators’ full identities and contributions, as well as the influence of white-dominant organizational practices on professional authority. Although these findings emerged from one institution, they provide a framework for examining how expectations of leadership develop and whose identities are affirmed within institutional cultures.

University presidents exercise considerable authority, yet their legitimacy also depends upon relationships with trustees, faculty, students, donors, and political actors. These relationships influence how professional conduct is evaluated and the consequences that follow when expectations are challenged.

Harvard’s governing board initially affirmed its confidence in Gay. Following her resignation, the board praised her contributions and condemned the racist attacks directed toward her. The coexistence of these positions deserves attention. How does an institution distinguish legitimate concerns about professional judgment from external campaigns seeking a leader’s removal? How does a governing board preserve its independence when criticism becomes intertwined with attacks on a leader’s identity?

In a 2024 qualitative study, Román Liera and colleagues documented the experiences of college presidents of color who described heightened scrutiny during presidential selection, including assessments shaped by white, masculine leadership norms. Their findings concerned appointments, yet they invite further examination of how racialized expectations may influence the evaluation of leaders once they assume office.

During Gay’s controversy, some critics connected concerns about her scholarship and professional judgment to broader attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion. These arguments extended beyond her individual conduct to challenge the institutional priorities associated with her appointment.

Several questions should guide institutional responses to leadership controversies. What conduct is under examination, and what evidence supports the concerns raised? How does that conduct affect the institution’s responsibilities? What opportunities exist for correction or institutional repair? How have comparable matters been evaluated?

Answering these questions establishes a foundation for accountability that extends beyond public opinion or political expediency.

McInnis’s remarks have offered Yale an opportunity to demonstrate how such accountability operates. Although the university’s trustees have affirmed their confidence in her, students have legitimate grounds to question their president’s willingness to engage criticism. Her response must extend beyond a public apology. Yale’s continued actions will communicate how the university weighs professional judgment, student participation, and its commitments to open dialogue.

Gay’s resignation continues to raise questions about how governing boards exercise judgment amid sustained public pressure, particularly when attacks on a leader’s identity become intertwined with legitimate concerns about professional conduct. These decisions also shape how other Black administrators understand the expectations and institutional support surrounding their leadership.

University governing boards establish the standards by which leaders are evaluated. Their responsibility is to ensure those standards are transparent, consistent, and grounded in evidence, even when controversy makes doing so difficult.

Academic integrity, professional judgment, and accountability remain essential expectations of university leadership. These standards require transparent and consistent application, including careful consideration of evidence, the seriousness of the conduct, and the institutional rationale for corrective action. Consistency does not demand identical consequences for different forms of misconduct, but it does require institutions to explain the principles guiding their decisions.

Who gets to be imperfect is ultimately a question about the expectations institutions establish, the accountability they exercise, and whose leadership they remain willing to sustain.

Branden D. Elmore is a higher education scholar-practitioner and program coordinator at QEM Network HQ, a Washington, DC–based nonprofit. His scholarship examines identity negotiation among Black administrators, organizational communication, and equity-minded leadership.