Moral courage: restoring well-being, community, and capacity within the post-pandemic university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to spark dialogue regarding what it takes to lead well as a university leader post-pandemic. While much has been written about the future challenges facing universities, not a lot has been written about the kind of moral courage that is required to lead them. There never has been a more important time for strong leadership from university presidents; leadership that supports human flourishing and learning in all its forms. Design/methodology/approach Discussion focuses on the role of presidents in leading the post-pandemic university. The author speaks from experience on the need to restore well-being, community, and capacity for a more hopeful and resilient future. Findings This study makes a case for a post-pandemic university needing to be marked by courage and humanity. Students are looking for universities to align with what they care about and what is relevant to their experience and future. Responsibility falls to leaders within the academy to restore well-being, community and capacity across the university. Research limitations/implications Leading a university as president, at the best of times, is a complex and rewarding role. Leading during a global pandemic could hardly get more challenging. It is hoped that this paper will generate additional discussion as to what it means to lead well in the academy. Originality/value The author’s experience having led a university through one of the most challenging times in our history may provide a perspective for colleagues and future leaders of the university sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".