This op-ed by Nathan Burchfiel originally appeared on University Business.
Near the end of his New York Magazine cover story detailing more than 18 months of turmoil at Columbia University, writer Nick Summers recounts an embarrassing scene that crisis management leaders of other institutions can learn from.
Summers recounts a virtual meeting during which then-Interim President Katrina Armstrong attempted to convince faculty that the university was right to concede to political pressure from the Trump administration. The university didn’t want a written record, but organizers could not figure out how to turn off the virtual meeting’s transcription. Unsurprisingly, the transcript was leaked.
It was the kind of unforced error institutions must avoid when communicating during a crisis. But blaming this leak on what the article calls “another bit of amateur hour” and suggesting that’s what ultimately “sank” Armstrong’s tenure misses the bigger lessons for Columbia and anyone else managing or communicating through a crisis.
The fact of the matter is, meeting details would have probably leaked anyway. Any attendee could have easily recorded the call, taken notes or simply recounted the meeting to reporters afterward. (In fact, at least one professor on the call spoke to Summers for the New York piece.)
Sure, having a transcript made it easier for the eager leakers and journalists, but it was a lack of trust between the administration and faculty that caused it. The protests and political blowback that started in October 2023 accelerated an erosion of trust that had been underway for years, if not decades. It was the result of Columbia repeatedly violating the core principles of crisis response that management either didn’t know, or chose to reject.
Read the three principles Columbia neglected on University Business.
