(Source: Hillsdale College)

College presidents are often called upon to air their views on controversial subjects, ostensibly because they represent learning and erudition. But as Larry Summers learned not so long ago, speaking one's mind can lead to undesirable outcomes.

A recent opinion piece in University Business tackles this question. Here's an excerpt:

College presidents are increasingly called upon to defend the historic missions and principles on which their institutions were founded and to explain to prospective students, their families, and the public the value of the education they offer. However, college and university presidents also have an obligation to address social issues with direct or even tangential implications for higher education.

These higher ed leaders are well prepared to contribute in meaningful ways to national and international conversations. Colleges and universities with distinctive missions and educational philosophies-including women's colleges, historically black colleges, "great books" colleges, and colleges affiliated with religious denominations-continue to exist at least partly because their presidents speak out with courage and conviction about the value of a diverse array of educational choices.

Presidential leadership is often a matter of making discrete decisions that anticipate a future in which the institution will thrive. Sometimes that means offering a spirited defense of the college's historic values, and sometimes it means pursuing entirely new directions.

Officials at Hillsdale College (Mich.), for example, believe so deeply that the government should not meddle in higher education that they have not accepted federal funds for many years. More recently, several dozen college presidents have come to believe so strongly that U.S. News & World Report measures the wrong things that they have decided not to participate in the annual "reputational" rankings.

A president who takes a stand that resonates with the college's distinctive traditions while the surrounding culture moves in another direction, it is assumed, shows courage, while a president who departs from the institution's traditions demonstrates even more courage. It is believed that a president who takes a stand on an issue that has implications beyond the campus itself exemplifies the boldest leadership of all.

But it is not that simple. Consider, for example, the president who vigorously defends the American role in Iraq. Is he courageous in speaking out in support of an unpopular war even though the campus is near a large military base and many of its students are from military families?

While many campuses are taking dramatic steps to become more "green" in recognition of the precariousness of the global environment, would the college president who champions the opposite case be seen as bold or cowardly?

So...should college presidents be expected to speak their minds on issues outside the academy, or should they stick to their own business? What are the possible consequences of either strategy?