In “In Defense Of American Higher Education” (Altbach, Gumport, Johnstone, 2001) there is an article titled “Academic Change and Presidential Leadership,” written by Northeastern’s President Richard Freeland. He writes of the need for universities to be receptive to change, and to manage that change effectively. Freeland studies the factors that aid or impede the management of change and concludes: “Competition and self-interest may not always display the most appealing qualities of academics or corporate leaders, but they nonetheless drive institutional systems that are impressively adaptable and serve our nation remarkably well.” Given President Freeland’s embrace of competition and self-interest as words to live by when managing a university, I suppose we should not be surprised at his refusal to support the janitors in the current strike situation. The moral argument that all workers on campus, and everywhere, deserve, at the least, access to health benefits remains unanswered by Freeland. Freeland and his administration have stood silent, taken a “not my concern” approach, when it is clear that they have the power to effect some kind of sway over the issue. Northeastern is Consolidated Services’ biggest client. The university administration could throw in with the janitors, accept a higher fee, and secure health benefits for these workers. But, one suspects, Freeland would claim that this would not be in our “self-interest.” But just whose interests is Freeland representing? Students? Faculty? Administration? Support Staff? Board of Regents? Or some abstract notion of fiscal accountability? Do some members of this place he likes to call a “family’ have more rights than others? Does he imagine that some members of this community feel comfortable knowing that other members are being treated unfairly? Does he assume that the lack of conscience embedded in the “competition and self-interest” mantra is embedded in all of us? Does he not see that his silence is a tacit endorsement of the status quo? Competition and self-interest. At one time these terms were taken for granted as the best business practices, cornerstones of the golden age of corporatism. But now, post- Enron, and in the face of a recession, an impending war, and September 11, they have come to signify something altogether different. Today we hear these words as hollow justifications for amorality and greed, echoing down from the hearing rooms on Capitol Hill. There is change afoot. As evidenced by the demonstrations and petitions signed in the past weeks, members of the NU community see beyond the bankrupt rhetoric of competition and self-interest. This is part of a growing trend around the country and around the world: people are coming to consciousness around our global interconnectedness and mutual obligation. Post September 11, we are coming to truly understand how an injury to one is an injury to all. Issues of social justice and of meaningful responsibility to others are taking center stage in the public (and the suitably chastened private) sphere. President Freeland needs to address and manage this reassertion of conscience. He has a perfect opportunity to “manage this change” by doing the right thing and clearly supporting NU’s contracted janitors in their fight to win health benefits and a living wage. Let’s hope he steps up to the plate and does so.