Chancellor Mnookin’s Stable Leadership Will Be Missed

Under Mnookin, UW-Madison remained academically strong, invested in research and STEM fields, and avoided the kinds of institutional crises that have defined leadership at other universities.

Seal of the University of Wisconsin

Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin will leave the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the end of the spring semester to become president of Columbia University. Her time in office was not defined by dramatic reform, but rather, a series of measured decisions and political compromises that reflected the difficulty of leading a major public university in a deeply divided era.

Mnookin assumed the chancellorship in August of 2022 during a phase of mounting pressure on public universities. Amid political scrutiny, cultural division, and financial uncertainty, the role did not demand bold reinvention but rather careful navigation. Despite frequent (and often unfair) criticism from both progressives and conservatives, Mnookin provided a degree of stability that may only be fully appreciated in her absence.

Her tenure became most visible during the 2023 funding standoff with Wisconsin legislative Republicans. The eventual deal, which tied new funding to restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, was immediately controversial. The university agreed to restructure certain DEI positions and redirect resources toward other priorities, including faculty hiring and high-demand academic programs.

For critics on the left, the agreement represented a capitulation that weakened the university’s commitment to diversity efforts. For conservatives, the deal still did not go far enough. For others, it was a necessary compromise to break a political deadlock and secure funding without inviting deeper legislative intrusion into university affairs. Mnookin defended the deal as pragmatic, and whether it is seen as a concession or a strategy largely depends on how the role of a public university in a divided state is viewed.

A similar pattern emerged in her handling of campus protests, particularly during the wave of demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas war in 2024. As encampments and protests unfolded at UW-Madison, university administration again faced criticism from all sides. Some argued Mnookin allowed disruptions to go on too long, while others believed the university acted too forcefully. However, the fact that her response was not fully satisfying to anyone reflected a leadership style that often aimed for balance, even at the cost of decisiveness.

Mnookin also made an effort, at least in principle, to address concerns about intellectual diversity in recent months. She supported free expression initiatives and welcomed a broader range of speakers to campus. While these efforts did not fundamentally reshape the university’s intellectual climate, they signaled awareness of the issues, something not all university leaders have been willing to acknowledge. The Wisconsin Exchange may end up being her most impactful legacy on campus, as long as support for the initiative continues.

Mnookin’s character also distinguished her in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. While many in academia– including at our own university– failed to grapple with the seriousness of his murder, she was not afraid to say his name. “What happened to Charlie Kirk was a tragedy. [...] College campuses should be one of the places within society where ideas are explored and bump up against each other,” she said. Condemning political violence may not be radical, but in the current context of higher education, it is.

Beyond these flashpoints, her time as chancellor was marked by continuity and a comfortable rise in rankings. UW-Madison remained academically strong, continued investing in research and STEM fields, and avoided the kinds of institutional crises that have defined leadership at other universities. In a moment when higher education has often lurched from controversy to controversy, Mnookin’s stable leadership carries its own weight.

Perhaps the clearest way to understand Mnookin’s legacy was that she was not a transformative figure, but she was far from a disastrous one. She made compromises that frustrated many, avoided fights others wanted her to take, and rarely governed in a way that inspired strong enthusiasm. But she also kept the university functioning, intact and largely out of the national spotlight. In today’s environment, that may be more significant than it sounds.

Mnookin’s time at UW-Madison was not without flaws, but it was far from a failure. As the university transitions to new leadership, her reliable, cautious approach will be missed once it is gone. Meanwhile, Columbia will benefit from her steady hand.