Rutgers University's decision to have its president reside in a pair of luxury apartments on campus, rather than the historic hilltop house, has sparked curiosity and debate. While the university cites the president's desire to be closer to the heart of campus and his commitment to engaging with the day-to-day life of the university, the arrangement raises questions about the purpose and value of the presidential residence. In my opinion, this situation highlights the complex interplay between tradition, practicality, and the evolving role of higher education leadership. The presidential house, once a symbol of prestige and a home for Rutgers presidents, has a rich history dating back to 1928. It was a gift from Robert Nicholas and his wife, Roberta, the eldest daughter of Johnson & Johnson founder Robert Wood Johnson. However, the house's proximity to the busy Route 18 highway has made it an uncomfortable and unsuitable living space for decades. The constant noise from the highway has been a persistent issue, as noted by former President Robert Barchi, who humorously observed that the koi in the pond were wearing earplugs. This highlights the challenge of balancing the traditional role of the presidential residence with the practical needs of the modern university. The decision to have the president reside in the apartments, rather than the house, is a strategic move to address this issue. By moving into the apartments, the president can be more engaged with the campus community and the day-to-day life of the university. This is particularly important in the current climate of higher education, where leaders are expected to be more accessible and responsive to the needs of their institutions. However, the arrangement also raises questions about the purpose and value of the presidential residence. The house, despite its age-related problems, continues to function as a resource for Rutgers receptions, events, and other activities. It is a symbol of the university's history and tradition, and its preservation and maintenance are essential to maintaining the institution's cultural heritage. The fact that the president's daughter is living in the house for free, with housekeeping services provided by the university, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. While it may be seen as a perk of the president's position, it also raises questions about the fairness and equity of such arrangements. In my opinion, the situation highlights the need for a reevaluation of the role and purpose of the presidential residence in the modern university. As higher education continues to evolve, leaders must balance the traditional expectations of the role with the practical needs of the institution. This may involve a rethinking of the presidential residence, its purpose, and its value, as well as a reevaluation of the perks and benefits associated with the position. Ultimately, the decision to have the president reside in the apartments, rather than the house, is a strategic move to address the challenges of the modern university. However, it also raises important questions about the role and purpose of the presidential residence, and the need for a more nuanced approach to leadership in higher education.
