edited by James C. Palmer and Stephen G. Katsinas Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, 1996

I had looked forward with considerable anticipation to the publication of Palmer's and Katsinas's Graduate and Continuing Education for Community College Leaders: What It Means Today.

I know the majority of the authors featured in this publication as dedicated professionals, sincerely concerned about the future of the community college and those who will lead it into the next century. It was my hope this work would offer the first objective and comprehensive assessment of the twenty-odd graduate programs concentrating on community college leadership, and that this assessment would form the basis of an objective discussion of the relevance of these programs now and in coming decades.

That my hopes would not be fulfilled was evident from the moment I reviewed the work's table of contents.

Like too many other publications within Jossey-Bass's New Directions series, Graduate and Continuing Education for Community College Leaders is an ensemble work. In keeping with conventional practice, the work's two editors, James Palmer and Stephen Katsinas, assembled a large number of essays -- ten in all -- apparently with the objective of providing a wide range of perspectives on the present and future state of community college graduate programs.

What the reader soon realizes, however, is that inclusion and diversity have come at the price of an extended and objective engagement with the subject matter. Because of its highly fragmented organization and the brevity of each chapter, the overall work favors description over analysis and superficial treatment over the more involved process of constructing persuasive arguments. One gets little sense that the various chapters that make up this work are joined together by any shared perspective or sense of larger purpose.

The range of topics that the book attempts to cover is really quite staggering. One chapter, by Raymond Young, attempts to summarize the history of community college leadership programs. Another, by Katsinas, argues that leadership programs should take into account the tremendous diversity of institutional types now clustered under the community college tent. Yet another, by Berta Laden! describes a number of continuing education programs offered by community college professional associations.

Of all, certainly the most unexpected and disheartening chapter is George Vaughan's and Barbara Scott's. This chapter is devoted entirely to the "problem" of writing proficiency among leadership program students. That this chapter was even considered for inclusion reveals volumes about the sad condition of graduate study in America and of the unwillingness of university faculty to do the one thing that would prompt students to develop these skills -- the denial of admission to applicants with inadequate writing skills.

Of course, anyone familiar with the history of American higher education would not at all be surprised that skill-deficient students have grown more numerous in graduate programs or that university faculty have failed to take decisive action to correct the problem. Predications of this problem are virtually as old as the American university itself.

Early in this century, for example, Abraham Flexner roundly criticized American education for its preference for enrolling the most students, rather than the best. He envisioned the day when even the doctorate would be awarded without regard to competence. Were he alive today, Flexner would certainly feel a measure of vindication in Vaughan's and Scott's chapter, with its thinly veiled criticism of the most basic writing skills of students in community college leadership programs. "Didn't these students," Flexner almost certainly would ask, "learn these skills in high school?"

No less disturbing than the Vaughan and Scott chapter is the contribution of Barbara Gibson-Berrenger, James Ratcliff and Robert Rhoads. In an obtuse style reminiscent of John Dewey (whom they quote), these authors advocate for a new vision of community college leadership, based on the principles of diversity, discourse and democracy.

Upon close examination, it is apparent that the authors have done little more than marry a simplified Hegelian dialectic with the modern jargon of diversity. As the authors write, the leader becomes a change agent, no longer "resolving differences, seeking compromise and minimizing conflict," but accepting conflict and "acknowledging and examining differences and embracing diversity as the basis of empowerment, enterprise, ingenuity and change."

Admittedly, no one would deny that conflict can produce change, but it is no less true that conflict is the most inefficient route to change, and there is never any guarantee that such change will be for the good. The authors' position -- their presumption that all change, even if the result of conflict, invariably results in progress -- is a naive and an ill-considered basis for any leadership program.

If ever implemented by program graduates on their campuses, the authors' conflict-based model of change would lead to community colleges fragmented by conflict and incapable of marshaling their scarce resources to serve vital community needs. Community colleges simply lack the surplus resources to pay the cost of conflict, whatever its potential benefits.

But leaving these concerns aside, what is most disheartening about this work is its apparent unwillingness to address the fundamental issues that call into question the continued viability of community college leadership programs. One such issue is whether leadership can be taught.

If one takes the position that leadership is a quality, present in some but not in others, there is simply no point in a graduate program that presents itself as transforming individuals into leaders. It would seem more sensible for graduate students to enroll in a traditional academic program with a body of knowledge that can be learned, than to waste their time and energy seeking a quality that comes by nature, and not through the classroom.

The second issue, and the one of greatest importance to trustees and others who must employ senior administrative staff, is whether leadership program faculty should serve, in the words of Barbara Townsend, as "gatekeepers" to senior positions in community colleges.

What criteria should be used in accepting or rejecting applicants and who should decide upon that criteria? It may well be the case that university faculty in leadership programs are the best positioned to make such decisions. But, at a minimum, the criteria they utilize should be made known and subjected to the scrutiny of trustees, state directors, faculty and staff, and all the other groups with an interest in who is afforded access to positions of leadership in community colleges.

Anyone familiar with modern publishing practices recognizes the impossible deadlines under which editors must work, which all too often lead to imperfect publications. Possibly today's academic community would be better served if authors were to follow the example of Hastings Rashdall, the great 19th century English scholar, who spent 11 years preparing his multi-volume history of medieval universities -- a work of such power and insight that it laid the foundation for the study of higher education in the English-speaking world.

By contrast, Graduate and Continuing Education for Community College Leaders: What it Means Today is both too ambitious in its plan and too fragmented in its discussion to have the kind of lasting impact of Rashdall's history. If the objective of academic publication is the promotion of meaningful, long-term dialogue within the community of scholars, it may be time to abandon ensemble scholarship and return to the less hurried, but more thorough approach of an earlier era.