Former chair of the Penn Board of Trustees Scott Bok sat down for a wide-ranging interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian on April 23.
Sixteen months after his resignation as board chair, Bok reflected on the dramatic series of events that led to the end of his tenure, discussed the forthcoming release of his book, and offered a candid assessment of the federal government’s campaign against higher education — which he said “started at Penn.”
Here are six key moments from the DP’s 90-minute conversation with Bok.
Sixteen months later, Bok does not regret resigning
Bok concluded his book with two chapters providing a detailed account of what unfolded behind the scenes in the weeks and months leading up to his and former Penn President Liz Magill’s resignations on Dec. 9, 2023. He told the DP that the “chaotic situation” that took place in fall and winter of 2023 “exemplified” his time on Wall Street and made for a natural “culmination of the book.”
“The process felt a lot like a corporate takeover situation — specifically like a so-called activist shareholder situation, where you're not trying to buy the company necessarily, but you’re trying to use various tools and tactics to get control of the board,” Bok said.
In the days that followed Magill’s infamous congressional testimony, Bok said he received “a flood of communication” and “blur” of questions from various University stakeholders. As conversations continued, Bok said it became clear to him that both Magill's resignation and his own were the only viable next steps.
“It was clear to me that this board was not going to reach any resolution, and we were not going to be able to have a confidential discussion within the board to even figure out the right answer,” Bok said. “I realized there was just no way this was going to end well.”
RELATED:
“Even in retrospect” nearly a year and a half later, Bok said that he does not “regret any decision or move” he made during that period.
Bok says what happened was “unfair” to Magill
In the interview, Bok reiterated that he believed “what happened was not fair to President Magill.” He noted that Magill was only here for one year, and that university presidents are “really just getting started in that first year.”
“I think she was an innocent victim in this whole situation,” Bok said. “She didn’t write the Student Code of Conduct. She didn’t come up with the university policy on how to deal with protests. She wasn’t here long enough to choose the class of students who are on campus, or to hire the faculty who are on campus.”
Given her short tenure, Bok said he believes it was “unfair” for her to be the one that “bore the burden.”
He added that while “there's nothing that can be done to undo that,” the University and Board of Trustees owe her a better send-off — including a resolution of gratitude and the title of “President Emerita.”
“I realize it was a very, very difficult, stressful time at the moment she resigned and walked out the door. But I think as you see how things have played out and look back, there's nothing she could have done to change what's happening at Penn right now,” Bok added. “So it seems to me that the University owes her that.”
Bok added that Magill’s answer to Rep. Elise Stefanik’s question during the December 2023 congressional testimony came after “five hours of rigorous cross-examination from a group that was intent on humiliating the people being questioned.”
During the hearing, Magill said it was "context dependent" when asked whether individuals calling for the genocide of Jewish people violate Penn’s code of conduct.
“I don't think there’s anything she could have said that would have meant she was still president today, or that we would be in a very different situation today. I think it was kind of all preordained where things were going to go,” Bok said.
He said that in retrospect, the question would have been “better suited for more of a purely political answer” rather than the “legalistic” and “nuanced” answer that Magill gave alongside Harvard University’s then-President Claudine Gay and Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth.
Penn students are not “radical social activists”
Bok also noted that “one of the most preposterous misconceptions that came out of this whole saga” was that Penn students are “radical social activists.” Drawing on his experience at Penn as a student, parent, and trustee, Bok said that the “rap on Penn was that it was too pre-professional.”
“I wish students would do more exploring of just the liberal arts and the broadest kind of education, and not be so focused on near-term career objectives, but that is the reality,” Bok said. “People want to spin a tale — which I think a number of people across America are inclined to believe — that these students are mostly radicals. It just could not be further from the truth.”
He added that “no one should confuse 2020s Penn with 1960s Berkeley” — adding that Penn is likely more conservative than “most leading institutions” due to the “influence of Wharton.”
Universities need a “unified voice” at times of crisis
One of the takeaways from this period of turmoil, Bok noted, was that situations like the one that unfolded at the end of 2023 often “develop like a fever.” In such moments, he said, stakeholders tend to believe that a singular decision can “break the fever.”
In December 2023, that choice was Magill’s resignation. But looking back, Bok said he believes any “rational person” would realize “we didn't really solve anything.”
Amid the last few days of his time at the helm of the Board, Bok said he realized the group needed to be “more unified.”
“We need to be less anxious in terms of thinking that we're going to make some masterstroke tomorrow that's going to solve everything. Because the situation is way too complicated,” Bok said. “We need to run a very tight ship. We need to speak through one voice.”
Bok also tied his experience navigating the “particularly stressful moment” around Magill’s testimony and subsequent resignation to the current situation regarding the federal government’s attacks on higher education.
“I think any institution — particularly those that are really under fire from the federal administration — are going to be very deliberate and very cautious and very thoughtful about anything they do and about anything they say,” Bok added.
The current crisis facing higher education “started at Penn”
“This was a battle for the soul of the University, maybe of all of the universities,” Bok said. “This was really a very, very important moment in Penn's history.”
He said that “since the early days of this controversy at Penn” it was clear to him that the “agenda was just so much bigger” than campus antisemitism. A better characterization of the attacks on Penn, Bok said, would be a “backlash” against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and “woke” ideology.
“I think what has happened — which began at Penn and now we are seeing across the country and in law — is a kind of backlash against any kind of DEI efforts,” Bok said.
Bok said that he “applauds the efforts to make Penn, and society in general, more diverse,” but would not discourage a “reevaluation” of some of those things more conservative voices have criticized.
He added that Penn has never elected a “black or brown president” and has had a “relatively small percentage of deans who have been of color.”
“It’s not like we’ve had so much DEI that now there are no opportunities for white people. It's just not the reality,” he said. “I mean, DEI did not go too far. It’s really ridiculous to think that the DEI department became some all-powerful force. It became kind of a symbolic thing, and it became a rallying cry.”
Bok believes Penn must “strongly resist” external attacks
As the federal government continues to crack down on higher education institutions across the country, Bok said that “where exactly Penn goes is just up in the air right now.”
He hypothesized that universities could become “even more utilitarian” or “shrink” as federal funding becomes increasingly restricted.
As Penn faces increased federal scrutiny, Bok said he hopes the University “will strongly resist any inappropriate attack” and cited Harvard University’s response as a positive example.
Bok said that, even at a moment of financial uncertainty, donors should have “very little influence over how universities are run,” and that “some things are more important” than conceding to the “government's demands and trying to find a way to settle.”
He added that he believes it would be “foolish to cave in on the core principles of your institution in order to curry favor with a small number of donors.”
“The fact is, these universities — they don't desperately need every donation they get. So if a donation comes with strings attached, in terms of people wanting some kind of inappropriate influence, I think you have to have the discipline to turn it away,” Bok said. “It’s not easy to do, but there are some things that are more important than money.”
