Did anybody else read the Lehman article in the alumni magazine from Sept/Oct?
I finally read the article, and was disappointed that it didn't provide a "less murky" picture of why he left, but then I read the "Exit Interview" with Lehman, and that seemed to provide plenty of answers.
The main article hints that the problem was about fundraising, and that led to the departure of Inge Reichenbach, whom the trustees liked, they blamed Lehman for her leaving, and wanted him to resign as a result. That seems school-age-child-petty at best, so what was the real problem? Lehman's comments in the "exit interview" article shed some light.
The artilce reads : "[Lehman's] priorties do not translate obviously into catergories of a multi-billion dollar capital campaign." Lehmans himself is quoted as saying "... I believe that if universities come to be described by their presidents and understood by the public as being first and foremost about dollars, then we will have lost one of the great institutions of human civilization."
He continues : "... we need to do everything we can to secure the commitment of resources that enables us to do great things in the world. But in order to do that, we have to articulate a vision of higher eduction that is compelling, that is worth investing in. If we say that the purpose of the university is to raise money, we will not raise money."
To me, it seems clear what happened. Lehman wanted a major capital campaign that tied into his vision of the university (see his 3 themes). The trustees didn't like his vision of the university, and wanted to run the capital campaign for the sake of raising money. They couldn't find a middle ground and that issue was exacerbated by the departure of Inge Reichenbach, Lehman's travels around the globe, and the role his wife played in his administration. The trustees forced Lehman out, there is no way Lehman went to the trustees and said "I'll leave."