Recently, the 'riding a donkey while seeking a horse' incident involving the president of Tsing Hua University has triggered extensive social discussion, with continuous media coverage and diverse opinions expressed by higher education professionals.Some have strongly criticized the move, even advocating for student-led protests as condemnation; others hold opposing views, arguing that individuals inherently possess the freedom to choose their careers, and participating in another university’s presidential selection before official reappointment confirmation is not inappropriate. In fact, in foreign higher education circles, it is not uncommon for outstanding university presidents to be recruited by other institutions due to their proven performance—this can even be seen as recognition of their capabilities. Supporters’ perspectives have also sparked enthusiastic responses on social media, with hundreds liking, commenting, and sharing posts, indicating clearly divergent public opinions on this event.Tsing Hua University issued a brief statement through its Secretariat, stating that career choice is a personal right and thus not improper. However, what is truly puzzling is not the existence of differing societal stances, but the fact that the person involved has never personally explained the matter to the public despite ongoing public debate.Universities differ from ordinary enterprises and government agencies. Enterprises pursue performance, governments emphasize rule of law, whereas universities bear the mission of talent cultivation, knowledge transmission, moral exemplification, and serving as the conscience of society. Therefore, university governance (University Governance) relies not only on institutional operations but also on integrity, transparency, accountability, and public trust.A university president is not merely an administrative head but also a symbol of the university’s spirit and values—every word and action carries示范 significance. In recent years, universities worldwide have emphasized 'leadership ethics.' An excellent president needs not only outstanding academic leadership and international vision, but more importantly, when facing conflicts of interest or role transitions, must proactively disclose information, avoid conflicts of interest, and prioritize the overall interests of the institution.Law defines the minimum standard of behavior, while ethics represents society’s higher expectations of leaders. Many controversies persist not because laws were broken, but because society feels leaders failed to meet the ethical standards expected of their positions.University presidents carry not only managerial responsibilities but also moral obligations. Campuses educate students daily about integrity, responsibility, and public values. If a president chooses silence or fails to adequately explain themselves during major public incidents, even if subjectively no wrongdoing occurred, external doubts easily arise, undermining public trust in university governance.Therefore, mature university governance depends not solely on perfect systems, but also on leaders cultivating a culture of open explanation, honest communication, and courageous accountability. When disputes arise, proactively addressing issues and fully responding to societal concerns is not only respect for faculty and students but also the best way to safeguard university autonomy. Only then can universities truly become models of public trust rather than focal points of public controversy.In fact, the legal aspects of this incident are not complicated. A sitting president has the right to participate in other universities’ presidential selections—there is room for discussion from emotional, rational, and legal perspectives, and it does not necessarily constitute illegality. However, whether one should continue participating in another school’s selection process after being reappointed involves leadership judgment, integrity, and public perception—not merely a legal issue.What the public truly expects may not be a formal statement, but rather a personal explanation from the individual involved regarding their thinking and decisions. If there were unavoidable considerations, an honest explanation would allow society to fairly judge; if there was indeed poor judgment, openly accepting responsibility and offering appropriate apologies could still resolve the controversy.Unfortunately, the individual’s silence has instead fueled further speculation, turning what could have been resolved through communication into a public dispute consuming vast social resources, causing unnecessary anxiety among faculty, students, parents, and society at large.Tsing Hua University’s motto is 'Hou De Zai Wu' ('Virtue Bears All Things'). 'Hou De' represents integrity and character—the foundation of university spirit; 'Zai Wu' signifies breadth of mind and responsibility—the demeanor expected of leaders when facing controversy. When integrity is questioned, one should bravely confront it; when judgment falters, one should openly accept responsibility.The true test of a leader often comes not during smooth sailing, but when crisis strikes—whether they are willing to courageously step forward, honestly communicate with society, and take responsibility. Crisis management tests not only ability but also reveals character; public trust in leaders is built—or lost—in such moments.*Author is Distinguished Chair Professor and former Vice President of Tsing Hua University