In recent years, there has been an explosion of books about leaders and leadership. These range from autobiographical, personal accounts of corporate executives to self-help applications of leadership skills in everyday life handbooks. Regardless of the genre, rarely do more than a few pages in any book about leadership go by before the reader confronts the word "vision." Throughout the history of leaders and leadership, even before President George H.W. Bush made it famous, or infamous, by admitting that he was not good at the "vision thing," the concept of vision has always been important. For college and university presidents and those responsible for their selection, the lure to focus heavily on the "vision thing" is dangerous because it is not simply or even primarily the most important personal asset of the president as leader. College presidents certainly cannot lack vision, but in the context of the academy, their vision is and must be joined in a seamless and symbiotic way to the basic foundations of the university. The values, beliefs, and principles of that foundation constitute the core vision for the academy and for the presidents who lead it. Historically, this relationship between presidential philosophy and aspiration, and the principles at the core of the university has been the case from the very first imprints of the founder-presidents of the colonial colleges. As the story of today's presidents reveals, the foundation provided by the basic tenets and values of the university--its creed and character--is directly connected, and must be seen as so, to the vision, to the grounding, and to the pulpit of presidents--their creed and character. This reality is more critical and pronounced in the contemporary era than at any preceding time. The arguable reason for this actuality is the greater need today for transcendent principles and values to provide and establish a rationale countering ideological and brazenly political pressures that, if left unchecked, will reshape the academy into a vastly different and unrecognizable form at odds with its historical contours and traditions. (Contains 6 notes.)