But there is more to than that:

University administrators are not expected  to have opinions let alone controversial opinions.

When they do make public utterances these comments are banal, inclusive and ultimately meaningless. We see this all the time from Presidents who occasionally write op eds- not so much drivel but pointless so as to not offend. Uncritical and ultimately unhelpful to public discourse.

The question is whether these administrative jobs attract the kind of "clever" person" who plays the game well or if universities impose this kind of behavior on adminstrators - conform or be cast out.

Obviously Potter violated the unwritten law by doing exactly what an academic  can do but an administrator cannot - express an opinion which offends.

Worth noting that Potter may have left his job at the Citizen after it  imposed a Harper endorsement on news staff during the last election - so he has "resigned" before when confronted by decision with which he did not agree.