Queen's University Rector?

A young man who somehow became elected as a "rector" by his peers at Queen's University recently, presumed that he could speak for all of them upon any subject. And so he did. He said that Israel was just like South Africa had been in its apartheid policies. And that "apartheid week", an occasion to bash Jewish concepts should be in full swing there at the campus.
Of course many previous "rectors" who heard about this affront spoke out against such liberty by the current rector. They mentioned that though the position did grant some authority, it did not go so far as the current incumbent tried to maintain.
What this does, in my opinion, is to disclose just how power can corrupt. No effort was taken to clarify if such views were of majority opinion. The leader felt he could speak for everyone, regardless as to whether they had permitted him to.
That is a problem we often have with" leaders". They think that they can do or say anything, and that that should bind those whom they believe they can lead.
In a system where more people have a say in what goes on - as with Direct Democracy areas, the people so governed do not pass on more aspects of leadership than minimal. For example, in Switzerland, they do not even have a president or Prime Minister.
Leaders can be very important, of course, - in charting visions and forging towards them. But, Queens students had not expected their "rector" to be so outspoken on their behalf. Maybe they should not be electing such persons. It is not a concept common to many other universities. One wonders whether the practice there may become discontinued - or whether Queen's University will obtain more black marks from similar outbursts from other rectors in the future.