Next to hiring the president, a board's most important responsibility is maintaining the integrity and health of its institution’s academic program. The most effective fund-raising, creative budgeting, aggressive marketing, and shrewd investment strategies will matter little if the institution’s academic programs are weak and unattractive to potential students.
Alas, of all board responsibilities, academic decision making is the area in which many trustees are least confident and comfortable. This contrasts sharply with the personal conviction and self-assurance most board members demonstrate when they make the difficult, sometimes controversial, judgments about executive staffing, fiscal management, and longrange planning.
“Trustees typically are comfortable actively overseeing a college’s building program and its financial and business operations,” notes former University of Richmond Chancellor Richard L. Morrill in the AGB book Strategic Leadership in Academic Affairs: Clarifying the Board’s Responsibilities. But “as academic disciplines became increasingly specialized and professionalized, members of lay governing boards [have] found themselves unable, unwilling, or unwelcome to make judgments about the complex intellectual worlds of faculty.” In the past, many trustees routinely and willingly deferred to their institution’s academic leaders and faculty. As long as they had confidence in the president and chief academic officer, boards could concentrate on topics in which their members had more experience, a greater sense of efficacy, and perhaps, more personal interest.
But modern higher education’s dynamic and competitive environment no longer permits trustees the luxury of simply delegating important academic matters to administrators and faculty. Today, in response to society’s changing demographics, many colleges and universities are considering exciting (and risky) academic initiatives as well as educational delivery systems that use innovative new technologies—all in a quest to develop a distinctive niche in a highly competitive higher education market.
Adding new education programs and degrees is a serious undertaking that commits resources, redistributes staff time and energy, and subtly but inexorably reshapes an institution’s mission. Academic matters should concern trustees, and they fall clearly within the board’s purview.
But to avoid being resented as “trespassers” in the groves of academe, trustees must learn to apply their authority with restraint—and only after listening thoroughly to the discussions initiated by professional academics.
A Bright Line. The complex division of labor that separates the lines of administrative and academic authority on most campuses means that many conscientious trustees find themselves in a quandary. If they exercise trustees’ responsibility to define an institution’s mission and protect the institution’s financial integrity by asking tough questions about academic initiatives, are they trespassing on the turf of faculty and academic administrators? If they question proposals for new programs or major program revisions, are they wandering into a thicket where they lack the knowledge to make constructive judgments about what academic actions will best serve their institution’s interests?
In such tricky situations, trustees might more constructively ask: “How do we respect the prerogative of faculty and academic administrators to design and implement academic programs but still fulfill our obligation to chart the institution’s path into the future and monitor its progress?”
Trustees can strike a delicate balance that respects both academic custom and the board’s responsibility to authorize initiatives that alter an institution’s mission or make long-term resource commitments. A recent case at Hiram College in Ohio, where I am a trustee, supports my belief.
Expanding Hiram’s Mission. Hiram is a private liberal arts college with a long history of providing undergraduate education. The college has a tradition of academic innovation, having added a weekend college to its full-time, residential undergraduate program in the 1970s, for example. In general, ideas for novel academic programs are welcome, but a recent proposal to establish a master’s degree program represented a major stretch beyond enhancing undergraduate education and making it more accessible.
The proposal to offer a master of arts degree in interdisciplinary studies (MAIS) clearly drew upon the college’s strengths and capitalized on our experience working with nontraditional- age students in the weekend college. An interdisciplinary master’s degree program seemed consistent with Hiram’s tradition of educational innovation. Despite these attractions, the proposal represented a significant departure from the college’s exclusive focus on undergraduate education. That meant a significant change in the college’s mission and clientele.
In the past, proposals for a unique academic calendar, a distinctive international study program, and many interdisciplinary programs emerged from the faculty— with the board’s blessing but little trustee involvement. Hence, some trustees wondered what should be their role in shaping the proposal for the new and tradition-breaking program for a master’s degree.
Faculty and key academic administrators had been working on the MAIS proposal for several years. The college had joined an association of schools that sponsor master’s degree programs in interdisciplinary studies, and a faculty committee studied similar master’s programs at other institutions. The college sent representatives to conferences on interdisciplinary degree programs, and faculty and staff advocates crafted a creative proposal that garnered broad support.
Many faculty were enthusiastic about the proposed program and eager to work with graduate students. In addition, many alumni had expressed a strong desire to enroll in the program as soon as it was approved.
Although the board periodically had been informed about work on a master’s degree program, trustees had not actively debated the full implications of moving the college in this new direction. Some board members likened stepping into the discussion at this stage to jumping in front of a runaway locomotive. Should the board defer to the judgment of a trusted dean and faculty who had invested a great deal of time and energy developing the proposal? Or should trustees raise challenging questions that might delay or derail a proposal popular with key college stakeholders? Doing so might be seen as an intrusion into sacred academic terrain and a display of a lack of trust and respect for program planners—not to mention a serious violation of faculty prerogatives.
The trustees were walking a fine line. The board did not want to stifle the creative initiative necessary for the institution to adapt effectively to the rapidly changing higher education landscape. Nor did trustees wish to convey a lack of trust or respect for faculty and academic leaders.
Most important, however, board members also understood their responsibilities to ask good questions about program development and their obligation to make informed decisions before approving any major new programs that might alter the institution’s mission. Rubber-stamping an academic matter of this magnitude would constitute dereliction of the board’s duty.
Board Questioning. The questions we asked address basic concerns that arise in trustees’ capacity as stewards of the institution. These questions are not unique to this particular scenario at Hiram; rather, they are adaptable to any situation where trustees must make hard choices about new academic programs. Our questions addressed the following themes:
- Mission: Is the proposed program consistent with the college’s mission? If the proposed program alters the college’s mission, what is the justification for doing so?
- Resources: What resources will be required to run a program of this type? How will it affect other programs of the college?
- Technology: Will technology be a part of the new program? Will new technology investments be necessary to sustain the program?
- Competition: Who will be our competitors? Can we run a high-quality program and compete effectively with aggressive for-profit institutions?
- Marketing: What is the evidence that a clientele exists for the proposed program? How will we effectively market the program and recruit students?
- Sustainability: Is there evidence that programs of this nature are cost-effective and selfsustaining? How long will it take for the program to become self-supporting?
- Evaluation: How will we monitor and assess the program’s success?
These questions were forwarded to the academic dean in advance of the board meeting where the proposal was to be submitted for approval. Academic administrators prepared thoughtfully crafted responses to the questions. The process produced an informative dialogue between trustees and advocates of the proposal. Some administrators noted that the questions helped them prepare for the discussion and uncovered program development tasks that deserved greater attention.
Following Through. In January 2004, the Hiram board voted unanimously to approve the new MAIS degree program. The decision represents an expansion of the institution’s mission and a calculated leap of faith in an uncertain and rapidly changing environment. It acknowledges the need to take risks in carving the college’s path into the future.
The decision-making process demonstrated that trustees take their responsibilities seriously and will not approve major new programs without careful and thorough discussion of their implications. Rather than being offended by trustees’ pointed questions, some faculty and administrators expressed gratitude that board members take the college’s academic program so seriously.
Most important, by engaging all key stakeholders in the decision-making process, we developed a shared understanding of the challenges and risks involved in starting an academic program that takes the college in a new direction. The new master’s program is no longer just a faculty task but a collective responsibility that all constituencies have an obligation to support.
By the standards of a small private college, this was a daring initiative. We know it will succeed only if recruiters bring in sufficient numbers of students, if faculty members design exciting learning experiences and teach effectively, if administrators provide adequate resources, and if trustees monitor the entire operation and approve refinements as needed.
The questions Hiram’s trustees asked in order to judge the proposed program’s prospects will continue to serve us well as we assess its implementation and sustainability. They provide clear criteria the board can use to judge its success.
Exercising our basic responsibilities of mission approval and program oversight enabled the Hiram board to chart a course that respected the roles of all key players. We acknowledged the important responsibilities of faculty and administrators in developing the master’s degree proposal and respected the expertise they had developed in designing the proposed program. But we also exercised our legitimate duties as trustees by raising critical questions that the program planners were best prepared to answer.
