This issue of Trusteeship features a cover article by visionary leader Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University, on institutional innovation that embraces change in academic structures, practices, and operations so as to maximize social impact. Nicholas S. Zeppos takes us through Vanderbilt University’s creation of a strong, centralized financial structure. By more strategically allocating resources and reducing costs, institutions are more likely to reach their strategic education goals, according to John C. Cavanaugh and William H. Graves. The continued vitality of America’s historically black colleges and universities, say Jack L. Ezzell, Jr., and Alvin J. Schexnider, depends on outstanding presidential and board leadership. And finally, Robert Holyer reminds us that the chief academic officers play a critical role in translating education vision into effective practice.
What is most striking about the efforts of our colleges and universities to recover from the repercussions of the global financial crisis is the extent to which many are determined to frame the moment as an opportunity. Much of the discourse surrounding the response of academic institutions to the recession, however, has been couched in the context of using this “opportunity” either to emerge as more efficient or to restore “normalcy.”
To get a feel for The last time the university confronted economic volatility and stress similar to what U.S. Colleges and universities have experienced over the past two years, I carefully reviewed my predecessors’ notes. My conclusion: the early 1930s.
John C. Cavanaugh and William H. Graves
In the grand economic scheme, the intense public pressure to lower costs came late to higher education. Now that it’s arrived, though, it’s here with a vengeance. No institution—public or private, non-profit or for-profit—has escaped the always difficult, sometimes protracted discussions of how to increase efficiency and lower costs. Although this intense pressure predates the recent great recession, the “new” economic climate has made the situation worse.
A topic of continuing interest in American higher education and society is the future of historically black colleges and universities, commonly referred to as HBCUs. The nation’s public and private black institutions of higher education have proved their mettle, and yet they face persistent challenges to survive. Recent proposals by a georgia legislator and the governor of Mississippi to merge black colleges highlight the challenges facing these institutions, especially in a weak economy. The majority of black colleges are located in the south, and although the federal courts have affirmed their right to exist and to receive funding to address historic inequities, governors and legislators are faced with difficult choices in trying to cope with the vestiges of a dual system of higher education in their states.
There is an adage common among deans and provosts: The board is concerned with the care and feeding of the president; the faculty is concerned with the care and feeding of the faculty. The implication—and why it brings a knowing smile to any chief academic officer’s face—is that no one seems concerned with the care and feeding of the CAO. While this might sound like the opening volley of a campaign for Chief Academic Officer Appreciation Week, there is a much more important point here that boards should recognize.
Does the board have a responsibility to stand up for the institution’s president in difficult times and to make sure the president is doing well personally?
Many university boards and administrations have experience preparing emergency-response teams for campus violence, though attention typically is focused on campus intruders, disgruntled staff employees, or students. The recent shootings of three faculty members at the University of Alabama Huntsville by a faculty member denied tenure, however, raise questions about whether campuses are sufficiently prepared for violence from faculty members.
One of the greatest satisfactions in academe is to witness the success of those whom we mentor. While this is most easily understood when it comes to students, it is important for trustees to understand that mentoring faculty leaders and administrators is also a very important part of a president’s job.
I believe in term limits. Before term limits became best practice for trusteeship, boards could find themselves stagnating and stuck in traditions—some helpful and some not. Long-serving trustees were an extraordinary repository of organizational history, precedents for decisions, and honed sensitivity to the institution’s values and culture. Trustees knew each other very well—including each other’s biases, passions, and behaviors. Meetings moved along predictably. At the same time, the fixed nature of boards also brought cemented thinking, unconscious practices, and, often, power-wielding cliques.
Governing boards are ultimately responsible for the quality of education their institutions provide. This may seem obvious to some, but it’s sometimes confusing for others—including some trustees, as well as faculty members and administrators. In the recently published Effective Governing Boards: A Guide for Members of Governing Boards of Public Colleges, Universities, and Systems (AGB, 2010) and the comparable guide for independent institutions (AGB, 2009), AGB enumerates essential responsibilities of the board, including the obligation to “Ensure the educational quality of the institution and its academic programs.”
Investment committees play a critical role in managing, growing, and protecting many college assets. Lucie Lapovsky, a specialist in endowment spending, tuition discounting, and cost containment in higher education, looks at some of the issues facing investment committees.
Printer-friendly version
Share via e-mail
