Critical Challenges Facing Higher Education: Leadership Succession, Compliance, and Legislative Pressures

The federal government’s latest intrusion into higher education threatens institutions’ abilities to fulfill their missions and promises of student success. These distractions are not merely inconvenient—they are existential. Proposed government compacts threaten institutions’ rights to independently make decisions regarding faculty hiring, admissions, curriculum, and free speech. Despite the turbulence, board professionals are prepared to collaborate strategically and address vulnerabilities while keeping solidarity and governance excellence at the forefront.

Across the country, colleges and universities face mounting challenges that jeopardize their stability, autonomy, and capacity to innovate. During the AGB Council of Board Professionals discussion earlier this month, several pressing issues emerged: political interference, compliance overload, leadership turnover, succession planning, and financial constraints.

AGB’s “Govern Now” initiative emphasizes board independence and institutional autonomy as fiduciary imperatives tied to academic freedom. With support from the Mellon Foundation, AGB has launched new tools and resources to help board members navigate these turbulent times and engage in difficult conversations about board independence.

One of the most urgent concerns is the growing burden of legal and regulatory compliance. Institutions are dedicating significant resources to meet new governmental mandates, often with millions in funding at stake. Board meetings are increasingly consumed by procedural matters, leaving little room for strategic planning. The volume of directives is straining governance and diverting attention from core educational missions.

Leadership instability compounds the issue. Political pressures and legislative complexities are prompting top executives to leave, raising concerns about continuity and institutional memory. Ideal board chairs—those who are thoughtful and mission-driven—are opting out, unwilling to lead divided boards. This trend threatens succession planning and the long-term health of governance structures.

Boardroom culture is also shifting. Sharpened ideological divides among board members make it more difficult for board chairs to foster respectful dialogue. Unlike corporate governance, higher education governing boards require a unique balance of fiduciary duty to the mission of the institution, protection of academic freedom, and respect for shared governance. The politicization of board appointments—where trustees are vetted for ideological alignment—risks stifling inclusive viewpoints and undermining higher education’s core principles.

Shared governance is struggling to keep pace. Faculty senates often make decisions without fully considering legal or financial implications, and institutions often struggle to coordinate their campus community’s responses to external pressures. With presidents averaging five-year tenures and state governors cycling through office every few years, institutions remain in a constant state of adjustment.

In some states, political ideology heavily influences board appointments, creating friction when policies shift. Although some view “rogue” board members as disruptors, others see them as necessary checks on power. The tension between state directives and institutional autonomy continues to grow, especially as federal funding and political retaliation loom.

Extended tuition freezes, though beneficial to students in the short-term, place financial strains on colleges and universities, limiting investment in faculty, infrastructure, and student services. The long-term consequences could impact sustainability and competitiveness.

Boards are increasingly consumed by demands for immediate compliance with outside mandates and political directives, losing sight of their core mission. When trustees focus on legislative mandates, they neglect initiatives to foster academic excellence and long-term institutional health. Some institutions describe this as “the tyranny of the urgent,” where threats and distractions overshadow campus strategic priorities. Limited resources on many campuses compared to elite institutions only deepen the challenge.

Academic ideals—freedom of inquiry, plurality of viewpoints, and institutional neutrality—are under scrutiny. Many higher education organizations are advocating collectively, but boards remain fearful of losing funding as well as status, of drawing political retaliation, and of standing alone. The solution lies in coordinated collaboration that amplifies higher education’s voice without compromising autonomy.

The message is clear: Higher education must reclaim its focus. Boards must recommit to their fiduciary responsibilities—not just for today, but for the future. When the sector unites, advocates strategically, and invests in long-term planning, it can weather the storm. Otherwise, the consequences will ripple through classrooms, communities, and democracy itself.

Despite the challenges, hope remains. The wisdom, empathy, and resilience of board professionals are guiding institutions forward. As one Council member affirmed, “Tomorrow is coming, and we’re going to get through this.” By careful listening, leading with courage, and focusing on student success, higher education can remain a beacon of opportunity.

Lynnette M. Heard is an AGB consultant and senior fellow, and a council ambassador.