Call to Action

THE ROLE OF GOVERNING BOARDS AS GUARDIANS of the nation’s colleges and universities is being challenged as never before. U.S. higher education is one of America’s most critical strategic assets, and political actors increasingly are using their power to align the curriculum, teaching, hiring, and research activities of these institutions with their ideological preferences. Academic freedom, the centerpiece of America’s system of higher education, must continue to be protected by boards of trustees, regents, and governors. Postsecondary governing bodies were expressly created as independent boards of selected citizens to protect the education enterprise from the corrosive intrusion of politics, power, and wealth. The capacity of these independent boards to rise to the challenge of protecting the integrity of the mission and values of American colleges and universities will be decisive in the shape and character of these institutions in the coming decades.

Governing boards are an underutilized resource in the realm of external advocacy. At this time of national turbulence and challenge to higher education institutions, they can and should play a vital role in shifting the negative narrative surrounding our colleges and universities and restoring the public’s trust. Their role as ambassadors for the sector and for their own institutions should be supported and empowered. Board members are often distinguished and known representatives of their communities and regions and thus best positioned to educate external constituencies about the true value their institutions provide and the importance of their independence from political intrusion. Governing board members are natural bridges to the external communities that connect with and impact colleges and universities. Their voices carry weight and authenticity. The need for their advocacy is now.

Foundational Steps and Requirements

Board education is the key to effective advocacy. Board orientation, which is the initial step in educating new board members, is often limited by time constraints. New trustees commonly know little about the nature of the institutions they are selected to govern or of the fiduciary responsibility the office imposes. Board orientation often focuses on institution-specific information such as structure, organization, personnel, and practice. Orientation usually covers practical information such as meeting procedures, yearly calendar, and committee arrangements. This might be all the specific information that a new trustee can absorb at once. New board members rarely have the time or capacity to gain a deeper understanding of the institution and of the distinct transcendent values at the core of academic culture and practice— academic freedom, tenure, shared governance, and board and institutional autonomy, all of which are currently under attack.

Special board educational sessions are essential for trustees to acquire a full understanding of their fiduciary responsibility to the institutions they govern; the distinct character of American higher education as an enterprise; its contribution to regional and national prosperity; and its central role in the health of a democratic society.

All board members should be educated and equipped to be effective advocates for their institutions and the sector. Partnership and collaboration with the campus president and other administrators is critical. They can offer boards guidance, refine the message, and establish targets where board member advocacy can have the most impact.

One or more separate sessions or a board retreat should be scheduled for board members to review and discuss all aspects of the current threats facing higher education institutions. Such sessions should include the following components:

Elaboration of the negative narrative surrounding colleges and universities currently dominating the public information sphere; the impact it is having on the sector; ways to address these public concerns; and ways to counterbalance the narrative with positive, factual information.
Information about the existential threat of the intrusions by external actors representing political power and wealth who seek to impose their agendas on American higher education.
Specific information on the transcendent core values of American higher education—academic freedom, freedom of speech, shared governance, board autonomy, and the importance of the board protecting institutions from intrusive government and political pressure.

There are four elements of critical knowledge that all board members must understand to be effective advocates for their institutions and for the larger higher education enterprise, including:

The value proposition of a college degree to students themselves and the economic value graduates provide to their communities and regions;
The strategic asset the higher education sector represents not only for economic prosperity but, critically, for societal well-being and the civic resilience of a democracy;
The vital importance of board and institutional independence from external interference that seeks to impose its own agendas on the institution; and
The essential features of American academic tradition and culture, such as mission integrity, student success, academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance.

Tailored Approaches

American higher education consists of an array of different institutional types. The public-private divide is a major differentiator, along with the three-tiers representing community colleges, state four-year colleges and universities, and research-focused universities and systems. Additionally, there are religiously affiliated institutions and those with a specialty academic focus. Every situation calls for an individually tailored approach to advocacy. In all types of institutions, however, effective external relations are critical for institutional success. In the current environment of external pressure and political intrusion, it is the four-year and research institutions that are experiencing the greatest threats.

The governing boards of all colleges and universities are legally, ethically, and fiduciarily responsible for their institutions’ well-being. Being prepared to deal effectively with whatever exigencies threaten academic integrity, student success, research vitality, and institutional well-being is a fiduciary responsibility of governing boards across the country. Preparation is the key ingredient that helps institutions and their boards weather the storm of uncertainty and thrive in the turbulent, polarized environment that currently characterizes the national landscape of American higher education.

Specific Action Steps
	1. Following a special board education session or retreat, the board and the administrative leadership should collaborate about the next steps in a board advocacy initiative, and put structure, process, and people in place for such a project. For more, see A Guide to Strategic Board Retreats in Higher Education (AGB, 2025).
	2. The board, in conjunction with the president and other administrative leaders, should determine an appropriate leadership structure for the board advocacy effort. An established board committee, such as the governance, external relations, or executive committee could be assigned the task, or a special task force of appropriate administration officers and relevant, interested board members could lead the initiative.
	3. The assigned committee, ad hoc group, or task force should clarify board members’ roles, duties, authority, and procedural framework for advancing board advocacy efforts in the current environment of political tension and challenge.
	4. An advocacy strategy should be developed that considers what is needed, what outcomes are sought, and what type of board members may be most effective in advocacy efforts. To formulate a strategy and plan, consider board members’ networks, connections, and general areas of opportunity for influence.
	5. The task force should bring its initial conclusions and projections to the full board for discussion and development of a vetted and collaborative strategy.
	6. The task force should devise a contingency/communications plan for exigencies that may arise, such as an external intrusion at the institution, and possible responses.
	7. The task force should seek connections with other institutions in the region, stay informed of relevant incidents elsewhere, and develop connections with regional, state, and national sources of information and common cause. Having alliances can bring important collaboration and support.
	8. The task force should evaluate strategic avenues of potential influence that individual board members bring to their governance role through their community, political and professional networks, and other associations. Talking points and scripts can be developed for effective trustee advocacy, working with the appropriate senior administration officers in communications, public affairs, and government relations.
	9. Interested and appropriate board members can be supported in seeking out speaking opportunities to service groups and other associations with which they are affiliated. Such civic groups are often looking for speakers. The primary message could focus on the lifetime benefit of a college degree to students, as well as the strategic economic asset that colleges and universities provide to their regions and to the nation’s success in the global marketplace. Address the critical importance of institutional independence from political interference and explain the potential damage of intrusions. Board members’ presentations should also acknowledge the public criticism U.S. higher education is facing, and the efforts institutions are making at reform and adapting to changing needs.
	10. When controversy over external intrusion is an issue, the task force should implement its prepared strategy to defend the institution from political overreach and educate external constituencies about how such interference causes serious damage to the academic mission, student success, research productivity, and institutional independence.

For institutionally related foundation boards, see AGB’s “Engaging Foundation Board Members as Strategic Advocates” tool for more practical guidance on board member advocacy. For institution and system boards, see also AGB’s “Engaging Governing Board Members as Strategic Advocates” tool.

Jill Derby, PhD, is an AGB senior consultant and senior fellow with more than 30 years’ experience working nationally and internationally in higher education governance. Derby was a founder of the Guinn Center for Policy Priorities, a centrist think tank for economic and educational policy in Nevada. In 2012, she received a U.S. Senate appointment to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.