A Nation at Risk

For decades, higher education as a sector has had the resilience, ingenuity, and persistence to thrive in the face of a variety of challenges. In recent years, however, higher education’s core principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy have come under sustained assault in ways that threaten our collective ability to serve the nation in producing the informed citizens essential to a civil democracy, advancing knowledge, and driving economic development. It is essential that trustees step up to protect their institutions from this assault, and to participate as rational and informed voices defending the essential value of higher education in the public discourse.

In a recent conversation with a group of colleagues who have been higher education professionals (professors, presidents, consultants, and association senior staff) for as long as I have (over half a century), one person noted that over the decades there have been episodic paroxysms of cries of “the sky is falling”—that higher education is in decline, the barbarians are at the gate, and our future is grim if we don’t dramatically change what we are doing and they ways in which we do it.

Clay Christiansen even warned us in 2011 that thanks to “disruptive innovation,” (as in Massively Open Online Courses—MOOCs) more than half the colleges and universities in the United States would be out of business in 10 to 15 years (a claim that he repeated in 2013 and 2017).¹ Stretching the boundaries of credibility, Sebastian Thrun predicted in a Wired magazine interview in 2012 that within 50 years there would be just 10 universities worldwide,² though to his credit he eventually retreated from that prediction as reality intruded. And there is a whole industry that for decades has indulged in the at-least-annual publication of a blockbuster book informing us that higher education is failing the nation—some overtly political (cf. Dinesh D’Souza),³ some ideological (cf. Allan Bloom)⁴ and many thoughtful and offering helpful and potentially productive solutions to the very real problems that they have identified (cf. Kevin Carey;⁵ Richard H. Hersh & John Merrow eds.;⁶ Derek Bok;⁷ Arthur Levine & Scott Van Pelt;⁸ Brian Rosenberg).⁹

Of course, there’s no question that higher education in the 2020s is facing a series of daunting challenges; Richard Novak, in his insightful AGB blog post, identifies several: “Falling enrollments, changing demographics, the shift in student interests away from the liberal arts, and the lingering effects of COVID-19 on student, staff, and faculty mental health.”¹⁰

A comprehensive list of challenges is, of course, much longer, including (but by no means limited to): cost, access, and affordability; the sustainability of the financial model—particularly for the majority of private institutions trapped in the “high sticker price/high discount” paradigm and public institutions facing dramatic declines in enrollment; the shift in public policy on higher education as a public good to higher education as a private good, with the consequential significant reduction in state support for higher education institutions (although that trend is slowly reversing in some states); and ensuring that our campuses are hospitable, welcoming, and supportive to an increasingly diverse student population—and equally hospitable, welcoming and supportive to a diverse range of viewpoints, perspectives, and political identities. And in the aftermath of the horrific events of October 7, 2023, campuses are struggling to define—and articulate—their commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and the right to assembly and protest while at the same time identifying those behaviors that are antithetical to the institution’s commitment to civil discourse and prevention of abusive behaviors.

Given the history of higher education in the 20^th century, and the sector’s robust and usually successful responses to the threats of impending meteorological doom, there is every reason to be confident that we will find ways to confront these challenges and others, to manage them, and to emerge stronger, more resilient, and more relevant as a result.

But as Novak rightly points out, there are two new, more recent threats to higher education that, I would argue, justify the view that while the sky may not be falling yet, dark storm clouds are gathering and the ceiling is getting lower day by day. The first of these threats is the dramatic decline in public confidence in higher education. A Gallup Poll released in 2023 revealed that the percentage of respondents who indicated a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education declined from 57 percent in 2015 to 35 percent in 2023; the percentage who indicated “very little” confidence increased from 9 percent in 2015 to 22 percent in 2023.¹¹

I would suggest that there are interrelated reasons for this dramatic—and deeply troubling—change in public attitudes. The first is that as of 2020 (the latest IPEDS data), there were more than 5,000 colleges and universities in the United States with nearly four million employees.¹² Given these huge numbers, anyone looking to criticize higher education for virtually any purpose should have no trouble finding at least several examples to validate their claim. Higher education has a long history of demonstrating with disturbing frequency that very smart people can manage to do very dumb and embarrassing—and even illegal—things (of course, that phenomenon is by no means unique to the higher education sector). The problem, of course, is that most critics then use those few unfortunate examples to paint the entire sector with a broad—and disparaging—brush.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that these often-sensationalized critiques have come to dominate both the media and the public policy discourse, and that to some extent is our fault, i.e., that of the higher education community: we have some time ago lost our voice in the public discourse, leaving a void to be exploited often by those who would criticize us for their own financial (e.g., book royalties and lecture fees) and/or political purposes. I wrote a piece for Inside Higher Ed 11 years ago that noted:

…if we focus solely on deflating myths and countering the sensationalized rhetoric of the media, we are reinforcing the public’s focus on negative issues…

It is time for us, as leaders in higher education, to play offense as well as defense. We must find ways to collectively guide the national discourse back to a position of truth—of fact-based information that is relevant to the needs and aspirations of prospective students and their families…

I do want to recognize that I am implicitly challenging us—the higher education community—to do something that historically we haven’t been very good at…We have a tendency—as every profession does—to talk about what we do in a jargon-filled tribal dialect (filled with unspoken assumptions) that is impenetrable to “outsiders.” We need not only to articulate the core narrative about the value and purpose of higher education, but to do so in a language that those who are not us find useful, meaningful, and compelling.¹³

To make matters worse, the rhetorical vacuum that we have collectively allowed to develop over the past few decades is increasingly filled by extremist politicians at local, state, and national levels who have chosen to inflame their base and advance their own careers by loudly characterizing America’s colleges and universities as cauldrons of socialist, “woke,” anti-conservative, anti-American indoctrination, faculty members who are intolerant of viewpoints that don’t coincide with their own, suppressing freedom of speech, and engaged in corrupting the minds of the country’s youth.

The second threat that Novak identifies is “political and ideological intrusion is rising”:¹⁴ “We know that the majority of unjustifiable, undue, and outside (interference) is coming from governors and legislators in conservative states, with Florida proudly the leader.”¹⁵

And, of course, things have become decidedly worse at the federal level, as members of Congress are summoning higher education leaders to committee meetings that have been vaguely reminiscent of the Stalinist show trials, appearing to have no real constructive purpose other than to advance the stature of members in the eyes of their constituents.

Not surprisingly, the issue of the increasing interference of politics and politicians into the business of higher education is attracting a great deal of attention, often with concrete suggestions on effective ways in which to combat this phenomenon. And this, I write somewhat reluctantly, is where I think the sky really is falling—that for the first time in my more than half century in higher education, I believe that the ability of the higher education community to fulfill our multi-faceted role in a civil democracy is being undermined in ways from which it may take decades to recover. Thus, the title of this essay, “A Nation at Risk,” (which, some may recognize, I borrowed from the 1983 report of the United States National Commission on Excellence in Education). My belief that the nation is genuinely at risk from this phenomenon (as well as from a few others that are not relevant to this essay) is grounded in some fundamental principles:

Principle #1: The health and vitality of the higher education sector is essential to the fabric of a civil democracy; to a healthy, growing, and equitable economy; and to our collective well-being as a nation. As Tara D. Sonenshine and I noted in an article in The Hill in 2022:

For centuries, America’s colleges and universities have played a central role in preparing citizens for participation in civil society, helping students become independent thinkers, analyze problems and identify creative solutions, and to understand that American democracy was built on the importance of a plurality of political philosophies and ideologies.¹⁶

As Jill Derby points out in her thoughtful Trusteeship essay (July/August, 2023), “Send in the Guardians,”

The education of citizens to make reasoned choices is a vital element of a democratic society. Even more important than the personal advantage an education confers is its value to a civil society. Democracy cannot work without an educated citizenry to contribute to reasoned discourse and make informed electoral decisions, especially amid the din of social media. The capacity to think critically and distinguish fact from fiction is all-the-more challenging and important today.¹⁷

Historically, colleges and universities have been the most powerful engine of our economy: preparing graduates with intellectual skills and abilities, as well as technical knowledge, to be productive members of the workforce; conducting the research that results in the development of products and strategies that are transferable to the private sector.

Principle #2: Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are essential to the ability of higher education to fulfill its civic mission. Colleges and universities must be free to set their own course, to determine the ways in which they can most effectively fulfill their mission, and to determine what is taught in the context of that mission.¹⁸

The “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) identifies the essential tenets of academic freedom:

—Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole.

—Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher and of the student to freedom in learning.

—Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.¹⁹

The AGB Board of Directors’ Statement on Influences Impacting Governing Board Independence and Leadership notes:

Academic freedom is the foundation for learning at American colleges and universities, providing faculty members and students the ability to learn, debate, and express ideas without censorship, based on open access to facts, expertise, and alternative perspectives. Academic freedom is essential for innovation that depends on juxtaposing different ideas, challenging established norms, accessing relevant information from the best sources, and following an important question to its deepest understanding.²⁰

Institutional autonomy is essential in protecting academic freedom, allowing institutions to pursue inquiry, and disseminate knowledge based on evidence, truth, and peer review without external influence. It ensures the freedom to be creative in the pursuit of knowledge, supporting an environment conducive to innovation and progress. Further, institutional autonomy is a necessary condition for colleges and universities to fulfill their missions, maintaining the highest levels of education and research. Needless to say, institutional autonomy is not absolute—colleges and universities are highly regulated and must hold themselves accountable to their boards, to their accreditors, to the state that holds their license or charter, and—ultimately—to the public trust.

Principle #3: Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are under sustained assault in ways that undermine higher education’s ability to serve the country. In January 2024, AAUP issued the “Statement on Political Interference in Higher Education,”²¹ providing in exquisite—and discouraging—detail the myriad ways in which politicians at the state and Federal levels have launched what is for the most part an ultra-conservative assault on the higher education sector.

The AAUP “Statement” divides the political intrusion into institutional autonomy and academic freedom into the following categories:

1. Legislation Limiting Academic Freedom: Bills have been introduced in states like Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas that seek to restrict teaching and research on race and gender. These bills are often referred to as “divisive concepts” bills and have been criticized for marginalizing and even criminalizing certain academic content.²²
2. Intellectual and Viewpoint Diversity Requirements: Some states have proposed or enacted laws requiring faculty to complete intellectual and viewpoint diversity statements and surveys. This has raised concerns about the potential for political litmus tests and the undermining of academic freedom.²³
3. Funding Cuts for DEI Initiatives: Efforts to cut funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs have been seen as a way to weaken initiatives that support underrepresented groups in higher education.²⁴
4. Weakening of Faculty Rights: Efforts to abolish tenure, place restrictions on collective bargaining, and put political appointees in charge of hiring decisions have been reported. These moves can potentially erode the autonomy and job security of academic staff.²⁵
5. Challenges to Accreditation: Politicians have questioned the legitimacy of higher education accrediting bodies, which—perhaps ironically given the circumstances—serve as a check on political interference and ensure the quality and continuous improvement of academic programs. Such efforts to interfere with the country’s robust accreditation processes of course threaten all institutions—both public and private.²⁶

AGB Interim President and CEO Ellen Chaffee, in her powerful Trusteeship article, “United We Stand: An Urgent Call for Leadership,” summarizes the landscape as follows:

Ideological or political intrusions that prevent or discourage governing boards and presidents from doing their job include co-opting the decision to select or dismiss a president, limiting access to educational materials, requiring the use of government-selected educational materials, prescribing how people may or may not interact with each other, prohibiting discussion of controversial topics, and tampering with personnel policies.²⁷

Chaffee identifies four general categories of what she labels “the most pernicious ideological or political intrusions to date”:

1. They prevent a college or university from fulfilling its mission.
2. They prevent institutional governing boards from doing their fiduciary duty.
3. They use higher education institutions for inappropriate or contrary purposes without regard for the institutional consequences.
4. They undermine colleges and universities by making false allegations about them.²⁸

In a 2023 document developed jointly by the American Council on Education and PEN America, Making the Case for Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy in a Challenging Political Environment: A Resource Guide, they noted regarding the hundreds of bills introduced in state legislature since 2021:

Their goals are clear: to chill academic and educational discussions and impose government dictates on teaching and learning, sometimes with the threat of punishment that includes fines, loss of state funding, civil liability, dissolution of school districts, termination, or even criminal charges against teachers. There was more than a 250 percent increase in such bills in 2022 compared with 2021…²⁹

Collectively, and increasingly on a massive scale, these ideologically-driven efforts severely interfere with and undermine higher education institutions’ ability to meet the mandates of their missions, prepare students to live out their personal dreams, and to fulfill their roles as engines of democracy, economic development, and the advancement of knowledge—they are literally putting the nation at risk.

The widespread assault on initiatives, programs, and positions related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in particular is not only insidious, but short-sighted, morally and educationally indefensible, and dismissive of the demographic and economic realities of the country. I believe that the vast majority of those of us in higher education acknowledge that there is a moral imperative to ensure access for historically underserved populations—a college education is the most effective pipeline to escape the social and economic constraints that have been placed on many of them historically by local, state, and federal policies and practices.

But there are compelling practical reasons for a commitment to DEI initiatives as well. There is a strong case, backed by extensive evidence, that cultural and racial diversity on campus is essential to the quality of the students’ education and preparation for the “real world.” A 2012 Board of Directors Statement from the American Council on Education noted:

Diversity enriches the educational experience. We learn from those whose experiences, beliefs, and perspectives are different from our own, and these lessons can be taught best in a richly diverse intellectual and social environment.

It [diversity] promotes personal growth and a healthy society. Diversity challenges stereotyped preconceptions; it encourages critical thinking; and it helps students learn to communicate effectively with people of varied backgrounds.

It [diversity] strengthens communities and the workplace. Education within a diverse setting prepares students to become good citizens in an increasingly complex, pluralistic society; it fosters mutual respect and teamwork; and it helps build communities whose members are judged by the quality of their character and their contributions.

It [diversity] enhances America’s economic competitiveness. Sustaining the nation’s prosperity in the 21st century requires us to make effective use of the talents and abilities of all our citizens, in work settings that bring together individuals from diverse backgrounds and cultures. When presented with opportunities to critically explore these experiences, students can become more accepting, tolerant, and thoughtful members of society.³⁰

And then there is the simple and overtly practical matter of demographics. More than half of the students currently in the K–12 pipeline are Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC).³¹ Campus DEI efforts are focused, in great part, on ensuring that their institutions are not only accessible (financially and otherwise) to a diverse student population but welcoming to and supportive of those students whom they enroll. Given the demographics of the pipeline, if those efforts are not consistently successful, today’s enrollment (and revenue) challenges will pale in comparison, and higher education’s ability to prepare the workforce essential to U.S. economic health and competitiveness in the future will be significantly diminished.

It is important to note that while ideologically driven interference in institutional autonomy and academic freedom has thus far played out primarily in public institutions, private (independent) colleges and universities are by no means immune to this threat. The more sensational examples, of course, are the highly publicized summons to elite university presidents to testify in front of Congressional committees. The persistent attempts to meddle with higher education’s accreditation structure, which relies on peer review by experienced and trained experts, affect independent institutions as much as public institutions. But private institutions can also face legislative pressure at the state level to make curricular or programmatic changes to avoid losing state funding or tax-exempt status. An Iowa legislator recently raised the possibility of limiting the Iowa Tuition Grant (need-based grants awarded to Iowa residents attending one of the state’s private colleges and universities) to students in majors or programs directly related to identified workforce needs—a move that would impede the ability of Iowa students to major in liberal arts disciplines, with a devastating effect on institutions’ enrollments and revenues.³² Fortunately, thanks in part to a coordinated effort on the part of the state’s private institution presidents, that short-sighted idea has not progressed beyond several anxiety-inducing conversations.

Principle #4: College, university, system, and foundation trustees have a moral, civic, and fiduciary responsibility to protect their institutions from political interference that threatens institutional autonomy and academic freedom, and thus threatens the higher education community’s ability to serve the country in ways that are essential to our health and vitality as a nation. This principle is, quite frankly, intended to be a clarion call to the trustees of America’s colleges, universities, and foundations: the essential conditions of higher education’s ability to serve its multi-faceted and essential roles in this country are under severe threat, and it is time for trustees—personally and collectively—to step up and do everything in their power to ensure the long-term health, vitality, and relevance of individual institutions and the sector as a whole.

As Chaffee noted:

All higher education boards and presidents have an opportunity to help restore reason, truth and American’s democratic republic by defending against intrusion and working for institutional independence, academic freedom, and democracy.³³

AGB’s An Anatomy of Good Governance in Higher Education notes that “The governing board of a college or university is responsible for…ensuring educational quality, preserving institutional autonomy, and safeguarding academic freedom.” ³⁴

In Principles of Trusteeship, AGB emphasizes that:

Good governance and sound stewardship include ensuring the long-term sustainability of the enterprise. You are not only responsible for financial resources and oversight, but also for institutional values, quality and reputation.³⁵

The AGB Board of Directors’ Statement on Influences Impacting Governing Board Independence and Leadership offers extremely valuable and practical guidance on the ways in which boards can fulfill this mandate, including an emphasis on the following principles:

1. Preserve institutional independence and autonomy.
2. Demonstrate board independence to govern as established in charter, state law, or constitution.
3. Keep academic freedom central and be the standard-bearer for the due-process protection of faculty, staff, and students.
4. Assure institutional accountability to the public interest.³⁶

It is important to acknowledge that this challenge to board members to do everything in their power to protect their institutions—and higher education as a whole—from this plague of interference is not without risk, particularly for trustees of public institutions who are appointed by legislatures and/or governors with the increasingly explicit expectation of carrying out a political agenda. But ultimately, board members hold an institution in trust for the public, not for the political aspirations of appointed/elected officials: states provide funding for public institutions and private institutions are tax exempt precisely because they are deemed to be in the public interest, because what they do and how they do it, as defined by their missions, are essential to our health and vitality as a nation. Meeting this challenge head on is not for the faint of heart, and I recognize that for some stepping up to this challenge may well put their membership on a board at risk—but our collective failure to do so as a national community of trustees will be catastrophic.

Chaffee, in addition to providing some perceptive guidance for boards on dealing with political intrusion, while recognizing the precariousness for trustees in standing up to political interference, reinforces the need for boldness and bravery, and bluntly states the consequences of inaction:

Preventive and nonconfrontational options such as education, evasion, and negotiation can be effective even for serious threats. However, board members should also be aware of more forceful options, including outright noncompliance, injunction, or a lawsuit. They need to think about what lines, if crossed, would justify invoking an escalating series of opposing actions. Under what conditions would the board seek an injunction? Is suing an intruding entity ever warranted? Although it may be difficult to consider such adverse actions, some ideas currently being discussed publicly pose a mortal threat to an institution’s existence. Fiduciary trustees can fight hard, close it, or let it suffer away.³⁷

Last year, the Ohio State Board of Trustees demonstrated that it can be done, announcing publicly their opposition to Senate Bill 83 which, among other things, would have ended mandatory diversity trainings, banned university partnerships with Chinese institutions, prohibited faculty unions from striking during contract negotiations and—perhaps most frightening—created new evaluations for students to rate their professors on how well they removed bias from their classrooms. The bill would also require college students to take certain American history courses and would include “bias” in tenure considerations. All in all, a direct assault on the fundamental principles of institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Despite this brave opposition, the bill was passed (with some modifications that reflected the objections voiced by the board and members of the public) by the Ohio Senate, but has not yet been passed by the House, and its fate is still uncertain.

There are several publications that offer helpful guidance to trustees as they fulfill their responsibility to protect their institutions from undue influence. The AGB Board of Directors Statement provides specific direction including:

1. Engage in thoughtful discussion, decision-making, and policymaking to build shared understanding of the core concepts and values that underlie exemplary governance.
2. Make structural and procedural changes that reinforce the governing board’s fiduciary duties and authority.
3. Listen, learn, and lead. Recognize that all governing boards and their organizations need to adapt and improve.
4. Recognize that fiduciary duty belongs to each member of the board and to board actions.
5. Address inappropriate influences that interfere with the governing board’s independence, authority, or fiduciary commitment to the long-term success of the institution or foundation.³⁸

The ACE/PEN America document provides quite specific, and very helpful, information for trustees and institutional leaders that should be required reading, including: “communication tools for tackling proposed restrictions on academic freedom;” “background points” to assist trustees and campus leaders in conversations with elected officials and other policymakers; and guidance on speaking to the media and communicating with institutional stakeholders.³⁹

In closing, however, I would emphasize that it is vitally important to expand this issue of trustee responsibility beyond the specifics of their individual institutions. As I noted earlier, we as the higher education community have lost our voice in the public discourse, leaving an all-too-large vacuum for others to fill with inaccurate and ideologically colored claims for their own purposes, often with ill will and destructive intent. I really do wonder if all of these political intrusions into higher education would be so welcomed, and often so successful, if they did not find such receptive audiences among those who have only been exposed to one distorted narrative—that America’s colleges and universities are centers of left-wing indoctrination, intolerance of other viewpoints, Marxist ideologies, and the denigration of this country’s history (and this is a somewhat generous description of that narrative, omitting some of the more disturbing racist and nationalist elements).

We need to find ways to reclaim our voice in the public arena, ways to communicate clearly, effectively, and convincingly what it is we do, why we do it this way, and why what we do—teaching, research and discovery, and community engagement—is essential to the health of the nation (and yes, why it is so expensive.…). We need the public at large to understand that our health as a civil democracy, our economic vitality, and our role as a global beacon of democracy are in great part dependent on America’s colleges and universities. And it is to this end that I urge trustees to use their voices—in conversations, in presentations, in the media, and in political arenas—to defend not just their own institutions, but the collective importance of institutional autonomy and academic freedom to higher education’s ability to serve this nation and its people. Trustees by definition tend to be people who have stature in their communities and in their professions—it is incumbent upon them to exploit that stature in service to the integrity of higher education in America.

David Maxwell, PhD, is a senior fellow and senior consultant for the Association of Governing Boards. He is president emeritus of Drake University, where he served for sixteen years; a member of the Board of Trustees of Grinnell College; and a member of the Board of Directors of the Fulbright Association.

---