Getting Governance Right in Challenging Times

When I used to write about and advocate for the essential habits of effective college and university governing boards—while they were not always easy—they were largely accepted across public and independent institution fiduciary bodies. That was then!

Today, we are in the throes of a national effort to reset higher education, one of this country’s iconic assets—and a center piece of American democracy. Our institutions are carefully monitoring and participating in a substantial shift in the value proposition of American higher education that is arguably putting some of its core principles at risk and compromising the academy’s many contributions to the nation. The sector is confronting a difficult and multipart question: what is the right amount of government influence, when does that get to be overboard and unacceptably intrusive, and how do institutions (and their boards) tell the difference?

While not all threats to our colleges and universities are currently impacting every institution or university system, too many of our colleges and universities have to operate while looking over their shoulder at federal intrusion into admission criteria (at a moment when the population of traditional age students is declining), curriculum standards, academic freedom and freedom of expression, research funding, and perhaps coming soon, changing criteria for accreditation. Additionally, over the last year, we have witnessed intrusions into the right to assemble on our campuses. It’s a bit of a strange new world for our academic institutions that have rightfully taken great pride in their autonomy and innovation. The potential risk of standardizing our higher education academic product is the stuff of autocracies. For many institutions, declining trends in enrollment and public funding alongside at-risk trends in philanthropic support should be a tell in the overall trajectory of one of the country’s prized assets and its historic role of enabling a more substantial future for our citizens and the nation’s priorities.

To address the risks of today’s more chaotic higher education sector we must ensure that college and university decision-making remains in the hands of excellent administrative leadership, supported by voluntary governing boards that respect the mandates of state and federal law that define governance standards. These boards consisting mostly of citizens from outside of the academy must bring their commitment to supporting innovative agendas, while respecting the historic roles and cultures of the institutions to which they provide strategic direction. At the core of board member service should be the mission of the institution they serve. Respect for and a willingness to listen and consider external advocates’ priorities are part of effective governance; however, independent board judgement and decision-making, much like institution autonomy, are the primary drivers that must not be sacrificed to short-lived political agendas.

Those “habits” of an effective board that have stood the test of time are today the stressed tectonic plates that are putting higher education at unnecessary risk. In recent years the governance in many public and private institutions has become far more partisan and contentious—a trend that can undermine the sector’s historic contributions to society. It has exacerbated the challenges confronted by those leaders who are currently heading institutions as presidents and chancellors as well as those who might strive to lead our colleges and universities in the future. A failure to set aside differences and to work collaboratively risks compromising fiduciary obligations—shifting support from mission-related initiatives and longer-term strategies to short-term external influences or mandates from state or national leaders. Throughout American history, the independence of our colleges and universities to diversify and innovate—regardless of how or by whom they were founded—has regularly positioned American institutions of higher education at or near the top of most international rankings. Our colleges and universities have been the recognized standard bearer of excellence in education for the world—defined by academic excellence, opportunity for all, and the advancement of research discoveries—the benefits of which are worth far more than their cost.

Those standards and centuries long achievements are now at risk—whether it’s scrubbing a long-standing commitment to equality and advancement or making hard choices about research funding and innovation. Compromising institution mission and values based on external political mandates is not good for current or future students or for those dependent on institution programs and research results. And it’s not sufficiently protective of the requisite standards of independent decision-making on the part of those volunteers who, for a period, are called upon to advance their institution’s mission. In fact, it’s a moral violation of that very commitment. In addition to their fiduciary responsibilities, board members should be willing advocates on behalf of the unique governance model for which they are the guardians.

American higher education has been advancing its global standard for longer than the 250 years we are about to celebrate. From the earliest colonial colleges, beginning with Harvard University in the 17th century, we have led the way—admittedly progress has often been slower than it should have been, but that’s really the point. Our institutions, having achieved their independence from state or national intrusion in the historic Dartmouth College v. Woodward decision of 1819, have continued their long road of progress. We shouldn’t go back; we can’t go back. To the extent that readers believe that a nation’s impact reflects its academic institutions’ contributions and their ability to lead and discover, today’s more traumatic threats to higher education need to be resisted.

At this point, I’m guessing that there will be those academic leaders (and board members) who aren’t comfortable with my message. They will be inferring a political argument or complaint, and they won’t be entirely wrong. Yet this isn’t intended as a partisan message; I respect each person’s political point of view. In the past year, our country has become highly factionalized across most sectors, with those who haven’t fallen in line being demonized just as those who are concerned with the aggressive reset feeling aggrieved. The attacks on higher education are part of a full-on assault on some of our core cultural values.

The point is that we must work together, as some boards have done, to avoid board members compromising their responsibilities and moral commitment to their institution’s long-standing impact and mission. It is a reminder and an appeal to higher education’s governing bodies in whose hands hold the responsibility to advance their institution’s mission and, in a sense, to defend and strengthen the reputation of higher education. And to step up and lead appropriately to save this most essential part of the American story. Clearly our national government as well as many state governments, and even some governing boards, have stepped over the line, moving from a mostly supportive role to a full-on micromanagement and control philosophy that has had consequences that extend beyond the campus. Closing the federal agency that was established to be a supportive partner to this country’s education system sends a chilling signal about partnership versus national fiat.

So let us recommit to the correct role of higher education governing boards, especially in this current environment. For me, it starts with how board members are selected, elected, or appointed to their significant responsibilities. When I was nominated for service to a public higher education institution governing board, the governor who asked me to serve was clear that once he advanced my name, that he and I would agree not to discuss higher education policies about that specific institution again. A good guide for current board members: it’s not how you get to the boardroom but rather what you do when you get there. It’s about getting governance right—especially now in these more challenging times—most assuredly supporting and defending the board’s requisite responsibility to maintain its independence at all costs.

I previously wrote “The 10 Habits of Highly Effective Boards” for Trusteeship (in the March/April 2014 issue). A refreshed list of the essentials (habits) of effective boards might best emphasize the following:

• A culture of respect and inclusion of all board members
• Respect for fiduciary principles
• Primary focus on institution mission, autonomy and board independence
• A healthy and supportive relationship with the institution president/chancellor
• Selection of an effective and respected board chair who recognizes board independence to be non-negotiable
• A strong board governance committee (in both private and public institutions)
• Respect for and commitment to shared governance, academic freedom, and free expression
• A willingness to take risks as appropriate and to be advocates for mission and independence

In these challenging times, if you believe that your board is veering off course, I urge you to encourage board leadership to take a step back and consider the larger implications of the actions being considered: Are we acting in a way that puts our most essential responsibilities at risk?

In the end, higher education’s governing boards should serve as the guardians of an independent higher education—a long and valued cornerstone of democracy.

Richard Legon served as president and CEO of AGB from 2006–2019. He served on the governing boards of Virginia State University, the University of Charleston, and Spelman College. He serves as an AGB senior consultant and senior fellow.