How to Make the Worst of Times Better

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.” In this quotation Charles Dickens is describing the era of the French Revolution in his novel A Tale of Two Cities.

In fact, these words capture the turmoil and destabilizing feelings of any time of intense conflict. I believe that it is an apt description of the challenges before us in 2026, particularly for those of us who are deeply committed to higher education in the United States. Some might question how I could possibly believe that there was any way to describe the current status of higher education as the “best of times.” I would respond that this could be the “best of times” if we understand the great opportunity for transformation, advocacy, and reinvestment in our industry and embrace our responsibilities in effectuating that transformation. Such possibility will happen only if we who are advocates for higher education are thoughtful and proactive. I do not mean to suggest that this will be an easy task, but it is precisely the charge before us as leaders and guardians of our remarkable enterprise, American higher education. How do we respond to today’s challenges and create constructive change? What should that change entail? What must be preserved and what must be modified in higher education?

One of the most distinctive features of American higher education is the concept embraced and advocated by AGB, fiduciary citizen trusteeship, the bedrock of what we consider good governance. In “United We Stand: An Urgent Call for Leadership,” Ellen Chaffee provides a clear definition of this concept and the context for its development (in Trusteeship, September/October 2023). She writes:

American higher education institutions were established in the cradle of New World democracy. Their leaders deliberately separated the governance of churches, schools, and civil government. In authoritarian countries, education is directed by the government in line with the ideological wishes of those who have political power.

Americans also created a new model of fiduciary citizen trusteeship for higher education to secure freedom of inquiry and expression based on expertise, facts, and reasoning rather than ideologies or politics. Subject-matter experts in this country determine the learning experiences of students, free of administrative or governmental control. Higher education depends on academic freedom and independent governing boards.¹

In other words, fiduciary citizen trusteeship is inextricably intertwined with democracy, independence of thought, academic and intellectual freedom, and, by implication, autonomy of both institutions of higher education and their boards of trustees.

All of us are aware of the powerful forces that are currently questioning the value of higher education in the United States. I believe that the thoughtful voices in this camp have much to teach us about improving our enterprise and improving our communication about the value that higher education provides not just for the individual, but also for the community at large, for democracy. But one of the features that some critics are questioning is the distinctive governance model we embrace. On this matter, the critics are wrong. In fact, the citizen trustee governance concept is the best platform for addressing the changes that higher education must make to continue to flourish. Only with healthy good governance will American higher education continue to change lives, promote democracy, and advance knowledge and scientific inquiry. An independent and autonomous board will assure that individual institutions meet the needs of the citizens of the country by remaining true to institutional mission. The responses of the board of trustees for a public community college cannot and should not be those of the board of trustees for a private research university. An institution that is governed well will not only survive these difficult times, it will thrive.

As leaders of higher education, we should acknowledge where our critics raise issues that can teach us to improve as we continue to commit to higher education, and we must forcefully reject when their attacks are at the core of what we contribute to society and would undermine our ability to improve. Those of goodwill who say that our concept of governance needs to be discarded likely do not understand what fiduciary citizen trusteeship means and entails. And if they do not understand the concept, that is likely our fault, not theirs. Good governance does not mean unanimity of opinion; it does not mean unquestioning acceptance of everything brought forward by the administration; it does not mean complacency. The board honors the responsibilities of the faculty in leading the institutional academic offerings and the responsibilities of the administration in managing the institution. On the other hand, the board insists on its own role as the fiduciary body of the institution and the final locus of decisions.

In order to remain an honest fiduciary, however, the board as a whole and the individual trustee recognize they cannot make good decisions without informed input and that input comes either from the faculty or from the administration (many forward-thinking institutions also create platforms for staff and students to provide input to the board). Only with this kind of shared responsibility will higher education be able to rise to the challenges of today. A good board member asks good and hard questions, partnering with the president and administration in supporting the mission of the institution, allowing differences to be aired and decisions to be based on data, inquiry, and respectful dialogue. Once a decision is made by the board, individual trustees have one of two routes before them. Either support the decision or sever ties with the board. In either case, the deliberations of the board that are confidential must remain so.

Recently, there have been numerous polls and studies that reveal the growing rifts between those who attended college and those who did not on both what is a college education and the value of the investment. There are growing elements that believe that institutions of higher education are bastions of single-minded thinking. In some cases, these critics are turning to boards to “right the ship.” Their criticisms are sometimes ill-informed but not always. In either case, institutions must listen to the criticisms and analyze the rationale and validity of them. Outright rejection of these assertions is a foolish, unproductive, and frankly anti-academic response. The questions of our critics are serious and must be answered both locally and nationally, by systems and by individual institutions, by public universities and by private colleges, with data, with thoughtful analysis, and most importantly with respect.

Part of the responsibility of a good board is to help the administration address these public concerns, not to do the work for the administration in garnering the evidence, not to assume the intellectual leadership of the curriculum and input to the mission owned by the faculty, but to assure that evidence is gathered and that the administration is responsive to the public’s concerns and expectations. Only the kind of trustee envisioned by fiduciary citizen trusteeship can accomplish this task successfully. If trustees feel beholden to their appointing authority, they will not be honest brokers in listening and helping the institution analyze and respond thoughtfully to the criticisms.

Legitimate questioning of the value proposition of higher education does not lie in the governance philosophy so long celebrated as a distinctive and remarkable American achievement. Rather, as I have said above, this governance philosophy is precisely the platform for not only addressing these questions but also assuring that American higher education regains its status as one of the pillars of our society.

Why then is higher education governance under such threat? First, fiduciary citizen governance needs to be better understood. I must conclude that we in higher education have not done a particularly good job of communicating its meaning. Second, as advocates we must acknowledge that we have entered a new phase in the country’s expectations for higher education. Years of tuition increases greatly outpacing inflation, an American history of skepticism of the overly educated, the current uncertainty of the job market and the impact of technology (particularly artificial intelligence) on employment opportunities, have combined with a citizenry that is impatient with the somewhat condescending attitudes of the elites to create a petri dish for attacks on higher education.

The history of questioning authority has been further exacerbated by three important features. First, we need to ask ourselves if those who are in positions of leadership in higher education—presidents and board members—are the ones who should hold these jobs. How have we come to define their success in the roles? Are the right people holding these positions, do they have the appropriate backgrounds and temperaments, and do they understand their roles? I submit often that is not the case. Second, we must acknowledge that we have entered a time of hyper partisanship. It is no longer enough to say I disagree with someone on the other side of a topic; I have to say that I hate them; I must debase them; I must scorn them. Third, communication has become so overwhelmed by social media that many individuals have forgotten how to speak to someone with whom they disagree. Indeed, most do not even feel the need to do so. Our social media feeds are from people who already agree with us. We rarely talk in full sentences, and we feel no need to share fully developed thoughts; an emoji is adequate. Think of the impact of “six seven” (whatever that means) in classrooms today. We do not need to listen and learn—even from people with whom we agree, much less with those with whom we vehemently disagree.

Two recent books are helpful in understanding the circumstances of today and how we can begin to address the problems and continue to advocate for good governance. Scott L. Bok’s 2023 Surviving Wall Street: A Tale of Triumph, Tragedy and Timing ends with two chapters on his time leading nonprofit boards, the University of Pennsylvania and the Natural History Museum in New York City. After detailing the facts that led to Liz Magill’s resignation as president of the university and his as chair of the board, Bok writes:

While many aspects of the Penn saga were familiar to me—the protagonists, the tactics and boardroom drama were very similar to those of a typical corporate takeover contest—the stakes seemed higher. What was at risk in my view was nothing short of the soul of the university—and perhaps by extension of all leading universities. In my view, to continue to fulfill the noble purpose that universities had historically served they needed to be independent on matters of teaching and research, to pursue knowledge even when there wasn’t an immediate instrumental value in sight and to be open to hearing all perspectives.²

Bok also asserts the importance of the undergraduate years being times of personal exploration, allowing for the possibility, indeed probability, of youthful mistakes. Bok is reminding us that some of the problem currently being experienced in university boardrooms is happening in all boardrooms or in any place of discourse—failure to communicate well, failure to agree to shared purpose, and an absence of civility. He also acknowledges that we should not be surprised at youthful protest, even when it pushes the boundaries of good taste or careful analysis. The question for institutions is not whether they allow such protest to happen, but how they react when protests inevitably do happen.

Christopher Eisgruber’s 2025 Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right is a powerful, lawyerly, and thoughtful defense of today’s students. He recognizes that some of what the critics of students at institutions of higher education term failure to support “free speech” are actually examples of free speech. Shutting down the speech of a controversial speaker is not the same thing as shouting about that particular message. The second may be offensive to some, but it is in fact free speech. His chapter, “Polarization, Online Media, and American Civic Life” is an excellent explication of the two-pronged attack on our civil society—the heightened partisanship of our times and the impact of social media on our ability to communicate. Eisgruber writes:

Americans today communicate via platforms vastly different from what existed at the beginning of this century, and they do so in circumstance of intense and dangerous division. Digital communication may be partly responsible for America’s political schisms; it certainly expresses and amplifies them. In this new discursive world, the civility rules that guided discussion in the past often prove inadequate: those rules were connected to audiences and social conventions that do not apply to online media, and they sometimes incorporated privileges or stereotypes that do not withstand scrutiny.³

In the face of these challenges, what should we do to clarify and enhance the power and meaning of good governance? Let’s begin with who is in a position of power. Perhaps the most important jobs of a board of trustees involve choosing, partnering, and evaluating the president or chancellor of the institution. If the board has thought deeply about the mission of the institution and chooses someone who will be best able to lead that institution into its effective future, maybe the most important part of this aspect of the board’s responsibility has been done and likely assures success. However, if the board becomes enamored of a program de jour, an idée fixe that will address all of higher education, a particular partisan hobby horse and not be attentive to the specific needs of the institution, they will choose the wrong person. If they are enraptured by a candidate’s ambition for him or herself rather than for the institution; if they focus only on the outreach, fundraising, and public relations potential of the candidate, they will choose the wrong person. That candidate will not be able to lead the institution through the crises that will inevitably come their way. Once the right person is chosen, the board must provide wise counsel, ask tough questions, support the president in difficult decisions, and let the president do the job of managing the enterprise. The board should provide thorough and thoughtful evaluation of the chief executive officer, and should they find the president lacking, provide advice and opportunities for remediation. If that remediation is not successful, then the board must respond in the appropriate manner. They should not assume the role of the president. Rather, they must make the difficult choice of separating from the individual, graciously and respectfully, but expeditiously.

By the same token, if the board members are chosen only for their fundraising potential or political connections, they will forget that their fiduciary responsibility is to the mission of the institution. In the public sector, of course, trustees owe responsibility to the state in which the institution sits, but their primary fiduciary duty is to the individual institution. The only way they can exhibit their responsibility to the state and its citizens is by assuring that the institution that they hold in trust is true to its mission. They are not trustees of the state but of the institution. In the public and private sectors, a trustee should never assume that by virtue of some philanthropic generosity, they are owed allegiance by the institution. Rather the opposite is true: the trustee holds allegiance to the institution whether they are a major donor or not.

Let me reiterate what I have said earlier, trustees should challenge the administration. They must ask hard questions. But they are not there to substitute for the management work of presidents and their senior staff. They are not there to substitute their opinions for the expertise of the faculty in the development of the curriculum, even those trustees who possess academic expertise. They are not there to do the bidding of the appointing authority—whether that be the governor of the state or the alumni association. Being a trustee is a serious job that requires commitment, deep thought, and time. Board members bring to that job their individual knowledge and background, but their job is distinctive from that of management or faculty. Trustees must understand their role as the best leadership partners to oversee the future of the institution. Trustees are part of looking into the future and assuring that whatever is done today will be in the long-term best interest of the university. If they are trying to run the institution of today, they will simply not be able to accomplish that function. Their perspective should always be at the 50,000-foot level, not eye level.

While there are numerous AGB publications that define good board governance, two are particularly effective in delineating responsibilities. Anatomy of Good Board Governance in Higher Education (2018) effectively describes what characterizes an excellent board. Principles of Trusteeship: How to Become a Highly Effective Board Member for Colleges, Universities, and Foundations (2021) deftly describes those responsibilities with a focus on the individual trustee. Anatomy posits that good governance is the result of three elements being in balance: the right people should be on the board, those people should be addressing the right issues, and the culture of the board should assure the right relationships are maintained between board members and between the board and the larger institutional community, particularly between the board and the president and the administration. These features imply embracing the fair airing of a diversity of opinions but recognizing the shared commitment to action only by the full board. Actions of the board are collective, and all board members must accept that decision. Good board culture is based on respect and trust between and among all trustees.

According to Principles, a good trustee is someone who understands governance by accepting all aspects of a trustee’s responsibility, honoring the differences between administration and board, and being an advocate for the institution as well as higher education as a whole. Exemplary trustees “lead by example.”⁴ They are characterized by integrity in action and speech, independent thinking, and active listening. The trustees agree to think not only individually but also collectively, understanding that higher education stands for equity of opportunity and appreciating the individual trustee responsibilities to the institution, to other board members, and to higher education as a vehicle for positive change in society. Finally, the individual trustee becomes a strategic thinker by knowing about the institution the trustee serves, asking good questions and focusing on the long-term sustainability of the institution they serve.

In A President’s Guide to Effective Board Leadership (AGB, 2021), William Troutt clarifies the responsibility of the president in effectuating good board governance. Trout argues that the president’s responsibility begins with the president’s being honest about the level of engagement that the president wishes to have with the board. If a president wants such trustee engagement to be deep and thoughtful, then the president must communicate that open and honest questions and discussions are welcomed. This commitment requires the work necessary to make trustee engagement meaningful. The president must put the effort and time into the project, implementing education programs and being responsive to trustee questions. In partnership of course with the chair of the board and/or the chair of the governance committee, the president’s work will enhance the sense of shared community and a healthy board culture. In such an environment, the challenges of today and those that have an impact on any institution—financial, public relations, and political—can be better managed.

As we reflect on good governance in these fraught times, one of the vehicles that I think higher education leadership should welcome more openly is the creation and nurturing of partnerships and allies. What are the organizations, associations, corporate entities, and industries that depend on quality higher education for their own success? What do we share with them and how can we work together to enhance the status of our communities and civil society in the United States? Some of these partnerships are easy to identify—business, industry, and public service. Sometimes, however, we might find that these partnerships are with unusual partners. Five years ago, it would have been unfathomable to imagine the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (also known as FIRE) partnering with PEN America on the seminal features of free speech and academic freedom. But both organizations care deeply about the future of the American experiment, and they recognize that while they may not share whole swathes of policy issues, they do share some principles. Are there such partners that higher education should think to approach? How do we reach out to establish foundations for conversation and articulate shared goals that will enhance democracy and the economic future of the United States?

In 2024, the Mellon Foundation awarded AGB a $1.1 million grant to enhance the understanding of good governance in higher education. The signature program supported by this grant is the Governance NOW Leadership Academy. Seventy individuals applied to participate in the academy and 29 were selected. The admissions process sought to identify individuals committed to learning about good governance and to represent the wide range of American higher education by both sector and geography. The goal of the academy is to equip trustees, presidents, and key board staff with the core governance principles for these times and the ways to act consistently with these principles, such as dealing with undue influence as a fiduciary; understanding what board independence and institutional autonomy mean in practice and ways of protecting these principles; and ensuring academic freedom and free expression as essential to American’s colleges’ and universities’ ability to carry out their commitment to the common good.

The registrants will participate in three interactive virtual sessions and a culminating in-person session that will require them to put into practice what they have learned over the previous sessions. The work of the academy is informed by the wisdom or years of AGB publications, curated in the recent pamphlet How to Govern for Institutional Autonomy: A Practical Guide for Higher Education Boards, which includes checklists for analyzing and responding to any type of external intrusion that threatens institutional autonomy and a simple side-by-by presentation of the difference between the independent, fiduciary leadership model of higher education governance and the externally driven, ideological model of higher education governance. Ellen Chaffee’s “United We Stand” article serves as introductory and clearly delineates the current landscape in higher education governance.

The Mellon grant report will be informed by these. The results of the interactions of the academy participants will be the foundation for a report that should provide further opportunities and learnings about how to continue to preserve and improve good governance for higher education.

I believe that leaders in higher education are doing good work to improve the public’s understanding of the necessity of well governed institutions of higher education for the future of our country. But I believe that we must all commit to communicating better, to listening to the other side, to rejecting silos of communication, and to committing to shared purpose, as defined by institutional mission. It’s brave to admit you made a mistake, to change your mind, but that kind of productive response can only be founded on the basis of shared community and in an environment that prizes civic discourse. Something matters more than your individual opinion, or the opinion of the appointing authority, or your discipline—that is the mission of the institution you serve. The shared learnings from the Govern NOW Leadership Academy and the commitment to strategic, open, and imaginative partnerships should provide a platform for a reinvigoration of higher education through good governance, recognizing the primacy of institutional mission, and autonomy.

Some feel that at this moment we are experiencing the worst of times for American higher education (though I would posit that the 1950s and the McCarthy era might compete), but our response in defense of good governance could and should be first steps in creating the best of times, or at least better times. We can make a real difference in the future for our students, our faculty, our institutions, and our country. We can only do so if we recommit to the concepts of fiduciary citizen trusteeship, appreciating its centrality in the support of higher education as one of the most important foundations for the democratic experiment that is the United States.

R. Barbara Gitenstein, PhD, is president emerita, The College of New Jersey and an AGB senior fellow and senior consultant.

1. Ellen Chaffee, “United We Stand: An Urgent Call for Leadership,” Trusteeship, September/October 2023, 33.
2. Scott L. Bok, Surviving Wall Street: A Tale of Triumph, Tragedy, and Timing (Wiley, 2025), 459.
3. Christopher Eisgruber, Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right (Basic Books, 2025), 154.
4. AGB, Principles of Trusteeship: How to Become a Highly Effective Board Member for Colleges, Universities, and Foundations, (AGB, 2021), 1.