Focus on the Presidency: How Presidents and Boards Can Work Together to Advance Civil Education

Nearly three years ago,  higher education leaders and organizations were sounding an alarm that principles and practices of democracy were under threat. One of the results was AGB’s Advisory Statement on Reclaiming Higher Education’s Leadership in Support of Civil Education, which defined “civil education” broadly as including “connected issues involving civic education, civil discourse, civic engagement, and the practice of the ‘democratic arts.’¹ The statement “urge[d] higher education leaders to recommit to the ideal of promoting democratic values and making direct, pragmatic contributions to the local and national community.” In the intervening period, this clarion call has been amplified by a confluence of events providing a significant opportunity for presidents and boards to reflect upon, articulate, and advocate for the public good aspect of their institutional missions and for the ways in which they directly impact and support a healthy democracy.

The need for this commitment is undeniably clear. Our institutions and society have been consumed by a public health crisis transcending borders and ideologies. COVID-19 and its variants have highlighted difficult questions of how to balance individual liberties with community needs. The pandemic has coincided with an overdue national racial reckoning and deepening political polarization. An attack by our own citizens on the U.S. Capitol raised existential questions about the strength and sustainability of our democratic form of government.

These troubling developments have coincided with increasing public skepticism regarding expertise and institutions of all kinds. Colleges and universities are not immune in an era in which their value proposition is being defined by policymakers, pundits, and the public almost exclusively through a focus on workforce development, job placement, and individuals’ financial outcomes. Because higher education is currently viewed widely as a private benefit rather than a public good, it is perhaps not surprising that any sense of a broader civic mission has taken a back seat. The lack of attention to such issues in higher education is exacerbated by a similar lack of attention in our nation’s K–12 schools; thus, the students who come to us cannot be expected to arrive fluent in the theory or practice of democratic values and principles.

As a university president at an institution named for the father of the U.S. Constitution, I suggest that colleges and universities can, and must, play an essential role in preparing engaged citizens who will use their skills and education to address the major public issues of our time. This basic premise has been part of our DNA since the founding of many colleges and universities in this nation—reflected in the fact that many of our institutions have mission, vision, and values statements espousing strong commitments to the public good and to service to society. But how can presidents and governing boards take actions together that reflect and reinforce this aspect of our institutional missions that transcend the divisive political arguments that constantly threaten to undermine the very concept of the public good?

For starters, we can put our mission statements into action by ensuring that they are meaningfully reflected in our strategic plans. Presidents and boards, therefore, can work together to develop institutional strategic plans that do more than pay lip service to civic engagement and civil education. As with other institutional priorities, these concepts need to be articulated in clearly defined goals that are shared publicly and backed with measurable outcomes. For example, my own institution’s strategic plan has an explicit goal asserting that “[t]he university will advance learning by reflecting the complete life and work of James Madison through its culture, courses and programs.” This goal is further defined and reinforced by a series of specific objectives in areas such as academic and student affairs that are reviewed and reported upon annually. Presidents and boards should ensure that such goals and outcomes are reviewed on a regular basis, and built into the performance expectations of leaders and units across campus.

One advantage of this work is that, when done well, it builds upon and reinforces many of the same skills that students need for success in their careers and lives more generally. Engaged citizens in a democratic society need critical thinking; communication skills (oral and written); the ability to engage in debate and dialogue based on facts, evidence, and reason; information and data literacy; teamwork; leadership; problem-solving; creativity; and resilience, to name a few. It’s a false dichotomy, therefore, to insist that institutions focus on either career or civic preparation and participation. We can and must do both. In fact, many of the employment sectors for which we are preparing students depend upon the knowledge, skills, and dispositions listed above. Significantly, research by Gallup, most specifically their Five Essential Elements of Well-Being, shows that graduates who possess all five elements—including a sense of “Community Well-Being”—lead lives of greater purpose and meaning than those who do not, even if they do possess “Career Well-Being.”² Presidents and board members should stress this point as often as possible to counter the popular narrative that the purpose of higher education should be confined to preparation for specific jobs. In doing so, each of us can also share our own personal examples of civic involvement that build upon and enrich our professional lives.

The development of these skill sets happens both in and outside the classroom, and leaders should therefore foster a comprehensive educational view and approach to this commitment. The curriculum is of course a critical component. Some institutions, for example, have incorporated civic issues and experiences into their general education programs. Many institutions (including my own) have centers for civic engagement that work with faculty to incorporate civic learning across the curriculum, and that also work with students and student organizations on civic-oriented programming. Special efforts should be focused on areas outside of political science and public policy, where civic engagement might not immediately come to mind. For example, issues such as the pandemic and climate change have underscored the urgent need for scientific expertise and engagement in public policy discussions.

Outside the classroom, students can develop a sense of agency by participating in activities that give them a voice and ownership in learning about and addressing public policy issues. Service learning exposes students to real-life challenges facing their local communities. Student clubs can organize discussions and debates that  allow students to practice the “democratic arts.” And college life also coincides with the age at which many students learn to vote. National organizations such as the ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge are collaborating with institutions across the country to support student voter registration and participation.

Institutional leaders can also provide opportunities for their campus communities to grapple with civic issues that transcend the boundaries of academic disciplines. At James Madison University, for example, our Madison Vision Series features outside speakers who address a wide variety of important public policy issues and debates of our time. These events are free and open to our campus and surrounding community, and are hosted by the president’s office to signal a high level of institutional support. Many board members have attended these presentations, adding further gravitas to these occasions.

When presidents and board members participate actively in conversations and activities related to this topic, they will become better equipped to champion these concepts within their respective spheres of influence. Presidents can use their bully pulpits to raise these issues in a variety of venues on and off campus. I make it a point, for example, to highlight our institution’s commitment to civic engagement when speaking with incoming students and their families at orientation sessions. Given their access to constituencies outside academia, board members can serve as ambassadors who emphasize the importance of this work in conversations with policy-makers, alumni, parents, families, and other constituents. They can also help connect our institutions to people and organizations outside of higher education who share this commitment. For example, the rector (chair) of our governing board connected our university leadership with a nonprofit organization that works extensively with K–12 students and teachers on civic engagement issues in our state, allowing us to explore initiatives of mutual interest.

In a highly polarized political and social environment, this work and commitment are not for the faint of heart. Civil education is inherently messy, like democracy itself. No matter how much we might strive to make our efforts nonpartisan, it is inevitable that such work will be labeled by skeptics as politically tinged. Presidents and boards can combat that critique by modeling respect for different points of view in their own meetings and deliberations (especially given the public nature of many board meetings), and by providing ample educational opportunities on campus for reasoned discussions and debates featuring different points of view showcasing how to have thoughtful, constructive disagreements based on substantive expertise. The true mission and calling of higher education demands nothing less.

Jonathan R. Alger, JD, is the president of James Madison University.

Endnotes

1. “In Support of Civil Education,” John Ottenhoff, Trusteeship Volume 27, No. 3 (May/June 2019).
2. Great Great Lives., Gallup-Purdue Index Report (2014, 2016).