Realpolitik for Boards

I am grateful to my colleagues Raquel M. Rall and Demetri L. Morgan for starting an important conversation this month with their opinion essay on the role of boards in defending institutional autonomy in this political climate. In conclusion, they assert,

This kind of message appeals to the spirit of all red-blooded academics, but it leaves something to be desired in terms of galvanizing university communities in response to crisis. To that end, I would like to offer some open thoughts to each constituent group: boards and faculty.

To Faculty

Having worked with boards and chief executives for more than a decade on the subject of shared governance, I have often had occasion to remark that most faculty receive little to no formal preparation during their graduate studies in two areas essential to their careers: pedagogy and governance. It may not be fulfilling to hear, but I often offer the following advice to new governing board members, and it should apply equally to faculty members who are still developing their voices and awareness of their responsibilities on matters of institutional direction: The first rule of higher education governance is to do no harm.

It’s been less than three months since President Trump was inaugurated. The “flood the zone” strategy has been extremely successful for him so far, with legal challenges to a dizzying gamut of executive actions both unable to keep pace and failing, at turns. University presidents, and the boards to whom they report, Rall and Morgan argue, are scared silent. Many in higher education have railed against what they call “capitulation” to the demands of the federal Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. But, better than anyone, those scholars who have dedicated their careers to education as a primary vehicle for liberty and justice know the righteousness of one’s cause is no guarantee of victory. Boards know it, too. Therefore, we should expect university strategies to continue evolving in the months and years to come.

My advice is this: Temper your expectations for hearing from your board, or seeing its members in action. Many boards have unintentionally acquired a higher profile in recent years, as campus communities have sought to hear from the very highest authority in moments of crisis and rediscovered there is one yet higher than the president or chancellor. But the board is not a hidden hand; the board is composed of citizens whose careers and expertise typically reside outside the academy. Shared governance traditions rightly maintain that the chief executive is fully empowered—relied upon—to lead the university. You would be wiser to understand and inform the thinking of your chief executive, your deans and division heads. They need to know the community’s hearts and minds if they are to lead well, and most of all they need a measure of your trust as they look beyond the urgency of this moment.

Faculty should also know—though aside from instances of legislative testimony they will never see it—that cases of well-connected board leaders interceding against ill-considered public policy are plentiful in recent years, particularly at the state level. The fact that the ability to influence federal actions appears elusive means little at this point, except that we are faring no worse than other sectors, as business leaders serving on governing boards know all too well. The circumstances are uniquely challenging, but those board members know that, and they are trying.

To Governing Boards

The work of university governing boards is now, more than ever before, closely watched by those within the academy and beyond it. In the absence of direct observation, many will accept supposition. You are going to need to find ways—directly or indirectly—to not only do the work of pursuing worthy, inspirational directions for the institution but also to be seen doing it. Much of that work consists of listening to those who have committed their professional lives to the institution. If one takes as the first rule of higher education governance “do no harm,” then the board cannot support university leaders well by drawing down more of the community’s trust than it stores up.

Questions the board might pose to faculty groups that balance near-term relevance with a longer view might include, for example:

• Immutable harm has already been done to the reputation of the U.S. as a destination for international students and scholars. What might be done to mitigate the harm to this institution, and how might we adapt to new realities over the next several years?
• How does our faculty collectively understand the nature of diverse viewpoints in relation to student learning, disciplined thought and academic freedom? Where are the points of broad agreement and disagreement, and what does that suggest in terms of actions that may be needed?
• What expectations of our graduates do our faculty hold dear? Have recent events put this question in any sort of new light? Are we preparing students well in relation to those expectations?
• What do we believe about the benefits of our scholarship? Who is being harmed by interruptions to scholarly activity? What is the story that needs to be told, who can tell it to good effect and who needs to hear it?

To be clear, challenging conversations will need to occur between faculty groups and university leaders regarding the degree to which leaders are taking both anticipatory and reactive steps to signal compliance with federal mandates of questionable legality. But, even as academic communities are expressing understandable concern, we are far from the right time for a postmortem. A whole variety of factors completely out of universities’ control will undoubtedly affect President Trump’s outlook, disposition and attention in the months and years ahead. The first three months of this administration’s antagonism toward universities may be only a prelude. Boards and faculty alike should take a deep breath and remember the first rule of governance.