U.S. higher education is at a critical pivotal moment after reporting that the Justice Department is seeking to sign a consent order with Columbia University. While Colombia’s acting president responded, “We will reject any agreement that requires us to waive our independence and autonomy as an educational institution,” the possibility of such decrees suggests a new chapter in the relationship between colleges and universities and the federal government. Even Propose The consent order sets a dangerous precedent for higher education in the United States, which erodes the autonomy of institutions and the independence of the council.
The integrity of board governance is no longer important as our universities and universities navigate political transcendence, social unrest and increasingly rigorous scrutiny. Independent Councils are not symbolic structures, they are the basis for higher education in the public good, safeguarding academic freedom and maintaining mission-centered leadership through crisis and calm.
What is concerned about is not whether the institution should abide by the law. Of course it should. The question is whether legal settlements or government actions should be allowed to break into the role of the board, setting terms that weaken governance bodies or sideline trustees.
What should trustees from other colleges and universities do if they face similar pressures to legal rulings?
First, they must reaffirm their trust duties, not form, but a bold, task-driven framework for leadership. The board must maintain its legal and ethical obligations: obligations of care, obligations of loyalty, and obligations to obey the mission of the agency. In the face of political pressure, these are not abstract ideals, they are anchors.
Second, the board must seek independent legal and governance attorneys early in any negotiation process. The interests of compliance and governance are not always consistent. Trustee must understand the differences between politics, policy and law and be prepared to assert their responsibilities.
Third, if excessive consent or settlement is enacted, the trustee should adhere to clear, limited and transparent provisions rather than allowing for gradual oversight or ambiguous veto. The board of directors that abandon its powers may be trying to protect its institutions, but this not only puts the long-term health of its own institutions, but also the entire education sector is at risk.
Finally, the board must speak – we need a collective position among the board, the associations of higher education and institutional leaders to redefine the value of independent governance in democratic societies. The erosion of board autonomy not only threatens the governance structure, but also the trust, freedom, credibility and sustainability of institutions.
This is a decisive moment. If we allow inappropriate influence (governmental agencies, political appointers, donors, alumni, or others) to determine the terms of campus governance, then we may revoke the foundations of higher education in the United States. Trustee must act independently – clarity, courage and a strong commitment to the mission and values of the institution.
The future of higher education depends on it.
