Higher education has reached a canary-level moment: The recent resignation of the University of Virginia president under enormous political pressure is not only another leadership transition, but also a sign of the harm of the future, and the same pressure has exacerbated George Mason University. The Higher Education Management Committee cannot ignore these emergency warning signals that indicate the dangers of supporting the governance structures of our universities and universities over the centuries.
American higher education is based on a unique governance model, where independent citizen trustees exercise trust supervision, set policies, guarantee institutional autonomy, support the fulfillment of tasks and are in the best interests of the university or university, as the administrator of the public trust. This model of autonomy preserves academic freedom and drives innovation, a hallmark of higher education in the United States, which forms the basis for the industry’s far-reaching influence and global prominence.
Today, this governance model faces serious damage. In both public and private institutions, policy-driven think tanks encourage trustees to act as agents of ideology and interfere with management rather than acting as real trustees. This violation of institutional autonomy is unstable and harmful to governance, leading to a breakdown of the board, a reduction in presidential power, politicized decision-making, academic censorship and loss of public trust.
The board must take this warning very seriously and examine whether their decisions reflect independent judgments with the agency’s mission or the impact of the external agenda. If governance fails, academic freedom will be damaged, academic quality will be weakened, public trust will be eroded, and American higher education and its role in democracy will disappear.
To guide the committee to maintain the autonomy and mission management of the bodies, the association of the governing bodies and the universities recently launched a government initiative with the support of the Mellon Foundation Grant. As part of the initiative, AGB has developed a model for governance comparison and a list of governance integrity. These tools help board members distinguish between effective governance and ideologically driven over-division and provide a framework for evaluating their practices and recommendations for their fiduciary responsibilities.
This is especially important as the misunderstanding of the role of trustees is growing. Without really understanding their responsibilities, they may be independent of the consensus of the board, undermining governance norms, super-management boundaries and pursuing ideological agendas. These actions not only undermine governance by undermining the cohesion and culture of the board, but also threaten the institutional stability and mission that the trustees are asked to maintain.
This moment has nothing to do with partisan politics. It’s about leadership and whether we allow institutional governance to be hijacked by ideological conflict. What is threatened is the integrity of the governance system, which has always been the basis for the power and difference of higher education in the United States.
For each trustee, I beg you to look inward. Ask your board if it is managing its independence and mission and public trust. Use developed tools to evaluate your culture and boundaries. Have a real conversation with the president. Leadership courage and clarity to ensure commitment to higher education.
