The board of directors must strive for institutional independence (opinions)

The college is facing a crisis of confidence. Where shared governance once fostered strong debate and institutional progress, the atmosphere of fear is replenishing, killing dialogue and endangering the mission of higher education. Policymakers are trapped in an atmosphere marked by uncertainty, fearing action and being paralyzed by inaction. Their meticulously trimmed efforts trouble them, an effort to change higher education, forcing the department into a state of horror in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we witness the transition from common governance to fear governance, with far-reaching consequences.

At the moment, the president seems quiet, the board is in a critical issue with the faculty and staff feeling suppressed in teaching and research. The insidious costs of these constraints (lost opportunities, stifled innovation, further erosion of trust) are shocking. These costs must be subject to public scrutiny because they are not limited to higher education. The impact of external invasion will be reflected in every aspect of our society.

The Governing Council – the guardian of institutional mission and values ​​– must recognize the gravity of this moment. While the attack on the DEI program is a major part of the problem, it is more than diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s about institutional independence, the pursuit of freedom of knowledge and the DNA of universities and universities in our country. Board members often allow teachers or presidents to lead in governance and use common governance as an excuse, explanation or cover for their own lack of participation. They succeed in hiding in plain sight.

However, governance is not an audience sport. The Board must advocate for the preservation of institutional independence and recognize that inaction under the guise of shared governance remains inaction. They cannot afford passive observers and expect others to take responsibility in defending the agency’s core values. This is not a middle school group project; everyone has to participate or we all will fail.

Threats are common: the courses are besieged, extracurricular life is being demolished, research plans are targeted, medical schools are undermined, and freedom of speech is blocked. This is not a series of isolated events. It is a well-planned campaign that aims to disrupt the foundations of higher education and requires a unified, unwavering response.

Responsibility falls under the responsibility of the Management Committee, working with the President to answer (clearly, immediately) some key questions:

• What principles define our institutions before the current political climate?
• Do we still represent these principles? If so, how can we keep it up with them now?
• What price are we willing to pay for maintaining these basic values?
• If we give up our values ​​now, what is our institutional identity?

Autonomy is not only a privilege; it is the cornerstone of our academic mission. This is not only our institutional independence, but our complete integrity.

Understandably, many boards hesitate to deal with these challenges directly. But silence and inaction are not choices. The board members are the ultimate arbitrators of the fate of their institutions. It is time to abandon the narrow focus on isolation initiatives and face a broader, more comprehensive attack on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Board leaders will determine how we can browse this decision moment.

The board of directors is a protector of institutional values. They pushed the legacy of the institution forward. If they fail in this duty, the consequences may be irreversible. Although other higher education policymakers respond to executive orders, policy shifts and legal rulings, the role of the board is clear and constantly changing. The only uncertainty is whether members will fulfill their responsibilities that align with the organization’s mission.

The future of higher education depends on the Higher Education Commission. The 1966 statement on the University Government clearly states: “The Governing Council has a special obligation to ensure that the history of the university or university will serve as a prelude and inspiration for the future… The Council must provide support when ignorance or illness threatens the institution or any part of it. In a serious crisis.

Board Member: That’s that moment. Your agency and the public they serve are waiting for you to lead. The future of higher education depends on your courage, your beliefs and the values ​​that are willing to support the establishment of an institution. Will you rise? We need you more than ever.

Recently, we have made some suggestions for the specific actions of the trustees and senior institutional leaders to take immediate post-educational work while working with good collaborators to address challenges in the field. Here are some ideas for boards that want to be proactive and not just reactive.

A key action is to highlight the impact on resources. The public’s transparent review of university budgets should clearly show the areas that are being threatened, such as research and DEI programs. To further, institutions may consider redistribution of funds from traditionally “untouchable” areas such as track and field athletics to strengthen initiatives focused on inclusion and academic freedom. Facing the priorities of these proofs, openly challenging politicians can justify the cuts that may bring dialogue beyond speech.

Fundraising strategies also need to be reimagined. Universities can initiate specially designed targeted activities to offset federal funding cuts and support programs surrounded by them. A bolder approach might view these efforts as “impact investment,” highlighting the social rewards that support research and DEI. This remark can inspire donors who deeply care about the role of universities in shaping a more equitable future.

It is also important to emphasize human costs. Universities should conduct and publish comprehensive reports to quantify the real consequences of funding cuts, including impacts on life, delays in medical treatment, rising attrition rates and mental health issues for students and employees. These findings are presented to lawmakers and public forces, and a direct estimate of the human loss of these policy decisions. The fact of nudity is more than fear to speak loudly.

Finally, institutions must establish collective strength through research alliances. By establishing inter-agency partnerships to concentrate resources and expertise, universities can ensure that important research projects at risk continue. A more confident stance could position these consortiums as direct opposition to political intervention, highlighting the importance of academic investigations without external pressure.

The path forward is clear: the board must lead with transparency, strategy and courage. The survival of higher education and its ability to serve the public good depends on it.