Higher education has never been more important to the health and well-being and future of our state. If we are going to make the kind of improvement we need, trustees are going to have to press for it, measure it, and demand results. Almost every day brings a succession of news stories, editorials, and reports critical of higher education. American colleges and universities that were once called "the envy of the world" now draw withering admonitions from the White House and others for their high costs and declining quality. President Obama has declared that he will institute a federal rating system for higher education with significant financial consequences.
A recent survey by GfK shows that a majority of Americans believe taxpayers and families are not getting value for their investment. They see tenure as a system that adds to cost and compromises quality. They fear that political correctness and intolerance are undermining the free exchange of ideas. And headlines underscore ever-more-frequent concerns about collegiate athletic scandals, binge drinking, and criminal behavior. Multiple studies suggest that, despite massive expenditure, many of America's college graduates are not leaving school prepared for career and community.
Substantial numbers of recent college graduates lack a fundamental understanding of their history and heritage; many suffer from vast gaps in their skills and knowledge and are ill-equipped to compete in the fast-moving global economy. Meanwhile, completion rates at both two-year and four-year colleges are often shockingly low. Tuition continues to rise far above inflation, outstripping even increases in medical costs. Student debt has risen along with it, topping one trillion dollars.
While there is no single cause for this range of problems, one of the critical sources is the failure of higher education governance. The undersigned have come together to call for governance for a new era and to set a path for new and vigorous engagement by academic leadership and boards of trustees. Ineffective higher ed governance is not a new phenomenon, but these times present new challenges. Every day, new entrants to the higher education marketplace compete for student enrollments. Legislatures cut back on state support, and families retrench. Emerging content delivery models make bricks and mortar seem a thing of the past.
Most experts agree: the future of higher education as an element of America's global leadership, along with the very existence of many institutions, is in jeopardy. Rather than being a defining strength of higher education, lay governance now threatens to be a liability. Trustees should take a more active role in reviewing and benchmarking the work of faculty and administrators and monitoring outcomes. Too many have seen their role narrowly defined as boosters, cheerleaders, and donors. They should ask the questions that need to be asked and exercise due diligence.
New realities require new strategies. Shared governance, which demands an inclusive decision-making process, cannot and must not be an excuse for board inaction at a time when America's pre-eminent role in higher education is threatened. Those who hold on to the old strategy of passive governance can never be effective agents of change. The partnership of informed, engaged governing boards and dynamic academic leadership has never been more urgently needed.
Effective board leadership involves not only listening, but also includes acting after due deliberation, even when not everyone agrees. This does not mean that trustees unilaterally impose their will over the institution. Rather, trustees need to listen carefully to faculty concerns and become knowledgeable so that they can make highly informed decisions. When their decisions depart from faculty wishes, they must be able to articulate why that is appropriate.
Trustees, working with presidents, are charged with bringing the big picture to the table and making decisions in the best interests of students and the public. As former Harvard president Derek Bok has made clear, "trustees are supposed to act as a mediating agent between the interests of the institution and the needs of the surrounding society." Trustees, who come from a variety of professions and present a variety of viewpoints, can provide a broad perspective on preparation for citizenship, career, and lifelong learning that a tenured professor, properly focused on his own department and an expert in his own discipline, cannot so easily offer.
That is why trustees must have the last word when it comes to guarding the central values of American higher education—academic excellence and academic freedom. The preservation of academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the integrity of scholarship and teaching rightly falls under their purview. While the occasions should be rare, they must be prepared to intervene when internal constituencies are unable or unwilling to institute urgently needed reforms.
To do this effectively, trustees need to work with the CEO and have access to independent information and experts to help them gain a full national perspective. Too often, they are in the dark when it comes to crucial issues such as academic quality and integrity. They often lack information on student learning, the academic culture of the campus, and the intellectual value-added of college. Boards should expect that campus administrators will provide concise, thoughtful, and analytical information for which they will be held accountable.
Both trustees—and those who appoint them—must reject the belief that university trusteeships are sinecures or seats of honor. Trustees need to bring a renewed and vigorous commitment to learning about, and understanding, the academic enterprise. They must, going forward, require for themselves professional development, continuing education, and accountability. Just as trustees must insist on real and concrete institutional accountability, the public must demand the same of governing boards.
