Trustees and professors are largely in the dark about one another's roles in university governance, according to the results of a survey released on Friday by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Faculty members themselves were not surveyed by the association, which received responses from presidents, chief academic officers, and board chairs. While the survey found that faculty-board relations are viewed as generally healthy and constructive, only 23 percent of respondents said trustees understand faculty contributions to governance either "well" or "very well" — the same percentage as said professors understand the role of governing boards.
"There's definitely room for education on some very basic things," said Merrill P. Schwartz, the association's director of research and primary author of a report on the survey.
The vast majority of new trustees and professors receive orientation, according the report, but not all of those training sessions include a review of the other side of the faculty-board divide's role in governance. For example, only 30 percent of faculty orientations cover the responsibilities of governing boards.
The report says that faculty members serve on governing-board committees at 56 percent of the surveyed institutions, although almost twice as often at private colleges than at public ones.
Gary Rhoades, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, said that while there is room for improvement, the fact that professors serve on boards at a majority of colleges is proof that the AAUP's perspective on shared governance remains strong on campuses.
However, Mr. Rhoades stressed that faculty representatives on boards should not be "just hand-picked" by presidents and trustees, and should sometimes be selected from the growing ranks of non-tenure-track faculty members.
Unwelcome Intrusions
Boards of trustees have generally taken a more active role in recent years, a development welcomed by most governance experts. However, trustees must be taught the nuances of higher education to be effective. As a result, the survey's finding on inadequate orientation for both new trustees and new professors is a red flag, said Ms. Schwartz.
"Presidents are concerned whenever you bring up the idea of boards' getting more involved," she said. But "avoiding it isn't the answer."
Mr. Rhoades agreed, saying that widespread financial pressures across higher education could lead to unwelcome intrusions by boards into tenure and promotion questions as well as threats to academic freedom.
"You can't make educated decisions about an institution you don't understand," he said.
According to the survey, the top three issues faculty members and trustees address together are curricula, presidential searches, and budget matters. Roughly half of surveyed presidents said the interaction between their governing board and their faculty was good or positive, while 15 percent described bad or struggling relationships.
Among the common themes that emerged in comments from presidents who described negative interactions were faculty views of trustees through an adversarial, labor-versus-management lens, and trustees who see faculty members as privileged, too powerful, and overpaid.
The report, in its conclusion, notes the "often impossible position of presidents in mediating this contested turf."
Underlying Respect
Acrimony notwithstanding, trustees and professors generally show respect, according to the survey results. About 97 percent of respondents said trustees, faculty members, and administrators typically demonstrate collegiality, respect, tolerance, and civility toward one another.
Mr. Rhoades said he had spoken with the governing boards' group about the survey, and that the AAUP was interested in conducting similar research on faculty opinions about relations between boards and professors.
Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, criticized both the survey's scope and the report's conclusions.
"Nowhere does it point out that trustees are the ultimate fiduciaries and because they have that legal responsibility they also have the final say," Ms. Neal said in a written statement.
The report, which was published as part of a project on faculty and institutional governance financed by the TIAA-CREF Institute, offered several recommendations. Among others, they urged colleges to:
- Create opportunities for board members and faculty members to interact in meaningful ways in both informal and formal settings.
- Include faculty members and trustees in strategic-planning, accreditation, and other key working groups.
- Clarify the decision-making process and the roles of faculty members, administrators, the president, and the board.
Comments
1. eacowan - January 25, 2010 at 07:01 am
One way of clarifying the roles of administration and faculty would be to create a handbook of operating procedures. This would have to be done in a cooperative way between faculty and administration. Meanwhile, trustees should see themselves as primarily in charge of finding adequate financial support for the university.
A handbook would ideally place the curriculum into the hands of the faculty. That way, trustees would not have to concern themselves with the "picky points" of programs and courses. Similarly, the matter of academic standards should ideally be also in the hands of the faculty and not the administration. Too often, especially at lesser state institutions, there arises among administrators a tendency to sacrifice academic standards through grade inflation, this brought on by a fixation on the academically unimportant matters of "retention" and "graduation rates". I know of at least one very fine professor at a state college who was mustered off the faculty by the administration because the professor's courses did not match the administrative ambitions relating to such numerical considerations. --E.A.C.
2. ellenchaffee - January 25, 2010 at 10:23 am
Putting things in writing, as in a handbook, can be a great way to come to shared understanding (through a collaborative trustee/administration/faculty writing process) and to assist in on-going mutual understanding by reference to the document.
However, eacowan overstates a point in saying that retention and graduation rates are academically irrelevant. Retention and graduation are indicators that real learning is going on when professors hold to their standards and focus more on helping students "get it" than on weeding out those who are challenged.
3. wilkenslibrary - January 25, 2010 at 01:12 pm
I recently went to my first Board of Trustees meeting at my college (I'm a contingent faculty member, and the meetings are open although guests are generally not allowed to speak) and I came out wondering what the job description was for a Trustee. A search committee had interviewed candidates for a full-time position and had come out four in favor of one candidate, one in favor of the other, with one abstention. The President preferred the candidate with only one vote. Members of the search team came to present their plea to table the offer until they were able to present the Trustees with important information about how the selection process was flawed, but the Trustees declared themselves unable to do anything but validate the President's choice. Are Trustees just there to rubberstamp adminstration decisions? I had always thought that they were an independent group, rather like another branch of government, whose responsibility it was to evaluate policies and provide some balance in a system where administrators hold most of the power.
4. juanitamwoods - January 25, 2010 at 06:28 pm
To Eacowan: Your comment "Too often, especially at lesser state institutions, there arises among administrators a tendency to sacrifice academic standards through grade inflation, this brought on by a fixation on the academically unimportant matters of "retention" and "graduation rates" is absolutely laughable. First, administrators don't give grades and in most instances, grade inflation is the result of teachers/faculty at all levels giving higher grades than the students have actually earned. Second, about "retention" and "graduation rates" being academically unimportant. You're kidding, right? I guess learning outcomes are also unimportant. If students are not retained, they can't graduate and if no one graduates, no one has a job....including the grade inflating faculty. If eacowan really believes his/her statement (must be a "he") then he doesn't belong in higher education
5. texasguy - January 26, 2010 at 11:54 am
My university has frozen the slaries of all faculty and staff, including that of our President.
I learned yesterday that they have give to our football coach a new contract with a raise well above my whole yearly salary.
6. devedjian - January 26, 2010 at 11:25 pm
What kind of an inane survey is this? If you want to know how faculty feel about issues, you ask the faculty directly. You're asking third parties--administrators and trustees--to comment on faculty views??? The primary sources are right there. Sloppy, sloppy.
Having served as a trustee at several colleges/universities (and gotten to know many, many faculty members whom I've befriended socially and others with whom I've served on working committees), I remain appalled at how little trustees know about day-to-day faculty challenges, how little faculty members understand what governance entails, and how little either party attempts to engage wtih the other. If we all spent more time interacting and asking questions, we'd be doing a better service to our universities.