When Divorce is Not an Option: The Board and the Faculty

At a time when external challenges confront academic life, simple toleration of one group by another is not enough. A pathway to constructive engagement needs to be developed.

By William G. Tierney

Most professors have little idea of who sits on their board of trustees or what they do. Occasionally, some faculty may conduct a seminar for a trustees committee, or may know a board member socially in the local community. But by and large, faculty awareness of trustees and the actions they take is episodic and minimal.

Activist boards have multiplied, and board members are increasingly assuming new roles. They want to insert themselves more directly into the internal affairs of an institution. On rare occasions, boards have run amok and have been ousted. Adelphi University is perhaps the most prominent example of such a situation; the state board of regents removed the university's board and president in 1997 after accusing them of "neglect of duty." At the University of South Alabama, the Faculty Senate voted no confidence in its board in 1998; the senate at Auburn University did so in 2001.

More often than not, rather than oust a board for ethical lapses or fiscal chicanery, the institution's faculty have settled into an uneasy standoff with the board. Gradually, as a result of these interactions, faculty on many campuses are becoming more aware of their boards, and the boards know more about faculty. What both groups frequently think they have learned about one another, however, neither particularly likes.

Together with higher education scholar James T. Minor, whose article appears elsewhere in this issue of Academe, I surveyed more than 4,000 individuals at 763 institutions in 2002 and conducted a series of case studies that investigated the challenges to governance in the early twenty-first century.¹ In this article, I draw on that study to discuss problems between boards and faculty. I first delineate the relationship between the faculty and boards and then consider ways to resolve the problems that exist. My goal is to help ameliorate them. Except in the most extreme cases, such as the situation that occurred at Adelphi, organizational divorce is not possible. The faculty are not going away. Neither is the board.

Boards and faculty are in positions of public trust. The unwritten social compact of the academic profession with society requires that faculty members agree to restrain self-interest to serve the profession's ideals and to maintain high standards of performance; society, in return, allows the profession substantial autonomy to regulate itself through peer review.

Governing boards act as fiduciaries representing the public interest. Because private and public universities in the United States are created by authority of state statutes, the boards also have ultimate legal authority. If faculty fail to perform their responsibilities under the social compact, boards can intervene by reducing professional autonomy to protect the public interest. If the mission of the institution to create and disseminate knowledge is to be achieved, both groups representing the public trust—the board and the faculty—must work cooperatively.

If colleges and universities are to meet the many challenges facing them, the different constituencies on campus need to figure out ways to get along. I am not suggesting that faculty simply acquiesce in seemingly absurd demands by some board members, nor that if faculty wait long enough, the board will simply go away. Instead, faculties should try to develop a pathway to constructive engagement that acknowledges that both groups are here to stay.

Frequently, faculty turn to structural responses when problems arise. For example, a presidential search needs to occur, and arguments erupt over the number of seats faculty will have on the search committee. Negotiations may break down over the precise steps taken to review promotion and tenure, hold grievance hearings, or consider cause for dismissal. I do not dispute that in the litigious atmosphere in which we now live, specific assurances need to be provided that delineate how one receives tenure or how tenure is removed. However, a reliance on structural reform belies the importance of an organization's culture. Structures are embedded in cultures that are constructed from the institution's history, beliefs, and present situation, and the contributions of the organization's current participants. Simply to fix a structure that is broken overlooks the more fundamental issues that permeate an institution's culture.

Matter of Culture

Consider the following problems from a cultural standpoint.

Competing visions of the institution.

It is crucial that everyone agrees on the institution's goals. Problems arise not when different groups simply lack a sense of the organization's mission, but when different visions compete with one another. Boards bring language and attitudes from business to their notion of an effective campus. Consumers and customers have replaced students. The organization is a business, not an academic community. The business owns the intellectual property of its employees, and the faculty are employees, not peers.

Faculty have a different vision. Few faculty enter academe with the assumption that students are customers. A college is not a Wal-Mart. The "bottom line" is the production of knowledge in the laboratory, library, or classroom rather than quarterly earnings. Faculty think of themselves as autonomous individuals who own the knowledge they produce.

Structural solutions may be necessary when competing interpretations of the academy exist. An individual who works at an institution should know how the earnings from intellectual property will get divided. Contracts help clarify the responsibilities of the individual and the organization. However, organizational beliefs are imbued with historical and symbolic meanings. Rather than simply relying on legal protections to resolve disputes, we also need to consider cultural implications.

The blurring of clearly delineated responsibilities. The 2002 survey reported general agreement between faculty and administrators on the areas in which faculty have formal influence. The undergraduate curriculum, policies on promotion and tenure, and standards for evaluating teaching primarily fall within the faculty's domain of influence. Obviously, faculty work in concert with administrative offices once policies have been established.

However, nothing stipulates that a board should stay silent on such matters—aside from the beliefs within the organization that have built up over time about domains of faculty influence. Especially when disagreement or lack of clarity arises about the vision of the institution, one should expect boards to question specific functions. Recently, faculty have seen boards as intruding into traditional areas of faculty influence. The problem, then, is less a structural issue than a cultural one, and the solution most likely has more to do with nurturing the organization's culture than putting in place a new structure.

Alternative perceptions of faculty work.

The "tenure wars" of the 1990s created a firestorm of protest that cast the AAUP and other faculty organizations against groups such as the regents at the University of Minnesota, who proposed far-reaching changes to the university's tenure code. Although occasional skirmishes still develop about the value of tenure, the debate has shifted. Arguments about whether tenure should be abolished have diminished, while discussions have increased about what the work of the faculty should be.

The rise of research is a relatively new phenomenon; it is essentially an artifact of the twentieth century. Its expansion provoked little protest among boards, administrations, or faculties, and it did not really take center stage throughout academe until the 1960s. Since then, however, research has been the academic coin of the realm. Even though some campuses have tried to refocus their energies on teaching, at most institutions-except community colleges—a professor is likely to be better compensated for doing research than for teaching.

Until recently, few people have disagreed that, or even discussed whether, research should be an essential task of the faculty. Board members, however, have discovered on some campuses that numerous faculty do not teach many classes, and they question the import of much of the research that is being done. Especially at public institutions, heated discussions occur about the worth of research that appears to have little utility other than to advance a professor's career. Calls go out to increase teaching loads.

Faculty quite rightly respond that one cannot perform the manifold tasks required of them to achieve tenure and promotion and take on increased teaching. They assume that research, teaching, and service are the core activities of faculty work. On few campuses do we see tenure codes being revised so that faculty can increase their teaching and lessen the importance of research.

Politicization of the academy.

Board members and faculty accuse one another of politicizing the campus. The governing board of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University recently moved to bar free speech on the Virginia Tech campus after the faculty allowed a member of Earth First, a radical environmental group, to speak. The same board also removed sexual orientation as a protected status, making it possible to discriminate against gay men and women. After much protest, the board reversed itself. The University of California's board of regents removed affirmative action from the university's admissions plan. A member of the State University of New York's board, Candace de Russy, protested vehemently when a conference on sexuality was held on a SUNY campus.

Boards have questioned the faculty's prerogative to invite any-one to campus to speak—especially during a time of terrorism. Indeed, a new association composed of trustees and alumni—the American Council of Trustees and Alumni—has condemned the response of the professoriate after September 11 as insufficiently patriotic. While campuses have historically been centers of dialogue and debate about the wisdom of the country's foreign policy, some boards now question the value of such debates. Boards raise concerns about the faculty's obeisance to what they see as politically correct policies at the expense of rewards based on individual merit. In areas such as affirmative action, multiculturalism, and myriad other issues, boards have inserted themselves into the life of the institution in ways not done before on a widespread scale.

Some trustees see such actions as within their domain. They will argue that their actions depoliticize the political correctness of the faculty. Ironically, the faculty will charge that what is actually taking place is the politicization of the academy. Academic freedom means that faculty can search for truth regardless of where that quest takes them. When a board tries to cancel a conference, places limits on speech, or promulgates policies having to do with campus life, then the faculty believes that the board is politicizing the institution.

The result of all these actions is that on many campuses relations between boards and faculty have reached an all-time low. One strength of intellectual life is the disinclination to develop easy answers. Faculty shy away from drawing caricatures in favor of painting fully developed portraits of a problem. Accordingly, a campus is not well served when faculty simply shrug off board actions as if board members are ill-informed impostors. It be-hooves individuals to develop more fully nuanced solutions to this latest spate of problems. Still, an additional faculty member on a presidential search committee, or a clearly articulated process for one or another policy, does not get at the fundamental cultural reforms being advocated by many boards. How to respond?

Resolution of the Crisis

If groups disagree about a vision of an institution, or the strategic vision is so grandiose that it means nothing, then it will be difficult to achieve results about specific projects and actions. A strategic plan is not something that can be accomplished in a brief meeting or two. Far too often, however, strategic plans take up a tremendous amount of energy, time, and resources only to result in a voluminous report that ends up in an office never to be referred to again.

A high-performing organization has broad agreement about finite goals. Goals need to be specific to the institution rather than decontextualized calls for excellence. As the overriding ethos of the organization's culture, a mission statement helps people make sense of who they are as members of the institution and where they want to go. Just as a mission statement describes what an institution is, it also states what it is not. If a mission statement does not frame organizational action, then the possibility for conflict arises in which the board has one version of "excellence" and the faculty another. All too often, the institution becomes comfortable with mediocrity, since no one can agree on quality.

A strategic vision needs to unify individuals and constituencies, not so that everyone agrees with one another, but so that different groups might develop complementary views of organizational quality. A mission statement gives individuals and groups a sense of where they need to focus their energies. If a mission statement is successful, then the faculty and the board can focus their energies on different tasks, but they will be working toward the same goals.

There needs to be a modest and sustained involvement be-tween the board and the faculty so that an understanding is built about what each group does. A result, one hopes, is that a bond of trust and respect is developed. I am less concerned about a structural response, such as ensuring faculty membership on the board, and more interested in building an ongoing relationship in which the groups are able to communicate with one another. Boards, for example, are likely to have subcommittees that focus on students, academic affairs, athletics, and development. Faculty should regularly participate in meetings of these groups to brief the trustees on the work of the faculty. Academic issues that come before a board should receive input from the faculty.

A successful organization has ongoing dialogues of substance across constituencies. Any number of issues that a faculty works on may not involve the board, and vice versa. A board, for example, may not need input from the faculty about the kind of investment portfolio it has agreed to, just as the faculty may not need to seek approval from the board about a change to its general education plan. But it is to everyone's benefit that groups be clear about the roles of the other. If there is agreement on the strategic vision of the institution and what counts for excellence, then a subsequent critical step is to ensure that the delineation of responsibilities is clear.

Good Communication.

Curiously, now that e-mail, fax, voice mail, conference calls, and the like offer greater opportunities for communication, there seems to be less dialogue. We need to acknowledge that ongoing, systematic campuswide communication is essential in an era when great changes are upon us. An organization's participants need to use the technologies at their disposal to inform one another of the problems and challenges that exist and the means they intend to use to resolve those issues. The effective use of information technology has to be a centerpiece of an academic community. Campus governance succeeds when individuals have the communicative means to understand competing viewpoints. If the organization also has clarified its domains of decision making, then the prospects are good for a unified view of the parameters of quality.

The purpose of good communication is twofold. First, board members benefit from understanding how faculty see a particular issue, and faculty members benefit by having their opinions heard. Second, when a problem arises, if a sense of trust has been created, people are more likely to work toward resolving the matter. In an academic community, we should expect individuals and groups to have different perspectives. But just as we resolve disputes on any number of matters through sustained dialogue and debate, we should also create forums involving the board to make possible similar discussions.

One question I frequently ask individuals when I visit campuses is what the institution will be like in five years. In an organization that has a board-faculty standoff, all too often, individuals cannot articulate a coherent picture of the future. Optimally, people agree about what binds the organization, and the groups work from common definitions of excellence. Individuals need to be clear about who makes decisions about key tasks. The agreement about the organization's goals, and an awareness of who is responsible for what, necessitates that different groups communicate. A comparative perspective broadens individuals' sense of how others accomplish their tasks, which then feeds into local decisions. When such agreement and communication is impossible, then faculty need to maintain their focus on their key responsibilities, even if they need to work for the reform of the board.

At a time when colleges and universities face great challenges from the external environment, it behooves faculty and boards to work together toward common interests. Different individuals and groups will have different perspectives. However, without a sense of the commons and how to sustain it, postsecondary institutions are at risk. The alliance between a board and a faculty may always be uneasy, but it needs to remain an alliance, nevertheless.

Note

1. See William G. Tierney and James T. Minor, Challenges for Governance: A National Report (Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, 2003). Back to text.

William Tierney is Wilbur-Kieffer Professor of Higher Education and director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at the University of Southern California. He recently edited Competing Conceptions of Academic Governance: Negotiating the Perfect Storm, published in 2004.

 Printer-Friendly Page