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

Academe, May/Jun 2005 by Tierney, William G

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.

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.