The traditional model of university governance is eroding, and my state, North Carolina, may be a harbinger of things to come.
The shift was especially apparent with the recent appointment of Margaret Spellings, education secretary under George W. Bush, as president of the University of North Carolina system. She replaces Thomas W. Ross, who was ousted by the board for no publicly stated reason. She comes to the job with limited experience in higher education, no advanced degree, and a reputation as a strong conservative administrator. Her appointment, and the secretive search process that led to it, has raised concern among administrators and has been strongly criticized by the university’s Faculty Assembly.
As a former state commissioner of higher education, Republican legislator, and interim chancellor of UNC Wilmington, I offer some insights into what Ms. Spellings’s appointment may spell for the future. I believe five factors will hugely influence the higher-education agenda, both in North Carolina and nationally, and help define the role of state higher-education executive officers like Ms. Spellings.
First, there is increasing interest in hiring leaders from outside higher education. In my state, that has contributed to educators’ angst over the ambiguous future agenda of the system president and the Board of Governors. One administrator told me, “At our school we have no clue as to what the future agenda will be.” A private consulting firm, instead of an open planning process, is being used to help set the agenda, giving legislators, foundations, and outside groups more influence.
The second factor is the widely held expectation that public institutions must work as part of a larger network, and not as individual fiefdoms. The historical model of universities as stand-alone enterprises, with their own mission, admission standards, and academic programming, is not as applicable as it once was. Public universities, private colleges, community colleges, technical schools, and online institutions will increasingly be seen as nodes on multiple networks, and not as institutions with unique, well-defined roles.
The state executive officer’s role will shift from overseeing specific institutional issues to building multiple networks among and between institutions. Issues such as early-college high schools, credit-transfer policies, competency certificates, admission standards, online courses, common course numbering, and financial-aid coordination will dominate the future agenda.
The third factor is the expectation that these networks will better align themselves with the needs of the economy. Specifically, degrees should help students find good jobs. State executive officers will be expected to be partners with researchers, venture capitalists, and work-force-development agencies. They will spend much of their time on issues such as intellectual-property transfer, work-force planning, certificate-to-credit programs, and industry contracts.
The emphasis on jobs might also result in less interest in the liberal arts and social-justice issues. One example in North Carolina is the Board of Governors’ extensive review of university-affiliated institutes in 2015 and the resulting closure of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at Chapel Hill.
The fourth factor is economics. Rising higher-education costs have hit a tipping point in public opinion. President Obama’s remarks in his latest State of the Union address reflected the current climate: “Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid,” he said. “We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money.”
Financial considerations are at play in many states. Systemic factors driving price, such as college athletics, auxiliary enterprises, facilities, and pension costs, will increasingly become a state rather than an institutional issue. Mandatory student fees, particularly for athletics, will be carefully scrutinized, as they were last year by North Carolina’s Board of Governors. The board also set a cap on tuition recommended by individual campuses, a trend we can expect to see continue.
The final factor is the increasingly anti-government mood of the American voter. In 2010 political power in North Carolina shifted away from progressive Democrats toward conservative Republicans. The new majority is very interested in imposing a conservative agenda and shaking up the status quo, which led to the ouster of President Ross. It was a controversial move, and UNC faculty members were very critical of the process.
I am now leading a committee for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities that is calling for states to create a new social contract between political leaders and higher education — specifically, “to craft a shared public agenda predicated on mutual understanding, trust, and accountability.”
There may be room for optimism in North Carolina: The legislature moderately increased higher-education spending last year. And at the urging of our Republican governor, Pat McCrory, legislators passed a $2-billion bond for higher-education buildings. It will be interesting to see how our leaders respond to the need to build a network of colleges, connect that network to the economic system, keep costs down, and establish a new social contract.
The nation should watch the North Carolina experience very closely. It may be a precursor of the new politics of higher education.
William A. Sederburg is a former Utah commissioner of higher education, Republican state legislator in Michigan, and interim chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. He has served as president of Utah Valley University and Ferris State University.
