A college president forced out by his conservative board for, what the president assumed, was the sin of being a Democrat.
A political purge of university trustees in a culturally conservative state, who failed to rein in an event called “Sex Week.”
A Republican donor and university trustee, summarily booted from the board by a Democratic governor.
These are just a few incidents from recent years that illustrate how the nation’s polarized politics have invaded higher education and paved the way for a partisan style of college governance that threatens the legitimacy of university board members as independent decision makers free of political interference.
College-governance experts, long wary of partisanship in the boardroom, are beginning to sound the alarm on the long-term damage that politicized trusteeship could mean for public higher education. As board members navigate the risks of residential instruction in the midst of a global pandemic, their credibility as honest brokers, with their institution’s best interests at heart, has arguably never been more important — or more imperiled. Students, professors, and staff members, who this fall returned to campuses that became hot spots for Covid-19, are often laying the blame on politically appointed board members.
This erosion of public trust in college governing boards follows a decade of a largely undocumented phenomenon: A hyperpartisan appointment process that mirrors the nation’s deep political divide.
A Chronicle investigation, based on 75 interviews, reviews of more than 2,000 pages of public records, and an unprecedented analysis of appointments to public-university governing boards, reveals a system that is vulnerable to, if not explicitly designed for, an ideologically driven form of college governance rooted in political patronage and partisan fealty.
Here are some of the key findings:
A single political party often controls the appointment process:
Hundreds of sitting public-university board members govern the 50 flagship universities The Chronicle looked at across the nation. Of 411 board members appointed through a multistep political procedure, 285, or almost 70 percent, assumed their roles through an appointment and confirmation process controlled by a single political party. Just 93, or 22 percent, of politically appointed trustees navigated a confirmation process that included a meaningful bipartisan check. (The remainder have not yet been confirmed or, in two cases, a confirmation date could not be identified).
Students and faculty may be liberal, but those who appoint and confirm the major power players at public flagship campuses most often are not.
Among board members who were confirmed through a multistep, single-party political process, the majority were put in place by Republicans, outnumbering Democratic-appointed and -confirmed board members nearly two to one.
Public-college governance is often dominated by political actors and their donors.
Board members across the nation’s public flagship campuses or state systems have poured at least $19.7 million into political campaigns and partisan causes within their institution’s states, The Chronicle’s analysis shows.
That $19.7 million is limited to state-level, nonfederal contributions that politically appointed board members made in the states in which they serve, and does not include additional donations from spouses, companies, or other family members associated with a board member.
Politicized college trusteeship is a source of growing concern for governance experts.
The independence of college governing boards is a foundational principle in higher education, one that is under increasing threat in a polarized political environment.
“There has always been political influence,” said William E. (Brit) Kirwan, a former chancellor of the University System of Maryland and a consultant with the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. “But it has moved, at least to some institutions, to a very troubling degree.”
A recent episode at the University of South Carolina brought the problem into stark relief, as the board installed the governor’s favored pick for president over the strong objections of faculty members and students. The controversy drew scrutiny from the university’s regional accrediting agency, which found evidence of undue influence from the governor. In a damning report, two independent consultants admonished the board for its “fundamentally misguided governance culture,” saying the group had “a predilection for political governance.”
The risks of politicization are significant.
Politicized governing boards jeopardize their own legitimacy and their universities’ accreditation.
Colleges require regional accreditation to receive federal financial aid, and every regional accreditor states that boards should be independent. Some accrediting agencies’ standards explicitly require boards to be independent from political pressure, noting that this particular type of interference is problematic. If boards are unduly influenced by state lawmakers, the colleges they oversee could run afoul of these standards.
A board’s fiduciary responsibility requires that members put the interests of their institutions above all other considerations. This fundamental duty is compromised when board members are perceived to be carrying out political agendas.
