DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 089 567 HE 005 277

TITLE On the Nature and Scope of Student Participaticn onBoards of Trustees.

INSTITUTION Department of Health , Education, and Welfare,Washington., D.C. Office of the Secretary.

PUB DATE Jan 73NOTE 57p.; The appendices, documents A through P, have

been deleted due to lack of reproducibility

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF-$0.75 HC-$3.15 PLUS POSTAGE*College Students; Educational Administration;Governance; *Governing Boards; *Higher Educaticn;*Student Participation; *Trustees

ABSTRACTThis report examines student participation on the

Board of Trustees. The report is divided into three main sections,each in itself only a general category. The first section reviews thenotion of a Board of Trustees and examines briefly thecharacteristics of the lay governing board. The second section of thereport deals with the nature of student participation in governance.Four major approaches to the governance of American higher educationare discussed: (1) the university as a "community of masters," (2)the university as an "educational corporation," (3) the university asan "educational community," and (4) the "student as consumer." Thefinal section reviews the scope of student participation incollegiate governing boards. This section takes into special accountthe activities that have been taking place in public highereducation. (MJM)

DEPARTMENTDOFF

HEALTH, EDUCPS ION, AND WELFAREFICE Of 18E SECReTARYWASHING-MN, D.C. KdOi

ON THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF

STUDENT PARTICIPATION ON

BOARDS OF TRUSTEES

U.SDEPARTMENTOZ HEALTH.EDUCATION IS

WELKARENATIONALINSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENTHAS REEN

REPRODOCED EXACT4,.?AS RECEIVED

FROMTHE PERSON

OR ORGANIZATIONORIGIN

pitp.io itPOINTS OF VIEW OR

OPINIONSSTATED DO NOTNECESSARILY REPRE

SENT OFFICIALNATIONAL

INSTITUTE OFEDUCATIONPOSITION OR POLICY

Office of Youth and Student Affairs

January 1973

-The question of who should govern our colleges and universitiesis one which is as old as is the notion of higher education.And yet it is as new as the freshman orientation program whichwill be taking place on 2700 campuses this fall. It is aquestion which has confounded educators, politicians, journalistsand students alike for at least seven centuries and probablywill continue to do so for at least seven more.

In addition to the question of "who should govern?" one findsa multitude of questions ranging from "how should they govern?"to "should students in particular govern?" It is, of course,the latter of these questions which this report will explore.But "Nature and.Scope," as a report, will not cover every aspectof even that single question, for the literature in this fieldis so scattered and in such disarray that a monumental taskwould be simple compilation of information.

Feeding this Report, for example, were some 59 books, 163magazine articles, over 100 pamphlets, brochures and flyers,and literally hundreds of personal statements. hnd still thismaterial, admittedly, only scratches the surface.

The Report itself is divided into four main sections, each initself only a general category. We begin with a review of thenotion of a Board of Trustees. The American lay governingboard, as we shall later explain, is a unique phenomena in thehistory of the governance of higher education. Although ithas, over the past fifty years, been adopted (to a limitedextent) by higher educational systems outside of the UnitedStates, through the nineteenth century it was unduplicatedanywhere in the world. Even today, its precise nature andcharacteristics are not seen anywhere outside of North America.The lay governing hoard, in contemporary society, serves notmerely an educational purpose but, also, economic, political,religious, and social purposes as well. It is an institutionwhich has, with very few exceptions, not received appropriatepublic scrutiny though it is a public servant. It is an insti-tution which has been faced with the problems of civil dis-orders, riots, destruction, mass arrests and personal injuriesand yet is understood by no more than a handful of Americans.The first part of this Report will examine briefly thecharacteristics of the lay governing board.

The second section of the Report deals with perhaps the mostimportant issue to the Office of Youth and Student Affairs:the nature of student participation in governance. In examiningthat question, we discovered four major approaches to the

governance of American higher education, and we have related studentparticipation to each of these four approaches. They are:(1) the university as a "community of masters" approach, (2) theuniversity as an "educational corporation" approach, (3) theuniversity as an "educational community" approach, and (4) the"student as consumer" approach. The second of these approaches,the educational corporate approach, appears to be the dominantAmerican view of collegiate governance, and hence has beenexamined in greater depth than any of the other three. Thiscorporate approach, because it is so vast and diversified, has,for example, both the ability to include student participationand exclude such participation, and each of these options hasalso been examined.

The final section of the report reviews the scope of studentparticipation in collegiate governing boards. This sectiontakes into special account the activities which have been takingplace in public higher education.

It is important to understand, while reading the Report itself,that because of the depth and diversity of views on this subject,the author has made every attempt to allow advocates ofparticular philosophies to speak for themselves. Most of thesemen and women, be they students, administrators, faculty,trustees, educators, or public officials, are very well-informedand articulate on the subject, and they themselves have pro-vided a large portion of this Report. In order to get theseopinions, in June we queried over 250 educational leaders andpublic officials on their reaction to the question of studentparticipation on governing boards. These opinions were later aug-mented by a series of personal interviews ranging from discussionswith the Chancellor of Higher Education of Pennsylvania toAdministrators in the School of Education at the Universityof Iowa. In addition, we surveyed trustees in two Statesystems where students have been members of governing boardssince 1969.

Added to all of this, of course, have been the studies, reports,surveys, books, articles, pamphlets, speeches, and flyers whichhave flooded the educational community over the past five yearson the question of student participation in governance.

ii

OUTLINE

Page

I. The Governing Boards of American Insti-tutions of Higher Education

A. The Historical Development of theGovernance Boards 1

1. European Roots

2. Colonial Roots

3. Post Colonial Development

B. The Contemporary Governance Board 4

1. Composition

1. Organization and Operation

3. Functions

II. The Nature of Student Participation in theGovernance of Higher Education

A. The University as a "Community ofMasters" Approach 15

1. European Origins

2. Faculty Dominance

B. The University as an "EducationalCorporation' Approach 16

1. American Dominance

2. Board of Trustees Dominance

3. Why the Educational CorporationApproach May Promote StudentParticipation

(a) Pre-emption of Disruptionby Students

(b) Competence Which StudentsSometimes Bring

iii

Page

(C) Psyche-Educational Valueto Students

(d) Political Reality of Studentsas Voters

4. Why the Educational CorporateApproach May Prohibit StudentParticipation

(a) Problem of Representativenessof Student Participants

(b) Lack of Expertise of StudentParticipants

(c) Conflict of Interest of StudentParticipants

(d) Student Immaturity

5. The Use of the Governance Structureas a Political. Tool

C. The University as an "EducationalCommunity" Approach 38

1. Democracy on Campus

2. Application of DemocraticPrinciples

D. The "Student as Consumer" Approach 42

1. Newest Approach

2. Consumer Activism

III. The Scope of Student Participation in theGovernance of Higher Education

A. The Total. Picture 45

B. State University Systems 45

IV. Conclusion of Report

iv

I

THE GOVERNING BOARDS OF INSTITUTIONS

OF HIGHER EDUCATION

A. The Historical Development of the Governance Board

1. European Roots

Richard Hofstadter, in his authoritative book, TheDevelopment and Scope of Higher Education in the UnitedStates, refers to a board of trustees as "one of theWinres in the history of higher education,"1 and hisobservation is reflected by every major author on thesubject. When institutions of higher learning beganto develop in Medevial Europe, they developed two basicforms of governance. The first model, and the one whicheventually dominated all of Europe and most of theWestern World excepting America, was to be found atthe University of Paris. Paris was considered a collectionof professionals who, instead of offering their servicesindividually and in isolation (e.g., private tutors),offered these services in a cooperative venture. TheParis model of University Governance was closely relatedto the governance patterns of medevial guilds, and, infact, was alternately called the Community of Scholars,the Community of Masters, or the Community of Fellows.

Th3 much less successful alternative to the Paris/Communityof Masters model was founded in Bologna. At Bologna,the wealthiest and most ambitious aristocrats in Italywished to learn more of the ways of ancient and currentlaws. Consequently, these wealthy men imported andhired learned scholars to teach them law. Thus developedthe first contemporary law school, under the dominationof the aristocratic students of Italy. The governingbody of the University of Bologna was the student body,while the governing body of the University of Paris wasthe Community of Masters, and these two governanceapproaches--the latter much more so than the former- -have held sway over most of non-American higher education.

Eventually as the Italian aristocracy sent younger,less independently wealthy and more rowdy students toBologna, these students began to loose their control.In the confusion that ensued, the prominent townspeopleof Bologna took the school over, thereby creating aforerunner of the contemporary American board of trustees.

1Hofstadter, Richard, The Development and Scope of Higher Educationin the United States, page 123. Columbia University Press, NewYork, 1952.

The Community of Masters approach to governance, onthe other hand, spread throughout Europe and found aparticularl: strong home in England, where the Universi-ties of Oxford, Cambridge and London were established.Along with this basic governance approach, a philosophyof higher education grew in Europe and in England inparticular. That underlying view of the university wasa natural reflection of the community of scholarsnotion: namely that learning took place for learning'ssake and that it, like any other art, should beperfected by students' under the direction of Masters.

2. Colonial Roots

It was essentially that ideal of learning for learning'ssake that was destroyed in the American Colonial wilder-ness. When, in 1636 for example, the General Court of theMassachusetts Bay Colony decided to appropriate4400 for the establishment of a college, therewere very few educated men around. The Collegeorganizing committee, when it was established the followingyear, consisted of the twelve MOFC educated men in thecolony. Six of these men were magistrates and six wereministers; they represented the only two professions inthe colony which included educated men. These men weresoon replaced by the Board of Overseers, which itselfconsisted of the colony's magistrates and ministers,(teaching elders). The overseers held final authorityover the college, and were given that trust by and forthe public.

Tt was at that point, in 1642, when the original Boardof Overseers of Harvard College was established thatthe uniquely American system of higher educationgovernance was born. For the governing board of America'sfirst (and in that respect most influential) institutionof higher learning was not composed of teaching Masters,nor was it even influenced by these Masters. HarvardCollege was firmly and securely put under the directionof an outside Board composed of prominent citizens. Ofeven greater importance, however, was the beginning ofa conceptual shift away from the "learning for learning'ssake" notion. The College in Massachusetts Bay, likethe host of colleges which were to spring up all acrossthe continent in the coming years, was established toserve a need. That need, generally, was for educatedmen in the colony. Specifically, the need was forclergy, magistrates and civil servants (who were necessaryto make the colony function smoothly). Consequently, the

3

original Ariirican colleges were functional by purposeand design. They were controlled by community repre-sentatives charged with the responsibility of ensuringthat the institutions produced the required personnel.

This functional approach was augmented further by thefact. that only two institutions existed in colonialAmerica which were financially capable of establishingan institution of higher learning, and both of theseinstitutions needed educated men. The attitude, then,of the church and the State, was more that of concernedinvestors than disinterested contributors. Speaking ofthis investment, the educational historian FederickRudolph explains that there was "nothing so certain,nothing so regular, nothing so generous as the aidthat flowed into Cambridge, Williamsburg and New Havenwhere what were generally thought of as State-churchinstitutions had taken shape.3

Internal pressures ultimately forced many colonialcolleges such as William and Mary and. Harvard to createsecondary internally constituted bodies known as theCorporations for minor governance purposes. TheCorporations had a limited membership of faculty/administration and whatever duties and responsibilitiesthey had were delegated them by the governing boards.There should be no mistake, however, that while thegoverning boards occasionally gave the facultycorporations extensive latitude, final authority restedwith the hoards themselves.4

3. Post Colonial Development

By the time the American Revoluntionary War came aboutthe general governance pattern of American collegeshad already been established for at least two centuriesto come. Institutions of higher learning were seen asa means for providing society with a cadre of skilledpersonnel, and as interests in society needed personnelthey would either establish a college or contribute toa college in return for institutional training support.Eventually, all of these major societal interests found

2Hofstadter, page 133.

3Federick Rudolph, The American College and University and History,page 16. Knopf Press, New York, New York, 1962.

4Raymond Kent, Higher Education in America, page 606. GinnanelCompany, New York, New York, 1930.

their way to the collegiate governing board. Commentingon these principal supporters of higher education,Hofstadter says that "the church, the State and business-men have a'.1 been, by their lights, quite generous inproviding support for higher education, but the pre-vailing lack of respect in America for culture as anend in itself has given them a license for looking toeducation for a quid pro quo."5 Hofstadter goes on toobserve: "In this atmosphere it has been natural tothose who have supported educationfortunately notfor all of them--to expect to have control in returnfor support."

The development of American society and higher educationsince the Revolution has largely served to strengthenthis governance approach. Immediately after theRevoluntionary War, for example, and continuing throughthe nineteenth century, the American college was seenas a means whereby one could increase his income andstatus. "It was," in other words, "being recognizedas a means of getting ahead, not just as a means ofregistering that one's father had."7 This phenomenonput even more pressure'on the new State legislaturesto expand the availability of college education andjust as important, to keep its control in the handsof a group responsible to the public.

The industrial revolution and the physical expansion ofAmerican territory put additional strains on bothindustry and government to find educated men. Theseinterests in tlzrn increased their investment in andcontrol over higher education in expectation of in-creased personnel. Finally, the technological revolutionof this century has served the same function, for bothindustry and government, as did the industrial revolutionof the last century.

B. The Contemporary Governance Board

One of the most unexplored areas of higher education inAmerica has been--and continues to be -- university governingboards. From sparse data that is available, it is possibleto ascertain only a few characteristics which run consistently

5Hofstadter, page 123.

6lbid, pAge 133.

7Rudolph, page 36.

throughout most boards. We have selected three areas which,taken together, are the most important in examininggoverning boards. These areas are as follows:

* who the members of these governing boards are and wherehave they come from;

* how (in what manner) the governing boards organize them-selves and operate;

* 'N/hat the responsibilities and authorities of the governingboards are.

1. Composition

As was indicated earlier, one of the principalcharacteristics of the governing board of a typicalAmerican institution of higher learning is its externalcomposition. The nature of most governing boards issuch that, in theory at least, its members are trusteesof the public interest and exist to ensure that theinstitution serves the public good. That is, withlittle question, the single most important characteristicof board members. Many different types of "public repre-sentatives have been appointed to boards and a fewstudies have bepn made to learn something about thesemen and women."'

8These studies include:

Hubert Park Heck's study of 734 college trustees from 30 insti-tutions. The report, which covered the 1934-1935 academic year,was entitled Men Who Control Our Universities.

The New York State Regents Advisory Committee on EducationalLeadership's report to the Regents entitled College and UniversityTrusteeship. The report, which studied 1385 trustees of all 167schools in New York, is dated 1966.

Morton Rauh's 1969 study of 5,180 trustees from 506 colleges anduniversities entitled The Trusteeship of Colleges and Universities.

August Eberle's 1969 study of 1769 governing boards for the Schoolof Education of Indiana University.

The Association of Governing Boards' 1971 survey of 758 institutionsand boards.

The first and most notable characteristic is probably-their sex. Beck's 1934 study of 30 prestigious privategoverning boards found that 96.6% of the trustees:weremen, :while the New York State !regents' study foundthirty years later that in New York that figure haddropped fifteen percentage points to 81%." Moreredc,,tly And extensively, however, Eberle found in 1969that in the 1769 public and private governing boards heexamined, men constituted 89.1% of the total Membershipwhile Rauh put that figure at 86%.1 It becomes clear,then,' that most members of collegiate goVer.ning hoar'dsare men.

The second noteworthy characteriStic of governing boardmembers is:their racial Complexion. To say that thereis a scarcity of information on this subject would bean understatement. The only significant research donein thiS area appears to have come from the Rauh/E.T.S.report of 1969. In that survey, Rauh found that 96%of the 5,200 trustee examined were whited-3 while leSsthan 2% were black. 1, BecaUse of the dearth of harddata on this subject, it is difficult to come to anyconclusion, particularly since the Rauh survey is now

9Hubert Park Beck, Men Who Control Our Universities, page 93.Kings Crown Press, Morningside Heights, Nevi York, 1947.

ONew York State Regents Advisory Committee on EducationalLeadership, (New York State Department of Education, Albany,New York, 1966), page 20.

Ray Allen Muston, Policy Boards and Student Participation,(Doctoral Dissertation submitted to School of Education ofIndiana University in June, 1970), page 52.

4orton A. Rauh, The Trusteeshk_of Colleges and Universities.cGraw Hill, New York, 1969.

auh, page 88.

.auh, page 171.

almost foUr years old. it is, however, safe to con-clude from available evidence that the overwhelmingmajority of collegiate trustees are white.

Age is the next characteristic which notably marksthe college trustee. Beck found, in 1934, that 4%Of the trustees he surveyed were under 40 yearg old,15and Rauh found in 1968 that 5% were under 40,10Both Eberle and the New York StateRegents,corrobOratethat figure by placing it at 7.5%7" and 3%." respectively.Similarly, all significant studies of trustees have con-cluded that approximately 80 % -90% of trustees fall be-tween the ages of 40 and 70 and that between 60% and70% fall between the ages of 50 and 70. This lattergroup of 50-70 year olds (which constitutes around

-two-thirds of all trustees) seems to be evenly dividedbetween the 50-60 year olds and the 60-70 year olds.Finally, all surveys place the percentage of trustees-over 70 years old at between 10% and 15%.

The final characteristic of college trustees which willbe examined deals with their income bracket. BothEberle and Rauh studied the incomes of college trustees,altht,ugh their conclusions were by no means complete.Eberla, for example, found that 53% of the trustees hesurveyed made over $20,000 annually while Rauh putthat figure at 70%. Both agree, however, that collegiatetrustees earn between $30,000 and $70,000 per year. In

1$Aeck, page 85.

"Rauh page 88.

i7Eberle's study concluded that 1770 out of 23,556 trusteessurveyed were under 40.

1New York State Regents, page 19.

19Muston, page 62.

20Rauh, page 92.

comparison, Beck concluded in 1934 that:

Comparisons with the general income levelin the country provide valuable perspective.The average income of those trustees withknown taxable incomes, is $102,000 and theaverage salary of others with known salariesis '$35,000. All trustees substantially ex-ceed the average income of $1,563 for allgainful workers in 1924.21

These four characteristics (sex, race, age and income)provide us with a rough demographic profile of theaverage college trustee, and in that respect help totell us more about who--from outside the institution--is chosen to represent society and the public trustwhich the college trustee holds. That trustee, in alllikelihood, will he male (by at least an 8 to 2 margin),will be over 40 years old (by at least a 9 to 1 margin),will be white (by at least a 9 to 1 margin) and willearn over $20,000 per year (by at least a 2 to 1 margin).

2. How a Board of Trustees is Organized

"The trustees of a college," says Charles Thwing inhis classic review of American higher education,"areits legislature and supreme court. They represent andare its soverign power. Even if this power, in extremeinstances be as seldom exercised as the veto power ofthe King of England, yet that power is constant andultimate."22 (Thwing has a clear grasp of what theresponsibilities of a collegiate governing board areand, for all practical purposes, they are "supreme:")

A typical university charter, in dealing with institutionalgovernance, says of the board that the trustees "andtheir successors, shall forever hereafter have full powerand authority to direct and prescribe the course ofstudy and the discipline to be observed in the saidcollege, and also to select and appoint by ballot orotherwise a president of the said college, who shallhold his office during good behavior; and such professoror professors, tutor or tutors, to assist the presidentin the government and education of the students belongingto the said college and such other officer or officers,

21neck, page 68.

Charles Franklin Thwing, The American College, page 26.Platt and Peck Company, New York, 1914.

- 9 -

as to the said trustees shall seem meet, all of whomshall hold their offices during the pleasure of thetrustees. That said trustees and their successorsshall have full power and authority to make allordinances and by-laws which to them shall seemexpedient for carrylwg into effect the designs oftheiL institution."" In this way, the legal supremacyof the board is protected not only from internalpressures--such as have been seen over the past severalyears--but also from external pressures--as the 1819Darmouth Decision* of the Supreme Court was to establish.

Given this overwhelming responsibility, and the natureof most board members, who are themselves deeply in-volved in their own livelihoods, most governing boardshave developed two organizational approaches whichshould be understood.

Internal Organization

The first deals with the body's internal organization.This internal organization is principally characterizedby the delegation of authority. The governing board'sauthority is delegated to an executive committee, afinance committee, an education committee, a buildingcommittee and any, other sub-group of the board whichwill handle its affairs with some degree of competence.In this way, the actual legislative work of the boardis in fact carried on by any of a number of committees,whose direction is generally set by an executivecommittee.

John Coroon, when he studied campus governance patternsin 1959, concluded that the majority of boards operatethrough an executive or similar committee which keepsin active communication with the president and servesfor the board between regular meetings."24 This contention

3The Charter of Columbia University.

*The New Hampshire Legislature attempted to exert control overDarmouth College and was struck down by the courts.

4John J. Coroon, Governance of Colleges and Universities, page 51.McGraw-Hi/1, New York, 1960.

- 10 -

is born out by both the New York State Regents andEberle's study which indicate that 60%-70% of governingboards rely largely on their executive committees,which in themselves meet almost twice as frequentlyas does the full board.

Bey(,,:d the all-important executive committee, mostboards (75% according to Eberle) also make considerableuse of functionally oriented standing committees.*Rauh notes that "while the names of these committeesare legion, the most commonly used designations are:executive, finance, curriculum, buildings and grounds,"25while the Eberle study indicates that the most commonare facilities (building), development (fund raieag),finance (budget), and curriculum (academic).** In mostcases these board committees carry on the actualoperations of the board by linking up board memberswith a particular field of competence or interest.

The organization of most governing boards makes itpossible for the members to meet infrequently. TheNew York State Regents found that most boards (72%)met either two, three, or four times a year at anaverage length of between one and four hours, witha majority meeting for less than two hours.*** Eberlefound a significant number of institutions which alsomet for a full day once a year.**** In most cases,however, it seems fairly safe td conclude that a typicalgoverning board will meet for not much more than eight

*August W. Eberle.

25Rauh, College and University Trusteeship, page 72.

**Ibid.

***New York Study Regents Study.

****Eberle.

hours per year. This, of course, includes neitherinformal related meetings nor committee meetings.

External Organization

The second organizational approach which most boardstake is in terms of their external orientation: thatis towards the institution. Once again, this approachis very largely characterized by the delegation ofauthority. Authority, in this external sense, isrepresented principally by the institution's president.A brief bit of history is probably necessary to under-stand how this second collegiate institution came tobe, what it is, and where it is going.

When the early colonial colleges began developing inthe late 17th and early 18th centuries, they were supportedby largely uneducated and lean colonies. These twohandicaps gave rise to the use of tutors (young menwho had received their bachelor's degrees in Englandand who taught in the colonies for three years in orderto receive their master's degrees) as the teaching staffand young men (not yet old enought to work) as the studentbody. mhe collegiate community, in contrast to thegovernment board and the president which the board selected,was considerably younger, less mature and less economicallystable. For this reason, along with the basicallyfunctional foundations of American higher education,the governing boards--in designing their colleges--tendedto delegate most authority to the president as opposed tothe faculty or students.2° In this way, the Americancollege president became, not the European first among(faculty) equals, but rather the American corporaterepresentative of the hoard of control. Hence we cansee how the development of the American college presidencyis directly tied to the development of the board oftrustees.

From this unique relationship between the governingboard and the president rose an overwhelming tendencyby the trustees, who generally were absent from collegiateaffairs -for all but a few hours each year, to entrustthe operation of the institution to the man they selected

"Federick Rudolph, page 168.

- 12 -

as president. As a result, the contemporary governingboard delegates nearly all its authority betweenmeetings to its full-time campus representative, thepresident.

Raymond Hughes, in his Manual for Trustees, capsulizesthe role of a president by stating that "he is finallyresponsible for everything concerning the institutionand for the effective and economical operation of alldepartments. He is the chief adjustor of all difficultieswhich are brought to his office. He is the board intheir absence."2/ Both Eberle and the New York StateRegents' study corroborate Hughes' opinion in suchimportant operational areas as, for example, thepreparation of the agenda. Eberle found that in 80%of the boards examined, the president prepared theboard's agenda, while the Regents' study put that figureat a somewhat lower 61%.* Of even greater significance,however, was Eberle's finding that in over 90% of the1,800 boards surveyed, the institution's president wasthe sole administrative officer of the board.**

It should come as no surprise, then, to find--as didthe New York State Regents--that over 55% of the trusteessurveyed believed that their board meetings were "formalaffairs for official approval of matters previously workedout."*** With the board delegating the largest part ofits authority to the president, and most of what remainsto its own executive and standing committees, its opera-tional nature must be characterized as delegatorv.

27Raymond Hughes, A Manual for Trustees, page 13. CollegiatePress, Ames, Iowa, 1944.

*New York State Regents' Study and Eberle.

**Eberle.

**New York State Regents' Study.

- 13 -

3. The Responsibilities of a Board of Trustees

Given the delegatory approach which most hoards oftrustees use, what responsibilities noes a collegiategoverning board itself have? What, in other words,are the principal functions of the board in its actualoper:Ations?

Since the institution's president is to be thelargest single recipient of the board's delegatedauthority, the selection of that person then becomesa board's prime responsibility. "Routinely," reportsthe 19.71 ERIC survey, "the literature on trusteesdescribes the duty to select the president as themost important function of the governing board."28It is, in many ways, one of the very few authoritieswhich a board cannot delegate to the president.

The second major responsibility which the board holds,and cannot delegate, is a responsibility "for theacquisition, conservatiQn and management of the university'sfunds and properties." As the trustees of the insti-tution's holdings, the board members have a direct andunavoidable accountability for the continued financialviability of the college. This from all reports, is afunction which most trustees take very seriously. Itis the reason why Eberle's study reports that the threemost common board committees are facilities, developmentand finance, and why the New York State Regents foundthat 87% of the trustees polled considered fund raisingand the acquisition of property and facilities theirmost important function.

28Currents 71 from the ERIC Clearinghouse on Niger Education,No. 3, June, 1971, page 2. George Washington University,Washington, D. C.

29John J. Coroon, Governance of Colleges and Universities, page 53.McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960.

- 14 -

These two functions, the selection of a president andthe maintenance of the institution's fiscal viability,clearly constitute the major functions of the contemporarygoverning board. While other areas, such as educationalpolicy, student affairs, and personnel selectionfrequently do come to a board's attention, the governingbody will typically rely on the university president'sadvice in dealing with them. It is worth noting, however,that occasionally a board will itself deal with educational,personnel, or student problems. In these instances, it isgenerally the result of significant public or alumnipressure and is rarely done without the complete adviceand consent of the president.

II

THE NATURE OF

STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN THE GOVERNANCE OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

- 15 -

Over the past ten years, many people have written onthe subject of student participation in campus governance.It has been a subject debated and acted upon by studentsenates, university senates, State senates and the U.S.Senate.* The notion has been examined by educators,politicians, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists,economists, students, attorneys, journalists, andhistorians. The question exploded into national attentionin 1964 when student activists began openly mobilizingfor their inclusion in the decision-making process ofhigher education, and has continued to receive publicattention since that time. No single report or surveycould hope to cover all that has happened in the area,and most that have tried have been dismal failures.This has frequently been the case because the authorsof such reviews have frequently overlooked the fundamentalfact that one's perception of the role of students inthe governance of higher education very largely revolvesaround one's perception of higher education itself. Itis important, at the outset of our examination of thisquestion, then, to understand what the major widespreadperceptions of higher education are, for they will serveas basic value referents in our later examination ofactivities in this field.

A. The Community of MterALptp_-2aciItoliigher Education

. 1. European Origins

The first, and probably the oldest, perceptionof higher education is that which we will callthe "Community of Masters" approach. Thisapproach, which we examined earlier in thisreport, is not the dominant American approachand is much more directly tied to Europeanhigher education. The Masters approach issignificant, however, for it represents thethinking of a significant number of facultyacross the nation today. This approach isperhaps best represented by Harry Brooks, thePresident of the American Academy of Arts andSciences, who has written that "the legislativebody of a university is its faculty, or facultysenate, and it is there that the question of'representation' is germane."" This view of

* See Title XII of the Senate Version of S.659, Document P-1.

30. Page two of a letter to Mr. Stanley B. Thomas, Jr.,dated July 19, 1972.

- 16 -

higher education basically sees the institutionas community of professors w are professionalsworking together as a coope ative body. Realgovernance, then, should ta e place among theseprofessionals with such det ils as finance andbuilding left to administr ors and boards ofcompetence.

2. Faculty Dominance

Student participation in campus governance isclearly alien to such an approach, for studentshave - by their nature - none of the qualitieswhich distinguish a faculty member. They haveno credentials or expertise in a profession.Students, intthe Master's approach, generallyshould be concerned with learning, and moreexplicitly with learning their subjects. "Bya thousand year old tradition," says Arthur Bestor,"spelled out in the charters, statutes, constitutionsand codes governing most of the major universitiesof the world, the power of final decision on issuesof this sort has been placed squarely in thehands of those who have undergone the professionaltraining prerequisite to responsible teaching andresearch and who have committed themselves tocareers in the advancement and dissemination ofknowledge. This power of decision is not aprivilege but a trust, and faculties are morallyaccountable to society for the wisdom withwhich they act." Faculty, in this view, hold"the ultimate power and responsibility forupholding thQ intellectual integrity of theuniversity." 1 This, then, is a power which theyshould not and cannot share with students.

B. The Educational Corporation Approach

The second, and most widespread, approach to thequestion of a university's nature in America isthat view which says that an institution of highereducation "is essentially an educational enterprise,organized and run by the trustees, administration,and faculty."32 This approach, the dominant Americanperception of higher education, has never been crystalized,and can never be. It holds only three precnnts sacred,

31. Arthur Bestor, The Role of Students in the Making ofAcademic Policy, (Measure Magazine University Centersfor Rational Alternatives, New York, New York) October 1971Page 1.

32. John R. McDonough, "The Role of Students in Governing"A.G.B. Reports (Vol. 10 No. 7, April 1968), page 24.

- 17 -

and these three in many ways enable the institutionto continue functioning: first, that the governingboard as the trustee of the institution and theprotector of the public interest has the ultimatelegitimacy to represent and govern the institution;second, that the governing board's representative -the president - shall act in the board's absenceand speak for its wishes; and third, that the presidentshall assemble a staff directly responsible to himfor the necessary operation of the institutionaccording to his and the board's wishes. Such aview of the institution generally holds that "It isthe bu9iness of the student to attend college tolearn. The teacher's job is to teach; the administratorsduty is to administer and carry out the policiesof the trustees."33 Each segment of tlow university,then, has "a clearly defined function" and onlythe trustees have a governance function. "A campus,"says J. L. Zwingle, "is a special - purpose enterprisewhich nevertheless depends for its success on theeffective collaboration of the senior and junior membersof the community."35 And it is becaulva of thisexpedience factor that student participation can fitinto the predominant American approach to campusgovernance.

3. Why the Educational Corporation Approach MayPromote Student Participation

The Educational Corporation approach to highereducation, because it has evolved as a hybridof both the community of masters (Oxford College)and the students as consumers (Bologna) approachescontains some of the characteristics of each.It is an approach to higher education which is

33. Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Mr. Jeck Snider,Executive Director of the Mid-Appalachia CollegeCouncil, dated July 21, 1972.

34. Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Mr. William Lovell,Executive Director of the Department of Higher Educationof the National Council of Churches of Christ, datedAugust 9, 1972.

35. Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Mr. J. L. Zwingle,Executive Director of the Association of GoverningBoards, dated July 19, 1972.

- 18 -

so vast and so encompassing that some parts ofit can promote student participation while othersprohibit it. To recognize, however, that onesegment of the Educational Corporate approachcould support student participation while anotherwould oppose it, is not to say that the approachis self-contradictory - only that it is so vastand so complex that it contains many differentforms of the single approach. We will nowexamine four reasons why the Educational Corporateapproach may promote student participation.

(a) The Preem tion of Student Discontent andDisruption

The 1960's saw the greatest quantitativeand qualitative growth of higher educationin American history. It also saw theemergence of student activism and militancyof many forms.* This modern studentactivism had educational, social, psychologicaland political roots and found expressionin student activities ranging from buildingtake-overs to picket lines. It is not thepurpose of this report to examine this periodof student activism as much as one ofthe effects which it has brought about.

Different institutions responded indifferent ways to such student activism;however, for our purposes the colleges'responses can be put into three categories.Some colleges and universities, in an attemptto respond to and/or prevent studentdisruptions of their activity: (a) broughtstudents into the decision-making structureof the institution; (b) regulated andrepressed student activities in general,and/or (c) acceded to the proposals anddemands which student activists put forward.It is the first of these three ways ofdealing with student activism that we arehere concerned with.

* See II; B;5; The Use of the Governance Structure as aPolitical Tool.

- 19 -

"Student participation in governance"according to Garry Walz, "would lead them/itudents7 to feel that they could workthrough existing sources of policy anddecision-making to alternative methods ofeducation by working within the system,rather than feeling the need to developeducational systems in opposition to thepresent one."46 The American Associationof School Administrators similarly feelsthat "such programs of student participation7are the schools' most appropriate responseto the pervasive possibility of disruption."37This call for student involvement ininstitutional governance, which is fundamentallya measure of expediency, clearly remainswithin the dominant American approach tohigher education.

(b) The Competence Which Students Sometimes Bring.

Others reason that student participationshould be promoted within the American°corporate" governance approach becausestudents may bring competence and abilitiesto the governance process which might nototherwise be there. Paul Young, for example,explains that he has "participated insituations where students have served veryeffectively as members of governing boardsof institutions of higher education" andthat "much of this effectiveness has beenin the aregoof communications of ideas andconcerns. Underlying this view is, ofcourse, the goal of most effectively andexpeditiously governing the institution.The President of the National Association ofStudent Personnel Administrators perhapscharacterizes this best when he explainsthat "institutions will be administeredmore effectively if students are activelyinvolved in the process of governance."The key to understanding this approach is concern foreffective administration of the institution.

37 Resolution adopted by the American Association ofSchool Administrators at its 1972 Convention.

38. Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Paul M. YoungExecutive Director of the Mid-America State UniversitiesAssociation, dated July 18, 1972.

Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Thomas Dutton,President of the National Association of Student

Administrators dated Ju

- 20 -

A slight variation of this same approachis that students have a unique perspective -as students - which they can bring to thegovernance process. This "stldent perspective"in most cases is a combination of thedisinterested outsider (since students arenot "experienced" educators and since theyhale been in contact with higher educationfor only a relatively short time) andthe involved insider (since students are,in fact, involved in and affected by nearlyall aspects of higher education.) It is aperspective which Harold Enarson palls "marvelouslyand wonderously refreshing" and "fresh as aspring breeze along the musty corridors ofAcademe."40 Such student perspectives, toBen Miller, "is a necessary complement to otherinput for sound and informed decision making,"then, "is unique and can only be representeddirectly. 1141

(c) Ps cho-Educational Value of Participation

A third reason for promoting studentparticipation in governance popular amonggoverning boards themselves is the psycho-educational value of that participation tostudents. "The primary purpose of studentparticipation in college governance," accordingto this approach, "should be to teachresponsibility and accountability by actualexperience."42 Lester Loomis, the VicePresident and Treasurer of Brandeis University,supports this notion; in speaking of thestudents on his board, Loomis says "Studentinput has been helpful, but most of all theextra-curricular educational experiencethey have received is undoubtedly the mostworthwhile by-product."43

40. Harold Enarson; "Reform of University Government";University Reform USA 1970; Robert J. Henle, S.J;,Washington, D. C. 1970 page 24.

41. Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Ben F. MillerSecretary-Treasurer of the American Association ofDental Schools, dated July 31, 1972.

42. Student Life in State Colleges and Universities; a Reportpresented to the National Commission on the Future of StateColleges and Universities, October 1971, page 12.

43. Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Lester Loomis,Vice President and Treasurer of Brandeis University, datedJuly 14, 1972.

- 21 -

It is important that we understand thisparticular allowance of student participationwithin the Corporate Educational approach,for it is one of the two most commonlyaccepted by governing boards themselves.It is, above all else, a realistic approachwhich aims at the increased efficiency ofthe institution. "The realities of facultypower and of student power dictate the need,"says John Corson in his widely-read Journalof Higher Education article "for a mechanismin which these two groups articipate in theformulation of decisions."44

This approach, which generally finds supportfrom administrators and board members, isfrequently a rationale for the actualacceptance of campus and State politicalrealities, where students are being appeasedbut no one wants to admit it. This appearsto be the case since, when educators likeRev. C. W. Friedman say that "it is paramountthat student involvement in management of acollege or u0,versity be an educationalexperience,' they rarely if tier indicatewhy. Why, for example, is such involvementeducational, why must it be educational,why isn't involvement in administrationequally educational? The "educationalexperience" allowance for student participationin governance is nowhere - in all of theliterature and correspondence available onthe subject - even partially explained.Educational experience, then, becomes nota reeson for including students in the governanceprocess but an advantageous by-product ofthat act.

44. John J. Corson "The Modernization of the University: TheImpact of Function on Governance" - The Journal ofHigher Education (Vol. XLII, No. 6, June 1971T, page 430.

45. Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Rev. C. W. Friedman,Vice-President for Higher Education of the NationalCatholic Educational Association, dated July 18, 1972.

- 22 -

A much more serious and direct form of thepsych ,l-educational approach is that developedby Nevitt Sanford in the spring 1970 issueof the Educational Record. In that article,Sanford explains that the purpose of highereducation is "to develop free men - men whocan make their own decisions uninhibited bythe importunities of external authority ortheir own implines and judge the worthinessof authority."'" The greatest educationaltask, for Sanford, is simple. It is "toliberate students from authoritarianism."'This is accomplished by giving studentsresponsibility for their own lives and asolid experiential background in decision-making. This background of real (as opposedto academic) responsibility will - morethan any other dynamic occuring in highereducation - give these young adults theability "to resist dogma and to give thempractice in criticism"48 and in that waystrengthen our society.

This basically psychological reason forpromoting student participation in campusgoveranance has been very widely picked upby both sociologists and psychologists alike.Professor Gordon Lewis of Vermont, for example,builds on this theme in his December, 1971article in the A.A.U.P. Bulletin when hedescribes how the twin goals of personaland intellectual maturity "can best beachieved in a system which allows the assumptionof challenges and responsibilities commensuratewith the students ever developing abilitiesto handle them."49

46. Nevitt Sanford, "The Campus Crisis in Authority"Educational Record, Vol. 51, No. 2 spring 1970 page 112.

47. Ibid page 113

48. Ibid

49. Gordon F. Lewis, "The Slow Road to Student Liberation"A.A.U.P. Bulletin, Vol. 57, No. 4 December, 1971 page 16.

- 23 -

(d) The Political Reality of Students as Voters

Another significant reason for promotingstudent participation in campus governancehas come about only within the past two years.It has, in addition, had its principalefi:ect on the 808 State and 336 municipalcolleges across our country. The passage in1970 of the Twenty-sixth Amendment to theConstitution made students for the firsttime something more than a component ofthe educational community. To America'spoliticians and legislative policy-makers,it made these eight and one-half millionpeople a "voting block." What's mote, somepeople thought it made these eight and one-half million people one of the most informed,vocal and active voting blocks within ourelectorate. Since that time (and in manycases in anticipation of the s'eudent vote)there has been a veritable scramble on thepart of local, State and national politiciansto prove to these "new voters" that theirrepresentatives have students' best interestsat heart. This is not unlike the samepolitical phenomena which can be seen priorto any election when the candidates strainto prove to any and all "voting blocks"that their best interest will be representedby that candidate. This phenomena has beenenhanced in its growth even further by thedevelopment of politically oriented studentorganizations. Some twenty-seven Statescurrently have State-wide student organizationsor student lobbies of some sort operatingat their capital," and these organizationshave acted as a stimulus towards the Statelegislators and governors in a politicalsense. The same, needless to say, has beentrue of the over 100 city college systems.

Of even greater psychological importance toLewis is the manner in which such student

50. California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri,Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Connecticut, Georgia,Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Michigan,Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,North Dakota, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Vermont, WestVirginia

- 24 -

participation will "facilitate the student'sattempt at identity consolidation."51 Thisidentity consolidation will take place inadolescents as they begin to see themselvesserving a function, or playing a role, intheir environment. That role can only evolvewhen and if students see themselves as activeparticipants (i.e. not only decision receivers)but in their own environment. And that activerole can only come about as students beginto receive and accept responsibility forand authority over their environment.

What is unique, in this case of studentpolitical salesmanship, is that in most cases,the municipal or State government has finalauthority over the institutions whereinthese voters live. In other words, the"bread and butter" issue to students atState and municipal colleges is theirrelationship to that college. Local politicianshave not missed the point. Governor Mandellof Maryland, Governor Francis Seargent ofMassachusetts, Governor Milton Schapp ofPennsylvania, Governor John Gilligan of Ohio,Governor Wendell Ford of Kentucky, GovernorKenneth Curtis of Maine, Governor GeorgeWallace of Alabama and Mayor John Lindsay ofNew York were among the first State politicalleaders to support the notion of studentmembership on the governing boards of theirState higher educational systems. (SeeDocument A-C) Many of these political figures,such as Wendell Ford and 'john Gilligan, made anissue of these policies during the campussegments of their campaigns, and many ofthem have followed through by appointingstudents to the boards of trustees andregents of their respective State schools.

This same trend has also been seen in manyState legislatures. Statutory changes inthe composition of the governing boardsof the State's higher education system havebeen proposed in at least twelve States.

51.. Lewis, page 497.

- 25 -

Perhaps the most developed of these statutorychanges has taken place in Kentucky, wherestudents now sit as voting members on eachof the governing boards of the eight Statecolleges. Originally, in 1968 when theKentucky legislature approved S.B. 118, thestudent body president of each State collegesat - as a nonvoting member - on hisrespective governing board. As of July 1stof thisvyear, that nonvoting status haschanged and, once again due to a statutoryrevision of the laws, students sit as fullvoting members of each governing board. Thereasons for this change, according to theExecutive Director of the Kentucky Councilon Public Higher Education Ted Gilbert, werefourfold: first, that student politicalactivism and the mobilization of student voteswent straight to home for most'legislators;secondly, that the legislators did not wantKentucky system to be marred by studentdemonstrations and disturbances; thirdly,that some political leaders, interested intaking political advantage of the situation,had publicly supported the move; and fourthly,that there had been a general sccess withthe nonvoting student members.54 Sheryl Snyder,the former President of the Kentucky StudentAssociation - the Statewide organizationthat lobbied the statutory change throughthe legislature - fundamentally agrees.According to Ms. Snyder, the hard lobbyingof her organization along with the electoralpower of the Kentucky student vote wereresponsible for the statutory inclusion ofstudents on the State boards of trustees. (SeeDocument D 1-3)

"Young people," says noted authority on campusgovernance Harold Hodgkinson, "have become agenuine political force and have the right torepresentation in the centralized Stateand Federal offices that increasingly makea larger share of decisions that matter. In

52. Taken from a discussion between Roger Cochetti andMr. Ted Gilbert, Executive Director of the Kentucky Councilon Public Higher Education at the latter 's office inFrankfurt, July 1972.

- 26 -

that such representatives might influenceover 10 million voters under age 21, theyprobably would be worth listening to."53

4. Why the Educational Corporation Approach ProhibitStudent Participation

Thus tar, we have examined four major reasons whythe dominant American approach to the governance3L higher education can promote student participationin governance. It is important to remember,however, that this approach in most cases preventssuch student participation. "All members of theuniversities," says the American Association ofState Colleges and Universities, "must recognizethat the ultimate power of decision has beenvested by the governing board in the chiefadministrative officer."54 We should now turnto the five basic reasons why the "EducationalCorporation" approach may prevent studentparticipation in campus governance..

(a) The Problem of Representativeness for StudentParticipants

The one question which has continuouslyplagued the notion of student participationin campus governance and which never hasbeen absolutely answered has to do with therepresentative quality of the studentparticipant. Is, for example, the studentparticipant in the governance process arepresentative of his "constituency" witha direct loyalty and accountability to thatgroup or is the student participant, byvirtue of the fact that he deals with mattersthat transcend exclusive student interest,an independent quasi-objective participant

53. Harold Hodgkinson "Student Participation in Governance."#3 Education Task Force Papers Prepared for the WhiteHouse Conference on Youth (Center for Research andDevelopment in Higher Education, University of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 1971), page 53.

54. Student Freedoms and Responsibilities: A WorkingPaper, by the American Association of State Collegesand Universities, April 1969, Washington, D. C. page 12.

- 27 -

in the school's government with atranscendent loyalty and accountability to,all segments of the school's community aswell as to the public? There is, of course,no real answer to such a question. Justas there could be no real answer to the samequestion were it directed toward a citycouncilman, a State legislator or a U.S.congressman. For the question itselfdeals with a problem which is as old as isrepresentative democracy: when one iselected by a group to represent that group,to what extent must the representativeremain bound by popular (and frequentlyill-informed) will and to what extent musthe remain bound by his own informedconscience? Political philosophers havedebated that very question for four thousandyears. We shall not attempt to do so. Insteadwe will examine some of the characteristicswhich make that timeless question uniqueto higher education today and explore someof its ramifications in light of itstendency to obstruct student participationin institutional governance.

In many cases where student participationin campus governance is being consideredand debated, it is taken for granted thatthe student participant(s) will bring tothe governing body "an understanding of theeducational needs and processes of a studentcommunity that might be unavailable in otherways."55 That perspective makes the studentparticipant a representative in the genericsense (that he will bring a student mentalityto the governance process.) This perspectivegenerally concludes that once the studentmentality has been presented to the governingbody, there is no further need for studentinput. A voice for student participants,in other words, but not a vote.

What is, however, most disturbing to thoseholding the educational corporate approach

55. Letter to Stanley B. Thomas, Jr., from Jesse H. Zeigler,Executive Director of the American Association ofTheological Schools, dated August 1, 1972.

- 28 -

is the student selected (or elected) toparticipate in the governance process whomaintains an explicit (as opposed to thegeneric) representative quality. Speakingof the students on the Miami University Council,Charles Heimsch states that "their functionhas been characterized by block voting and-.winding axes that are of questionable propriety. '156Student input of this kind is widelyrejected as being little more than a powerplay led by student political bosses. Ifa student participant, in this respect,"represented more than himself or hisstudent subculture"57 his input would bemore widely welcomed.

The matter is put even more explicityly byRoger Heynes, when he explains that "Boardmembers are not, by and large, expected torepresent constituencies. It is impossiblefor a student to do so consistently over alarge number of issues, without beinginstructed by vote. Instructed members runcounter to the ethos of these boards."58Mr. Heynes' sentiments are widely held bygoverning board members and administratorsalike. They are, for example, reflectedby Allan W. Ostar, who suggests that "Personswho represent special interest groupsfrequently find, however, that full membershipon governing boards demands new loyaltiesand responsibilities that mitigate againsteffective presentation of their particularposition."59 Clearly then, this approach

56. Letter to Stan Thomas from Charles Heimsch, Presidentof the Botanical Society of America, dated July 25, 1972.

57, Letter to Stan Thomas from Donald P. Hoyt, Director ofEducational Resources of Kansas State University, datedJuly 17, 1972.

58. Letter to Stan Thomas from Roger Heynes, President of theAmerican Council on Education dated July 18, 1972.

59. Letter to Stan Thomas from Allan W. Ostar, ExecutiveDirector of the American Association of State Collegesand Universities, dated July 17, 1972.

- 29 -

to governance cannot accept student \representatives in the governance procd seither because as generic representativesthey have no need for more than speakingprivileges or as explicit representativethey run counter to the nature of a governingboard.

(b) Lack of Expertise of Student Participants.

The second reason why the Educational Corporationapproach may prevent student participationis that students, and their "representatives,"simply do not have the background andknowledge necessary to participate in thegovernance process. "Students," saysNortheastern University President Asa S.Knowles, "are generally not in a positionto make any significant contributions tothe governance of a college or university.""Boards of Trustees," explains Mr. Knowles,"generally exercise broad control over legalmatters, the provision of adequate funds,the management of the university's financesand resources, and the establishment ofpolicies and goals which govern the operationof the college or university. Certainlythese are not areas in which students have.expertise."60 President Knowles' thinkingon this subject is representative of a largesegment,of those accepting the educationalcorporation approach to higher education,for he raises questions about the intrinsicvalue of student participants. The value ofa board member, in this respect, is basedlargely upon the experience, knowledge andexpertise which he would bring to that body.Such men as Mr. R. Lohmann have concludedthat "students do not have either experience,knowledge or expertise that is pertinentto the problems facing boards of trusteesand, thereforet cannot make a significantcontribution."

60. Letter to Senator Fred Harris from Asa S. Knowles,President of Northeastern University, dated May 22,1972. (Released with permission of Senator Harris'soffice.)

61. Letter to Stan Thomas from Mr. M. R. Lohmann, President ofthe Engineers Council for Professional Development, datedJuly 17, 1972.

- 30 -

The qualifications which persons, usingthis reasoning, define for governing hoardmembership are professional in characterand frequently very high. They result,and have resulted, in the selection ofgoverning board members of considerableprofessional success. This professionalL.,.cmpetency test (in which students failto have the requisite expertise) must,however, be considered a deviation from theprincipal public guardianship theme ofgoverning hoards. For if a trustee ischosen for "the contribution that the nomineeis in a position to make, largely becauseof special experience in some relevant area ofactivity, "62 what then hennmes of the publicinterest-minded governing board? Withoutexamining the question of whether students(law students, business students, architecturestudents, etc.) would in fact bring expertiseto a governing board, it is safe to concludethat this approach, while it does notconflict directly with the dominant Americanapproach, represents a significant variationof the "public trust principle" by puttingprimary membership.,consideration on professionalcompetence as opposed to public characterand civic interest.

(c) The Conflict of Interest of StudentParticipants

A third major reason within the educationalcorporation framework which obstructsparticipation is that which sees suchinvolvement as a conflict of interest. Theproblem is indeed a serious one, the moreso since it has been ruled in two States"that student membership on the boards oftrustees of State universities constitutesa legal conflict of interest. (A similarcase is currently developing in Wisconsinwhich may very well evolve into a majorlegal battle.)

62. Letter to Stanley Thomas from Michael. H. Cardozo, ExecutiveDirector of the Association of American Law Schools, datedJuly 20, 1972.

63. Michigan and New Mexico.

- 31 -

Various interpretations and explanationsfor the conflict of interest reasoning havebeen put forward. Father James Skehan, forexample, describes a situation in which "astudent trustee in the same institutionwill inevitably be concerned not only withdeveloping institutional policy but willget involved where he has no business; namelyin the operational aspects of the universityor college which is not the function of thetrustees."64 It is clear, from Fr. Skehan'scomments as well as those of many othereducators, that there is considerableapprehension over the degree to which astudent trustee could detach himself fromthe operations of an institution which inmany ways governs his life.

In order to better understand the natureof this reasoning of student participation,a survey was undertaken in August, 1972 ofthe seventeen governing boards of theKentucky and Pennsylvania college systems.The Office of Youth and Student Affairs Surveyof Kentucky and Pennsylvania Trustees polled169 trustees of 17 governing boards. Onan average, 54% of the members of eachboard responded. (The Pennsylvania andKentucky State systems were used in thesample because they both have a variety ofschool-types within them as well as a broaddemographic and geographic diversity betweenthem. Most importantly, student participateon all of these governing boards.) Eachof the seventeen governing boards polled,which ranged in size from seven to nineteentrustees, has had at least three yearsexperience with student trustees.

Question number seven of the survey asksthe trustee: "From your experience withstudents on your board, has their positionas both members of the school's communityand members of its governing board putthem into a conflict of interest?" Sixty-four

64. Letter to Stan Thomas from James W. Skehan, S. J.,President of the National Association of GeologyTeachers, dated July 19, 1972.

- 32 -

percent of the participating trusteesfelt that a conflict of interest did notexist and eight percent did not care toexpress an opinion. Twenty-eight percent,on the other hand, felt that from their ownexperiences students were put in a conflictof interest by serving on the board.*

It is important at this point that we examineclosely the issues involved in such aconflict of interest approach to studentparticipation, for they will tell us muchabout the nature of the actual problem.A conflict of interest is defined as a"conflict between one's obligation to thepublic good and one's self interest" andindeed it is precisely this tension betweenthe student's own concern for advancingthrough his or her college and the student'sconcern for advancing society's intereststhat many of the trustees in our surveyreferred to. That a conflict of interestmight arise, however, is rarely (if ever)adequate grounds for excluding someone fromboard membership in toto. According to a1971 study of fifty-five governing boards,for example, twenty percent of the trusteesexamined were either directors of or officersin a corporation whose stock was held bytheir respective college.65 The possibility

* The figure of 28% is interesting because most (72%)of these sentiments were concentrated in six schoolsof the 17 schools surveyed. On those campuses therehad been significant student government administrationdisputes over the previous year. In one case where thestudent body president was simultaneously sitting onthe board and presenting a civil suit against the institution,for example, five of the seven responding trustees indicatedthat a conflict of interest exists for students onthe board.

65. Lee Stevenson, Behind Closed Doors, a study conductedfor the Project on Corporate Responsibility; Washington,D. C., 1971 page 23.

- 33 -

of a conflict of interest arising in thosecases is apparent. In most cases, if apotential conflict of interest arises,the ,concerned board member simply absentshimself from the group's deliberation anddecision. This is an entirely honorablesolution to a very sticky problem which maydevelop in the governance of any organization.One would expect, then, that student boardmembers, like any other reasonable boardmembers in a conflict of interest, wouldsimply absent themselves from the body'sdeliberations at the appropriate times.

Ninety-two percent of those board memberswho felt that students w:_ re in a conflictof interest by serving 01 the board feltthat students did not absent themselvesfrom such deliberations and decisions. Thisgroup of trustees, representing twenty-sixpercent of the total sample taken in theOYSA survey, present a serious argument againstthe idea of student participation incollegiate governing boards.

For this reason, we shall examine in greaterdepth the issue of student conflict ofinterest. One trustee from California StateCollege of Pennsylvania, a liberal arts collegeof 6,000 students, explains that "they /thestudent trustees/ cannot determine whethertheir loyalty is to the State or to thestudent body. H66

That trustees' sentiments are corroboratedby a trustee from Edinboro College ofPennsylvania who sim0y states that "theirLthe student trustees'/ intent to be spokesmenfor the student body sometimes overshadowstheir concern for the common good of theinstitution."67 Still another trustee fromNorthern Kentucky State College laments that"they tend to be too concerned with peer groupapproval, tend to be arrogant and self rightous;distrust older members."6d The classiccase, however, was probably best stated by

,66. Office of Youth and Student Affairs Survey of Kentuckyand Pennsylvania Trustees.

67. Ibid.

Ibid.

- 34 -

a trustee from Western Kentucky Universitygrhere all of the trustees responding agreedthat a conflict of interest does exist forthe student on their board7:

In a legal action initiated by theAssociated Student Government vs Boardof Regents the President of AssociatedStudents serving as student member ofthe Board of Regents was in the uniqueposition of suing herself.

The comments of each of the W.K.U. trusteessimilarly reflect their concern about thelitigation.

In the end, there is no answer or solution tothe conflict of interest approach to studentparticipation in campus governance, for itstrikes at the heart of two unanswerablequestions. First, whether the studentparticipant should act as a studentrepresentative in the explicit sense or inthe generic sense; and second, whether thestudent participant will be responsibleenough to absent him or herself from boarddeliberations when a conflict arises.Perhaps the best summary of the entireissue came from a Shippensburg State Collegetrustee who simply stated that "I am surethis will happen from time to time."69Finally, we should again make clear thatfor every trustee who saw an unexcusedconflict of interest in the student trustee'sperformance, two did not.

(d) The Immaturity of Student Participants

When, in 1642, the General Court of theMassachusetts Bay Colony created the Overseersof Harvard College they determined that thestudents attending their school were tooimmature to participate in the governancqof America's first postsecondary school.'uThe legacy of that decision has remained

69. Ibid.

70. Thwing, page 73.

- 35 -

with the governance of American highereducation for all 230 years of its existence.The student immaturity approach, withinthe context of the educational corporationview of higher learning is, in that respect,at once the oldest and most contemporaryof the issues which this report will dealwith. When asked the question "In youropinion, are the students at your institutionmature enough to participate directly inthe institutional decision-making process?"for example, twenty percent of the OYSAsurvey respondents replied "no."

"Immaturity," says James Bemis "seems tobe more of a liability than an asset tothe student board member."71 His sentimentsare reflected in those of Merle Strong who,in speaking of student participation ingoverning boards, indicates that a "lackof maturity may also be a problem in somecases."72 The comments of some of theeighteen trustees who felt that studentsat their school were not mature enough toparticipate in governance will tell us moreabout what they mean by immaturity.

"Some of them ghe students7," says anEdinboro State College trustee "damageproperty. All but a few scatter litter oncampus. Most lack judgment, and are incapableof impartiajAty in administration-studentrelations. " Indiana University trusteeagrees and points out that "their philosophyof our way of life is not mature. They neverhave earned a livelihood by working. Theydo not comprehend the value of money."74

71. Letter to Stan Thomas from James P. Bemis, ExecutiveDirector Northwest Association of Secondary andHigher Schools, dated July 10, 1972.

72. Letter to Stan Thomas from Merle E. Strong, Presidentof the National Association of Industrial andTechnical Teacher Educators, August 4, 1972.

73. Office of Youth and Student Affairs Survey of Kentucky.and Pennsylvania Trustees.

74. Ibid.

- 36 -

When the trustees were asked whetherthey thought that students came to hoardmeetings well prepared, for example, eightypercent felt that student trustees werewell prepared and only ten percent feltthat they were not Most of the trusteeswho felt that students were too immaturetc participate in governance, at the sametime recognized that student trusteeswere well prepared.

Finally, when the Kentucky-Pennsylvania trusteeswere asked to evaluate the overall performanceof student trustees on a scale of one toten, they rated these students an averageof seven. This figure was a full pointlower than trustees rated themselves (7.0876for students as opposed to 8.9379 for thetrustees themselves), but less than a halfpoint lower than their composite evaluationof the entire board (7.6666). Fifty-ninepercent of these same trustees felt thatstudents performed as well as or betterthan they themselves did on the board, whilefifty-eight percent felt that students performedas well as or better than the entire board.All of these illdicate a substantial feelingby board members that students performedas well on boards - as most other membersand in some instances much better.

5. The Use of the Governance Structure As a PoliticalTool

Before concluding our examination of the dominantAmerican approach to higher education, we shouldbriefly review one aspect of that view whichhas a direct relationship to the question ofstudent participation in governance. That aspectis the socio-political impact which highereducation has on our society. John Ronsvalle,the founder of the National Governance Clearinghouseof the University of Illinois, feels that studentparticipation in campus governance is the mostimportant mechanism available for turning oursociety and nation around.75 The idea that the

75. From an interview with Mr. John Ronsvalle on July 12,1972, at hls residence in Champagne, Illinois.

31 -

university, and its governance process, shouldbe made to serve the interests of society isnot a new one. In fact it lies at the heart ofthe educational corporation approach to highereducation. Earl McGrath explains that "studentswere not the first to make the purposes andfunctions of the university directly relevantto the life of society."76 Interest groups,whether they have represented business, science,..eligion, political parties and movement orsimple power blocks, have consistently attemptedto gain control of higher education. In sodoing, these interest groups have always maintainedthat it was being done for the good of society,whose interest they had uppermost in their mind.Morton Rauh's trustee student concludes that thebanking and business interests have gained controlof American higher education, and it is thislocus of control which he believes students objectto.77

Student participation in campus governance,according to those who would argue from thepolitical tool perspective, then becomes a partof a massive wrestling match between those whocurrently dominate governing boards and otherpolitical groups which are attempting to gainsome (or all) control. Susan S. Lloyd-Jones, apast editor of the College Press Service speaksfor this position:

American universities are integral parts -intellectual service stations - of a socialorder that is vicious, racist, war-like,authoritarian, immoral and incompetent.America today is the highest development of someof the human race's most serious mistakes:the attempt to conquer, or at least severly maim,nature; his desire to control and exploit ratherthan understand, man's nature; that queercreation of the Renaissance, the secularnational State; the development of killing for

76. From a speech delivered by Earl J. McGrath, Director ofthe Higher Education Center of Temple University, to theSeventeenth Student Conference on National Affairs; CollegeStation, Texas, February 17, 1972.

77. From an interview with Morton Rauh on July 10, 1972 athis office in Antioch College of Yellow Springs, Ohio.

- 38 -

sport; the submission of th social informationsystem to commercial whims."

Robert Birnbaum and Jean-Louis D'Heilly undertooka survey of twenty-nine student (young) trusteesto find out.what differences these young trusteeswould bring to a board. Their conclusion wasthat "the most significant differences betweenyoung trustees and all trustees appear to be in:,heir political affiliation and ideology. Theyoung trustee runs counter to past trends witha vengeance. Only eleven percent of the youngtrustees call themselves Republicans, perhapsexplaining to some extent their antipathy toindividuals who are members of that party."79

That the inclusion of student (young) trusteesinto governing boards will have some effect onthe board's operations and decisions is apparent.However, the degree to which student trusteesand student participation in campus governance willeffect the banking/business influence which many students

,

believe currently dominates governance will be seen overthe coming years. In all events, the "movement"does not significantly alter the dominant Americanapproach; it simply puts the governing hoardunder the influence of a different societalinterest group.

C. The University as an Educational Community Approach

The third major view of higher education in Americais that of the educational community. The educationalcommunity approach traces its development to theoriginal twentieth century experimental college,which saw all participants in the college's operationsas members of a special community. Each of thesepersons, regardless of whether he was an administrator,a faculty member, (sometimes a worker) or a student

78. W. John Minter, Editor, Value Change and Power Conflictin Higher Education, Center for Research and Developmentin Higher Education of the University of Californiaat Berkeley (Berkeley, California, October 1969).

79. Survey of Young Trustees for C.U.N.Y.

- 39 -

was an equal member in the process of participatorydemocracy. The notion, however, did not succeed orgrow until the late 1960's when students began usingit widely as rationale for increased studentparticipation in governance. "Cleveland StateUniversity" explains Larry Tomczak, 1970 StudentBody President of Cleveland State, in a reportentitled Proposal for a Student on the Board ofTrustees, "cannot be viewed solely as a massaiWk7i6Rof buildings inhabited by students, facultyand administrators. This university must beperceived as a community - a community of individualscommitted to improving education at the individualand mass levels."80 And in so saying, Mr. Tomczakspeaks for many students and student organizationsacross the country. The Cleveland State StwAntBody President goes on to say: "In order to facilitatethe accomplishments of the many objectives ofCleveland State's community, a system of communitygovernment must be employed. Why community governments?The key to the answer is the word 'community.' Ourcampus is a community, one where all the membersmust work together in a constructive manner in orderto maintain a viable institution. The communityconsists of students as well as faculty and administratorsand all of them shold be included in the governanceof that community." 1

1. Democracy on Campus

Lying at the heart of this approach is thedemocratic principle that "decisions should bemade by those affected," as Mr. Tomczak indicated.In referring to the corporate organization ofthe dominant American approach to higher education,Harry Buck indicates that "most colleges anduniversities are hierarchial, and I want to seethem democratized."82

$0. Larry Tomczak Proposal for a Student on the Board ofTrustees, a report submitted to the Cleveland StateUniversity Board of Trustees in 1971 by the C.S.U.Student Government, page 3.

81. Ibid.

82. Letter to Stan Thomas from Harry M. Buck, ExecutiveDirector of the American Academy of Religion, datedJuly 18, 1972.

- 40

Mr. Buck is supported in his goal by Murray Brown,who writes that "students are governed andaffected by decisions cf. such Lgoverning7 boardsas are faculty and staffs."" "What is needed,"says Ralph Huitt, "is full and effectiveparticipation by students in everything whichaffects them - which include very much thathappen& in the institution."'"

This principle of community governance is insharp contrast to the dominant educationalcorporate principle of board governance and liesat the heart of most of the campus governancedisputes which have arisen since 1965. Thisdemocratic approach to campus governance morefrequently finds an outlet in a "UniversityCouncil" proposal than in a "Student Trustee"proposal. Essentially, the educational communityapproach to higher education seeks not to addstudents to boards of trustees but to ultimatelydo away with such boards. The UniversityCommunity Council, proposed by the Committee onUniversity Governance of the University of NewMexico, would include representatives from theadministration, the faculty and the studentbody.85 The New Mexico University Councilis not unlike others which have sprung up onhundreds of campuses over the past five years.

2. The Application of Democratic Principles

Attempts have been made, though, to soften thedirect effects of the community governanceprinciple on trustees themselves. Morris Keetonof Antioch College, for example, proposes theuse of shared authority. "Shared authority,"says Mr. Keeton, "is not authority granted onsufferance as a sop for good behavior. It isa right. At the same time, it is neither the

83. Letter to Stan Thomas from Murray Brown, Secretary ofthe National Association of Colleges and Teachers ofAgriculture, dated July 13, 1972.

84. Letter to Stan Thomas from Ralph Huitt, ExecutiveDirector of the National Association of State Universitiesand Land Grant Colleges, dated July 20, 1972.

85, Committee on University aovernance Report to theRegents of the University of New Mel4co, May 1971.

- 41 -

sheer surrender of power by its present holders,nor the assumption of power by new ones, possiblystudents or faculty

"or particular pressure

groups on campus. in reaction to thenotion, Harold Hodgkinson indicates that "thereis precious little evidence thus far that theconcept of shared authority actually works."87

Finally, it should be noted that a great dealr,f the literature and rhetoric of the educationalcommunity approach to higher education rests onthe literature and rhetoric of the Americandemocratic tradition. "Participation ingovernance," claims Orin Graff, "is a guaranteedpolitical right of our adult citizens and anessential characteristic of education for thosewho believe that self discipline is best achievedthrough the use of reason in thought and action;it is indispensible to the maintenance of theuniversity as a free marketplace for ideas inwhich the total university community participatesfreely and responsibly."88 Guenter Lewy andStanley Rothman similarly conclude that "giventhe strength of the democractic ethos in Americansociety and especially in the country's educationalphilosophy, it is small wonder that the studentactivists' proposal to democratize Americanhigher education has found favor with beleaguredadministrators and faculties. "89 The educational

86. Morris Keeton "The Disenfranchised on Campus;" TheJournal of Higher Education (Volume XLI No. 6, June1970), page 424.

87. Harold Hodgkinson, "College Governance: The AmazingThing it Works at all, Report 11 for the ERIC Clearinghouse;(Washington, D. C., page 4.)

88. Orin B. Graff, "Value Referents In the Governance ofHigher Education" Theory Into Practice, (Volume IXNo. 4, October 1970); School of Education, Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, Ohio, page 220.

89. Guenter Lewy and Stanley Rothman "On Student Power"AAUP Bulletin, Washington, D. C., Fall, 1970 page 279.

community governance is perhaps best summed upby Herbert Gans who writes: "I believe stronglyin the idea that the constituents and clientsof any agency ought to be on agency boards,whatever the agency. Consequently, I also believethat students Qught to sit on collegiate boardsof trustees."9u

D. Student Consumerism (The Student as Consumer Approach)

1. Newest Approach

The final, and in many ways the youngest, ofthe four significant views of student participationin American higher education's governance is onethat has grown up over the past six years withthe national concern for consumer protection.Student consumerism as a means of protectingstudent rights has found much support anddevelopment, although it has not yet developeda substantial governance logic. Margery Tabankin,for example, explains that "since increasingnumbers of students are "paying their way" throughcollege, we Lthe National Student Association/feel that they are Qntitled to some form ofconsumer advocacy."1

Ms. Tabankin's sentiments are supported byAlice Beeman who writes, "I can certainlyexpress my own strong personal feelings thatstudents should be represented on college anduniversity boards of trustees and directors.I believe that they bring the consumer's pointof view to these boards which otherwise mhtnot have direct access to such opinion."9'

O

Clearly, the consumerism approach holds that theconsumers of a service should have some directinput into the design and operation of thatservice. It is unclear, however, whether thatposition necessitates full student participationin governing boards (as say the educationalcommunity approach would) or whether it simply

90. Letter to Stan Thomas from Herbert Gans, Presidentof the Eastern Sociological Society, dated July 28, 1972.

91. Margery Tabankin, President of the National StudentAssociation: Press Release dated February 24, 1972.

92. Letter to Stan Thomas from Alice L. Beeman, GeneralDirector of the American Association of University-NoMen,-dated-JulY=18, 1972. --

- 43 -

suggests it as a possible route for studentconsumer advocacy.

2. Consumer Activism

The Council of Washington State Student BodyPresidents, in one of the earliest presentationsof this approach, told the Washington Statelegislature that "The Council wishes to emphasizethat State college and university students paythe largest per capita share of the cost oftheir education. Thus students, who pay thelargest share of their education costs, havenever had one of their members in a votingtrustee position."93 Their position is reflected,almost indentically, by the Student Associationof the University of Minnesota, which in November1971, claimed that "Investing millions inUniversity operations annually, students areentitled to oversee the use of student fundsfor student education, the same way that theState appoints the Regents to oversee the useof biennial State appropriations."94 Theimpact of student consumerism, oddly enough,has been felt more at State colleges anduniversities - where students pay considerablyless for education - than at private schools -where students pay much more. This can probablybe attributed to the fact that State universitystudents, by and large, are from lower incomebracket families where the cost of tuition andexpenses will cause a financial burden, andhence students are much more concerned about howtheir tuition monies are spent.

In one of the rare developments of a studentparticipation in governance theory through studentconsumerism, Ivor Kraft explains that:

The students are the unrivalled expertsconcerning the actual educational processeswhich are underway at any given time in theuniversity. It is precisely the students whoare the recipients - the consumers we fightsay - of these educational processes."

93. From a statement by the Washington State Council ofStudent Body Presidents of the University of Washington,dated February 1, 1969.

94. Prom a statement by the Student Association of theUniversity of Minnesota dated November 1971.

95. Ivor Kraft "Student Power in American Higher Education"The Educational Forum (Vol. XXXI!, No. 3, March 1971) pg. 329..-t

- 44 -

Robert Glidden, in analyzing the same question,agrees as he writes that "the most importantconsideration, however, is that the students arethe consumers and I personally believe theyshould be represented on the policy-mOcingbodies which govern their education."6 Glidden,in this respect, speaks for a whole generationof consumerists who find student consumerism anappropriate vehicle for student participationin the governance of higher education.

96. Letter to Stan Thomas from Robert Glidden, ExecutiveSecretary of the National Association of Schools ofMusic, dated July 10, 1972.

DOCUMENTS A-G

A. Letter from Governor Wallace

B. Letter from Governor Seargent

C. Letter from Governor Curtis

D. Memorandum from the President of the Kentucky StudentAssociation

E. Letter from the Attorney General of the State of Kentucky

F. HFW Trustee Survey -- Question No. 7 on Conflict of Interest

G. Flyer Written by John Ronsvalle of the University of Illinois

III

THE SCOPE OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION

IN THE GOVERNANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

- 45 -

As of. June of 1972, there were some three hundred and thritycolleges and universities whose governing boards containeCstudent members.97 Although this number (which is in fact aminimal figure) represents only twelve and one-half percentof all American colleges, it is indicative of a trend amengcolleges and universities to appoint students to governingI,oards. When, for example, the Association of GoverningBoards of Universities and Colleges undertook a study in thespring of 1971 of a cross section of 1,050 colleges, theydiscovered that sixty-six percent of all resmding schoolshad undergone a governance change since 1966." Over seventypercent of the public schools responeing had undergoneaovernance changes. These figures are corroborated by Raygovernance

who in 1970, undertook a similar study for IndianaUniversity. Mr. Muston concluded that "a majority of insti-tutions reporting change in student involvement in 1969 arepublic." 1114. was the most significant governance changeof the year.

This rapid movement towards greater student participation ingovernance in State and public institution was notedearlier in this report; however, it is worthy offurther examination. The first State to enact legislationmaking students members or State hoards of trustees wasEentucky, which 0.id so in 1968. One year later studentswere given full voting privilege by the MassachusettsLegislature. Those two States were followed in short order'Ly rorth Carolina, Montana and Connecticut, . Bills arecurrently pending in at least twelve more States and by 1973the number of States which have statutory admitted studentsto the State trustee systems should rise to about :a dozen.

The oth,?.r principal action taken in State university system sis the result of gubernatorial action. In most States, thetrustees of State schools are either appointed by the governoror appointed by the governor with the consent of the StatoSenate. Governor Paymond Schaeffer, in 19698 became thefirst governor to apnoint students (student body preei.dentsin this case) to the State trustee boards. Ps was initially

97. Institutions of Higher Fducation with Student Memberson Their Governing Board.

98. Pssociation of Governing Boards - Boards of Trustee Survey.

99. Ray Muston, 'Student Participation in-Governance BecomesPorplaiized and :More Public-as it Gains Momentum,'' College:Old'OniVerMtv BUSinesg-i Vol.-0,-No. 3, page =12,natohl.97D.

- 46 -

the case in Kentucky, the governor made the students non-voting hoard members. Subsequently, Governors Schapp t

(Pennsylvania), Wallace (Alabama), Curtis (Maine), Gilligan(Ohio) and Mayor Lindsay (New York City) made studentsfull voting members of these higher education boards. Overthe past two years, several other governors have expressedinterest in appointing student body presidents to Stategoverning boards. But, as yet, none has taken action.

DOCUMENTS H-P

H. Press Release from the Governor of Pennsylvania

I. Executive Order Number 23 from the Governor of Bahama

J. Letter from the Feting Commissioner of Higher Educationof Pennsylvania

Y. Press Release from the Governor of Massachusetts

L. Chapter 320 of Senate Bill 222 of the North Carolina StateSenate

P% House Bill Number 481 of the Montana State House

N. Senate Bill Number of the Kentucky State Senate

O. Senate Bill Number 728 of the Oregon State Senate

P. Title XII of the Education Amendments/Section 510

Iv

CONCLUSION

- 47 -

If little else is clear from our review of the nature andscope of student participation on governing boards, itshould he at least clear that there is no unanimity ofthought on the subject. And more importantly, the diverseattitudes concerning this subject are likely to representfundamentally different perspectives, not only on the camnusgovernance system, but on the very nature and purpose orpostsecondary education. In this respect, one's preferencefor a given governance system is very likely to be determinedby one's educational philosophy.

It is important to understand, then, that governance is anintegral part of a college's character. The governance of acollege is no less important to the educational viability ofthat institution than is the quality of its faculty. Eachelement makes a significant contribution to the educationalenvironment. The question is not "What kind of governancesystem do we want for our campus?" but "What kind of educationalenvironment do we want for our campus?" The answer to thatquestion depends almost entirely on what the respondentperceives as the mission and purpose of the college and/oruniversity.

Many educators, as we have seen, view the pursuit of aneducation as an end in itself. It is quite naturalwhen higher education is viewed as a self-rationalizingart form that the masters of that art will govern theeducational environment. In other words, if one acceptsthe notion that higher education exists for learning'ssake alone, then the conclusion that the governancesystem should be built around the faculty is almostinescapable.

On the other hand, many student and faculty groups continueto see.higher education as a part of society with an assignedmission. These educators and students perceive the educationalexperience as essentially one in which the various parts ofthe campus community eqnally share responsibility. For them,higher education is not quite independent of society (as wouldbe the case in the Community of Masters) and vet it is notquite a servant of society (as would be the case in the rdu-cational Corporation) . It is a semi-autonomous, semi-independentinstitution serving some of its own interests and 80M0 ofsociety's interests. Given this view of higher education,it i8 quite natural that a system of governance involvineall segments of the institution (e.g., a university council,etc.) would narticipate in the decision-making process.

- 48 -

Another approach to higher education suggests that the edu-cational system is a servant of society and its needs. Fora number of reasons, this notion has gained widespreadacceptance in America. It follows from such an approachthat neither the faculty, nor the students, nor the "campuscommunity" should govern the institution. The question, inthis case, is then shifted from "Who should govern theuniversity?" to "Who should represent society's interests?"For many, our society's interests can best be defined andmolded by the well-trained, the highly educated, the wealthyand the successful. And for them, it is quite understandable- -indeed desirable - -that society's interests be determined bybankers and lawyers on the collegiate governing boards. Forothers, society's interests would be best represented bythose who are not members of the "power structure." Andit is quite natural for these people to favor the inclusionof blacks, browns, young people, and women on boards oftrustees.

These factors indicate that there is no absolute definitionof the role of higher education. And, consequently, thereis no absolute formula for a governance system. In fact,before one can even determine which form of campus governancehe prefers, be it corporate, democratic, or guild-like, hemust first determine the purpose of higher education.Consequently, it is incumbent on any college or university todevise a governance system which is reflective of its edu-cational mission and philosophy to ensure the relevance ofthe governance system to the educative process of the particularschool.

We began this report with the statement that "The questionof who should govern our colleges and universities is onewhich is as old as is the notion of higher eucation. It isa question which has confounded educators, politicians,journalists, and students alike for at least seven centuriesand probably will continue to do so for at least seven more."We should by now understand why. Obviously, the debate overwho should govern our colleges will continue. Our goal, andthe goal of this report, should be to add to our understandingof the subject.