University of Texas President Bill Powers will resign at the end of the 2014-2015 academic year. Now that there is at least somewhat of a resolution of the particular case of Powers, it is useful to take a step back and look at the big picture. Although the two cases have some differences, the UT case should be considered alongside the ill-fated attempt to remove Teresa Sullivan as president of the University of Virginia. What these two cases reveal, I believe, is a real crisis in higher education: the failure of university trustees.

At a basic level, trustees are to guide the university through the present toward the future.

American universities are governed much differently than most of the rest of the world. In many countries, a strong, bureaucratic government ministry governs higher education. International institutions also have a significant faculty role in governance.

Since the beginning of U.S. higher education, we adopted a system of lay boards. These boards (and not the government or the faculty) would have final institutional authority.

Just as is the case for any system of governance, lay boards have pros and cons. Yet, the system served American universities well for over 250 years.

I am concerned this system is breaking down.

Trustees seem to have little understanding or respect for shared governance. At a fundamental level, American higher education works because no single constituency gets to mandate decisions. The board, the president, administrators, and the faculty share decision making power.

As part of shared governance, the board has the primary role of setting the mission and direction of the university. The board also selects and provides oversight of the president. While the board is the final approval for many other issues, questions of academic programs and daily managerial tasks are delegated to the faculty and administration.

There are three areas where trustees are overstepping their bounds causing problems for institutions.

Athletics

Parallel to the increased commercialization of intercollegiate athletics is the growth of trustee micromanagement of athletics. There are trustees that place more value on the athletic enterprise than the academic one. Despite safeguards put in place to limit the role of trustees in athletic decisions, there are many example of trustees getting involved with athletics.

In the University of Texas case, media reports suggest that members of the Texas board contacted University of Alabama head football coach Nick Saban to see if he would be interested in a move to Austin. This type of behavior undermines everyone from the current coach to the athletic director to the president.

I have often thought that trustees believe they know more about athletics than other areas of the university. Perhaps it is because of the business background of many trustees and the overt commercialization in athletics. I think it may be as simple as trustees are great Monday Morning Quarterbacks. They know better than the offensive coordinator who called a running play on 3rd and 8.

Whatever the reason, trustee micromanagement in athletics can cause great institutional harm.

Selecting and Supporting the President

Trustees are primarily responsible for selecting the president and creating a supportive environment for the president to succeed.

I’m working on a study that shows involuntary presidential turnover (firings or forced resignations) are at a 25-year high right now. Specifically, four of the five highest turnover years have occurred during the last six years. In many of these cases, a breakdown between the president and the board is to blame. Either presidents have changed or boards have changed. I believe it is the latter.

Without doubt, the job of being a university president is as challenging now as nearly any time in history. Trustees are responsible for evaluating the president’s performance. Evaluations should be carried out with care and consideration for the wide ranging constituencies that a president serves. During his first few years at UT-Austin, Powers received glowing evaluations, but they turned more critical as clashes over the direction of the university escalated. The evaluation process was primarily a tool to undermine Powers rather than improve his performance.

Preserving Institutional Independence

If there is a crisis of trusteeship in higher education, this is the crisis within the crisis. In an essay for the Chronicle this week, AAU President Hunter Rawlings clearly made a case of the problem with the ‘reforms’ being pushed in Texas. As he convincingly argues, economic benefits are a welcomed byproduct but not the goal of universities.

Trustees should play a buffer role between universities and the public. While universities should not be completely autonomous, they do require a degree of independence. Also, universities must be protected from undue influence.

Universities are different from virtually any other state agency. Universities exist to create and disseminate knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge should not be determined by the prevailing ideology of the moment. Historically, trustees have championed higher education’s independence and necessity.

The ideology of accountability and economic benefits seem to be changing this paradigm. Governors and legislators talk about the efficient use of taxpayers’ money. As the people’s representatives, asking for a return on investment is maybe reasonable.

Unfortunately, too many trustees blindly follow a similar mantra. Rather than shepherding and championing their institutions, trustees apply ideological expectations of performance. Rather than protecting the university from exploitation, trustees serve as a mechanism for taking advantage of the university. Certainly, the trustees appointed by Governor Perry appear to hold more allegiance to him than the institution they are responsible for protecting.

Need for Real Reform

Critics of universities often call for urgent reforms. Faculty, administrators, and even students are blamed for the problems facing higher education. However, little attention is paid to the final institutional authority on campus. Instead of helping and buffering the university, trustees have been more of a Trojan Horse for the forces that would seek to weaken higher education. If it is time for reform and change, let’s start there first.