AAUP Presents

Understanding Governing Boards & Academic Freedom

• Vineeta Singh • Season 5 • Episode 8

Share episode

A new episode of our special series Academic Freedom on the Line with the AAUP’s Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom focuses on university governing boards and their workings. Raquel Rall, Associate Professor in the School of Education at UC Riverside and Demetri Morgan,  Associate Professor of Education at University of Michigan Marsal School of Education and CDAF fellow, join us to explain the differences between public and private boards, what an “advisory role” actually means, and how to create meaningful communication between board members and academic workers and community members. 

Be sure to visit the website of the Center for Strategic and Inclusive Governance, the Rall’s and Morgan’s new project designed to equip higher education boards and leaders with research-informed tools for mission-centered decision-making. The website includes open access resources and rapid-response guides bridging scholarship and practice. And you can submit suggestions for additional resources or areas of investigation! 


Further Reading for the Board-Curious: 

Raquel Rall:

So courageous leadership right now is just what good leadership has always been, but now like the outside world makes it seem like it's not. So for board members, it's really sustain the course. Stick to the mission. If your mission has been about access, diversity, belonging, you need to do that work, right? Just because people are now saying that it's not popular but that's what your mission is like. That's literally your job, right?

Vineeta Singh:

Welcome to another episode of AAUP, presents Academic Freedom on the Line, a special series jointly produced by AAUP presents and the AAUP Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom. I'm Center fellow Vineeta Singh. If you've been following this special series, you'll have noticed that we keep coming up against questions of power and leadership. Who has the power to stop this? Who is supposed to have that power? Where are the leaders who will defend higher education from the extreme rights campaigns to discredit and defund our institutions? I think our most powerful response to this question so far came in the episode where we spoke with student organizers over the past few years, it's safe to say that students have provided us with the best models of what principled leadership can look like, but they can't do this alone and they shouldn't have to. So in this episode, I'm joined by two experts who work on governance boards, whether they're called the Board of Visitors, the Board of Regents, the board of Trustees. These are the who are tasked with leadership of our institutions. Our guests today study these boards, how they exercise their power and how. Academic workers and other community members can leverage the power of these boards to help institutions align with their stated missions. Dr. Raquel Rall is an associate professor in the school of Education at UC, Riverside, and her research center's post-secondary leadership and governance, And Dr. Demetri Morgan, who has been at the Center for the Study of Higher and post-Secondary education at the University of Michigan since fall 2024. His research and teaching focused on the role of higher education in a diverse democracy. He's also a fellow at the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom. Okay, so I wanna start with a really basic question. Just to have sort of a shared base of understanding, could you explain, like you're speaking to a curious undergraduate, what even is a board of visitors slash region slash trustees slash whatever weird thing it's called in the institution that you happen to be in. Uh, why does it exist and what is it supposed to do?

Raquel Rall:

Yeah, sure. I can start with that. So I think it's important. I mean, even in your question, it's, there's so many different names, but they all are supposed to sort of do the same thing. And then some institutions have different levels, and so it might be an institution board of trustees or regents or whatever. And then there's a system level or state level. So there's levels to that. But in general, there's this idea that, a group of, individuals that were not necessarily affiliated with the institution would be able to help kind of govern with the best interest of society in mind, and that they wouldn't be, uh, tempted by political intrusion and all these different things because they didn't really have skin in the game necessarily for the institution. Right. And so they would be able to ensure autonomy, right? Or independence, however you wanna think about it, and, and govern on behalf. Of the public. And that was a really big thing. It's sort of like how a lot of companies now use a board of advisors, right? That they would help to offer guidance and they would see things at a different level, They bring this other expertise, whether they're coming from the political sphere, Or some of them are, have this great business acumen or investment acumen that you might not get if you had folks who were only in higher education, right? And so this is this group of, uh, of soloists as Dick talks about them, like come together to kind of be part of this choir for the institution. Like they're, they're masters in their own field, and that. they would come together to make sure that the institution is following its mission, right? Thinking about how best to, to serve students and best serve the community, its programs and all of these different things. And when you think about a board of trustees, of regions, uh, of visitors, rector, you know, all these different things that we have. We think about a lot of roles and responsibilities. So they really have like nine key roles and responsibilities that many people have agreed upon, right? Obviously people think about fiduciary duties, they think about the budget, right? Keep us in the black, make sure we don't go bankrupt. So that's, that's one, right? We often think about the most important is their selection of the, the institution president or chancellor, whatever they're called. So that's a big role that these boards have. And also monitoring them along the way, right? Strategic planning is a big piece of, of what boards do. if this is our mission, boards are the ones who are supposed to make sure that we keep to that mission, right? So those are some of like the high level ones that I think most folks would understand. It's like, huh, okay. They help us pick the president, right? Oh, they make sure that we keep money flowing Those are some of the main things that boards do, but it's really is supposed to be sort of this separate entity that, is not comprised solely of faculty or the chancellor or the governor, you know, all these different things and that they're supposed to help make sure that the institution is run the way it's supposed to be run. Right. And so I think that that's probably the easiest way to describe it. They, meet episodically maybe some, only four times a year, some six times a year. They're not full-time employees. They're probably one of the most, qualified volunteer jobs that you'll ever see. Like some of these folks are really like captains of industry and then they become a volunteer'cause they don't get paid to do this. Right. And so I think that's a really unique feature that we have for, for our boards. Yeah.

Demetri Morgan:

Yeah. the only thing that I would add to that really great overview. Is just some of the nuance in thinking about public boards versus private boards. One of the main distinctions is the size. Uh, so if you're listening, um, from a private university, you might not know how many trustees or board members exist at your institution. Because at private universities there's also, a philanthropic relationship that board members often play, right? So we, when people talk about the donors, not all donors are are board members, but most board members are donors. so, uh, that's another way that people sometimes see and understand board members. Whereas at public institutions, the, the boards tend to be smaller. And they tend to be political appointees. that's one of the reasons why we start to see some of the tensions with the kind of ideal that Dr. Rall laid out, in public boards, they're appointed by the governor or, um, appointed and confirmed by the legislature. And so, um, it does start to inject some politics in it. And over the last, 10 years, we've seen increasing politics injected. But beforehand it was pretty perfunctory. Um. And wasn't seen as a hyper political appointment process because boards were understood as, uh, these, these kind of overarching people who were really interested in helping align the university with the best interest of, of the, the broader public. Um, and then just a word about the kind of internal infrastructure boards. So like most organizations, it's made up of committees and the committees tend to focus, uh, on different areas. things like investment, institutional compliance and risk management. Uh. academic affairs and student affairs. Every board, uh, will have kind of a different configuration and I always encourage academic workers, faculty, professionals to look up the structure of their board. It might give some insight into the things that the board thinks is important, both historically and, and in contemporary times. for example, the University of Michigan board has, specific committee, uh, for healthcare. And, and that tracks'cause we have a really big health system. Whereas at another university that doesn't have a health system, you might not see that. So some of the, um, kind of priorities and interests of the board are also reflected in the committee structure, and that's another good way to kind of get to know a board if you're, um, not as familiar

Vineeta Singh:

Right. That makes so much sense. I guess my follow up questions would be about composition and turnover. So like with turnover, thinking about are there any term limits in place? Um, do governors just come in and change the whole board every four years or, you know, at private institution are folks just kind of waiting for existing trustees to, um, die and then get replaced. And then, uh, in terms of composition, Dr. Rall, I know you mentioned business and politics are maybe two major fields that are often represented on boards. And I know you mentioned, uh, student representatives, that sounds, incredibly exciting. If you could speak a little bit more about how common that is and what other types of folks might be represented on these boards.

Raquel Rall:

Yeah, I mean, those are all great questions that I think everyone is still grappling with. We don't have perfect answers, but traditionally, as Dr. Morgan sort of laid out, most public institutions, their boards are gubernatorial appointed, meaning you know, the governor and sometimes there's like a legislature confirmation, other times there's not There traditionally has been no rhyme or reason how folks get to be appointed on the board, believe it or not. Like there are very few qualifications that we've ever seen you know, I had one joke with me sometimes. Oh, I went to school kindergarten with Billy, who's the governor now, right? And when he became governor, he asked me if I wanna do this thing. It's like, huh. And obviously that's reducing it, right? Like that sort of, but it really is sometimes just who you know, who knows you but sometimes we've seen, like I've seen in my state in California where, you know, a Republican governor appointed someone, and then the Democratic governor reappointed that same person. So for me at the UC, right? They get 12 year terms, which is one of the longest. In the nation to have a 12 year term for something and to get reappointed. So you think if someone who's been there for 24 years, the numbers of of presidents, system heads, chancellor, all these things, tuition changes they've been able to oversee and have their hands in, right? Is, is astronomical. So I think it's really important. I think about, and sometimes if you think about community colleges, we haven't really brought them up there's a lot of elections oftentimes, or by districts, right? So there are different ways that these things are, are structured. So there is even more politics there because folks are vying for votes, right? And it's a little bit more open facing so yes. About composition. Uh, Dr. Morgan and I did this article with, uh, Dr. Chait just thinking about board alignment, you know, their composition versus the composition of students because, the board is supposed to be representative of community society in which that institution is. And so that means different things if you're in, you know, Iowa versus if you're at the HBCU. traditionally though, if you're thinking of the, the grand scheme of things, board members have traditionally been older, white, wealthy men. And so that's not hyperbole. That's what everyone will say. They'll say it in different ways. But that's the facts. And that's traditionally because if you think about how higher education started and who it was for is for, you know, white wealthy men. And so often when we're thinking about how do folks get on the board, it's, again, it's who, you know, if you think about the majority of governors in the United States are white men, right? We, we seldom ever have a woman, we seldom ever have a person of color and they're doing the appointments right? So often this continues with this cycle. Young folks are also in the minority on that. So most board members are like 60 plus. and so you think about how education has changed. Those folks are not looking at the same types of institutions in which they went. Sometimes composition also, includes alumni. Sometimes there are. Specific spots for alumni Regents, there's exofficio roles. So like in California, like Lieutenant Governor, gets a spot on the board, right? Like if you're the, um, a faculty rep, you might get a spot on the board. Sometimes, oddly enough, governors have a, a seat on the board, and so it's this really weird thing that they're supposed to be able to make decisions apart from them, but they're actually on the board. as well. Still have the chancellor, the president of the institution on a board, have a seat on a board and So there's so much nuance. Uh, to that point, most boards don't have students, I think the last number I, I saw when I looked was about 70% or so our boards have maybe a student representative with or without a vote. And so that's typically either one student or two students. When you think about the other layperson trustees, there's a lot more so the, the students are always in the minority, right? And their terms are obviously. More truncated because we want students to graduate. Like that's what we want. We don't want them to be there forever. We very seldom have folks who have higher education expertise on the board, which again is very strange thinking about, we want people to be able to govern higher education in the institution, right? And so we wouldn't want people, like if we thought about Nike, we wouldn't have folks who dunno about money, who maybe didn't know about shoe. You know, on the board. Um, but that's typically what we do have in higher education. People who understand finance, who understand business, who understand networking, but they don't necessarily understand the really unique nature of higher education, which is like nothing else, right? And so, um, when you talk about term limits, most boards do have term limits in certain ways. This is more so on the public, side, right? And so it's like a four year or six year term. And then you can renew that term sometimes that you could be on the board again. Sometimes they have it where you can't, or you have this. Have a stint where you're off and then you can come back. Right. But there are also some boards, especially at the private side that don't have term limits. So you could just be on there forever. Or you have boards where they have a hundred people on the board. It's like, how could you ever make a decision with a hundred people? Right? So we do have some sense of like a smaller board is better, around 20 people, less than 30 is better. than having a hundred people, right? When you have a more diverse board, and that's not just, about phenotype, right? It's not just by race, but it's also by gender. It's also by, socioeconomic status by geography, where people are, age is a big thing, profession. So there needs to be some diversity in that because all those folks are sort of bringing in that expertise into conversations which matter, right? What we often talk about when we do our research for governing boards is that you need to speak to your specific institution and where you are and what works and what is representative of that place. And I think that that's a really important thing because people often say, well, what's the best way? And it's like, there's no one best way because everything is different in all these different places or so many different institution types, whether you're in a system or you're not in a system, whether you're, at a Jesuit institution or a women institution or, you know, like you have all these different histories and things and so you have to really speak to your specific place and your nuance and your moment. So yeah,

Vineeta Singh:

Okay. So can you maybe help us figure out what. An advisory role means in this context. I mean, how much power do boards have? Should we be thinking about them as pretty powerful or are we thinking of them as more of a rubber stamp? What. Is, uh, the sort of most useful and most accurate way to think about the kind of, uh, leadership that might be happening through boards of governance?

Demetri Morgan:

Yeah, it's, it is an important question and I'm, I'm glad you asked.'cause I, I think this is one of the places where how Dr. Rall and I come at this work starts to diverge, um, with a lot of our colleagues and other people's perspective. So w e, think of boards as very powerful, entities. They have a lot of latent power that is not always used and activated, but it is still there for their, their use. Um, and that comes back to that fiduciary role that, Dr. Rall was talking about earlier, which is ultimately the Board is responsible for the sustainability and longevity of the institution When the institution gets sued. The board members get sued, right? If you think of some of the most ho high profile cases like Jerry Sandusky at Penn State, it was individual trustees and the chancellor who were named in that, terrible situation, that terrible lawsuit. Um, even though there were lots of people involved, the athletics program, the people who were actually implicated at the end of the day were, the trustees of Penn State. So when we talk about it from a legal standpoint, a financial standpoint of like who is on the line at the institution, who's responsible for signing contracts, who's responsible for granting tenure? It is the trustees or the regents. They delegate that power to other entities, to work on behalf of them. But just like with any delegated power, if and when they want to assert that from their vantage point, they, they can. So tenure is a good example. So sure you can, um, rubber stamp the, the recommendation of the dean, the provost, the the president, and just kind of see it as a perfunctory step. But tenure is conferred by the institution and, and therefore it is conferred by the board. And so we take a very, expansive understanding of the power of the board. Um, it's one of the reasons, especially in, the rolling back of diversity, equity, inclusion, why a lot of our scholarship was like, Hey, if we don't get the boards on board, so to speak, with understanding and really appreciating diversity, equity, inclusion, and its complexity, all of this could easily be rolled back. And it was one of those things where it's like we were, unfortunately, right? And, and it's one of those things that we wish we kept being wrong, but, but some of our work, we couldn't get published. Like people just like the board doesn't matter to this. It's the faculty, it's the administrators who are responsible for advancing DEI, the board is removed. We were like, no, like. They, they can be really consequential. Um, and we want them to understand and really appreciate this work the nuances and the realities of diversity, equity, inclusion work for faculty, for an administrators, And our argument has always been how much benefit could they be if they did understand it? But now we're seeing the, the counter argument is how much damage they can do when they, when they don't. So I think that undergirds, why we take a really, um. Expansive. We, we always try to couch that though with the, the board needs to be in partnership with other stakeholders throughout the community. Um, you know, we don't want board members involved in the weeds of the institution. We don't want the board, asserting itself in ways, um, that are harmful to faculty, staff, and students. Staff. We want a healthy consensual partnership where the board provides its strengths to the institution and all the other constituents and stakeholders provide its strengths. in this really synergistic way when everybody understands their role, has appreciation for what other people are doing across the university. People have appreciation for what the board can do and it's healthy. Uh, but we always say, we always get asked like, who's doing that well? And we're like, nobody obviously. Like, if there were boards who were doing this well, it would be much more evident, but. That balance is really hard to, to strike where boards are playing their fiduciary role, understand their responsibility, delegated well, but are not so aloof that they aren't disengaged. And then when they wanna get engaged, and again, DEI is such a a, an unfortunate example where they were aloof, they were disengaged, and then they got activated and they got activated on terms that have been really harmful to a lot of institutions and a, and a lot of constituents. And, you actually want the board to understand and be involved and understand their unique role What is the appropriate and consensual role for the board to play with other partners that are involved. Knowing that they do have a lot of latent power and they can exert it whenever they want to exert it as a collective. And so instead of just shunning them and thinking that they're just, you know, donors or people who are aloof, who only show up on campus six, six a year actually appreciating the, the roles that they have and the work that they can do, and bringing them in closer as partners, helping educate them, helping them see the value of the different work or the different concepts that we hold dearly. And making sure that they can also be defenders and advocates and proponents of some of the things that we think make higher education unique instead of having hostility towards it'cause they don't understand it or they don't see it's value add or the case hasn't been made with them involved. It's just been made to them. and we're seeing the fruits of, the wrong strategy with board members over their, over the last decade.

Raquel Rall:

Yeah, I, I mean, Without boards, no improvements or changes that are great, can be maximized or will be sustained. Right. It's sort of like they are part of this team and like, so for so long, They took a more passive role. But I think in recent years, last decade when we saw not only the Sandusky scandal, but the admission scandal, you know, uh, varsity blues and all these different places when boards were then sprung into the limelight and we're like, well, what, what are these boards doing? And Nicole Hannah Jones, tenure, tenure denial. Right? All these different things we saw like. Huh? They, they do have a role to play And you can think of them, I think as, as you can think of any role, like, um, do parents really matter? Teachers really matter. The really great ones do and the really bad ones do as well, right? you can sort of coast and it'll be fine. If nothing bad happens to your institution, great board, right? But if something hits a fan, it's really bad. It's like, if you're not great board members, then we're in a problem, right? I don't know that boards think of themselves in that way, but I think that that's sort of the best analogy I can get is sort of like the people who are more intentional in their roles, they're great, right? Like, I'm a mom of four, and so it's like I could sit here and let my kids play iPad all the time, right? And they'd probably be fine. They'd grow up, they'd grow, you know, and do all these different things. But will they have all the experiences they need to have, will they be able to do all these different things? And I think boards of that are in a, in a really critical position to maybe make sure that institutions are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing. They're holding other folks accountable. Demetri and I talk a lot about. Asking those pivotal questions.'cause that's the number one sort of tool, board tab. Are they asking the right questions of the right people at the right time to make sure folks are being accountable and they're knowing that someone is watching? Right? This is when a lot of stuff goes awry when folks don't think that anyone is watching. And then so. Folks are sort of just going along But there is a role they have to play. There is intentionality that has to go with that. There is work. and we talk about, you know, is your board a barrier to what's happening on campus? Is your board an inhibitor? Right? Are you sort of a, a bystander? Are you a catalyzer to some of these things or are you an initiator? And so people often think of boards are supposed to be at this high level, which they are. They're not on the day-to-day on the, the, the street level, right? That sort of thing. You know, and we talked earlier about students, I've often found the students are some of the most engaged board members because they often feel like they have this thing to prove because they're junior to a lot of these folks. They don't have these great accolades. And so they're talking about their reading, their board book and advance. People are looking to them to respond. So you could passively go through the role, but you can also be very great at the role, right. And have people know that you're, you're about the business, uh, of the board. And so I think when you ask the question of how powerful are they, um. Very powerful. And then sometimes you don't know until they flex, right? Like, but if someone can deny tenure and, and change the trajectory of, of a person's career, that's pretty powerful. If someone is determining who's gonna be the next chancellor or president or the face of an institution, that's pretty powerful. If someone can determine whether or not we're gonna go bankrupt or stay in the black, that I'd say that's pretty powerful. We have board members that are deciding, which, uh. Conference people are going into, and for all the sports lovers, right? Like if you're gonna go from the Pac 12 to the A, c, c, good, bad, or ugly, right? Like, that is determined by the board. That's a board decision. These things matter, right? Like if you think about, um, are we gonna remove buildings or change the names of buildings because they, they carry things from slavery that's a board decision. And so when people say boards don't matter as much, like obviously you can hear it in my voice, I, I don't understand what they're thinking about. It's because they don't understand how universities work. And I do think that that's a disservice. And I, I, you know, Dr. Morgan talked about that. We have to know more about what all the different parts are supposed to do. Like the left needs know what the right hand is supposed to be doing. And oftentimes boards are not that, right? The people don't know the power in which they wield. also boards don't even understand the gravity of. Of what they have to do because they sort of just model what the person next to them is doing, because there's also very little board orientation and training, which I think is also problematic when we think about these things because they have to learn what the institution is. They have to learn what they're supposed to do. They have to learn about how their votes are. Dr. Morgan talked about committees, but then there's also sort of like the closed sessions, and so there's open sessions and closed sessions, and so there's deals that are happening there, or when they're having coffee or when they're on the golf course, like there's so much nuance to this role. And so I think it's, it's a simple answer to your question. Yes, boards are very powerful. Um, and it just depends on how they implement that power.

Vineeta Singh:

This terminology of latent power, I think is so incredibly useful to me to help visualize sort of the power of, uh, boards of governance rate. Um, I'm kind of thinking about, you know, how the vice president approving the election results is technically a rubber stamp, but the withholding of that rubber stamp actually results in a constitutional crisis, right? So it's kind of this latent power that we don't really have to think about until we really, really have to think about it. Right. Okay. So my next question is about communication. I'm thinking about the folks who are on these boards not having a background in higher education, right? I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of these folks, uh, don't have higher education expertise, and in fact, that's why they're selected, right? To bring that outsider perspective. But at the same time, I would hope that their. doing the work to sort of inform themselves. And, um, at the same time, I imagine they also have a day job and are running a business or representing a constituency and they have pretty full plates, right? They might not have the kind of time that we would hope for them to have to really become experts in the thing that they're doing. So how does the average board member go about becoming informed? Also since most of our listeners are, you know, academic workers where students, faculty, staff at universities, uh, it seems like it's pretty important for us to understand how to communicate our needs and. Our wants and our visions for what higher education should be to the board. What are some good ways of doing that?

Demetri Morgan:

Yeah. I I love this question. This is, an existential question that as academic laborers and as the higher ed community, we need to really innovate and rethink, So the, the technical answer is some public boards, uh, will have kind of open comment time, similar to, um, how a town hall might, might operate, or, where, you know, you get two minutes of, of time, you have to sort of pre-register and you can share your, your information. Um, but it's very one way, right? So like Demetri signs up, he says like, Hey, I think there should be, better food in the dining hall. please don't renew the contract with, uh, Chartwells. and the board, listens. They might ask questions very, very rarely do they. Um, but that is one form. Others will have kind of open comments. Some institutions have the board members', um, emails, so there's kind of some of the typical ways that we've come to interact with public officials board. Some boards have those mechanisms available to the campus community, um, as well. But I would say that more often than not, it's gonna be one way asynchronous communication. some of the best things that I've seen in my research are actually from student reporters who will do kind of a summary after a board, uh, meeting and, and publish something in the campus newspaper of Sometimes boards themselves will put out summaries of, of what they've done that I've seen over the years, but it's, it's very. Hodgepodge, there's no kind of systematic way of communicating. And it gets even harder once you go into the private school realm, They're, they're volunteers. We always remind people they're not getting paid. Some places they are elected. But in most places, they're, they're not. So what is that mechanism? What should that look like? What are the, what are the experiments that we think are working well? Um, and, and the question you're asking, I think is one that we need to be asking more and then trying out different things to see, does this help open up our understanding of board members? does it help board members feel a responsibility to communicate and to share what's, what's going on in more transparent ways? But I think often people see nothing and then just assume that the nefarious board members, you know, making decisions on our behalf. and of course some of that happens, but I think more often than not, it's just not a muscle we've exercised on either side, like of people wanting to share and engage with the board and of board members wanting to communicate out. And that's why I think there's a, a lot of room for, for innovation. And then the other thing I'll say, cause it's related, is that, uh, Dr. Rall mentioned this. What we know about board members is that they have, a spectrum of, of an orientation they're selected or appointed or elected, and then they go through, you know, for some people it's like a couple of emails that say, Hey, you're on the board now. Make sure you fill out your conflict of interest forms. And now that's the extent of their training. Um, so there is no communication training, there is no expectation of how they're interrelating with the campus community. Um, and then in terms of ongoing training and development, that is very, um, at their own, interest of the, the board member. So there's lots of board members who are like, I actually want to be really good at this. I care about this institution either because I went there or because it's in my community, uh, and I want to be good at this. And so. They take it up on themselves. Uh, but the, the other kind of big point is that boards have to act as a collective. So, even if you have one really good board member or a few that are really interested in communicating well and want to be out there, they can't speak for the board unless the board fully signs off on that. And so it also is stifling a little bit, even when you have board members who do wanna be a little bit more engaged, they have to be really careful that they're not, suggesting that what they're saying or thinking is on behalf of the board, because that's a position that the institution is then taking. So they have to be really careful. So it also serves as a stifling, again, not necessarily for nefarious reasons, but just like mechanically and logistically. How do I communicate as an individual trustee when what we're supposed to be doing is as a collective? and that creates, again, hesitation to say something or to be more engaged, um, because you're kind of operating a whole, imagine if Congress people couldn't say anything unless everybody in Congress agreed with it. Fox News would be out of business. But, you know, that's how a lot of board members approach their work. Like, I can't say anything as an individual, I have to speak on behalf of the board. Um, and that's usually done through the board chair. and so it, it doesn't allow for as much touch points.

Raquel Rall:

And, and it's really hard at a lot of institutions, like if you try to Google contact information, you, you can't find it for a lot of board members sometimes. I, I have seen in the last five years or so where they're more open facing. Like you can get a picture now, maybe an email or at least says, go to the board secretary. But a decade ago it was really hard to even find like, who are, who's on the board. it was very hard. And I think that there's intentionality in that because again, very important folks and they, there is some protective factors of that. But, thinking about what's the best way for boards to receive information? And there is no great way, right? Like there are some board members looking at TikTok, believe it or not, to try to understand what's happening with higher education. So this is something we're wrestling with with our project as well. It's like. Is it a podcast? Is it a one pager? Is it this weekly briefing? Like, what are the easiest ways for folks to internalize some information, right? And It's hard to, pinpoint one great way. And I, I think that's something that we do need to kind of focus on more is, is what is the best way to help folks who have a job, who meet episodically, who really do want the best for the institutions, who don't have the expertise, who come from all walks of life to really understand, here's what you need to know, here's how we go forth, and that sort of thing. And it's even more complicated in today's times when folks are drinking out of a literal fire hose, right? Sometimes because the world is on fire. And then they're also trying to think about long-term planning, Like it's hard to be a board member because you have to be both doing the sprint and thinking about the marathon at the same time You have to necessarily think about every decision I make today is gonna impact the decisions that are gonna happen decades from now, right? And so I need to make sure that we are on, you know, making sound decisions on behalf of the institution.

Vineeta Singh:

So I did want to ask you, I think this is kind of what the whole interview has been building up to, because this is a theme that's come up in many episodes that we've recorded so far in many conversations that we've had is how many of us are feeling, you know, not necessarily lost individually, but definitely a float institutionally because people in leadership roles seem not to be taking on the onus of leadership. So I do wanna make sure I ask, What that move towards courageous leadership might look like in this moment, and how might we, as academic workers help our board members to be more courageous and be more principled in their actions as board members?

Raquel Rall:

So courageous leadership right now is just what leadership, good leadership has always been, but now like the outside world makes it seem like it's not. So for board members, it's really sustain the course. Stick to the mission. If your mission has been about access, diversity, belonging, you need to do that work, right? Just because people are now saying that it's not popular but that's what your mission is like. That's literally your job, right? It's, it's made me, it's more challenging because of the circumstances. Right. But their job has remained their job. And so these fiduciary duties and roles and responsibilities that the board has had, have always been, those duties have always been those things. And so I think it's just. Do your job right? Stanley Fish has this book we had to read when I was in the PhD program. It's like, save the world in your own time. But it's like, do your job, don't let anyone else do your job and don't do it anyone else's job. So boards have to do their job and they can't allow politics, politicians or anyone else to do their job and try to do it for them, right? And so that in of itself is courageous leadership right now. That's courageous governance right now is simply staying the course. we're not asking boards to do anything that's illegal. We're not asking them to do anything that's outside of their job we're asking them to do. What they've been tasked to do. Nothing really legal has happened to higher education, right? Like these changes that people are, are thinking that are gonna make, we, we can't be scared, right? Like, we've talked about this in some of the materials that we've put out. It's like, unless there's a legal act that's made to tell you you have to change, don't make changes. What is the difference between how you were doing business? Now we're in June, so let's say seven months ago. Have y'all completely changed where you're not the same institution where now you need to be doing business differently than you were before. And most times folks will like, will say no, it's just a different person in office. And so now we're afraid, right? We need to do better as leaders to help people understand that if the funding gets cut, regardless of what your political affiliation is, that could also mean impacts on your healthcare. That could mean impacts on your, um, business, right? Like what's happening in your communities. Because a lot of our institutions also serve our regions, or especially our regional institutions, right? Like people who are getting funded and who are going to get these degrees are then coming right back into the communities and working in that particular area. I think higher education in general and leaders in general need to do a better job of helping everyone, not just people who are going to higher education Understand that they too benefit from higher education. College may not be for, for everyone, but you do benefit from what's happening at these institutions, especially the R one institutions, right, that are producing research that are looking for cures to cancer. You know, I, I jokingly talk about my campus at uc, Riverside, there wouldn't be a cutie that everyone knows what a little cutie, the orange cutie is without UCR, right? And think about places that are doing avocado. Everyone eats these things. So it's not a just a higher ed problem. It's a society problem, right? We have to think about that collectivity more and more if we wanna be considered courageous, because it's harder to kind of pluck all of us off if we're unified and if we're together. I've really been disappointed in institutions that are changing graduation ceremonies that you can't have a black grad or rasa grad, anymore. And it's like, well, what is it? HARM folks, right? courageous leadership is thinking about what is actually legal, what isn't? What are we just doing because we're afraid and we're anticipating, This repressive legalism,

Demetri Morgan:

Yeah. And, uh, I'll just add that the project we've been referring to, so, uh, Dr. All and I, um, in this past year, um, launched the Center for Strategic and Inclusive Governance, which is really focused on becoming a go-to resource and hub for board members and those that work with them, board professionals, uh, senior leaders, and based on everything that Dr. Rall just mentioned. One of the things that has become really clear to us that not that many people will always say out loud is, is that one, this work is really hard and complex. and that there are often, gaps in understanding or information about how to do those things. We start from the premise that a board member doesn't understand or know what academic freedom is, and we try to make the affirmative case to say, here is this. This principle that we think is really important, here's what it means from your perspective as a board member and doing some of what we call the translational work to say, here are these values, here are these things. How do we translate it for a board member to help them understand What is it? why do people care about it? Why does it matter? And what role can the board member play in, in advancing or potentially harming this, this work on, on a given college campus? our project is really designed to take up that issue and start to fill some of these gaps, some of, of the work that we're pointing to, but also trying to point to other really great work that's out there, um, that is tackling these issues and helping board members. We talk a lot about their information appetite, right? Like what are they taking in about higher ed? and is it healthy? Is it balanced? Is it, the types of things that we think should be in front of them that they should be consuming? that helps them make be better decision makers. And knowing that even as somebody that's in higher ed that, you know, eats drinks and sleeps higher ed, it's overwhelming for me. How much more is it gonna be overwhelming for somebody who, again, is well intentioned but isn't thinking about this all the time? So how can we do some of that translational work? How can we point them to resources, to people, to thinkers, that are really activating, you know, and pushing higher ed forward in different ways and getting that information to them. And, and we think that's really important because if you think it's missing, we think the same sort of tired information gets circulated and translated of how we should do this. And we're seeing it right now, right? Like everybody should just kind of. Hide and don't say anything and hope that the administration doesn't pick on you. That's like the playbook that's being passed around right now. and it's not serving, all institutions Well, and, and in the same way. So how do we get different ideas out there of different ways that, this can be approached and normalize it as like, hey, there are other ways of approaching governance issues than the kind of same old, tired playbooks that we've seen. And, you know, one of the things that we always try to honor is that a lot of the critiques of higher ed are based in truth, right? Like if you talk to most people on campus, nobody was, a hundred percent happy with how diversity, equity, and inclusion was playing out. So there's some kernel of truths, but where we differ is on what we do next after that, right? Some people say throw it away, and other people say no, like radically reform it. And other people say no, like systematically reform it. That's a conversation that the board should be shepherding, that they should say. Like, yeah, what are the, the different ways of understanding and thinking about this and going. In one direction in imposing it, because that's what people outside of the institution are, are saying is, is not helpful. That's not playing that, that kind of long-term sustaining role that board should play. But having a robust and rigorous sort of thoughtful way of thinking about what is our gonna be, our approach and strategy to academic freedom to share governance. What does our relationship look like with our faculty senate and is it serving us well in this moment? Those are questions that the board should be asking. And so we're trying to help them understand that there are other ways of approaching this. they've yet to be tried out at the scale and level, but just because they're, they're not, executed yet doesn't mean that they can't lead to really helpful and productive alternatives for institutions. And so we're, we're inviting people into that conversation with us and in other. groups that are also trying to push people to say like, there's other ways that we can be navigating, through this and, and, but we need to have the courage and, and also the imagination that there are other ways that to be approaching this thing, um, kind of the same old tire playbooks.

Vineeta Singh:

And now that I know that, trustees are getting their news from TikTok, I look forward to seeing you all there, uh, educating us.

Raquel Rall:

Um, yeah, we had someone who was like, y'all need to make a TikTok, and I was like, oh my gosh. Like this is where we are. But I mean, to our point, and this is why we made this website, is sort of, we need to have a place where we can sort of funnel all sorts of things and kind of meet people where they are. And if someone else has a really cool TikTok, we could post it on there as well. We sort of see our site as a starting point to kind of let people go down the rabbit hole however far they want to go. But there hasn't been a place like that. There hasn't been something like that, that has been open access where people can sort of see all different. Kinds of approaches to this, whether it's a scholarly article or a magazine article or just a report or, or whatever the case may be. So we're really excited about it and know it's like when we launch it it's not gonna be exhaustive, but we're gonna continue to build it. And we are also, what's cool is that we're partner with other folks. It's like, send us something that you would say, right? Like, and so that's then there. And so I think that that collaborative nature is something that we think is important Our big thing is we want folks to know more about boards and, and how boards work and how universities work. And so I think we wanna encourage folks to be curious.'cause often folks think like they don't need to know about how universities work. But they do, and, and it matters. Like Demetri and I both teach courses about governance and different things, and I, I'm always surprised by how many people after the course who started out knowing nothing after the course of like. I'm gonna ask about this. I've had students who are saying they've tried to be the student region for our system after that because they're like, I need a voice and I need to do these different things. And so I think folks think it's not a topic, um, that they wanna know or need to know about, or that it might be boring or that sort of thing. But I, I just encourage them to know how interesting it is and how connected it is to so many things that are happening on campus. When you talked about, you know, protests or free speech, uh, how professors get tenure, you know, all these things that matter and are happening at our campuses, there's a connection back to the board. And so I, I, I just really want to just say, encourage people, whether it's through our site or other sites, really try to have an understanding of, of how institutions work.

Demetri Morgan:

I think that's really important. Perfect.

Vineeta Singh:

Alright. Thank you all so much. So that's it for our conversation with Raquel Rawl and Demetri Martin. The web resource they spoke about That's Strategic inclusive governance.org. They've also shared a short description that I'll read now. CSIG equips higher education boards and leaders with research informed tools for mission center decision making. It's training programs, open access, resource hub, and rapid response guides, bridge scholarship and practice helping institutions navigate challenges and advance student success. And that website one more time is strategic inclusive governance.org, and you'll find a link to it in our show notes today, just in case you're not a hundred percent sure on how to spell governance. I do hope you check it out. I hope you're feeling curious about the members of your own board and that you're inspired to look into them a bit more. Another wonderful resource that I point students to when they're wanting to power Map our institutions is little cis.org. That's an open source database that tracks who knows who, so it can be a good way to learn more about your board members and where their interests lie. That's little sis.org. It's the opposite of Big Brother. And so I guess that's the homework I'm gonna leave you with this month. Get curious about your boards and go learn more about them at Little SIS and strategic inclusive governance.org. Thanks for listening to AAUP Presents Academic Freedom on the line with me, Vineeta Singh.