The politics of shared governance and the higher education crisis
Editor's note: This story was updated to correct the grounds upon which a vote was taken. We regret the error.
Critically important democratic institutions across the country, ones you might not have known even existed, are under threat. As the higher education crisis deepens, university administrators and state legislatures are increasingly looking to undermine potential critics and eliminate challenges to their authority.
A bill seeking to limit the power of shared governance organizations at public universities, including the University of Arizona's faculty senate, is moving through the Arizona legislature. The bill went through the Arizona House of Representatives in late February, passed the Senate Education Committee with a 4-3 vote in late March and will likely pass the State Senate soon.
Along similar lines, last month, University of Kentucky President Eli Capilouto proposed dissolving the faculty senate and, per Inside Higher Ed, transferring “the faculty-dominated body’s policy-making power to the board of trustees.” If the proposal goes forward, faculty power to make university policy would be reduced to a mere “advisory” role.
Shared governance describes a form of political organization unique to higher education in which faculty, students and staff work with the administration to govern the university. But, unlike the administration, where officials are appointed and organized hierarchically into a rigid chain of command, shared governance organizations are more democratic in their structure and operations.
They are typically comprised of elected representatives with term limits, bound by constitutions and/or bylaws that carefully set out guidelines designed to protect the rights and freedoms of their members and undertake decision-making via dialogue, debate, deliberation and voting.
They are also responsible for recommendations regarding high-level university administrators, including presidents. The University of Arizona's faculty senate recently called attention to the institution's $177 million deficit and passed a "no confidence" vote on President Robert C. Robbins related to a campus security issue.
Philipp Rosemann, president of the American Association of University Professors’ United Kingdom chapter, said the university's moves are “a transformation of shared governance into a top-down structure in which all authority is vested with the board of trustees and the administration.”
I’m a faculty member at the University of Colorado Denver currently serving a two-year, elected term as the chair of our faculty assembly.
Faculty assembly is a body of elected representatives that executes and administers rights provided by Article 5 of the University of Colorado's Laws of the Regents. This includes "primary responsibility” for decisions about "pedagogy, curriculum, research, scholarly or creative work, academic ethics, and recommendations on the selection and evaluation of faculty.” It regularly collaborates with other faculty, administrators, staff and students.
Yet, even in a 4-year public university system like mine, where shared governance is often strongest, the power to make decisions mostly lies with chancellors, provosts, deans, department heads and the like.
One of the most difficult roles for shared governance organizations is monitoring and assessing campus leadership and demanding transparency and accountability when necessary. This is partly because we have no direct authority over our bosses and partly because calling attention to perceived mistakes or wrongdoing is risky. The possibility of retaliation looms large, especially for untenured faculty and staff. Because of this, faculty are often reluctant to criticize the administration openly.
I say this so readers understand that when they see faculty assemblies and senates making headlines for critiquing members of their administration, it’s not because we like to see our names in print. It’s because people with a lot of courage felt they had an ethical and professional obligation to speak up and had no other options.
While the day-to-day work of shared governance organizations is typically hidden from the public’s view, these odd little institutions' importance comes into starker focus during trying times like the University of Arizona’s budget crisis.
Mark Stegman, a University of Arizona professor and faculty senate member, told the Arizona Daily Star the faculty senate has no control over the budget and “the university administration is a large, substantially unsupervised, bureaucracy.” This is an excellent way of understanding the importance of shared governance — as a set of democratic micro-institutions helping to monitor and supervise higher education bureaucracies.
Early this month, Robbins announced that he will step down from his post by 2026 when his contract expires, or sooner if the Arizona Board of Regents finds a replacement.
The day before his announcement, University of Arizona faculty senate chair Leila Hudson spoke passionately on behalf of faculty affected by Robbins’s fiscal mismanagement, detailing how colleagues were “retiring earlier,” “looking for other work and watching [our] valued colleagues depart.”
“Morale is terrible and the personal stories of staff and faculty who have been terminated or anticipate terminations are painful to read,” Hudson continued.
For decades, faculty have warned about the costs of running universities like corporate dictatorships, administrative and bureaucratic bloat and prioritizing revenues, brand recognition and donor relations over educational quality, student well-being and decent working conditions for faculty and staff. What little resistance there is to these discouraging trends comes mostly from shared governance organizations.
I don’t think Americans want to see what universities become without them. I know I don’t.
Sasha Breger Bush, Ph.D. is an associate professor of Political Science, the author of numerous books and articles on political economy, and chair of the University of Colorado Denver faculty assembly.