The bill landed on Landry’s desk on May 31 after flying through the state legislature with strong Republican support. Sponsored by Republican senator Valarie Hodges, the controversial bill reflects a growing push from conservative lawmakers to exercise greater influence in higher education governance. Critics, however, have raised concerns that the legislation could be an overstep that threatens public institutions’ accreditation status and with it, their ability to receive crucial federal funding.

The bill first passed the Senate with an initial vote of 28 to 10 on May 7 before easily getting through the House on May 28, receiving amendments that only further reinforced gubernatorial power.

Experts predicted that when it went back to the Senate for re-approval, the lawmakers would reject the amendments and send it to a conference committee for further discussion. But Senate president Cameron Henry, a Republican who had previously doubted the bill’s progression, told The Louisiana Illuminator that senators got more comfortable with the proposal once they learned it only applied to boards for which the governor appoints a majority of members.

Mary Papazian, executive vice president of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), was disappointed to see such strong political support for the bill, noting that it removes the ability for the board to choose its own chair.

“The chair is often selected because the person is well-respected among their peers and is able to facilitate discussion amongst the board,” she said. “If the chair is seen as partisan, it could undermine their authority amongst board members.”

Papazian also expressed concern that the bill could threaten institutional autonomy and undermine board members’ ability to adhere to their fiduciary duties.

“Boards think independently and act collectively, and partisan agendas can imperil an institution’s long-term success … While boards should seek input from many different sources, including lawmakers, they also have a legal duty to protect their institutions from any influence that may conflict with the priorities that the board has established in collaboration with the president,” Papazian said.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), the accrediting body for Louisiana’s public universities, requires that governing boards for its accredited institutions remain free from undue external influence.

Rosalind Fuse-Hall, director of legal and governmental affairs at SACSCOC, declined to provide Inside Higher Ed a full analysis before Landry signed the legislation, but said the bill “as passed by both chambers and sent to the Governor could raise questions regarding an institution’s compliance with standards of the Principles of Accreditation.”

The SACSCOC Board of Trustees makes the final decision on accreditation-related actions at its June and December meetings. But as Fuse-Hall told The Illuminator, determining a violation of the principles is not as simple as a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Even if the rule does not violate accreditation standards on its face, the law could lead to the board being undermined by external force, and that would be a violation, which could lead to loss of accreditation, Papazian said. Colleges and universities that aren’t accredited can’t receive federal funding under Title IV of the Higher Education act.

Fuse-Hall was careful to note that although SACSCOC is a “gatekeeper” of sorts for federal financial aid, it doesn’t have the final say.

“Whether this bill will jeopardize an institution’s federal financial aid is a decision that is made by the federal student aid office and not SACSCOC,” she said.

According to The Illuminator, Hodges doesn’t deny that the intentions behind the bill are political. “We need to align policy initiatives on the boards and commissions with the Republican governor that we elected to get the job done,” she said.

Michael Poliakoff, president and CEO of the conservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni supports the bill.

“Given the urgency of major reforms, it is reasonable for the governor, who is responsible for the public institutions in his/her state, to select the person who will lead the board,” he said.

In previous comments to local news media, Governor Landry said the bill is about ensuring accountability—that taxpayer dollars invested in higher education result in positive outcomes.

“This fight is all about universities,” he said in an April interview with WAFB-TV. “The people of this state are ready for these universities to start taking some responsibility for putting out students that are graduating with degrees that they can’t even get a job for.”

Other state governors have made similar moves to gain greater authority over higher education boards. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has taken aim at “woke activism” by pushing legislation to defund DEI, and using a swath of board member replacements to drive a conservative overhaul of New College of Florida. He also signed off on a bill that undercut transparency in presidential searches; several Republican lawmakers have since been tapped to lead Florida colleges.

And in Virginia, a controversial memo sent from Attorney General Jason Miyares to Governor Glenn Youngkin unequivocally stated that by law the university board members have a “primary duty” to the commonwealth and therefore the governor. Democrats in the legislature tried to counter the governor’s assertion through a bill that would let universities hire their own counsel and not have to default to counsel provided by the Attorney General’s office. But that was quickly vetoed.

This post appeared on Inside Higher Ed on June 6, 2024

The post Louisiana Governor Gains More Control Over College Boards appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The public university launched the Office of Campus Resources and Support on Jan. 1, one day after shuttering its Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in response to the DEI ban.

At the time, UT Dallas said the new office was created to comply with the law, and it was not just a rebrand, web archives show.

But now, the new office is gone, too.

It closed April 30 “as a result” of continued efforts to comply with Senate Bill 17, university President Richard Benson said in a statement shared with The College Fix.

The law, which has led to similar closures at other Texas universities, prohibits DEI programs at public higher education institutions and the use of “race, sex, color, or ethnicity” as factors in hiring practices.

However, some universities have appeared to comply with the state law by simply renaming their DEI offices.

Brittany Magelssen, university communications director, declined to answer The Fix’s questions about the school’s efforts to ensure there are no DEI offices or staff, its hiring practices, and the reaction to the closure from students on campus. She pointed to The Fix to Benson’s statement.

Magelssen also did not respond to two follow-up requests for comment this week asking for more information about the closure and the university’s response to those who say it looks as if the newly closed office was just the DEI office renamed.

In his statement, Benson said administrators decided to close the four-month-old office as they continue to “evaluate our SB 17 response and how to realign many of the programs impacted by the legislation.”

Benson said about 20 jobs will be eliminated. He also said the decision “will not be welcomed by many in our campus community” and he will continue to ensure that UT Dallas is a “supportive community.”

On its website, the university said it created the Office of Campus Resources and Support “to ensure UT Dallas can continue to meet the needs of our campus community in a manner that is fully compliant with SB 17,” according to web archives. The webpage recently was removed.

The office “is entirely separate and new” and “will lead activities that are SB 17 compliant,” it stated, adding it is not just the DEI office “renamed.”

According to web archives, the university stated it was still working to determine “the entire scope” of the new office, but its “mission will include enhancing student community-building and supporting employees and employee resource groups.”

One of the office’s projects was to help “facilitate opportunities to foster a welcoming university climate through professional development, employee engagement, and student and employee success initiatives,” according to web archives.

Steve McGuire, a fellow at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said the closure means the university administration finally “rightly recognized” how they must comply with the law.

“The Texas law does not simply call for a superficial reshuffling of offices and employees but a real commitment to ending programs that discriminate or give preferential treatment on the basis of identity characteristics,” he told The Fix in an email Monday.

He pointed The Fix to a series of statements Benson made last year about the DEI ban.

Along with promising no one would lose their job, Benson told the Dallas Morning News at the time: “We’re going to continue doing those things. And so it’ll go under a different name. But I don’t think anyone would have a problem with the actual actions of what we do.”

The University of Texas at Dallas just closed a new office to comply with a state ban on “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programming after opening it a few months ago to adhere to the law.

The public university launched the Office of Campus Resources and Support on Jan. 1, one day after shuttering its Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in response to the DEI ban.

At the time, UT Dallas said the new office was created to comply with the law, and it was not just a rebrand, web archives show.

But now, the new office is gone, too.

It closed April 30 “as a result” of continued efforts to comply with Senate Bill 17, university President Richard Benson said in a statement shared with The College Fix.

The law, which has led to similar closures at other Texas universities, prohibits DEI programs at public higher education institutions and the use of “race, sex, color, or ethnicity” as factors in hiring practices.

However, some universities have appeared to comply with the state law by simply renaming their DEI offices.

Brittany Magelssen, university communications director, declined to answer The Fix’s questions about the school’s efforts to ensure there are no DEI offices or staff, its hiring practices, and the reaction to the closure from students on campus. She pointed to The Fix to Benson’s statement.

Magelssen also did not respond to two follow-up requests for comment this week asking for more information about the closure and the university’s response to those who say it looks as if the newly closed office was just the DEI office renamed.

In his statement, Benson said administrators decided to close the four-month-old office as they continue to “evaluate our SB 17 response and how to realign many of the programs impacted by the legislation.”

Benson said about 20 jobs will be eliminated. He also said the decision “will not be welcomed by many in our campus community” and he will continue to ensure that UT Dallas is a “supportive community.”

On its website, the university said it created the Office of Campus Resources and Support “to ensure UT Dallas can continue to meet the needs of our campus community in a manner that is fully compliant with SB 17,” according to web archives. The webpage recently was removed.

The office “is entirely separate and new” and “will lead activities that are SB 17 compliant,” it stated, adding it is not just the DEI office “renamed.”

According to web archives, the university stated it was still working to determine “the entire scope” of the new office, but its “mission will include enhancing student community-building and supporting employees and employee resource groups.”

One of the office’s projects was to help “facilitate opportunities to foster a welcoming university climate through professional development, employee engagement, and student and employee success initiatives,” according to web archives.

Steve McGuire, a fellow at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said the closure means the university administration finally “rightly recognized” how they must comply with the law.

“The Texas law does not simply call for a superficial reshuffling of offices and employees but a real commitment to ending programs that discriminate or give preferential treatment on the basis of identity characteristics,” he told The Fix in an email Monday.

He pointed The Fix to a series of statements Benson made last year about the DEI ban.

Along with promising no one would lose their job, Benson told the Dallas Morning News at the time: “We’re going to continue doing those things. And so it’ll go under a different name. But I don’t think anyone would have a problem with the actual actions of what we do.”

McGuire also outlined a series of problems with university DEI programs.

He said, “DEI offices are not classrooms,” they are administrative offices that “cannot claim the privilege of academic freedom.”

McGuire, whose organization promotes academic freedom, said DEI offices “often violate these principles” by “advancing viewpoint discrimination with institutional support and sponsoring trainings and programs that expect participants to accept that individuals are inherently oppressed or oppressors based on group membership.”

While public universities need to welcome all students, he said “DEI offices and programs often work against this standard.” He pointed to the use of DEI in hiring, which leads to the exclusion of certain views.

He said the money saved by closing DEI offices could be redirected to better purposes, such as need-based scholarships for students who otherwise could not afford to go to college.

McGuire said nondiscrimination also should extend to “intellectual and ideological nondiscrimination.” He said “if universities cannot guarantee free expression and intellectual diversity on their own, then others, including legislators, need to make that happen.”

Other Texas universities also have eliminated their DEI programs as a result of the law, The Fix previously reported. The University of Texas at Austin recently canceled its special graduation celebrations for black, Latinx, Asian, and LGBTQIA+ students as well.

This post appeared on The College Fix on May 8, 2024.

The post UT Dallas closes new ‘support’ office to comply with DEI ban appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Out of respect for the rights of the members of our academic community, we have restrictions on the time, manner, and place for protest, just as we have rules for those who live in our dormitories. The board of trustees has now vested in me the emergency authority to issue not ‘interim suspensions,’ but full-year suspensions that will remain permanently on your records if you do not remove your tents from the South Quad within one hour and follow university guidance on where and when you can continue your protest. The consequence of repeated infractions or occupying a building is expulsion. My staff has videotaped the encampment over the course of several hours, and we have identified many of you through your social media posts. My office has already begun informing your parents of the emergency policy. As for persons in the encampment who are not registered students, you must leave immediately, or you will be subject to arrest. And this time we will press charges. I hope you will all make wise choices.

This brief speech has yet to be uttered, though it is hardly fantasy. The University of Florida has been proactive since October 7 in preserving both order and the free exchange of ideas. The Division of Student Life has informed students in writing that speech, signs, and expressing viewpoints are permissible. Amplifiers, indoor demonstrations, camping, disruption, threats, and violence are forbidden, and students who violate the rules face suspension and a ban from campus. 

Staff who violate these rules face termination and a ban from campus. A few other university presidents have at least distinguished themselves by enforcing order and existing policies. Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier stands out for expelling three students and answering the student demand for divestment from Israel by citing the school’s official procedures: “The university will not take policy positions unless they directly affect the operating of the university. . . . calling for BDS, for a boycott of Israel, is inconsistent with institutional neutrality. So from our values point, we’re not going to go there.”  

Colleges now reap the grim fruit of years of tolerating intolerable behavior. How many Middlebury College students were suspended for shouting down Charles Murray and violence that left a distinguished Middlebury professor seriously injured? Zero. How many Stanford Law School students were suspended for shouting down Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan? Zero again. Washington College students who shouted down invited speaker and Princeton University Professor Robert George? See above. 

Columbia University is the tragicomic illustration of inadequate measures. With the occupation of Hamilton Hall, Columbia had no choice but to call in the police. Now, they need to inform the students that they will never ever receive a degree from the university. If they fail to do that, Columbia can expect, and will deserve, a repeat of the situation.

We need a new campus playbook, now and for the future, and that can only originate in the boardroom. Boards have authority over and responsibility for everything that happens on campus. They must use that power. Those that do not are guilty of malfeasance and base cowardice. It is hardly reassuring that so far, with a few exceptions, the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill Board of Trustees being one, they have left it to legislators to issue the statements that should be theirs.

Real consequences must be part of the equation for the students and faculty in the encampments. Getting arrested and released is simply a badge of honor. The career consequences of a year-long suspension or an expulsion that remains indelibly on the student’s record is something else. Blighting the chances for a prestigious law school admission or a high-value M.B.A. or a job at Goldman Sachs or Google should become part of the equation for those who think they stand above the rules of the community. Under no circumstance should institutions exempt students from regular academic deadlines and examination schedules.   

A petition from the University of Pennsylvania encampment pleading that there be no disciplinary action against the students shows the obvious. Whereas those who engaged in civil disobedience in the civil rights era were typically prepared to accept the consequences, the pro-Palestinian demonstrators of today expect a free pass. They should not receive it. 

Moving forward, rather than entrusting the student code of conduct to the student assembly under the gutless supervision of student life staff, a trustee committee, in consultation with those entities, must oversee the necessary revisions to maintain order. At orientation, administrative staff must then present the code of conduct to incoming students. Similarly, a trustee committee should oversee appropriate revisions to the faculty handbook, making clear the consequences for impermissible activities in protest. 

The 1967 Kalven Report, which articulates the principle of institutional neutrality, offers a powerful preventative to the blackmail tactics of the protests. Institutional neutrality, as Chancellor Diermeier explained, means that politics do not enter into decisions about the institution’s investments and portfolio. Divestment is off the table. Student and faculty demands regarding the portfolio must be, to use a favorite phrase of protesters, “non-negotiable.”  

With a commitment to the rule of law, the campus will enjoy robust debate and academic freedom, unfettered by the mob rule that now substitutes for freedom. This is a time for firmness, not demoralizing compromise that invites more such protests and signals that the adults are no longer in charge.

This article appeared on RealClearEducation on May 3, 2024.

The post How Trustees Can Save Columbia, Brown, Northeastern, Penn, Indiana, Yale… appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin made the right decision when he vetoed Senate Bill 506. However, both the title and text of Inside Higher Ed’s April 16, 2024, article, “Youngkin Vetoes Bill, Prohibiting Independent Legal Counsel,” fail to recognize the damage that this bill would have done to Virginia.

Had it become law, this legislation would have shifted the primary duty of loyalty of governing board members toward the university and only secondarily to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, if the governor had approved Senate Bill 506, the legislation would have had a severe and negative impact on the accountability structure of Virginia’s public institutions of higher education.

Trustees of public universities serve the public by looking to the common good rather than the immediate interests of their institutions. For example, when a college administration proposes a tuition increase, it is the responsibility of the board of visitors to determine whether it is appropriate and reasonable for the citizens of Virginia. Removing the duty of trustees to serve the citizens of the Commonwealth first eliminates the only internal check against the narrow interest of each college or university. That weakens the ability of these institutions to self-regulate. Had it been signed into law, Senate Bill 506 could have set a precedent for other states with similar public higher education systems to follow suit. 

There is a long-held belief that college and university governing boards around the country exist only to raise money for the institution or to rubber stamp the decisions of the president and administration. This belief is dangerous and misguided. The role of a trustee, first and foremost, is oversight and stewardship of the institution’s mission. The organizational chart of any institution of higher education will show that the governing board sits above the president and the administration, not below them. In other words, presidents serve at the pleasure of the boards of trustees. In the case of colleges and universities that are publicly funded, as in Virginia, these institutions have an extra layer of accountability: the citizens of the state.

—Nick Down
Senior Program Officer for Trustee and Government Affairs
American Council of Trustees and Alumni 

This letter appeared on Inside Higher Ed on April 24, 2024.

The post Public University Trustees Should Serve the Public Good appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) first raised the alarm about the bill in January, and we have been communicating with lawmakers in the General Assembly throughout every step of the legislation’s journey to Governor Youngkin’s desk. Most recently, ACTA Senior Program Officer for Trustee & Government Affairs Nick Down testified against the measure and published an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch arguing against the bill’s passage.  

In response to the governor’s veto, ACTA President Michael Poliakoff, a Virginia resident, stated, “Bravo, Governor Youngkin! The first duty of the boards of visitors of our public universities is to serve the citizens of this state. They do this by prudent oversight of their schools and by creating policies directed at the public good, not at narrow parochial desires that an institutional constituency might demand. When the Commonwealth is the priority of the board of visitors, our universities will fulfill their mission of teaching, learning, and research and enjoy the esteem and support of Virginia’s citizens.”

ACTA is dedicated to holding public college and university leaders accountable to the constituents they serve. We thank Governor Youngkin for his prudent decision to veto Senate Bill 506.

The post Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin Vetoes Senate Bill 506 appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

He aimed squarely at University of Pennsylvania’s School of Arts & Sciences, the home of 27 departments including a few that last September sponsored sessions of the Palestine Writes literary festival, which critics attacked for including speakers with a history of making antisemitic comments but supporters defended as a celebration of Palestinian art.

During an interview at the Economic Club of Washington on Feb. 27, Rowan said faculty members in Wharton — Penn’s business school from which Rowan graduated — as well as the engineering and medical schools, care about academic excellence and research.

“If you are in our arts and sciences school,” said Rowan, “not so much.”

He echoed almost the same sentiment about the school, which includes everything from physics and chemistry to economics and mathematics, during a talk at the Anti-Defamation League’s national conference on Wednesday.

The remark — as well as others he made including an assertion that students rallying for Palestinians is more a reflection of “anti-Americanism” and “anti-merit” than antisemitism — continued to stir concern on the Ivy League campus about Rowan, who chairs Wharton’s advisory board. It also raised questions about the propriety of the leader of one of Penn’s boards publicly criticizing another school at the university.

“This is not the first time Rowan has demonstrated that he does not respect and may not comprehend the principle of academic freedom, the purpose of a university to advance knowledge and educate students in all areas of study, or the quality of research and teaching at Penn,” said Penn’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “We question whether someone so poorly informed and apparently committed to undermining our university’s mission should serve on Wharton’s Board of Advisors.”

The group in a statement Thursday noted that the AAUP defined the concept of academic freedom more than a century ago to guard against “wealthy donors with no academic qualifications … attempting to suppress research and teaching that they found inconvenient to their business interests and political agendas.” It should be faculty members who “make academic decisions and evaluate the quality of scholarship within their areas of expertise,” the group said.

A spokesperson for Rowan declined comment. Rowan during his comments said support for his efforts has grown, asserting that 27,000 have indicated their support of his ideas.

“The vast majority of reaction has been incredibly positive,” he said.

Michael Poliakoff, president and chief executive officer of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said it’s “well within the framework of a free society and open university for Mr. Rowan to criticize anybody.

“The sad fact is that the humanities have really suffered from the intrusion of a great big dollop of theory, things like intersectionality, post-colonial theory, oppressor-oppressed frameworks,” he said. “These are things that should be subject to much more rigorous review. …It is a very valid criticism that Mr. Rowan is making.”

Poliakoff pointed to surveys that have shown the vast majority of arts and sciences faculty at Harvard identify as liberal.

“It’s hard to have viewpoint diversity,” Rowan said at the ADL conference.

Steven J. Fluharty, dean of Penn’s School of Arts & Sciences, did not respond to an email for comment.

A Penn spokesperson said: “Penn embodies academic excellence across all aspects of our teaching, research, and scholarship, which is why we continue to attract the best and brightest students and faculty, who make a meaningful impact on the world.”

Scott L. Bok, former chair of Penn’s board of trustees, disputed Rowan’s claim.

“The school of arts and sciences is the core of the university, with a large and diverse faculty teaching everything from biology to history,” he said. “The notion that those people aren’t absolutely committed to academic excellence is simply wrong.”

Dagmawi Woubshet, an associate professor of English, who is part of Penn Faculty for Justice in Palestine and participated in a “die-in” vigil on campus in January in recognition of the lives lost in Gaza, also took exception to Rowan’s statement.

“To say that only the pre-professional schools are intellectually rigorous and merit-driven is at best a glib and self-serving characterization,” Woubshet said. “It discounts the extraordinary value of an arts and humanities education, which is the lifeblood of any university of note.”

Rowan made clear during the interview at the economic club that he intended to continue paying attention to Penn. “100%,” he responded when asked.

That raised concern in the Penn community over how much influence Rowan would try to wield. Penn already is facing a congressional committee probe over its handling of antisemitism.

Rowan, CEO of New York-based Apollo Global Management, a private equity firm, began his public campaign to get donors to withhold their money in October, a couple weeks after Palestine Writes and just a few days after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Rowan already had a high profile at Wharton, having given a $50 million gift to Wharton in 2018, the largest single gift in its history,

He urged donors “to close their checkbooks” until then-President Liz Magill and Bok resigned, faulting their handling of the festival. And he continued the efforts for months in daily emails to the board of trustees. Both Magill and Bok resigned in December after Magill’s congressional testimony on the campus’ response to antisemitism set off a backlash.

In the aftermath of their resignations, Rowan sent what was characterized as his final email to the trustees, questioning the university’s instruction, faculty hiring and political orientation. Among the questions, he asked whether the school should look at eliminating some academic departments — though he didn’t identify which — and examine “criteria for qualification for membership in the faculty,” citing a provision in the charter that allows trustees to set general policies around admission to the faculty.

The email, titled “Moving Forward,” included 18 questions, some with as many as five parts. That raised fear among faculty leaders that Rowan was attempting to set the agenda for the university, in the style of a “hostile takeover.”

Rowan’s spokesperson said at the time that the questions Rowan raises are areas that trustees have jurisdiction over in the school’s charter.

“He’s saying these are questions,” the spokesperson said. “He’s not trying to provide answers.”

During his recent appearances, Rowan also asserted that students protesting Israel by chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free,” don’t even understand the geography they are talking about.

“If you ask these kids what river and what sea, they don’t know,” he said. “Who lives between the river and the sea, they don’t know. How did they get there? They don’t know.”

Poliakoff pointed to a December op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Ron Hassner, a political science professor at Berkeley, that said in a survey he commissioned, fewer than half of the students who supported the slogan were able to name the river and the sea in question.

That phrase refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It a rallying cry some have used to call for the destruction of Israel, but others use as a call for the liberation of Palestinian people from Gaza to the West Bank and within Israel.

Rowan said an “accepted narrative” on the campus that started to encourage social justice “metastasized into post-colonial education, into oppressed and oppressors, into powerful and powerless, facts be damned.

“Jews and Israelis are seen as white. That’s bad. They’re seen as powerful. That’s bad. They’re seen as oppressing Palestinians. That’s bad. So by any means necessary according to the narrative of these universities, facts be damned.”

He said the fight on campuses is less about antisemitism and more about “anti-Americanism.”

“We are fighting anti-merit,” he said. “We’re fighting anti-power. We’re fighting really for the soul of these institutions.”

At the ADL conference, he said colleges have been taken over by “a progressive narrative” that “evaluates everything in the context of victimhood.”

Woubshet, however, said the critique of power is not new and is “essential to knowledge production and moreover to fostering a just and democratic society. What we now have is a concerted conservative and right-wing agenda — an anti-intellectual agenda — to deliberately misconstrue the terms of critique so much so that teaching anything that challenges a romantic view of American civilization is deemed anti-American.”

Jonathan Zimmerman, a Penn professor of the history of education who has ardently defended free speech, said Rowan has every right to express his opinion and said some of the questions he raised in his final email to trustees were worth asking.

“But I don’t believe Marc Rowan’s opinion should have any more weight than anyone else’s,” he said. “I don’t think the role of the trustees is to make academic policy. That’s the role of the administration and mainly the faculty.”

This post appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer on March 10, 2024.

The post Donor and Wharton board chair Marc Rowan criticizes Penn’s arts and sciences school, drawing backlash appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Senate Bill 506, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, dictates to boards of visitors that their loyalty of duty lies primarily with the college or university and secondarily with the commonwealth of Virginia.

Senate Bill 506 would set a dangerous precedent and should not be signed by Gov. Youngkin. Those who are appointed to serve on a governing board of a public college or university should always be accountable to the taxpayers of the state first, and the institution second. He or she serves the people of the commonwealth through the institution. The institution is the means to an end, not the end itself of the board member’s service.

There is a long-held belief that college and university governing boards around the country exist only to raise money for the institution, or to rubber stamp the decisions of the president and administration. This belief is dangerous and misguided. The role of a trustee, first and foremost, is oversight and stewardship of the institution’s mission. The organizational chart of any institution of higher education will show that the governing board sits above the president and the administration, not below it. In other words, presidents serve at the pleasure of the boards of trustees. In the case of colleges and universities that are publicly funded, as in Virginia, these institutions have an extra layer of accountability in the form of the state taxpayer.

Keeping the loyalties of university boards to the commonwealth first, and the institution second, ensures that boards of visitors or trustees are not beholden to any one constituency over another.

Boards of visitors serve the public by considering the common good rather than merely the narrow interests of their institutions. For example, when a college administration proposes a tuition increase, it is the responsibility of the board of visitors to consider whether the citizens of Virginia can afford such an increase. By changing the duty of trustees to serve their institutions first, the only internal check against the narrow interest of each college or university is removed, which weakens the ability of these institutions to self-regulate. This point is reinforced in Governance for a New Era, a 2014 publication produced by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni that brought together 22 of the nation’s leading scholars, university presidents, trustees and business leaders dedicated to strengthening higher education governance. “Trustees indeed, at their best, can provide a ‘reality check’ on the often self-directed focus of colleges and universities,” the report stated.

Sen. Surovell’s testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education on Jan. 29 was all one needed to hear to understand the origins of this legislation. According to the distinguished senator, the need for this legislation came as a response to confusion from several visitors after an official opinion was released last October by Attorney General Jason Miyares, in which he stated, “In fulfilling the responsibilities to the specific institution it serves, the primary duty of the board of visitors of each Virginia institution of higher education is to the Commonwealth.”

Should Virginia Senate Bill 506 become law, it will cause even more confusion among members of university governing bodies in the commonwealth, as well as imply that these governing boards are beholden to the president of the institution. In reality, university boards of visitors should be receptive to all campus constituencies, but beholden to only the great, general interest and common good of Virginia.

This post appeared on the Richmond Times-Dispatch on March, 5 2024.

The post Colleges and universities must be held accountable to citizens appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Armand Alacbay, senior vice president of strategy for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which advocates for university boards to exert stronger oversight, found it “hard to ascribe fault here.” On the one hand, with many colleges struggling with enrollment and finances, all board members should examine their institutions more closely. On the other hand, “there’s a huge information asymmetry with boards.” Boards depend on colleges to give them good data.

As for Hobbs’s sharp and public criticism of DuVal and Arnold, Alacbay pointed out that it’s unusual for a governor to have the power to remove public-university board members, even though they are frequently responsible for appointing them. Board members often have terms that span different governors’ administrations; Duval is an appointee of Doug Ducey, the Republican governor who preceded Hobbs. The point is to protect board members from political interference and allow them to focus on the good of the university, Alacbay said. But also: “It’s normal for a governor to be concerned about the higher-education policy in her state,” he said. “It’s the governor’s prerogative to make public statements.”

To read the full article, visit the Chronicle of Higher Education here. (Registration may be required.)

The post Arizona Board of Regents’ Chair and Executive Director Leave Their Positions After Governor’s Criticism appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Mr. Down’s testimony reads in part: “Since 1995, ACTA has worked with over 23,000 higher education trustees across the country to ensure that students receive an intellectually rich, high-quality college education at an affordable price. We believe that the strength of America’s higher education system relies on engaged governing boards that appreciate their independent role. But this bill makes one crucial change to Virginia statute that would undermine this very idea.

“Title 23 in section 1304 of the Code of Virginia makes clear that the boards of visitors’ ‘primary duty [is] to the citizens of the Commonwealth.’ Senate Bill 506 would replace this by reorienting visitors’ primary duty to the university. Let me be clear—this would stand the idea of public oversight on its head. A corporate board has a duty to its shareholders. [Similarly], a public university board has a duty to its stakeholders, in this case the taxpayers of Virginia. When the interests of the university conflict with those of the public, the public’s needs must come first, and the job of determining that is that of the boards of visitors.

“ACTA understands the desire to protect Virginia’s boards of visitors from undue political interference, and we agree that for trustees to fulfill their fiduciary duties, they must be independent actors. However, I urge you to consider an alternative way to secure trustees’ independence, as their duty to serve the Commonwealth should not be misconstrued as a duty to obey any political actor.” Listen to Mr. Down’s full testimony here.

MEDIA CONTACT: Gabrielle Anglin
EMAIL: ganglin@goacta.org

The post ACTA Senior Program Officer Nick Down Testifies On Virginia Senate Bill 506 appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Thank you, Chairwoman Sewell, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. My name is Nick Down, and I am a senior program officer with the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, or ACTA for short. I am here before you today to urge you to vote against moving Senate Bill 506 forward to the full committee.

By way of background, ACTA is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization committed to preserving academic freedom, academic excellence, and accountability at four-year public and private colleges and universities across the U.S. Since 1995, ACTA has worked with over 23,000 higher education trustees across the country to ensure that students receive an intellectually rich, high- quality college education at an affordable price. We believe that governing boards are key to maintaining these core values, and thus we work with trustees to help them fulfill their fiduciary duties.

Senate Bill 506 seeks to alter fundamentally the nature of Virginia’s boards of visitors by calling on their members to “act at all times in accordance with the duty of loyalty owed primarily to such institution,” while removing existing references to board members’ “primary duty to the citizens of the Commonwealth.” For those on the boards of public institutions this includes a responsibility to serve the citizens of their state. Passage of SB 506 in its current form would significantly erode the capacity of Virginia’s boards of visitors to fulfill this primary duty.

ACTA understands the desire to protect Virginia’s boards of visitors from undue political interference, and we agree that for trustees to fulfill their fiduciary duties they MUST be independent actors. However, I urge you to consider an alternative way to secure trustees’ independence, as their duty to serve the Commonwealth should not be misconstrued as a duty to obey any political actor.

Visitors serve the public by looking to the common good rather than merely the immediate interests of their institutions. For example, when a college administration proposes a tuition increase, it is the responsibility of visitors to determine whether it’s appropriate for the citizens of Virginia. By removing the duty of visitors to serve the citizens of the Commonwealth first, you are removing the only internal check against the narrow interest of each college or university, which weakens the ability of these institutions to self-regulate. Given that our surveys of public higher education show that Virginia’s institutions rate in the bottom third of the nation on several measures of access and cost, this legislation is something that the people of Virginia can ill afford.

Again, I urge the Subcommittee to vote against SB 506 and I thank you for your time and the opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to answer any questions.

The post ACTA Senior Program Officer Nick Down Testifies On Virginia Senate Bill 506 appeared first on American Council of Trustees and Alumni.