Undermining board independence in Florida sets a dangerous precedent

Florida governor Ron DeSantis professed to want to uphold the academic integrity of American colleges and universities when he declared in his 2023 inaugural address, “We must ensure that our institutions of higher learning are focused on academic excellence and the pursuit of the truth.” The conduct of his appointees, however, is at odds with this declaration.

Its ostensible aim is to purge Florida colleges and universities of “woke, leftist ideologues”, whose views are supposedly “out of touch” with the values of society. Setting the stage for this thrust, Christopher Rufo, a DeSantis-appointed trustee of the New College of Florida, told an audience of New College administrators, faculty and staff on 25 January, “We’re in charge here. We’re political appointees with a mandate from the governor of this state.” Rufo is a conservative activist known for his role in stoking concern about critical race theory.

What is troubling about Rufo’s notice is that it goes against fundamental principles of governance intended to safeguard the academic integrity of American colleges and universities. To place this argument in broader perspective: while ideologues on the left jeopardise academic freedom by suppressing the free expression of conservative views, politicians on the right jeopardise the autonomy of American colleges and universities by imposing themselves on the classroom. Both transgressions constitute an assault on the academic integrity of US institutions of higher learning.

Historically, two tenets of American higher education have safeguarded this integrity. The first is board independence. Intellectual progress emanates from the pursuit of the truth, not the pursuit of any political agenda. Pursuit of the truth requires that college and university trustees elevate academic interests over political considerations: that they refrain from dictating what should or should not be taught. A somewhat different rule applies to faculty who, as fiduciaries of the broader society, have a special responsibility to the learner. The content that they deliver should be depoliticised. It should be based on empirical facts and an openness to alternative theories and views.

Board independence is inextricably linked to fiduciary duties. Among the most important is the duty of loyalty, which mandates that trustees place the interests of the institution above the interests of external stakeholders. As appointees of the state, New College trustees should take into consideration the views of the governor. As fiduciaries of the college, however, they should base their official actions on their duty of loyalty to the institution.

The second principle is shared governance. In higher education, it is often said that faculty “own” the curriculum, while the board navigates the ship. There is much truth in this adage, especially where governing powers are shared. In contrast to corporate governance, which aims at increasing profitability and maximising shareholder value through broad management oversight, shared university governance purports to promote both the academic integrity of the institution and its financial viability. To work effectively, it must be based on a faculty-trustee partnership founded on mutual respect and a spirit of cooperation. For one partner to arrogate to itself full governing authority is to undermine this partnership. Such a result could jeopardise either the academic integrity of the institution or its financial viability, or both.

Rufo’s intrusion into the realm of academics, apparently with DeSantis’ blessing, creates a dangerous precedent in the governance of American institutions of higher learning. It risks supplanting shared governance with gubernatorial directives, resulting in the pursuit of political ends, not the pursuit of the truth.  

To some extent, what is happening at New College is characteristic of what is happening in US higher education in general. Transgressions on the part of some college and university stakeholders reflect an erosion of academic values, the politicisation of the classroom and a breakdown of the relationship of trust between faculty and trustees.

Underlying controversies include whether courses that advocate social justice for a particular race, gender or social class should be permitted; whether professors who teach critical race theory should be granted tenure; and whether faculty who express unconventional or critical views on sexual identity, abortion or the Arab-Israeli conflict should be allowed to keep their jobs. These controversies frequently play out through the instrumentality of college or university governing boards, which occasionally cross the line between politics and academia.

Ultimately, politicians, trustees, administrators and faculty would all be wise to embrace the lofty ideal of ensuring that our institutions of higher learning are focused on academic excellence and the pursuit of the truth, while shunning politically motivated mischief perpetrated under the guise of realising this ideal. At stake is not just who is, or should be, “in charge”, but also the academic integrity of American colleges and universities.

Richard J. Joseph is senior consultant for the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. A former CEO and provost, he is author of Bridging the Gap between the Abundance of American Higher Education Talent and the Immense Foreign Demand for It (Oxford University Press, 2022).