Of the many calls and messages that presidents receive about the Palestine-Israel conflict and related campus issues, perhaps a significant number come from board members.
Trustees are reading the news and thinking about their universities and their students, faculty, staff, presidents, and other senior administrators. I wonder what the proper function and role of the board of directors are in these times. What are the things trustees should and shouldn’t do right now?
The first thing to remember is that in these situations, managers, not the board, should be the main players, and the board's primary role is to hold managers accountable for wise and unwise actions. The board may request an after-action report from the president and senior leaders on what happened and what the impact was. Moreover, these are difficult times with no familiar playbook, and presidents are under great pressure, so board leaders must provide a safe harbor where presidents can discuss issues and strategies. Finally, boards of trustees should lend expertise and insight when they have it and when appropriate to the leaders charged with managing the campus.
In other words, in today's age of conflict and protest, the responsibility for shaping appropriate board-level dialogue lies with the chairman and his senior team, who must work collaboratively with board leaders. The conversation between the president and the board will vary, but it is likely to fall into four main areas: 1) Freedom of speech and academic freedom; 2) Campus safety and continuity; 3) Student management and welfare; and 4) overall board governance (or “what is the board’s direction here?”). These four areas all contribute to one overall concern: attendant risks, reputation, and other matters for the institution.
Freedom of speech and academic freedom. If you have had a good orientation, your board will not have heard about the importance of free speech in an academic environment for the first time during this crisis. But it would be very helpful if presidents emphasized that point more often.
The president should also ensure that the board recognizes that freedom of speech varies depending on the type of campus. What is appropriate for a public university is not the same as what is appropriate for a private university. For people working in public institutions and state systems, their constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, cannot be violated. For private campuses, boards of trustees should recognize the rights available to campus members in the form of voice codes. These often mimic rights found on public campuses, but interpretation and correction are contractual. For example, has the institution pledged to support the University of Chicago's principles of free speech on campus?
These obligations of law or policy shape and inform other policies. For example, the president should discuss with the board the institution's policies regarding how protests can occur on campus. The conversation must go beyond the policy language itself to include broader considerations to ensure that uninformed actions do not create larger problems. This may include actions such as allowing encampments despite policy language permitting their removal, as noted below. It is helpful for the president to remind the board that what you can do is not necessarily what you can do. must do.
Beyond legal obligations, boards must understand speech within the broad scope of academic freedom. The president should explain to the board this importance and the history of higher education. Savvy boards will seek to protect these freedoms because of their fundamental importance to effective higher education. Although it may not be immediately helpful, the president may want to consider the principles and limits of these various freedoms as a topic for a board retreat in case other situations arise in the future.
Campus safety and continuity. Presidents should also discuss with their boards what they and their senior teams are doing to mitigate risks and ensure the safety of students, as well as other members of the campus and community. It is of utmost importance that necessary precautions are taken for the safety of not only students but also staff.
In addition to this, the president should involve the board in business continuity planning. Protesters on some campuses are occupying buildings and offices. Institutions must therefore have and communicate to the board a business continuity or incident management plan for any disruption that may occur. How will the device continue to function if the office is inaccessible? How are documents and files protected? How is personal information protected? And there is also the issue of continuity of education. How does learning continue if classes cannot meet in person?
Campus leaders should also ensure that a communication strategy exists for the board and that the institution has a plan to keep the board updated. These ideas are often anticipated in continuity or incident management processes. There is value in giving the board that assurance.
Finally, for institutions where student conduct or violations of staff policy (e.g., disrupting classes, harassing or threatening individuals, etc.) occur, please assure the board that the institution has process safeguards in place. Review those processes with your board, including how they may interact with criminal proceedings initiated by external authorities. For board members calling for immediate disciplinary action, a solid understanding of these policies, why they exist, how they operate, and for how long can alleviate some of the urgency. Leaders and boards walk a fine line, so process is important.
Student care and welfare. Boards and presidents should discuss how current conflicts in higher education may negatively impact some students more than others. Some people feel the burden more immediately, given their religion, ethnicity, and personal and familial ties to Israel or the Gaza Strip. Others are affected by protests on their doorsteps and arguments in their residences, restaurants and classrooms.
Ensure that the board is aware of and focused on all aspects of student well-being and detail how the administration is taking the necessary steps to support student mental health, support individuals in crisis, and address long-term issues. -existence. This burden applies not only to students, but also to staff and faculty. Explain what your campus is doing to support employees.
Serious discussions with boards may include how today's campus unrest can provide learning opportunities. Students living in educational institutions sit in the best position to understand what is happening. Higher education must not lose what it does best.
Board governance area. Much of what we've described requires the president to convince the board that management is doing its job. But what about the board's duties? Part of that will be ensuring that management is acting appropriately, but other issues will be reflected in the board agenda.
One example is a sale. Some students are demanding that their institutions cancel their investments in Israel. This is a conversation that needs to happen between the president and the board, or at least a subcommittee focused on institutional investing. Some institutions, such as the University of Pennsylvania, have divestment guidelines and policies, but most do not. And even at institutions that do have them, presidents and boards may want to consider evaluating whether the guidelines and policies are as helpful as they need to be.
Additionally, the Board of Directors may be asked to abandon or suspend certain policies. At Michigan State University, for example, the president consulted with board leaders about granting permits to allow camping tents for a week, which would violate campus ordinances. Such a move represents a difficult choice, and the chairman would be wise to make that decision only after careful discussion with the board or at least management.
Reputational risk. As part of reputational risk, every board considers how what happens on campus affects the reputation of the institution. The problem is that stakeholders have different expectations and view reputation differently. Decisions to remove encampments or leave them in place, and institutional explanations for those decisions, may spark opposition in some but support in others. Not everyone will agree with the choices, and how those choices may appear in the news or government agencies, and the risks to the university can be significant.
Presidents should discuss with their boards the reputational and associated risks and what that means in terms of public support, alumni engagement, political involvement, and student enrollment. In essence, such decisions involve balancing, if not conflicting, priorities and expectations for the institution.
The final conversation should be about the extent to which the board, president, and key members are satisfied with the messages the actions and explanations convey. Stakeholders, including policymakers, prospective students, alumni, and donors, can see more clearly what an institution does than just hear what it and its spokespeople say. For example, institutional choices about the level and type of police intervention communicate much.
In conclusion, not all campuses are facing the same level of controversy shown in the national news. But campus culture has an even greater impact on the focus and impact of an event. Therefore, the conversation in each room is not the same as the conversation in any other room.
One thing applies to all universities. At the heart of these and other discussions about the current crisis is a fundamental recognition of the board's duty to protect its institutions over the long term. The president and senior team can work to ensure that the board fulfills its fiduciary role by directing the board to the right questions and receiving timely answers.