Members of boards of trustees of state universities are chosen in one of two ways: The law may call for their election or direct that the state governor appoint them. Is one method better than the other from the standpoint of Americans who’d like to see our institutions of higher education return to their true mission of education and to stop indoctrination?
That is the question James Hohman examines in today’s Martin Center article.
He begins, “Will more democracy help state universities get out of their high-cost, low-value spiral? Of their desire to indoctrinate? Probably not. If people want better-managed state universities, they can’t rely on voters to elect the right people to the schools’ boards. Yet the other option, gubernatorial appointments, isn’t all that much better. Perhaps the best that can be said for either choice is that clear structures show the kind of people who could be reform-minded board members what they have to do in order to land the job.”
Hohman’s own state (Michigan) provides a good case study, since some boards are elected and others are appointed. He doesn’t find that the method of selection makes much difference. You can get good trustees or bad ones either way. He offers this advice: “There ought to be some lessons here for the kind of people who would be strong candidates for state university boards. If someone wants to make a difference and get on one of these boards, he or she has to get engaged in partisan politics when boards are elected. And he or she has to support gubernatorial candidates if boards are appointed.”
Since most state universities are overwhelmingly leftist in operation, it’s imperative to find individuals who want to be trustees and are willing to do battle with entrenched administrators and faculty. We need to find such people, then prepare them either for candidacy or to bring them to the attention of a reform-minded governor.