Shared governance in a college or university is a system in which faculty and administrators have equal power over decisions that affect the university or college. The president of the university has to equally listen to opinions of staff members, students, and administration, he or she has to take all opinions into strong consideration and then makes the decision from there. It is believed that shared governance is an effective system because it allows academic freedom between faculty and students. This system allows faculty and students to speak their mind and make changes in the university without being persecuted. Even though there is controversy on whether or not shared governance is a good system, it has proven itself to be a successful system.

Shared governance began in 1917 because of the Committee on college and University Governance through the AAUP (Gerber). AAUP decided to use this system because in the mid-nineteenth century faculty did not engage in research. The only thing faculty was responsible for was maintaining discipline, building character, and passing on received wisdom to their students. Because of this, colleges and universities were losing money. During the mid-nineteenth century, higher education systems were run by presidents and governing boards. The presidents and people on the governing boards during this time came from the clergy. They were the people who made all of the decisions with little input from faculty. During this time, colleges were very small and were poorly funded. College professors were also generalists and none of them were specialists in a particular field. This also caused problems because they were teaching by the book or from things they new from experience. College students did not really have the opportunity to major in a specific field because their professors were not specialized in a particular field. In 1876, John Hopkins University was founded. It was one of the first universities to be research based. After this change, more research based colleges and universities were founded. Academic freedom became a necessity for professors. They wanted to improve their knowledge so that they could improve the knowledge of their students (Gerber).

Shared governance has been a successful system for some colleges and universities because it allows for academic freedom. Academic freedom and shared governance reinforce each other because academic freedom is what allows professors to teach what they want. In the article, “Inextricably Linked”: Shared Governance and Academic Freedom, Larry G. Gerber states,

According to the AAUP’s 1994 statement On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom, these two principles have always been ‘closely connected, arguably inextricably linked.’ That statement concludes with the observation that academic freedom and shared governance ‘are most likely to thrive when they are understood to reinforce one another.’ It is hard to imagine effective governance if faculty do not enjoy the right to speak freely without fear of reprisal on issues relating to their own institutions and policies… (Gerber).

Shared governance and academic freedom are important in higher education because if students and faculty were not allowed to have a say, then the school would be run more as a dictatorship. Shared governance and academic freedom are not only important systems for the university or college, they are important for society as well. Without academic freedom, it is less likely that professors would be able to teach on a broad spectrum of information. The two systems allow for professors to provide students with liberal education that can make them active members in democracy. Gerber says,

Without shared governance, our colleges and universities would be less likely to foster the unimpeded pursuit and dissemination of knowledge that are necessary for the healthy development of society; they would also be less likely to provide students with the broad liberal education they need to become informed citizens who can participate fully in our democracy (Gerber).

Gerber is saying that if it weren’t for shared governance, professors would be limited on what they could and couldn’t teach. For example, high school teachers are told that they have to teach from the book. High school teachers are limited to teaching students what they need to learn for state testing. The only thing that high school students are prepared for is basic skills. In universities and colleges, professors teach students everything; basic skills, life skills, and even how to be an active member in society. This would not happen if it weren’t for shared governance and academic freedom. Although shared governance may be a good system for the institutions, some believe that it is harming society. Most believe that shared governance allows for students to become an active member in society. Professors and teachers are not fully protected by the first amendment therefore, shared governance protects them where the first amendment does not. Some people believe that shared governance is allowing too much power to students and faculty.

Shared governance is controversial because not every one agrees that including faculty in major decisions is a good idea. But it is difficult to argue against shared governance because it has been a beneficial system for some universities and colleges. The people that argue against shared governance are the same people that are against tenure. It is argued that when there are issues with things such as tenure and sabbatical, faculty should not be involved. Some universities disagree with the system because they think that for certain situations the institution should make the decision without input from faculty and students. It is also argued that faculty should not be involved in certain decisions if it involves them. Most people argue that for something such as tenure, because it involves the faculty, they should not be involved in decision-making that regards tenure. It also an argument that there are certain issues that should remain private from faculty (Manns). This causes a conflict because most universities have adopted the shared governance system. Many people attack the system because they believe that students today should be trained for the corporate world. The people that attack the system are the people who believe that institutions should be run more like a management system. They believe that the president should be in complete control and make all the decisions for everyone below him. For those who believe in the corporate model, they also believe that students should be treated as consumers. They think of students should drive the services rather than viewing the students as “individuals with minds that need nurturing and development” (Gerber). The people that do not agree with shared governance are frustrated with the system because they do not see immediate payoff.

While it may be argued that shared governance is a impractical system, it can be a good thing. For example, when a president is offered a raise, students are affected because their tuition is raised. Students and faculty are affected from this new decision. Students, faculty and administration should be able to voice their opinion and their opinion should be taken into consideration before the decision is made. If the president makes the decision himself, it is going to anger a large amount of people because they did not have a say. Shared governance would be a good thing in this situation because then people would feel as if they had some control rather than having none. If anyone had the decision to take a raise, they would. But if other people involved get the opportunity to say how they feel about it, there is a better chance that the president of the school will take that into consideration.

Although the arguments against shared governance are valid, there is more proof that it has helped universities. This system allows for professors to research what they please. Because they are allowed freedom of research and speech, they able to be better professors for their students. Professors are not limited on what they can teach their students. The argument is that shared governance allows too much power to students and faculty. But this is because the idea is not fully understood. Shared governance just allows for the opinions of faculty and students to be taken into consideration before the decision is made. Even though their opinions are taken into consideration, the president still makes the decision. An institution that adopts shared governance, produces graduates that are ready to be a useful person in society. It is not necessary to use shared governance, but it is preferable. Gerber says,

… the principles and practices of shared governance that have emerged over the past century in our best colleges and universities have more relevance for businesses in the new economy than a highly questionable model of corporate governance has for our institutions in higher education (Gerber).

This proves that even though people disagree with the system of shared governance it creates a better institutions and it has a greater positive impact on society and our new economy.

Saturday, 17 March, 2012 11:05

Bibliography

Tyler, B. B. A History of the Disciples of Christ. New York: Christian Literature, 1894. Print.

"History and Character of Drake University." Drake University. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.

"Drake University Law School." Lawyers Find A Lawyer, Law Firm, Attorney & Legal Services: Martindale. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.

Lewis, Rosa E. "History of Penn College." Wilcox Library Digital Archives. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

Editorial Policy

Correspondence to the student authors of this website may be sent to this e-mail address. Make sure your subject includes the name of the author and the article you are referring to along with it's URL. Article copyright is held by their author.

Submissions of original new materials may be made electronically by PDF as long as significant authorship is by undergraduates enrolled in a non-profit educational institution. All materials are peer reviewed by a group of undergraduates.

Editorial articles, lecture presentations, and basic FAQs are marked as such on this website. These articles generally have open copyright and may be used in academic, non-profit settings as long as the author is given full attribution.

The Thin Tweed Line, ©2012 by Steve N. Jackson