A Conversation with John Sailer: How to Make Universities More Accountable
Giving university boards more authority over curriculum and hiring can help restore universities’ truth-seeking mission.
John D. Sailer is the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is a co-author of the Manhattan Institute’s model legislation to reform faculty accountability in higher education.
Why this conversation matters: Public universities have a responsibility not only to seek the truth, but to prepare students to flourish in their careers and assume the responsibilities of citizenship. Too often, they failed to do so. New model legislation from the Manhattan Institute would create checks and balances in university governance so that the representatives of the public can ensure that universities fulfill their obligations.
RtW: MI’s model legislation would give governing boards a much larger role in decisions about curriculum and hiring. How did boards become so removed from these decisions in the first place, and what has been lost as a result?
Sailer: In general, the responsibilities our legislation gives governing boards don’t represent some huge aberration. Boards have always had a mandate to conduct real oversight. Some boards have the power to oversee administrator hiring. Many have to vote to approve the curricula for new majors. The problem has been that they tend not to use this power. That’s in part because many board members are outsiders, which means they’re all too ready to give outsized deference to scholars and administrators even when that’s not called for. In part, it’s simply because a rubber-stamping board seat is an attractive honor. Our legislation clarifies their responsibilities.
RtW: For years, you’ve investigated ideological capture and a lack of accountability in higher education. How does governance reform address these problems?
Sailer: Some of our universities’ biggest problems are caused by mid-level administrators or obscure faculty committees. One thing I’ve learned from reporting on higher education—especially from examining, for instance, the distortion in faculty hiring—is that it wasn’t top-down legislation that brought us to this point. And legislation alone certainly won’t fix the problem. Often, reform is about personnel, and it’s about good personnel getting in the weeds. Our legislation requires board members to get in the weeds, but it also requires them to think more deeply about these enormously important personnel decisions in the first place.
“It wasn't top-down legislation that brought us to this point. And legislation alone certainly won't fix the problem. Often, reform is about personnel, and it's about good personnel getting in the weeds.”
RtW: Critics will say that by altering shared governance, your proposal undermines academic freedom. Are you concerned that MI’s model bill will inappropriately circumscribe faculty research or teaching?
Sailer: It’s important to be very clear here: our legislation does not do away with shared governance. If anything, it makes governance truly shared, adding the board to the list of checks and balances. It has no bearing on what research can be performed. It will, of course, have a kind of effect on teaching, because it gives boards more involvement in the core curriculum. That doesn’t mean boards will have a say in what goes into classes; they have no business dictating that. But the question of what should and shouldn’t be in a core isn’t a matter of disciplinary expertise. It’s about a university’s vision, its understanding of what a well-educated person looks like.
RtW: Suppose a state adopted your model bill tomorrow. What are the first changes that students, faculty, trustees, or taxpayers would actually notice? In other words, what does a more accountable university look like in practice?
Sailer: The legislation will almost certainly result in fewer core classes to choose from. That doesn’t mean a small number of core classes. Most universities offer literally thousands of core classes. Frankly, a closer look has been a long time coming. Perhaps less noticeably, there will be more scrutiny of upper-level administrators. That’s something that will only be felt over time, but the result will be that fewer deans and associate provosts will see themselves as the internal resistance. These are the ones responsible for allocating faculty lines and overseeing hundreds of curricular decisions. It’s hard to perceive from the outside, but it makes a huge difference when administrators are on board for reform.
RtW: Many Americans have lost confidence in higher education, but universities remain some of the most important institutions in society. If states do not pursue governance reforms like the ones you’re proposing, what do you think higher education looks like ten years from now?
Sailer: Less confidence, more alienation, and eventually, less funding. For their own sake, universities should take seriously the concern that higher education has become detached from the public it’s supposed to serve. If they want to survive, they have to start listening. This is one way to listen.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Too many universities have abandoned their commitments to truth-seeking and citizenship. This model legislation from the Manhattan Institute would ensure that the university governance structures recognize and address their public obligations, providing much-needed checks and balances to organizations that have lost the public trust.
 | A guest post by
|
Excellent piece. It will be difficult to get faculty to readjust because they so fiercely value their independence and because they are so dug in in a politicized environment. So many of the middle-range administrators have been hired within a DEI framework that it will be difficult to dislodge them. The structures set up to effectuate change we’ll have to be carefully and deliberately instituted and senior campus leadership and influential faculty will need to be brought on board as part of the process.
Good to see top academics catching up with what a grunt out of Vietnam could have said in 1970. Well done 👍🏻
Anyway, nice words. Now let’s see what the great and good will actually do… 🤔
The time for navel gazing is gone and most certainly academics won’t be leading the smallest of charges. They had two full professional generations to do something, even just speak up but they didn’t.
Those few that might have the courage to say the obvious are far too few and too late. Frankly, I question the real value of any input they might now have.
When it gets rougher than it is already those in academe when called on for intellectual back up will make excuses, caveats and rules that can’t be applied. They will be a hindrance not a help. They will step aside in shame and tell stories about how it might have been 🥱
In these days being an academic prepared to call out ‘the king wears no clothes’ is of no value that is not already recognised by an intelligent 15 year old.
Academe, like the police, a once respected institution, has lost its democratic right to power. No one respects it and so no one is listening to the few remaining good guys. Those emerging have one heck of a battle and will be broken by it.
Ideas may have a life of their own but so does reality.
In the meantime keep on talking to each other about yesterday.