1. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Autonomous to serve Governing bodies, autonomy, and responsiveness of US universities

2. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 2 Overview historical background of US colleges’ autonomy autonomy of public and private higher education institutions (HEIs) basics of the structure of US HEIs governing bodies and external governance governing bodies in relation to other university authorities governing bodies and adaptability of US HEIs

3. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 3 Autonomy—the very beginnings College, later named after John Harvard, was estab- lished in 1636 at first it was fully under the authority of the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony 1642—the creation of the board of overseers: –governor, deputy governor, president of the school, six clergymen from Cambridge, Watertown, Charlestown, Boston, Roxbury, and Dorchester 1650—Harvard Corporation: school’s independency

4. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 4 Autonomy—colonial times Harvard Corporation consisted of 7 members (including president and treasures) self-perpetuating body the decisions were to be confirmed by board of overseers sometimes such situation made decision-process difficult after 1782 the situation changed and Harvard gained full autonomy the pattern of Harvard College was followed by other colonial colleges, including king’s colleges

5. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 5 Independency and autonomy Just after the American Revolution there were two philosophies of state/government- HEI relationship: –closer dependency and use of HEIs as means of public policy (e.g.: „the enduring dream” of federal national university) –greater autonomy and independency of colleges and universities (strongly supported by private schools) the result of the clash: Dartmouth v. Woodward case in 1819

6. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 6 Dartmouth case 1815 because of the conflicts between the president—John Wheelock—and the board of trustees, Wheelock was dismissed later—the General Court of New Hampshire tried to change the college charter Wheelock sued New Hampshire to the Supreme Court John Marshal (the Chief Justice) explained that no external force can change the nature of the college “there shall be in the said Dartmouth College, from henceforth and forever, a body politic consisting of trustees of said Dartmouth College.”

7. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 7 Public universities autonomy Moore v. Board of Regents of University of the State of New York in 1977 secured the autonomy of the institutions of higher education it ruled that only the board of trustees has right to amend programs of studies, not state agency, controlling higher education In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957, Justice Felix Frankfurter defined the autonomy of HEI as the right: –“to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”

8. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 8 Dartmouth Case Decision of the Supreme Court secured the autonomy of private institutions they are ruled by the most important regulation: their own charter, therefore they do not have to grant some constitutional rights, including freedom of speech Dartmouth case does not influence state-public institution relations directly public institutions are (at least theoretically): –state founded –state funded –state controlled

9. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 9 Typical structure of US HEI at the very top: –governing body (called: board of trustees, board of overseers, board of governors) the board: –hires and fires the president –shapes the mission of the institution –supervises crucial financial decisions the president is the executive officer of the school, reports directly and only to the board

10. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 10 Typical structure of US HEI president is responsible for the administration of the school: –hires and fires (usually at his/her discretion) officers –implements school’s mission in everyday activity –is responsible for school’s cooperation with external bodies (including government and business) academic elective bodies (e.g. senate): –they are loosing their importance –tend to be advisory bodies (president enjoys the only real executive power)

11. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 11 Governing board as the self-perpetuating body, the board is responsible for its composition itself public schools have to obey state regulations (eg. a person or a number of persons appointed by governor) especially among public schools: some members are appointed by senates once established board remains independent: „arm’s length” rule protects from too strong political influence

12. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 12 Governing board this is not the representation of the faculty members (i.e. senate) its consists of elected or appointed members usually the majority are the alumni of the school they do not to be academics, rather successful entrepreneurs they know the demands of the labor market since many of them are employers themselves

13. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 13 Governing board serves as the buffer and mediator between the school and external forces (including government) it is the guardian of the autonomy even in public schools the government (federal, state, and local) cannot force them to change programs of studies or close less popular ones such decisions must be approved by the board

14. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 14 Autonomy and responsiveness the challenges of the 1980s forced US HEIs to be more market-oriented and open to the demands of students and labor market responsiveness meant response to those demands president in collaboration with the board can easily and quickly change the offer of the school they do not need to wait until government adopt new policies

15. Dr. Radoslaw Rybkowski: Autonomous to serve radoslaw.rybkowski@fulbrightmail.org Drivers of Change: What Can We Learn? 15 Autonomous to serve many scholars and administrators call for more responsive university autonomy does not mean seclusion autonomy means openness to new challenges schools not dependent to government and politicians can respond: –quicker –more reasonable –cheaper