↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
ANTIOCH NOTES
The Token Trustee
The announcement that Princeton University would
add a graduated senior to its board of trustees gave
fresh impetus to the idea that students should serve
on governing hoards. This concept is not only meager
in its potential to meet current demands for
“st~~dent
power” but actually may further erode the principle
of lay trusteeship, which even without student
men
bership shows signs of being washed away.
Pressed by campus unrest and public resentment,
boards of trustees are being increasingly tempted into
actions they are not qualified to take. When the re-
gents of the University of California reversed a fac-
ulty appointment, made under academic due process,
they assuredly earned some sort of prize for the most
SEPTEMBER 1970
inappropriate action of the year. Trustees’ continued
involvement in this kind of management function
can only compound already confused college gov-
ernance and erode what little is left of accepted and
understood authority.
Because the student’s overriding interest is in the
hottest issue of the moment, his presence on the
board would almost certainly inject
the
hoard pre-
cisely into the middle of problems it should avoid.
Even if this classical pitfall could be avoided, it is
hard to foresee anything but frustration arising from
the figment that any one or two or three students can
represent the range of views held by all students.
Every troubled
campus
knows that the focus of stu-
dent leadership is shifting and difficult to identify.
The odds are strongly against the possibility that the
student trustee could represent the issues of the mo-
ment or that if he tried, fellow students would accept
his leadership.
VOL. 48, No. 1 ANTIOCH NOTES SEPTEMBER 1970
Publid~ed xvm tmcs a )’ear at Amioch Colkgc, Yellow Springs, Ohio,
45387, m January, February, March, April, September, October,
and November. ~~~~~~~~clas postage ]paid at Ydhw Springb, Ohio.
Awmcw Nons )may bc quoted in wholc or m part if credit is given.
Perhaps worst of all, the appointment of students
as trustees would fool at least some people into think-
ing that student aspirations are being met by a move
that at best is but a token of good intentions. It is far
better to make such intentions evident
by
more prac-
tical moves.
It is clearly within the power of trustees to make
such moves. Let me suggest a few of them.
The Means to Influence
The academic community has every reason 10 believe
that trustees make or influence decisions that will
directly affect them. That most boards
make
tliese
decisions in isolated privacy is strangely at odds with
the essential open quality of a college. Even boards of
public universities, which may be required t0 meet
publicly, too often reach
decisons in an informal
caucus. Except for privileged matters, boards should
meet in settings open to the members of the institu-
tion, and they should have predetermined ground
rules to permit the
participation
of those attending.
Obviously this practice will create some fermenta-
tion, but it is better to ventilate than to bottle up frus-
trations that will later pop the cork more
loudly.
Without judging the wisdom of the Harvard Cor-
poration’s decision, last spring to
vore
its General
Motors shares with the G.M. management, there is
no reason why the President and Fellows of Harvard,
at the point of reaching
tliat
decision, should have
been shielded from the strong dissenting views of a
large and concerned portion of
the
Harvard faculty
and of Harvard students.
The Right to Elect
Although the concept of self-selection of members is
well established
among
boards of all kinds of chari-
table institutions, it is becoming increasingly suspect
in
higher
education. Many college boards have ex-
tended to alumni the right to fill a certain number
of seats.
This
principle need only be extended a bit
more to give similar rights to students and faculty
members.
One way to do so is to designate existing governing
bodies, such as faculty senates, educational councils,
or student councils, to choose some number of trus-
tees. For example, a fourth of Antioch College’s trus-
tees are elected by its Administrative Council, a body
composed of faculty, students, and administrators.
The Council’s selections have been consistently XL-
lightened, and because its members have different
associations from those of the trustees, these selections
have given the board diverse talents md attitudes.
Determination of Agenda
Although newspaper reports may suggest that board
meetings are devoted to issues of high controversy,
the fact is that most trustee transactions are abysmally
dull. They consist largely of pro forma actions that
the president has dressed up to look like decisions.
When trustees “determine” a budget, they usually
confirm a series of personnel appointments made
three months beforehand. The policy issues that most
concern the campus community may never make the
trustees’ agenda.
For example, the old saw that teachers should
teach and students should study doesn’t cut any more.
Students want to rip into the curriculum. So picture
as an agenda item for the board the respective roles
of students and the faculty in determining curricular
policies. If the trustees are wise enough to keep clear
of specific issues of content, the outcomes may be
I highly constructive indeed.
Shared Activity
The luncheon, social evening, or “seminar,” which
typically represents trustee-student acquaintance, is a
sorry device for communication. At best it is a pleas-
ant occasion; at worst, a surly confrontation. Clearly
needed are equal participation in situations that deal
with problems of common concern. A group of stu-
dents, faculty members, administrators, and trustees
charged with developing the institution’s posture in
loco parentis might well come up with both a sensible
policy and a better understanding of each other’s
concerns in the matter.
These proposals are designed to place the student in a
position of influence and participation while preserv-
ing the board’s essential role as legal trustee. They
recognize that the demand for student membership
on the board of trustees is only a manifestation of a
fundamental change in student attitude.
The idea of the student as a privileged transient
is still widely held: “Here are the conditions under
which you may enjoy the benefits of our college.
When you enroll here, you agree to abide by our con-
ditions. If yo11 find that you don’t like them, go some-
where else.” That is a comfortable and well-ordered
doctrine, but it is ten years out of date.
The contemporary student sees college
attendancc
as a right-indeed, a necessity for entrance into the
social-economic structure; and from this point of
view he is moved to change whatever he finds objec-
tionable-preferably today. Therefore, the student’s
needs are not to be denied by mere assertion that his
elders know best.
It is sheer fantasy to think that a change as super-
ficial as giving the student a token seat on the board
of trustees will satisfy his aspirations for influence,
participation, and, above all, some measure of control
over his own education.
MORTON A. RAUII
Vice-President, Emeritus
Mr. Rauh is the author of The Trusteeship of Colleges and
Universities, published last year by the McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
