|
 |
Friends,
One of the green shoots of hope emerging from Trump’s oppression is a movement to make boards of directors more responsive to their constituents — especially university boards, which have long been bastions of old-boy privilege, Wall Street conservatism, and self-replicating timidity.
Columbia University — one of the most cowardly of all major universities in surrendering to Trump — is now among the leaders in the movement to democratize university governance.
In a recent interview with the Columbia Spectator (from which much of this post is drawn), Michael Thaddeus, professor of mathematics and acting president of the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors, called universities “a microcosm of society” and stressed the importance that governance has for Columbia. “Society is taking this authoritarian turn right now, which is very worrisome,” Thaddeus said. “Do we as a university want to be a mini autocracy, or do we want to be a mini democracy? We need to be a mini-democracy.”
In July, Columbia struck a $221 million agreement with the Trump regime to settle pending civil rights investigations and restore most federal grants that Trump had terminated in March. The deal, which ranges from giving the federal government admissions data of both rejected and admitted students to asking international applicants why they wish to study in the United States, was criticized by faculty, students, and alumni.
Last fall, Barnard and Columbia claimed the bottom two spots in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2026 College Free Speech Rankings.
Now, the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors is calling for sweeping changes to the University’s board of trustees. **
It charges that the university’s settlement with the Trump regime “limits the exercise of academic freedom, acquiesces to limits imposed on the admission of foreign students, and establishes new forms of oversight for some academic units, among other unprecedented provisions.”
The Columbia AAUP wants open nominations and “competitive direct elections” for half of the seats on the board and greater transparency, communication, and engagement with University stakeholders:
“The Board cannot regain the trust of the University community if it eschews basic norms of accountability and transparency and if the University’s highest governing authority remains insulated from the people it serves …. rapid Board reform is imperative.”
The AAUP criticizes the “relative homogeneity” of the current board, noting that 10 of the 19 trustees have ties with the financial sector and only one has prior academic experience. “This imbalance restricts the range of expertise and lived experiences that should inform the governance of a modern research university, where the Board’s mission extends far beyond financial stewardship.”
It charges that “in the last year and a half, problematic Board actions have accelerated, endangering and alienating many students, faculty, and staff,” noting that such actions have contributed to Columbia’s “catastrophic loss of reputational stature.”
It also states, “While not all of Columbia’s current precarious situation can be laid at the feet of the Board, considerable blame must rest there.”
The Columbia AAUP specifies several guidelines and ethical principles expected of the board, including a diversity of expertise, representativeness of the university population, transparency, and “mitigation of conflicts of interest.” It says the “crisis of confidence” in the board is “profound and widespread” and states that “substantial, rapid, and principled reform is no longer optional. Now is the time to act.”
It calls on trustees to “uphold the institution’s own Statutes and shared governance structures and to exercise independent judgment rather than yielding to external political pressure or administrative expediency” in the name of fiduciary responsibility. It argues that “a more democratically constituted Board is a critical first step towards broader democratic practice” and calls on the board to institute direct elections for seats, and make meeting minutes publicly available to “increase trust, visibility, fairness, and accountability.”
Michael Thaddeus hopes the statement will open debate about the lack of direct communication between the Columbia community and the board, adding that he believes it could serve as a starting point for change. “We just want to plant the seed of the idea that a great university in a free society should not be run by a self-perpetuating, oligarchic board. It should be run by a democratically elected board that is responsive to constituents and stakeholders.”
Jean Howard, the George Delacorte professor emerita in the humanities, said the Columbia-AAUP would “love to have meetings with a select group of the board,” and in the meantime, must “make a lot of public noise too.”
Adam Reich, professor of sociology (and, full disclosure, my son) said he hopes the AAUP statement will reach beyond the board of trustees to those “at the heart of this institution,” such as students, faculty, and other community members. “It’s sort of up to us to reimagine what the board ought to be and make it happen,” Reich told the Spectator.
It’s too early to tell whether Trump’s arbitrary repression of academic freedom in American universities will paradoxically result in a flowering of democratic accountability there. But university boards of trustees are among the most insular and self-perpetuating of all American institutions. If those boards are opened, academia will be both more accountable and freer.
** The link for people (Columbia alumni, faculty, others) who want to get involved can be found here.
So glad you can be here today. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber of this community so we can do even more.
|