Harvard Magazine on sharing university governance

A letter from the editor

One shibboleth of academic life is “shared governance”: involving faculty members in shaping the direction, even the management, of their institutions. In theory, that makes the operation of the academy more consensual—if also messier and less efficient—than other sectors of society, like business.

Princeton president emeritus William G. Bowen and Eugene Tobin examine the concept in their recent Locus of Authority (Princeton). Their subject “is really about leadership, and how it is both constrained and exercised” in the college or university. They note, “Faculty are not generally in a position, nor are they responsible, for providing institution-wide leadership on their own.” But “faculty can either encourage (and facilitiate) the wise exercise of leadership by others or…throw…sand in the wheels.”

At some universities, a faculty senate enables deliberation and voice. Stanford has one; Yale’s arts and sciences faculty recently created one—with 60 percent of members voting in the initial election, a participation rate many times that at regular faculty meetings. (That would be true in Cambridge, too.) But in a centralizing era of investing in information systems, complying with federal regulations, and mounting massive capital campaigns, no such legislature has advanced at Harvard—not even during the governance crisis of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when a senate was discussed. Today, administrators probably wouldn’t welcome the aggravation; professors probably don’t want the extra work.

But a model for valuable, if less formal, consultation exists. MIT’s recent task force on its educational future engaged the whole community in work that has accelerated online learning, laid the foundation for involvement in K-12 education, and provided the architecture for fundraising. A “conversation on climate change committee” similarly reached constituents across campus; its suggestions may not all advance, but they broaden debate and understanding. Even when lobbying Congress for more funds to combat an “innovation deficit,” MIT put its professors’ expertise forward.

All that is shared governance, based on MITs most valuable coin, its intellectual capital. The innovation could very productively travel upriver.

* * *

Zara Zhang ’17, our Daniel Steiner Undergraduate Editorial Fellow this summer, contributed deeply reported, well-written articles online, on subjects ranging from the arts and humanities to urban design. Enjoy her work at the redesigned harvardmagazine.com, and in this issue on pages 7 and8. We were lucky to have her as a colleague, and thank her for her outstanding work on readers’ behalf.  

John S. Rosenberg, Editor

Related topics

You might also like

This is How Universities Die

Higher ed thrived in Berlin and Beijing. Then government stepped in. 

Voices Raised about Harvard

Responses to the University’s rejection of federal proposals for intrusive regulation of academic affairs

Yesterday’s News

Seniors’ uncertain future c. 1940, Harvard Law Review news, and more

Most popular

Hold the Fries

Baked, boiled, and mashed potatoes are better.

The Latest In Harvard’s Fight with the Trump Administration

Back-and-forth reports on settlement talks, new accusations from the government, and a reshuffling of two federal compliance offices

The School of Public Health, Facing a Financial Reckoning, Seizes the Chance to Reinvent Itself

Dean Andrea Baccarelli plans for a smaller, more impactful Chan School of 2030.

Explore More From Current Issue

David Leo Rice

David Leo Rice explores the strange, unseen forces shaping our world.

Nicolo Maestas in a grey suit and wearing glasses sits with her arms on a table

The Harvard health economist not afraid to get in the weeds

Matt Levine in a dark blazer and glasses stands smiling with arms crossed in front of a large window in a city building.

Matt Levine’s spunky Bloomberg column