Best Practices in Higher Education Governance

Academic freedom and the tenure system are among the most distinctive and most misunderstood features of American higher education, and how a governing board relates to them reveals a great deal about the quality of its governance. These are not fringe concerns; they touch the core purpose of a university, the free pursuit and teaching of knowledge, and they routinely place boards at the intersection of institutional values, legal obligation, and external pressure. Best practice requires trustees to understand what academic freedom protects, why tenure exists, and how the board's proper role differs from the operational decisions that belong to the faculty and administration.

Want expert help putting this into practice? Higher Education Governance can guide you through it.

Understand What Academic Freedom Protects and Why

Academic freedom is the principle that faculty may teach, research, and speak in their areas of expertise without institutional or political retaliation, subject to professional standards. It exists not as a privilege for professors but as a condition for the university's mission: inquiry cannot advance if scholars fear punishment for reaching unpopular conclusions or teaching controversial material. Boards that grasp this rationale defend academic freedom even when specific expression is uncomfortable, recognizing that the protection is only meaningful when it covers speech some find objectionable. A best-practice board treats academic freedom as a core institutional value to be upheld, not a nuisance to be managed when donors, politicians, or the public complain.

Recognize Tenure as a Governance Structure, Not a Job Guarantee

Related: Higher Education Governance - Tips and Strategies for Effective Leadership.

Tenure is widely misunderstood, including by trustees. It is not a guarantee of lifetime employment regardless of conduct; it is a structure that protects academic freedom by ensuring that faculty cannot be dismissed without cause and without due process. Tenured faculty can be removed for adequate cause, financial exigency, or program discontinuance, but only through defined procedures that prevent arbitrary or retaliatory dismissal. Understanding this distinction is essential, because boards sometimes view tenure as an obstacle to accountability when it is in fact a system with its own accountability mechanisms. Best practice is for the board to understand how its institution's tenure system actually works, including the standards and procedures, before forming judgments about it. It is worth noting that tenure has evolved alongside a growing reliance on non-tenure-track and contingent faculty, and boards increasingly grapple with the balance between the two. Whatever position a board takes on that balance, it should be reached through informed deliberation about mission, cost, and academic quality rather than through a reflexive view of tenure as either sacred or obsolete.

Respect the Board's Role in Tenure Decisions

Tenure and promotion decisions illustrate shared governance in action. The evaluation of scholarly and teaching quality is a faculty responsibility, exercised through peer review, because only disciplinary experts can judge the substance of the work. The board typically holds final authority to confer tenure, since it carries the long-term financial commitment, but best practice is for the board to respect the faculty's judgment on academic merit while exercising genuine oversight of the process and its financial implications. A board that overturns tenure recommendations on academic grounds it is not equipped to judge damages both the process and its own credibility. A board that rubber-stamps every recommendation without understanding the commitment abdicates its fiduciary role. The balance lies in owning the process and the financial stewardship while deferring to expertise on academic quality.

Prepare for Pressure Before It Arrives

See also: Higher Education Governance - Expert Advice for Institutional Leaders.

Boards increasingly face external pressure to intervene in academic matters, to discipline a faculty member for controversial statements, to remove material from a curriculum, or to reshape programs for political or ideological reasons. Best practice is to establish clear principles before such pressure arrives, so that decisions are guided by considered policy rather than by the heat of a crisis. A board that has articulated its commitment to academic freedom and its understanding of shared governance can respond to pressure with a principled, consistent position. Useful preparation includes:

• A clear statement of the institution's commitment to academic freedom.
• Agreed principles for how the board responds to external demands regarding academic matters.
• A shared understanding, with administration and faculty, of who handles what when controversy erupts.

Boards that improvise under pressure often make decisions they later regret; those that have prepared act with steadiness.

Balance Academic Freedom With Accountability

Academic freedom is not absolute, and best-practice boards understand its limits without using those limits as a pretext. Faculty remain subject to professional standards, to policies against harassment and misconduct, and to legitimate review of teaching and research quality. The challenge is to uphold genuine accountability, addressing incompetence, misconduct, or dereliction through fair processes, without allowing accountability to become a cover for suppressing protected expression. The distinction turns on due process: legitimate accountability operates through defined procedures with faculty involvement, while retaliation bypasses them. A board that insists on proper process protects both the institution's standards and its faculty's freedom.

Support a Healthy Faculty-Governance Relationship

Underlying all of this is the board's relationship with the faculty. Matters of academic freedom and tenure are precisely where board-faculty trust is tested, and where it can most easily break down. Best practice is to invest in that relationship continuously: to ensure faculty governance is respected in its proper domain, to communicate openly through recognized channels, and to demonstrate that the board values the academic enterprise it exists to steward. When trust is strong, the inevitable tensions over academic matters can be worked through within the shared governance system. When it is absent, every dispute becomes a battle. Boards can strengthen this relationship in ordinary times by inviting faculty leaders to present to the board, by including faculty perspective in strategic discussions, and by demonstrating that trustees value teaching and research as ends in themselves rather than merely as sources of revenue or reputation. These investments rarely feel urgent, but they are what allow an institution to weather the genuinely hard cases, when a controversial faculty member or a contested tenure decision tests whether the community's commitment to its stated principles is real.

Trustees seeking to deepen their understanding of these matters can consult established professional standards and resources such as Higher Education Governance to see how comparable boards navigate academic freedom, tenure, and external pressure. The best-practice orientation, though, is consistent: understand why academic freedom and tenure exist, respect the faculty's domain while exercising genuine oversight of process and finances, prepare principled positions before pressure arrives, balance freedom with fair accountability, and sustain the board-faculty trust on which the entire academic enterprise ultimately depends.