Montesquieu in the University: The Governance of World-class Institutions of Higher Education and Research

The point of departure for this article is the principle of the separation of powers, formulated long ago by the Frenchman Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu. It is argued that this principle is important for the governance of universities, entailing a balance between university boards, university presidents and university senates. To this end, the article presents evidence about the governance structure of two highly-ranked US universities, UC Berkeley (UCB) and Stanford University. It reports on board compositions, the selection of presidents and the role of academic senates. The conclusion is that the principle of the balance of powers (‘shared governance’ as it is called at UCB) has served the two universities well. Therefore, despite differences in other conditions, such as their endowments, other universities might benefit from the evidence reported.

Challenges and Opportunities for Collegial Governance at Canadian Universities: Reflections on a Survey of Academic Senates

Following the design of a similar study in 2000, the authors conducted a study of university senates (academic councils) to assess the current state of academic governance in Canada’s universities. An earlier paper presented and analyzed the data that were gathered about senate size, composition, structure, legislative authority and work, and about structural and governance changes to senates in the intervening decade. The current paper focuses on themes arising from responses to the open-ended questions, highlighting key findings. Significant findings relate to a sizeable discrepancy between senate members’ perceptions of the importance of effective academic oversight, and their success at achieving this. Suggested reforms include reviewing and improving senate performance; fostering a culture of trust and respect among and within governing bodies; clarifying spheres of authority and accountability; and promoting the importance of collegial governance and oversight within the institution.

Ways out of the Crisis in Russia and Abroad (A Joint Meeting of Academic Senates of IE RAS and IEF)

.

Security, Privacy, and Politics in Higher Education

This chapter introduces the interrelationships of security, privacy and politics in higher education. University curriculum politics are ingrained through organizational structures that control faculty hiring, retention, tenure, and promotion, and self-governance policy bodies such as academic senates and faculty curriculum committees that control curriculum approval and implementation. Compounding the politics of curriculum are different constructs of security and privacy, with security viewed as a technical issue versus privacy as a legal and organizational issue. The author believes that multiple disciplines must learn to work together to teach the constantly changing technical, scientific, legal, and administrative security and privacy landscape. While university “ownership” of security and privacy curriculum may create new political challenges, it has the potential to help limit competing faculty, department and program politics.

A Model for Academic Planning

Under conditions of limited and selective growth, institutions propose resource allocation changes which are not strictly related to overall institutional enrollment levels. These proposals often focus attention on the resource impact of internal shifts in student demand and the desirability of maintaining minimum or "critical mass "levels of academic program breadth and quality. This paper addresses the academic planning procedures needed to advance non-enrollment driven resource maintenance and acquisition proposals at institutional and state levels. The purpose of critical mass modeling for academic planning is to facilitate analysis, prioritization and negotiation of academic program alternatives and resources. The critical mass approach to academic planning would establish a campus-wide process and informa- tion base for prioritization of academic program development through (a) analysis of existing breadth and depth of faculty expertise in instruction and research at the sub- disciplinary level, (b) identification of subdisciplinary areas in which academic units would like to provide instruction and research in the future. Critical mass denotes the level of course offerings and research which academic units could not reduce and still maintain programs which fulfill their own objectives compatible with the overall mission of their institution. Critical mass program size and "core" resource requirements would be established by academic unit faculty and then would be negotiated with committees of academic senates and with institutional administrations. The planning process described is designed for application in medium and large sized institutions in which formal, comprehensive and integrated academic ¡resource planning systems do not operate presently.