On May 17, 2022, the Board of Curators for the University of Missouri amended the Board Bylaws to require that all changes to undergraduate admissions standards throughout the UM System be subject to the Board’s approval. This item was placed on the Curators agenda with less than 36 hours public notice. Chapter leadership became aware of the agenda item on May 16 and submitted the following letter to the Curators that same day.
Dear Curator Chatman and Members of the Board,
We are writing in regard to the proposed motion that will be voted on at the May 17 Special Meeting of the Board to amend the Board Bylaws such that “any and all changes to undergraduate admissions standards shall be subject to formal review and approval by the Board of Curators before becoming effective” (https://collaborate.umsystem.edu/sites/BOC).
The materials posted online raise the possibility that the Board is not aware of some negative consequences that will result from passing this motion. Although we recognize that the Board of Curators has ultimate responsibility for the University of Missouri, the Collected Rules and Regulations (including the Faculty Bylaws) encode underlying principles of good governance that are intended to shape all specific directives on particular points. The wording of the proposed motion is inconsistent with these principles in several respects. Specifically, if the Board approves this motion, then it may:
• violate its duties and responsibilities as defined by its own bylaws: CRR 10.030 details those duties and responsibilities, specifying that “each Board member shall adhere to the following principles”, one of which is “To accept and defend academic freedom and the practice of collaboration governance as fundamental characteristics of good University governance” (CRR 10.030.B.2 and d).
The term “collaboration governance” is synonymous with “shared governance,” whose established principles are is discussed in more detail below.
• threaten the accreditation of the four UM System campuses: the accreditation of each UM System campus is determined by the Higher Learning Commission, and among their policies for accreditation is a criterion that specifies that: “The governing board delegates day-to-day management of the institution to the institution’s administration and expects the institution’s faculty to oversee academic matters” (2.C.5).
• violate Faculty Bylaws of the UM campuses: the MU Faculty Bylaws are outlined in CRR 300.010, which state that “The faculty’s authority, as delegated by the Board of Curators, is of three types: [the first of which is] direct and primary, in which the faculty has essential decision-making authority”. The Faculty Bylaws further specify that the MU faculty “has essential decision-making authority in matters directly affecting the educational program of UMC, including but not limited to . . . Determination of minimum admission requirements” (CRR 300.010.C.3 and a.(6)).
Similarly, see the UMKC Faculty Bylaws (CRR 300.020.D.3.b) and the UMSL Faculty Bylaws (CRR 300.040.B.3 and B.4.a).
• violate established best practices in shared governance: these best practices were established over 50 years ago in a statement jointly formulated in 1966 by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB). This statement advises that “The board should undertake appropriate self-limitation.” It further states that “The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process”, clarifying in footnote 4 that faculty “should be afforded opportunity for oversight of the entire admissions process” (see https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities).
Similarly, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges states that “In order to embrace shared governance, [Boards] must: Honor the academic norm of shared governance, which includes the board, president, administration, and faculty. The board has primary fiduciary responsibilities, and it delegates primary management responsibility to the president and primary responsibility for academic programs to the faculty” (see https://agb.org/principles-of-trusteeship/respect-difference-boards-administrations-role/).
• threaten sanction from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP): violation of shared governance principles could result in sanction by the AAUP. This would be especially unwelcome because the MU administration is currently under censure by the AAUP. The Board should also know that MU is the only Association of American Universities (AAU) member whose administration is currently under censure and that MU is also the only university in the history of the AAUP whose administration has been censured three times. No university is currently under both censure and sanction.
• undermine MU’s standing in the AAU: the AAU promotes three key academic principles, one of which is shared governance. The AAU’s understanding of shared governance derives from the 1966 statement cited above. The AAU document that discusses these three academic principles links to the AAUP website’s version of this 1966 statement.
Approving this motion would cause harm to the university both in the short term and the long term. We urge the Board to learn more about best practices in shared governance, and we would be happy to dialogue with Board members on this theme. Voting down this motion is the right thing to do for both the Board and the university as a whole.
Sent on behalf of the Officers and Executive Committee Members of the MU-AAUP Chapter