Late last Friday, Columbia University announced that Katrina Armstrong would step down as interim president. Just a week earlier, she had gathered around 75 faculty members for an emergency meeting. Their discussion followed a troubling event: the university had given in to pressures from the Trump administration in hopes of regaining $400 million in federal support. Armstrong described the situation as “heartbreaking,” assuring faculty that academic freedom was still a priority.

This meeting was secretly recorded and shared publicly. Just two days later, she was reassigned back to lead the medical center, making way for a trustee to take over her role. This move was unprecedented in Columbia’s 271-year history. It highlights a worrying trend in governance across American universities—one that risks undermining the very essence of these institutions.
In recent years, many universities have struggled to maintain their core values, especially when dealing with government influences and the interests of trustees. Who decides to compromise academic freedom? This question is increasingly urgent. Whether at private institutions like Columbia, Harvard, or public universities such as the University of North Carolina, the balance of power seems shaky.
Trustees have a crucial role; they are responsible for the financial health of the university and oversee the appointment of senior leaders. However, often they make decisions without meaningful input from faculty, challenging the norms of shared governance. Their growing influence in academic matters can pose a serious threat, especially during politically charged times.
The makeup of these boards is also concerning. Typically, they are dominated by individuals from business, law, and technology. Very few have experience in academia. For instance, Columbia’s board consists largely of business leaders with little to no academic backgrounds. This raises a crucial question: How can these trustees effectively run a university without understanding its core mission—education and knowledge creation?
The narrow focus on financial stability can lead to decisions that prioritize profit over the academic values that are essential to educational institutions. As the Columbia incident illustrates, trustees may neglect academic freedom in pursuit of political or financial gains. This issue is not just a Columbia problem; it’s prevalent across many elite universities.
According to a 2022 report from the American Association of University Professors, nearly 80% of faculty members feel that governance structures in higher education prioritize financial concerns over academic integrity. This disconnect can hinder the university’s ability to fulfill its mission to society.
The dire need for change in governance is clear. Experts suggest that a new social contract needs to be established for boards of trustees. This change should aim to balance power—giving more voice to faculty, students, and the broader academic community. For public universities, garnering support from state governments and legal frameworks may be necessary.
There are two important steps to achieve this shift. First, boards must face public scrutiny regarding their composition, accountability, and decision-making processes. This transparency will help ensure they act in the institution’s best interest. Second, academic boards should reflect the democratic values of universities: free speech, transparency, and diversity.
Columbia’s recent events underscore the importance of prioritizing these values. If change doesn’t happen soon, the alliance of wealthy alumni, political interests, and bureaucratic agendas could threaten the foundations of educational institutions across the country.
The conversation is starting, but there’s a long way to go. Recognizing the urgency to redefine these roles is the first step toward safeguarding our universities for future generations.
Check out this related article: Introducing CatGPT: The World’s First AI Powered by Authentic Vermont Wisdom – Discover What UVM Has Created!
Source link