The shared governance structure commonly found throughout higher education institutions in the United States is one of the capstones on which the academy stands. Most colleges and universities develop major policies and procedures through broad-based collaboration among various institutional constituencies, with ultimate approval coming from an autonomous governing board. Yet, the adoption of student membership on institutional governing boards has altered this tradition of this shared governance system during the last 20-years. The inclusion of students as members of Board of Trustees (or Regents) has made positive and adverse impacts on higher education institutions. This article takes an in-depth look at how the increasing numbers of student trustees are influencing higher education institutions.

The ideal of shared governance is one of the founding tenets of American higher education (Gerber, 1997; Lazerson, 1997). This organizational structure evolved in colleges and universities as a means to elicit broad collaboration from institutional constituencies while maintaining an autonomous governing board with definitive authority. Regents or trustees generally come to the boardroom with no direct tie to the college or university, with the exception of, at times, being alumni. The membership of a higher education governing board is traditionally comprised of citizens outside of the campus community, thereby creating autonomous, disinterested boards charged with institutional oversight.

Some argue that the autonomous nature of college and university governing boards is one important reason that higher education in the United States is world renowned for high standards of academic quality (Gerber, 1997). Furthermore, Gilmour (1991) suggests that higher education in the United States is currently academically cogent as a result of limiting direct government involvement. The governance system of higher education in the United States evolved so that trustees serve their college or university without favoring any sort of institutional constituency, such as faculty members from a specific discipline.

College and university trustees frequently function in a number of capacities. Responsibilities for members of governing boards often include hiring, firing and assessing the performance of the institution’s president. They also set the institution’s academic mission and strategic goals while ensuring the financial health of the institution. Traditionally, governing boards oversee major institutional policy decisions, such as questions of tenure, academic freedom, and financial management. They often serve as the bridge between the school and the state legislature, and trustee meetings provide a setting for institutional collaboration between faculty, staff, and students.

In 1998, the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) established a number of best practices for trustees in reaction to the changing realities and perceptions of higher education in the United States. The AGB guidelines highlight many of the challenges higher education institutions face with regard to declining public resources and increasing costs. As a way to overcome these issues, AGB stresses that institutions should maintain the autonomous and disinterested nature of their governing board. Within their guidelines, the AGB specifically recommends abstaining from incorporating students, faculty or staff as voting members on college or university governing boards (p. 5). The tradition of having a disinterested governing board, in the eyes of the AGB, is sacrosanct; they argue that breaking this tradition could lead academic quality down a slippery slope.

Nevertheless, higher education institutions and state legislatures across the country have adopted policies that establish student members on governing boards. This article takes a critical look at this shift in the objective nature of higher education governing boards. It describes the positive attributes of having student members on governing boards for both students and their institution. This article also explains the challenges students and institutions undertake by having student trustees. Finally, this article concludes by making specific recommendations for higher education administrators and trustees about how to improve the experience and effectiveness of student members on governing boards.

The idea of incorporating students as voting members on college and university governing boards gained momentum during the 1970s (B. Medaille, personal communication, October, 1999). Student activism associated with the Vietnam era and the civil rights movement led students across the country to develop interest in the governance of their college or university (B. Medaille, personal communication, October, 1999). Before this time, the tradition of having trustees from disinterested backgrounds precluded faculty, staff and student involvement as voting members of the governing board. However, students argued then, as they do today, that their involvement in the management of their institution was congruent with the ideal of shared governance. Trustees, legislators, and university administrators challenged this argument, stating that incorporating students as voting members would fundamentally change the tradition of creating an autonomous board.

Students disagreed with this reasoning. They suggested that the mission of higher education is essentially different from any other type of institution, corporation, or complex organization. Students rationalized that they are both the consumer and the product of higher education. Students contended that because of the tradition of shared governance, they have a stake and should have a place at the governing board table. They proposed that extending the tradition of shared governance to include voting student membership on their governing boards would ensure the strength and vitality of higher education in the United States into the twenty-first century.

Through the student activism of the 1970s, student arguments to extend shared governance gained credibility among higher education administrators and state legislators (B. Medaille, personal communication, October, 1999). As a result, the concept of creating student trustees gained momentum across the country. Today, 39 states have passed legislation to create student members on higher education governing boards (B. Medaille, personal communication, October, 1999). Of these states, 75% of the students serving on governing boards have the right to vote on all issues facing the institution. Some states have gone so far as to create multiple student positions on governing boards (B. Medaille, personal communication, October, 1999). Student terms on governing boards vary in length depending upon state and institution. In a number of states, students and legislators are currently working to pass legislation to create student trustees (B. Medaille, personal communication, October, 1999).

The incorporation of students as trustees on higher education governing boards creates a number of positive outcomes for both students and their institution. For instance, I argue that placing students on governing boards increases their effectiveness in creating student-initiated institutional change. Creating student trustees provides for stronger student voices in the tradition of shared governance. Furthermore, the establishment of student trustees increases student access to key institutional policy makers, including the college or university president and other campus leaders. As a result, students have additional opportunities to influence the management of their institution.

Another direct benefit of having students serve as trustees is the improved communication between students and administrators. Often the tradition of shared governance at certain institutions overlooks students (Gilmour, 1991), thereby impairing the communication between students and administrators about important institutional initiatives. When students serve as trustees, they have the opportunity to participate in meetings where central policy decisions are debated. Ideally, student trustees will inform other involved student leaders and solicit their comments about these issues.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of having student trustees is on the individual students themselves. Students have an excellent opportunity for personal, professional, and leadership development by serving as a trustee. A student serving as a member of a higher education governing board achieves a position of influence and prestige that is traditionally reserved for the most successful and affluent members in society. This experience, coming to most students prior to entering the professional world, adds considerable status to their resume and professional development. Functioning as a member of the board of trustees is, arguably, one of the highest honors a student can achieve during their post-secondary academic career. Having positive experiences for student trustees will also contribute to the student’s future success in the business and professional world.

Besides the direct benefits for students, there are also many institutional benefits associated with having students serve as members on governing boards. Institutions with student trustees, at least rhetorically, are more responsive to student activism and concerns. It is difficult for students to argue that administrators or trustees do not encourage student involvement in shared governance when students serve as members of the governing board. Students also add incredible insight and experience to the governing board. For example, most trustees are usually limited to visiting campus five or six times a year for board meetings. Therefore, these trustees struggle to understand the unique complexities associated with college or university life. Compounding this challenge is the fact that most college or university trustees are two, possibly three generations removed from their own campus experience. Students sitting on the governing board add value to meetings by providing perspectives into the current issues facing the institution.

I suggest that students serving on higher education governing boards enhance the tradition of shared governance in a way not possible at institutions without student trustees. Gerber (1997) suggests that the colleges and universities that have achieved the greatest respect and worldwide reputation for academic excellence are the institutions with the strongest traditions of shared governance. Others have also noted the relationship between the unique tradition of shared governance and the strength of higher education in the United States (Haro, 1995; Russy, 1996). Ensuring the strength of shared governance is one way to guarantee the academic quality of higher education in the United States in the future (Gerber, 1997). I believe creating student membership on higher education governing boards is just one way to ensure this quality.

Student trustees can also positively influence the institution after they graduate. Because of the incredible learning that occurs when a student functions as a trustee, this individual becomes an excellent candidate to serve his or her institution as a trustee in the future. A past student trustee brings with them advanced knowledge and experience of already serving on the governing board. These individuals can go to the boardroom with a year or two of trustee expertise under their belt. The leadership a past student trustee could bring to his or her college or university after they graduate is a direct institutional benefit of having students serve on governing boards.

While a number of advantages transpire when students serve as trustees, several challenges also exist. The most obvious challenge involves modifying the structure of the governing board. By creating positions for students as trustees, the governing board automatically loses its autonomous nature. Moving from a disinterested board to having board members appointed from a particular institutional constituency could threaten the integrity of the shared governance process (S. Smith, personal communication, January, 1997). Giving students a voice at the governing board could disrupt the balance of power in the shared governance system.

When the state legislature or the institution creates positions on governing boards specifically for students, other campus constituencies might also argue for a seat at the table. Breaking the precedent of not appointing board members from the campus community could lead to the nomination of other constituency representatives to the governing board. Before long, governing boards could be made up of faculty, staff, alumni, legislators, governors, and students, thereby involving more interested constituents than disinterested citizens in control of higher education. Changing the autonomous nature of governing boards could disrupt institutional governance and lead to declining academic quality (S. Smith, personal communication, January, 1997). For example, having participants on the governing board with an invested interest in the institution could lead to policies that neglect important aspects of the institution. The tradition of granting colleges and universities “autonomy in carrying out their educational functions through the medium of independent governing boards” (AGB statement on institutional governance, 1998), could be at stake through the adoption of student trustees.

Another challenge for institutions with student trustees is the fact that they might need additional attention to fulfill their role on the governing board. Administrators and board members alike might need to spend considerable time orienting student trustees to the responsibilities of serving on the governing board. Furthermore, soon after administrators dedicate time and resources to educate student members about their board responsibilities, the term of these student trustees expires or they graduate. The transitory nature of students as trustees creates considerable work for both campus administrators and board members, and could decrease the efficiency of the board.

In addition to the struggles faced by institutions, the experience of being a trustee is challenging for students. For instance, students will always confront the challenge of being an effective board member due to their short tenure on the board. I suggest that most trustees spend their first year on the board learning about their responsibilities. Because most students serve only a one-year term (B. Medaille, personal communication, October, 1999), their effectiveness as board members is questionable. Speaking from personal experience as a student board member at the University of Vermont (UVM), I found that most of my two-year term was spent on learning the process and responsibilities associated with serving on the board. It was only towards the end of my term that I held credibility among other trustees and a strong understanding of the overall role of the board. Other trustees and I have discussed similar experiences; they also needed their first two years on the board to comprehend their role. It is difficult for an institution to expect anyone to assume the complex role as a university trustee for one year and expect him/her to be an effective leader. The inherent transitory nature of student trustees will always inhibit their effectiveness as members of governing boards.

In my experience, the most influential trustees chair sub-committees or serve as the president of the board. Generally, after board members spend their first year or two orienting themselves to their trustee responsibilities, they are then appointed to chair a committee. Because of their limited time on the board, students rarely have the opportunity to serve in this type of leadership role. Without the ability to gain a leadership role on the board, students lack the influence to initiate substantial institutional change. Being excluded from leadership positions on the board because of term constraints will always decrease the effectiveness of student trustees.

Finally, student trustees will always face the challenge of working with other student leaders. When a student is appointed as a trustee by the state legislature or by the governor without any influence in the selection process from student leaders or the Student Government Association (SGA), conflict is bound to happen. Furthermore, I argue that leaders in SGA might have less credibility in the shared governance process by having student members on the governing board. I argue that university presidents will always be more alarmed by issues expressed by members of their governing board, as opposed to the concerns generated by the leaders in the SGA. This can create a situation in which the student appointed as a trustee by the Governor may have more institutional credibility than the student leaders elected by the overall student body. Consequently, when student trustees and leaders in the SGA do not agree on policy questions, both the institution and students suffer. It is imperative that student leaders in the SGA and student trustees collaborate and communicate to ensure that their respective agendas compliment each other.

After examining the positive aspects and challenges of having student trustees, I suggest the following recommendations. First, I propose that students, trustees, and administrators should assess if having student trustees would benefit their campus. Creating the institutional consensus necessary to create a position for a student on the governing board could take years to build. In my opinion, the bureaucratic and human resources necessary to establish student trustees can distract faculty, administration, trustees, and students from other important contemporary issues in higher education. Every institution needs to weigh the benefits of having student trustees against the time, resources, and controversy involved with creating this type of policy.

On the other hand, if students are already members of the governing board, I believe these institutions have a tremendous resource that adds a unique dynamic to their shared governance structure. For example, these institutions have students adding their valuable and diverse perspectives during every board meeting. In the age of declining public resources for higher education and increasing competitiveness for top quality students, trustees simply cannot afford to make ill-informed decisions. Having direct student involvement on important issues such as academic quality, access, and multicultural issues at the highest level of campus governance will contribute to the overall competitiveness and academic integrity of the institution.

I recommend that campus administrators and board members assess the trustee experience for students that serve on the governing board. Administrators and board members can make the student trustee experience stronger by asking questions such as: What type of board orientation and information can make student trustees more effective? How can university presidents and other administrators build stronger partnerships with students that sit on their governing board? How can student members learn more about the complexities of higher education organizations in order to support their institution’s chief executive? Can a current trustee be assigned to serve as a mentor for a new student member? How effective are students that serve for only one year on the board? Can board members or the administration recommend extending the student term to at least two years?

These are all questions administrators and board members should be asking about their student trustees. By assessing the strengths and weaknesses of having students serve as members of institutional governing boards, administrators and trustees can improve this experience. I believe that having active and engaged students at the highest level of campus governance will ensure the future viability and quality of higher education in the United States.

Association of governing boards statement on institutional governance, 1998. http://www.agb.org/governance.cfm.

Gerber, L. G. (1997). Reaffirming the value of shared governance. Academe, 83, 11-15.

Gilmour, J. E. (1991). Participative governance bodies in higher education: Report of a national study. New Directions for Higher Education, 75, 27-34.

Haro, R. P. (1995, December 8). Choosing trustees who care about things that matter. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B1-2.

Lazerson, M. (1997). Who owns higher education? The changing face of governance. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29, 10-14.

Russy, C. (1996, October 11). Public universities need rigorous oversight by “activist” trustees. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B3-4.

Matthew R. Caires is a graduate student in the University of Vermont Higher Education and Student Affairs Administration Master’s Program. He served as a member of the University of Vermont Board of Trustees from 1998-2000.