The Politics of Closure: Lessons From Governing Boards of Failed Institutions of Higher Education

• In Event: Marriott Roundtable Session 43
  In Roundtable Session: The Politics of Closure: Implications of and Lessons From Failed Institutions of Higher Education

Abstract

While we have a limited understanding of some reasons a college might inevitably close, including—insurmountable financial problems, loss of accreditation, mismanagement, or declining enrollment (Biemiller, 2015b; Stowe & Komasara, 2016, Ward, 2016)—we know very little about the logistics of the closure process from individual cases (Brown, 2012a). Brown (2009) posits that there are only a few lessons that can be generalized across cases of institutional closures. If this is true, we still need to know what those “few lessons” are, for a lack of generalizability does not mean a lack of applicability to other campuses. If this is not true, we need discussion around all the lessons that can be learned and how that information might be shared with institutions of higher education. Other institutional boards will face issues similar to those encountered by boards at institutions on the brink of closure (Casteen, 2015).
Some scholars have concluded that management wields the greatest control over the fate of institutions of higher education (Stowe & Komasara, 2016) yet closures fall into a gray area of institutional decision making (Eckel, 2010). In the case of St. Mary’s College back in 1997 for example, it was the board that unanimously decided to close, but most contend that it was the president that convinced the board that closure was the right move (Brown, 2011a). To further complicate the process, students and alumni can sue and courts can override decisions made by the trustees (Armacost, 2011).

In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of higher education institutions that have confronted the imminent prospect of closure. Faced with myriad of challenges such as financial insolvency, mismanagement, and declining enrollment, these institutions have had to restructure, merge with other institutions, or in the most extreme cases, close their doors altogether. While in the end we read about the fate of the institutions, we know little about how the campuses end up in such predicaments and the process by which they attempt to address the challenges before ultimately closing or pursuing another path. The authors pose important questions to highlight the gaps in research needed to answer queries surrounding the logistics of closure—why institutions close, the roles of key decision makers in the closure, and the implications for closure for all parties involved. The focus is given to the role, knowledge, and decisions of the members of higher education governing boards. Implications and suggestions for those involved in the governance and control of institutions of higher education are provided.

Authors

• Raquel M. Rall, University of California - Riverside

• William G. Tierney, University of Southern California