Governance, Organizational Culture, and Institutional Failure: The Case of Michigan State University

• In Event: 35.040 - It's On You, MSU: Critically Addressing Sexual Violence at Michigan State University and Beyond

Abstract

On September 12, 2016, when the Indianapolis Star broke the story that two survivors were filing suit against sports medicine doctor MSU professor Larry Nassar, the headline ran: “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of abuse.” At that time, a common “take” on campus was mild relief that Nassar’s affiliation with the university was featured less prominently than his role as a physician for USA Gymnastics. Of course, in the nearly two years that have followed, Nassar’s affiliation with the university has become well-known, as has the fact that many of his crimes took place on campus and though his clinical work at the university. Because of the courage of over 300 survivors, Nassar has been convicted of numerous sex crimes in multiple jurisdictions and MSU, revealed as the institution with primary liability, has entered into a $500 million settlement.

The objectives of this study are to trace MSU’s organizational response to the powerful activism of “Sister Survivors,” the exposure Nassar’s crimes in the media, and ensuing criminal proceedings and civil mediation. In doing so I will explore the extent to which MSU’s governance structures and administrative culture enabled Nasser’s abuse and criminal conduct for decades, hampered justice, contributed to the institution’s ongoing disastrous public relations, and exposed future students, staff, and faculty to financial and social costs. The study will help establish the relationship between university governance and culture with the exercise of power and abuse.

The study will adopt a critical stance to organizational theory (see Gonzales, Kanhai, & Hall, 2018), and specific conceptual guidance is drawn from three organizational literatures. Theories of organizational culture will be used to understand how some behaviors became normative, while others suppressed on MSU’s campus (Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Tierney, 1998). Recent work on board-level governance will aid analysis into the ways the board of trustees may have consolidated elite control at the expense of human and broader organizational interests (Bastedo, 2009; Slaughter et al., 2014). Finally, the study will also draw research that points to expanding administrative power in higher education (e.g. Rhoades, 2014).

Three sources of data will be analyzed. News reports will constitute the primary source of data. The story has been reported extensively and achieved reporting provides a rich trove of information about the university and operations regarding events related to Nassar. Second, written narratives from MSU faculty members will provide insider accounts about culture and governance. Third, as a tenured faculty member at MSU with close ties to other faculty and administrators, I will draw on personal recollection, notes, and other relevant artifacts (e.g. tweets and Facebook posts) to support the analysis.

Preliminary findings suggest that a culture of administrative fiat, weak faculty and student voice in administrative affairs, coupled with unusual governance structures (i.e., an elected board) likely enabled Nassar and compromised MSU’s ability to respond. This finding is significant because it calls into question both the ethical foundation and organizational efficacy of corporate-like administrative and governance models that are ascendant in US higher education.

Author

• Brendan Cantwell, Michigan State University