The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same: Exclusion at the Highest Level of University Control

• In Event: Critiques for Transformation: Reimagining Colleges and Communities for Social Justice

Abstract

Higher education research and practice point to the connection between what governing boards do (and do not do) to the culture, demographics, practices, and missions of postsecondary institutions (Rall et al., 2020). How boards, a group that has historically functioned under the radar, may in fact influence campus and student outcomes more than practitioners and researchers anticipate. The premise of this paper is that normative theories and methods of research on boards have been complicit in the history of exclusion for minoritized populations, from students to those at the highest level of decision-making in postsecondary education (Baber, 2016; Harper et al., 2009; Patton, 2016). Specifically, how perceptions and manifestations of diversity, equity, and inclusion intertwine with governance has yet to be fully explored (Morgan et al., 2021a; 2021b). We consider how critical lenses may help identify gaps in knowledge and understanding of trustee boards (Patton, 2016). We give thought to how exploring institutional leadership via boards through critical lenses enlarges capacity to engage in transformative governance, leadership, and board practices.

In particular, we examine how a critique of whiteness at the board level may help scholars and practitioners more comprehensively unpack inequity in higher education (Baber, 2015; Patton, 2016). We aim to shape future recommendations for research, advocacy, and policy. What we desire most, is to push for cultural transformations on campuses. Because they are not involved in the day-to-day management of U.S. colleges and universities does not exempt boards from having an impact. This benevolent and detached ethos of trusteeship has not only poorly served minoritized students, faculty, and staff – research has shown how the standard operating norms of boards also contribute to large-scale institutional failures (Tierney & Rall, 2018). Indeed, the existence of whiteness and privilege as part of postsecondary policies and practices may adversely shape students’ social and academic experiences even if the influence is not readily visible (Baber, 2015; Gusa, 2010). Using critical lenses to understand how whiteness, privilege, power, and their points of intersection intertwine with how boards approach and engage their work brings to light new conversations and nuanced understandings that can help bring about deep transformative and cultural organizational change. This deep cultural organizational change provides institutions an opportunity to move towards more cultural transformations and increased equity-centered governance practices and overall campus ethos.

An intentional focus on boards is essential because “unexamined historically situated White cultural ideology embedded in the language, cultural practices, traditions, and perceptions of knowledge allow these institutions to remain racialized” (Gusa, 2010, p. 465). As Joseph-Salisbury (2019) put forth, merely confronting the most visible inequities in higher education may be ineffective; a focus on the institutional and structural disparities is the best hope of disrupting racism. So, though boards have been inadequately studied, they carry great potential for improving various aspects of higher education. We delineate whiteness as it relates to the history of boards of higher education and discuss the roles and responsibilities of the board through the lens of whiteness. We end with recommendations for practice.

Authors

• Raquel M. Rall, University of California - Riverside
  Presenting Author

• Felecia E. Commodore, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  Non-Presenting Author

• Demetri L. Morgan, University of Michigan
  Non-Presenting Author