We're not suggesting that the traditional concept of shared governance be scrapped, we're simply saying it should be reformed and reshaped so that academic presidents can be more effective leaders of the institutions they head. There is no suggestion that an authoritarian model be created. In fact, I think just the opposite. We're saying that the consent and culture of shared governance need to be revisited and reshaped so that there are clearer lines of communication among the various parties to shared governance, so that decisions can be made in a more timely fashion. Consensus building will still be required.
Leadership is more important than ever.
Regretfully, the current system, too often, is failing higher education. The commission found that it often blocks progress and doesn't allow the responsiveness or the decisiveness that the times require. And we found that needs to be changed if we're going to strengthen the system of higher education in this country, and that includes all the parties to shared governance. We're simply saying that not every decision requires endless consultation. The commission's report spoke to the need to recognize that there are some decision areas that require faculty participation, particularly curriculum and credentialing, but there are other areas, such as the color of a gymnasium roof, that don't require endless faculty debate or discussion.