THE HTSTORTCAL DEVELOPME NTOF NlNG BOARDS 10F STA TE GOVER UNNERSITI Es IN THE UNITED STATES E TRENDS AND ,PORTENTS LYSIS 0F $0M AN ANA ée Zof‘iPh. D‘, is far the My Thes ER ITY MICHIGAN s TATE UNN AE WILLTAM WCH "RN. L ‘80,- 1974 ; wwwvmumom. 51?: u .v. < .a..v!:. ,. i.. Ort. L I B R A R Y I'-"‘cnigan State University lilljlllllli I IT 293 10336 2012 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Historical Development of Governing Boards of State Universities in the United States: An Analysis of Some Trends and Portents presented by William Michael Born has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _EIL..D_.__deg1-eein Higher Education ML Major professor Date 5/6/74 0-7639 NOV 0 5 2001 ’1 . i . I. .t :4... tn. 5...? miss?! u r . Abstract THE HISTORICAL DEVELOHKENT OF GOVERNING BOARDS OF STATE UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANAIJSIS CE‘SCME TRENDS AND PORTENTS. By William Michael Born Many scholars in the field of higher education in the United States have observed that the American concept of lay governing boards is under attack. There appears to be a need for better understanding of the lay governance concept, its history and its current status, in order that public understanding can be developed not only for governing boards but also for American higher education. Through the techniques of historical research, the study has provided a much-needed historical perspective for viewing institutional governance by a lay board. Additionally, the study has sought to answer questions as to how socio-economic and political factors operate in a social milieu and influence the emergence and development of the various types of governing boards of state universities in the United States, and hOW'these factors shape the functions and role of the boards. The study'was designed to:(l) Examine the historical development of governing boards of state universities in the United States; (2) Delineate the nature, structure, functions and role of governing boards of state universities in the United States; (3) Describe the influences of \7\ William Michael Born socio-economic and political factors prevailing in American society on on these governing boards as to their nature, structure, functions and role 3 and (1;) Generate speculations and suggest recommendations concern- ing the nature, structure, functions and role of governing boards of state universities in the United States. The central proposition was that the relationship between the nature, structure, functions and role of governing boards of state universities in the United States, on the one hand, and the aocio-economic and political factors affecting the governance process, on the other hand, were mutual, reciprocal and cumulative. The findings of the study show that while the concept of higher education governance by lay boards is generally regarded as an American idea, it clearly has evolved from European antecedents such as: the Greek institutions of higher learning, the University of Florence, the University of Basel, the University of Geneva, the University of Leiden, the University of fianelger , the University of Edinburgh and Dublin University. A strong argument was advanced that in both the European antece- dents and their American consequences on the lay governing board concept the religious variable was of prime importance. The emphasis on religion was related to the fact that the churches played a major part in the developmwnt of educational institutions. When the concept of lay governance was introduced in the American colonies a process was begun which shaped the idea in light of an expanding frontier. Lay, not academic, control of American higher education became the characteristic of American university government which has endured William Michael Born to the present time. Of particular interest in the study was the relationship between the activities on campuses during the 1960's and the present floundering of the governance process in American higher education during the 1970's. The study has indicated that the chief role of governing boards of state universities in protecting the public trust is in serious question as public disillusionment toward American higher education has grown. Governing boards have felt that their importance has been challenged by outside interference from governmental agencies. Increased faculty involvement in internal governance has also cut into the power of lay boards. Efforts at making governing boards more representative of the larger society has brought about greater participation of all segments of society in the governance process. A trend toward reduction of the length of terms of governing board members appears to be aimed at making lay boards more responsive and flexible. The use of the appointive system for selecting governing board members, the oldest form of selection, continues to be heavily relied upon by state universities in the United States. As governing boards have delegated responsibilities to the university president, there has been less feedback as to how policies are carried out. There continues to be a need for regular in-service training for governing board members. Efforts by students for a greater voice in the governance process should result in an increase of official relationships with governing boards. Governing boards are organizing on state, regional and national levels as a means of protecting the concept of lay governance from governmental interference. The influence of campus politicization on the internal workings of William Michael Born state universities is raising serious questions for governing boards regarding the use of the classroom.as a political platform and whether universities should serve as agents for social change. Governing boards of state universities in the United States are presently under pressure to redefine the role of the public institution of higher education in the overselling of education which so marked the 1960's. Governing boards can serve a much-needed function in American higher learning by becoming a better communication bridge between state universities and the taxpayer. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNING BOARIB OF STATE UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANALYSIS OF SCME TRENIB AND PORTENTS By William Michael Born A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHIL(B OPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 197A Copyright by WILLIAM MICHAEL BORN 197A ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the course of completing the doctoral program, valuable assistance was provided by several individuals. The writer wishes to extend particular appreciation to Dr. VishwaIM} Mishra, who as friend and dissertation director has given greatly of his time even during recent personal hardships. Dr. Lloyd M. Cofer has been an important resource person due to his many years as a member of a governing board of a state university. Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, Dr. Vandel C. Johnson and Dr. C. Keith Groty have been much more than members of the doctoral committee. They'have provided much in the way of encouragement and advice throughout the doctoral program. Special thanks are extended to Executive Vice President Jack Breslin who has not only been an understanding employer throughout the doctoral program but has contributed much to the writer's appreciation for and understanding of higher education administration. Last, but certainly not least, the writer thanks his wife Harriett for not only providing needed typing skills but most importantly for keeping some semblance of normalcy in the family activities throughout the years of the doctoral program. Appreciation is also given to the writer's sons, Michael and Troy for their understanding during this time period and to the writer's mother Hazel Gentry Born for her early encouragement of an appreciation for higher learning. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I O INTRODUCT ION O O O O O O I O O O O O O C O I 0 Introduction, Background Observations. Rationale. . . . . . Theoretical Orientation. Proposition. . . . . . . The Problem. . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . Importance of the Study. . . . . . . Definitions of Terms Used. . . . . . Methodology and Plan for the Study . Review of the Literature . . . . . . Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 0 O O C O O Q 0 Q 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . O O 0 Organization of the Remainder of the Study . . . II. THE EUROPEAN ANTECEDENTS OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNING BOARDS OF STATE UNIVERSITIES: A HISTORICAL PROFILE . . . O The European Antecedents. . . . . . . . . . . . The Consequences of the European Antecedents. Ove Wiew O C I O C O O O O O C O O O O I III. THE AMERICANIZATION OF THE EUROPEAN ANTECEDENTS. Introduction. . . . . Social Pressures. . . . . . . . . . . Political Pressures . . . . . . . . . . Organization . . . . . . . . . . . 'War, Campus Unrest and the Politicizing of the University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Quest for Excellence. . . . . . . . Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE: GOVERNING BOARDS OF STATE UNIVERSITIES IN THE 1970's . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Time of Floundering . . . . . . . . . Elitism and Education. . . . . . . . . . The Revolt Against Elitism. . . . . . . Education as an Idol . . . . . . . . . The Politicizing of the Campus. . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii PAGE 20 21 29 29 3O 30 31 32 Lo l’-‘ b6 69 lot .106 106 107 1114 120 129 138 mu CHAPTER PAGE V. GENERALIZATIONS AND PORTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Generalizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Some PortentS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18h BIBLIOGRAmY O C O O O O 0 O O l O O 6 O O O O O O 0 O O O 18 7 iv CHAPTER I THE STUDY: INTRODUCTION, THEORETICAL ORIENTATION AND PLAN FOR THE STUDY INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND OBSERVATIONS AND RATIONALE Introduction, Background Observations. One of the results of the campus unrest of the late 1960's has been a growing concern on the part of educators and the American public alike as to the governance proced- ures. Particular interest has been given to the role of lay governing boards in providing direction to American higher education. Governing boards in the 1970's have become the center of much of the discussion regarding the operation of American colleges and universities. writers in the field of higher education administration have dis- cussed at some length the development of the American system of institu- tional governance. They have argued as to whether the lay governing board is truly an American development or was in fact heavily borrowed from other cultures and traditions. It is not the purpose of this study to become deeply involved in this discussion other than to demonstrate that the American system of institutional governance by lay boards has its antecedents in other countries and that it has developed some of its own characteristics. In many parts of the world, institutional governance is facilitated by a strong national board or quasi-official body such as a council of deans or senior faculty members performing many of the functions of the American lay governing board. These national groups are often made up 1 2 of professional educators and governmental officials. In many nations, it is not unusual to find military generals involved in decisions regard- ing higher education. 'With the so-called professional approach to governance there appears to be little public input into the direction or emphasis of institutions of higher learning. In contrast, American higher education has attached a great deal of importance to the public's involvement in institutional governance. However, critics of governing boards argue that in the American approach the public still has little influence in the decision-making process. They point out, as will be discussed a little later in this study, that governing boards no longer adequately represent the American public and are out-of—step with the interest and concerns of the people. Rauh's findings indicate that there are elements in governing boards in the United States which continue to make them different from boards in other parts of the world. These differences, he points out, include their composition of laymen-citizens and their delegation of powers of manage- ment to others-~chiefly the institutional president.1 Other researchers such as McGrathz, Beck3, and Hartnettb have 1 Morton A. Rauh, College and University Trusteeship (Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press, 1959?. pp.58-67. 2 Earl J. McGrath, "The Control of Higher Education In America" The Educational Record, 17:259-272, April, 1936. 3Beck, Hubert P., Men Who Control Our Universities (Morningside, N.Y.: Kings Crown Press, l9h77, pp.h7-61. bRodney T. Hartnett, The New College Trustees: Some Predictions for the 1970's (Princeton, N.J.: EdfiEationaI Testing Services, 1970), pp'15‘230 3 found that over the years governing boards have continued to be dom- inated by businessmen and bankers with little or no representation of youth, women, minorities and laborers. Despite recent moves toward making these boards more representative of the American public, it would appear that criticism of the composition of governing boards is still justified if the public input in decisions regarding higher education is to become a reality. A closely related area of discussion concerns the functions of American governing boards. Scholars in higher education administra- tion suggest the following as the chief functions of governing boards: l)"trust" responsibilities to the public, 2) management of the institu- tion in the "public" interest, 3) organization of the planned develop- ment of the institution, b) accountability to the public for actions taken and funds utili ed, and 5) service to the campus community as a "court of last resort". In practice, these functions have required the delegation of a great deal of authority to the institution's administration. Governing boards, however, do assume final authority and accountability. Now a research question may well be raised as to how American governing boards, in terms of size and structure, emerged. In this study, the term "structure" will refer to the methods used in selecting members as well as to the duties of governing boards. Generally, governing boards of private colleges and universities in the United States are structured in such a way that selection of members takes place within the board itself and often becomes self-perpetuating. In public institutions of higher learning, however, membership to governing boards is determined either through appointive or elective h methods or a combination of both. A study of governing boards of state universities in the United States indicates a diverse system for selecting members. Generally, the basic structures of boards of control include: appointive; elective; "super" board for statewide coordination; single board for governing many institutions; multi-campus governing board; and combin- ations of these structures. The most frequently used structure of governing boards of state universities continues to be the appointive model. Under this approach, governing board members are appointed by the governor of the state, usually from a list developed from recommendations by various "opinion" leaders influential in the state. Board nominations are usually subject to the approval of the legislature. Those who support the appointive approach to selecting governing board members argue that this model provides greater opportunity for the selection of "qualified" people relatively free from the political pressures. Proponents also point out that membership on a governing board through the appointive approach does not generally lead to any higher office as might be the case under the elective method. The University of Minnesota Board of Regents illustrates the appointive model. Under the operation of this model, the Governor of Minnesota recommends the appointment of 12 citizens to the Board of Regents to be approved by the State Senate. The Board of Regents, whose members serve six year terms, was established in 1851 by the authority of the Territorial Constitution. The Board's existence was reaffirmed by the Minnesota Constitution in 1857. Although not 5 required by law, the Minnesota Legislature as well as the governor have attempted through the selection process to ensure that each of the state's eight congressional districts are represented with four Regents appointed from the state at large. This practice is promoted as a means of ensuring better geographic representation. In addition, the governor usually recommends citizens for appointment to the Board of Regents with particular concern for representation of the various dem- ographic distributions of the state. The second most popular structure in the selection of governing boards is the elective,mode1. This approach has historically been promoted as the best means for making sure that governing boards will be responsible to the public through the use of the mainstay of America's representative democracy--the ballot box. The State of Michigan has had the longest experience in the use of this model. Members of the governing boards of Michigan State Univer- sity, the University of Michigan and'Wayne State University are selected through nominations in political party conventions and then in state- wide elections. Board members serve eight year terms. It should also be noted that at the time there has been considerable discussion in Michigan concerning the use of the elective approach. In the last two years, each session of the Michigan Legislature has seen the in- troduction of bills calling for change in the State Constitution making the boards of the "big Three" universities appointive rather than elect- ive. Many observers see this new concern as being directly related . to criticisms of various actions of the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University. At the present time the arguement appears to be 6 caught up in the two major political parties in the state with Republicans generally supporting the appointive model and Democrats in favor of the present selection through statewide elections. It should be pointed out that currently the Republicans control the Michigan chief executive seat. The third structure of governing boards centers around a development which took place in the l9hO's and 1950's and is presently showing signs of returning in strength-~statewide coordination of higher education through a "super" board. Under this approach a board is superimposed over existing institutional governing boards in an effort to provide better statewide planning and development of high- er education. Since the relationship between institutional governing boards and the statewide coordinating board is vital to the success of statewide coordination, the "super" board model will be considered as a structure in the governance of state universities in the United States. One of the most developed and generally regarded as one of the most powerful of the "super" board model is found in Oklahoma---The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. The Oklahoma State Regents became the first coordinating agency superimposed over existing governing boards in the United States in l9bl through a constitutional amendment. While most "super" boards tend to function in a quasi- advisory fashion in their relationships with institutional governing boards, the State Regents carry a great deal of power because that they have total responsibility for representing all of Oklahoma's state colleges and universities before the Oklahoma Legislature and, then, for dispersing the legislative appropriations to the various institutions. The Oklahoma "super" board consists of nine members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Legislature. Regents are required to be at least 35 years old with no more than two board members having attended the same state college or university in Oklahoma. As with the Minnesota approach, there have been attempts at bringing about better geographic representation by requiring that no more than two Regents may come from the same Congressional district. They are appointed for nine-year terms and may be reappointed. Since the early 1900's, a fourth structure in higher education governing boards has appeared in many states whereby the single, state- wide governing_board model is established, utilizing either the appoint- ive or elective method for the selection of board members. These boards govern and coordinate all state colleges and universities within a state or certain types of institutions such as all four-year colleges or all community colleges. The literature concerning the development of single state boards seems to show that this phenomenon takes place in states where there are few large urban areas and chiefly rural communi- ties. In such a state, centralization of governmental services usually is quite common and the centralization of the governance of higher education is very natural. A recent study by Zwingle indicates that as of 1970, there were 11 states with single, statewide governing boards. He notes that from 1960- 5 1970, there was a steady decrease in the establishment of such boards. S J. L. Zwingle and Mabel E. Rogers, State Boards Res onsible for Higher Education, 1970 (washington, D.C.: U.S. Office 0 dfication, 1970) 8 However, it is important to note that since 1970 there appears to be some movement toward reinstatement of the single, statewide governing board model with both North Carolina and Wisconsin creating strong statewide boards to replace individual institutional governing boards. Observers point out that the return to this model appears to be direct- ly related to concerns about improved methods for holding colleges and universities accountable for their actions and programs. Increasingly, state legislatures are viewing the single, state; wide governing board model as not only a means of bringing about better accountability on the part of the individual institutions, but also as a means of eliminating some of the "needless" duplication of programs and competition which may take place between colleges within a state. It would appear to still be too early to determine if Nerth Carolina and Wisconsin will be successful in placing a highly competitive approach to state higher education under a single, statewide board. In both cases, the question of whether one large institution (the University of North Carolina and the University of'Wisconsin) will continue to dominate the state under the new structure will have to be studied closely. One of the oldest examples of the single, statewide governing board model is in Iowa where such an approach to the governance of higher education has existed since the late 1800's. Formally established in 1900, the Iowa State Board of Regents consists of nine members appointed by the Governor with the approval of the Legislature. The Regents are responsible for governing Iowa State University, the University of Northern Iowa and the University of Iowa. No more than five members of the Board can belong to the same 9 political party with each Regent serving for a six-year term subject to reappointment. A more recent development in institutional governance has been the multi-campus governing board model. Under this approach, which especially came into being in the periods of great growth for higher education in the 1950's and 1960's, one governing board is responsible for governing more than one campus of an institution. Statewide university systems such as the State University of New York (SUNY), the University of California and the University of Texas are examples of the largest multi-campus institutions with the University of Illinois and the University of Michigan as examples of the smallest institutions. Most scholars in the field of higher education maintain that there appears to be a limit as to how many branch campuses one governing board can manage effectively. In the large multi-campus systems, the governing board quite often develops an alternative approach whereby the board continues to have broad, policyhmaking powers with a local advisory board established for each campus as a communication link between the campus community and the local area. In states such as Montana, the campus advisory boards for the Univer- sity of Montana consist of representatives of the local area where each campus is located. One of the most successful examples of the multi-campus govern- ing board model is the Board of Trustees of the State University of New Yerk (SUNY) which is responsible for 30 four-year campuses and 38 community colleges. Established in 1951, the Board consists of 15 members who are appointed by the Governor with the approval of 10 the New York Legislature. The Trustees serve lO-year terms and may be reappointed. Legislation is currently under consideration in New York to reduce the lO-year terms of the Trustees as well as placing a limit on the number of years each campus president can hold office. ‘Most observers feel that such efforts are an attempt at making the Board more responsible to the public. While the proceeding governing board models are generally regarded as the basic approaches used by state universities in the United States, there are other approaches which also should be discussed. One of these models, which offer a blending of the appointive and elective approaches, is found at Indiana University. According to University officials three of the eight members of the Board of Trustees are elected for three- year terms by the graduates of the University who reside in the state. The remaining members are appointed by the Indiana State Board of Education subject to approval by the Governor. They also serve for a three-year term. A model which represents a blending of two funding approaches-- public and private financing of higher education--is found at the University of Pittsburgh. 'With a long tradition for providing state funds to private higher education the State of Pennsylvania would certainly appear to be most likely in the best position of the 50 states to establish a governing board representing both public and private interests. In the mid-1960's when the University of Pittsburgh faced great financial difficulties and was expected to close its doors, an appeal was made to the Legislature for financial help. The result was the establishment of a governing board with part of its members appointed by the Governor and the remaining part to be self-perpetuating 11 in return for annual state funding. This governing board model may be a prototype of governing boards of the future as private institutions of higher learning continue to experience financial difficulties and public funding becomes the only way of saving many of these institutions. Now it is axiomatic that some discussion of the role and functions of these governing boards be made with a view to putting their structure into a meaningful perspective. A number of scholars in the field of higher education have treated the "functions" and "role" of governing boards as synonymous. However, for the purposes of this study, distinction will be drawn between the two terms. The term "role" will refer to the overall philosophy and mission of governing boards while "functions" will be used in relation to the actual duties performed by boards. In the field of higher education administration, there appears to be general agreement that the major role of governing boards in American higher education is to ensure that colleges and univer- sities operate in the public interest. It is clear that such a role will have a definite relationship to the activities of a board. Many writers in the field see the role of governing as also including a need for providing continuity to a college or university as well as that of providing leadership in the determining future directions of the institution. It is in this latter area of the role of governing boards that many trustees, under pressure from.various segments of society, seem to experience difficulty in operational- izing. Increasingly, board members find themselves responsible, 12 through their policymaking function, for the shaping and direction of the future of an institution of higher learning. And yet, most governing board members are not particularly trained for this activity of shaping future direction through current policies. It would appear quite clear at this place in time that there is a need for closer study in this area of the role of governing boards. The role as well as the functions of governing boards of state universities have evolved in a historical setting. In order to develop a better understanding of American governing boards it is necessary to make a closer analysis of the historical development of this approach to higher education governance. In studying the historical development of the nature and func- tions of American governing boards of state universities, there is strong indication of an early concern for 'accountability" which resulted in the establishment of lay governing boards. At both Harvard and the College of William and Mary, the governing boards always had members of local government represented as well as church officials. The result was that laymen on these boards often viewed themselves as protecting the community's investment in the institu- tion and thereby representing the public's "trust". This, then, would appear to be the chief reason for the development of the American approach to institutional governance--governing boards con- sisting of lay-citizens. As indicated earlier, concern for the public's "trust" is still an important function of governing boards in American higher education. The use of laymen for governing boards was furthered greatly in 13 1862 with the establishment of land-grant colleges throughout the United States as the result of the Morrill Act. A basic ingredient in these new institutions created to serve the children of farmers and factory workers was that the governing boards were to represent a wider segment of American society. ‘While it is clear that even today, governing boards of state universities are not always as representative in composition as many critics would like, there remains strong evidence that a system of governance through lay boards is still a major asset of American higher education. When Harvard College was founded in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, it was not by accident that its governing board was named the Board of Overseers. While an internal groverning group, similar to the academic councils found on most campuses today, was provided for a few years later, the chief function of the Harvard governing board was to "oversee" the operation of the fledgling institution. The internal governing group was establish- ed in 1650 as the Harvard Corporation and was given power to run the College subject to the approval of the Overseers. This dual form of governance continued from 1650 to 1780 with the Board of Overseers functioning almost as a "super" board. ‘With the end of the Revolutionary War came many changes in the American society including the disbanding of the dual form of governance at Harvard and a return to the single lay governing board approach. As American higher education grew and developed so did the importance of the chief executive of institutions of higher learn- ing--the college president. As governing boards became more 1h representative of society they no longer were composed largely of citiZens who usually lived within walking distance of the campus. This resulted in governing boards delegating more administrative responsibilities to the institutional president. Today's wide range of structures of governing boards of state universities in the United States can be better understood when we look at their historical development. By taking this historical perspective a clearer view of the interrelationships as well as the differences emerges. The oldest structure of governing boards in American higher education is the appointive model. As examined in earlier dis- cussions, this approach was first taken in 1636 with the appoint- ment of the Harvard Board of Overseers named by the General Court. The appointive approach was also utili ed in the establishment of the governing board for America's second institution of higher learning--the College of William and Mary in Williamsburgh, Virginia. It was, therefore, quite natural that the development of state universities in the late 1700's and early 1800's saw heavy reliance on the appointive approach. The Michigan Constitution of 1837 required that the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan be jointly appointed by the Michigan Legislature and the governor. A growing controversy over institutional autonomy devel- oped resulting in a situation that was so bad that the citizens supported a constitutional change creating an elected Board of Regents. The change was made in the Michigan Constitution of 1850 is creating the use of the elective method rather than the appointive for the selection of Regents. One turning point leading to the change was a court ruling that the Board of Regents, being rep- resentative of the people, shared the same "trust" as did the legislature and was, therefore, on equal terms with the legislature, not under its control. During the mid-1800's, the elective approach developed as a means of bringing about a closer relationship between governing boards of state universities and the public through the use of the ballot box. The Michigan experience had shown some of the misuses of the appointive approach and supporters of the elective model argue that it is only through the use of this method of selecting governing board members that citizens have a voice in the operation of their public institutions of higher learning. In the historical development of governing boards of state universities in the United States, the emergence of powerful, single, statewide boards responsible for governing all institutions of higher education within a state began to appear in the late 1800's. Following the establishment of land-grant colleges, the single governing board model seemed to reflect a public concern for some type of orderly development of higher education especially in states where economic resources were not sudh as to support uncon- trolled competition between public colleges and universities. It is not surprising that this was also a period in American history when strong central government was being established in many states. Closely allied to the development of single governing boards, was the establishment of the multi-campus governing board model in 16 the early 1900's. This development took place in states where a state institution of higher education was experiencing great growth and established branch campuses. There appears to be evidence to support the idea that branch campuses may have been established as an effective means of broadening the outreach of a public univer- sity throughout the state and therefore create greater political strength for gaining appropriations from legislatures. A more recent development in the evolution of governing board structures in the United States has been the growth of statewide coordination and planning of higher education through the "super" board model. As pointed out earlier, Oklahoma became the first state in the nation to establish such a board with the creation of the Oklahoma Regents for Higher Education in l9hl. From.l9hl-l968, some 27 states established "super" boards for the coordination of colleges and universities. A review of the historical development of governing boards in American higher education clearly indicates a relationship between the political climate in a state and the type of governing board structure developed. Thus, a greater public concern for account- ability on the part of institutions of higher learning within a state may well create an atmoSphere conducive to the establishment of one statewide board to replace individual institutional govern- ing boards. Under a different political climate one might find public support for institutional autonomy and the return of individ- ual governing boards, whether of the appointive or elective models. 13.3! .3145... tluUHTHMi 17 In viewing the "role" of governing boards as being differ- ent from the "functions" of boards, it is axiomatic that the historical development of the role of governing boards of state universities be understood. From the 18th century up to the present, the basic role of governing boards--that of protecting the public interest and "trust"--has not changed dramatically from the early days of Harvard and the College of William.and Maryu 'While, as indicat- ed earlier, both Harvard and William and Mary made brief attempts at involving faculty in the governing of their institutions, there always appeared to be an eventual return to the concept of governance by laymen. As a further divergence from the European models of institu- tional governance, the heterogeneity of governing boards began to emerge following the Revolutionary war. From the late 1700's up to the early 1900's, American higher education developed the philosophy that colleges and universities should promote the following: 1) The search for truth as a fundamental objective; 2) Higher education as both residential and nonresidential; 3) The education of both men and women, rich and poor, young and old, to their maximum capacities; b) Creation of both public and private institutions of higher learning; 5) Freedom of colleges and universities from governmental control, especially the federal government, while the individual states carry the power to charter institutions of higher learning; and 6) The governance of colleges 18 and universities should be by governing boards made up of lay- cit ibens .6 The overall role of governing boards of state universities in the United States in carrying out these objectives as the basis of the American philosophy of higher education has changed little over the years. It could be argued, of course, that like so many philosophies, the actuali ation of the above ideals still remains unfulfilled. In taking an objectite look at the American form of higher education governance, it is quite important to view both the advantages and the disadvantages of the lay governing board con- cept. In recent years, governing boards have come under heavy attack as the result of campus unrest in the late 1960's and the current public concerns for greater accountability on the part of colleges and universities. Higher education, like so many American institutions, is often critici ed for either doing too little or too much. In spite of criticisms of lay governing boards, most scholars of higher education maintain that the American form of lay boards of control seems to be an effective instrument for protecting the public "trust" in the operation of colleges and universities. Pro- ponents of the lay boards argue that the use of a professional board of educators and governmental officials, found in many countries, would be contrary to the American representative of 6 Gerald P. Burns, "CollegeTErustees andiiistory", College and University;Journal, 8:33-37, Winter, 1969. a“... r an. .n. ,. Jaws.» IVEPHIJ vi. l9 democracy. Those who call for reform in higher education governance, counter that current practice indicates that governing boards are not truly representative of the American public but are, in fact dominated by a small segment of society. Such critics call for the development of new governance structures whereby a wider range of American society will be represented and faculty and students will also have a greater voice in decision-making. Defense of this position is given on the basis that those most concerned with higher education, students and faculty, should be allowed to become more involved in the operation of colleges and universities. While there continues to be criticism over the composition of governing boards and their role in the governance of higher education, there also appears to be general support for the overall concept of lay governing boards. This may be hopeful. As long as the lay board idea is still acceptable to the American people, it appears that an important element of higher education can be retained. One critic of the current system of institutional governance, John Kenneth Galbraith, observes: "The governing board is not yet a harmless anachronism. In many respects it remains a barrier to rational progress."7 While this observation may appear to be a little harsh it is a viewpoint which prevails among some faculty members who 7 John Kenneth Galbraith, "How the University Can Protect Itself", College Management, 2: 32-36, Sept. 1967. a” w. aflebilp I.- j: 20 believe that the faculty are the only members of the campus community who really have the insight needed to govern institutions of higher learning properly. Rationale. At the same time, there are those in America who argue that presently higher education needs stronger lay governing boards like those of the 1800's and mid-1900's in order to "save" higher education. In general, as the above views indicate, there appears to be an overall questioning going on in the United States as to the need for a new philosophy concerning the governance of higher education. These dis- cussions which are taking place both on and off campus will play a major role in the determination as to how America's colleges and universities will be governed in the future. Given this current questioning there appears to be a clear need for a thorough, comprehensive, objective and systematic examination of the historical development of governing boards of state universities in the United States. Hopefully, this study will provide some "new orientation" for redefining the nature, function, structure and role of these govern- ing boards as state universities adapt to the changing needs and demands of American society. There is general agreement among scholars of higher education that if public support for colleges and universities is to continue in the United States, a greater effort must be made to regain public confidence. As reported in Time, August 20, 1973, Louis Harris has conducted public opinion polls which show the public's generally lack of faith in leadership in American higher learning. It is hoped that this study will provide some possible avenues for winning back public interest in and public support of higher education. This research should also 21 result in a means of articulation and input with state officials toward the resolution of both the confidence and related financial crises facing American colleges and universities. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION Theoretical Consideration’ for this study has been drawn from the examination of historical data on the European antecedents of the governing boards of state universities in the United States. The following European antecedents have been particularly considered: 1) The Grecian system of higher education; 2) The Italian universities; 3) The academy at Geneva founded by Calvin; and h) The institutions of higher learning in The Netherlands and Scotland. While historians agree that in the normal usage of the term universities were not to be found in ancient Greece, there is strong evidence, however, that in such great city-states as Athens there was a system of higher education which responded to the needs and concerns a universe of people or a community. Although this higher learning was not to be bound to physical institutions, it neverthe- less existed and in many ways was an antecedent of today's state universities, especially the American land-grant college. Cowley observes that during the Middle Ages faculty were hired by the students. The students acquired this power primarily because their teachers were basically private entrepreneurs who received no salaries but whose income was entirely dependent on lecture fees paid by the students. This meant, of course, that faculty pretty much did what the students wished. As this practice became increas- ingly onerous to faculty, they sought help from civil authorities and requested that teachers be placed under contract and received salaries. 22 Paying professors required that public funds be used, leading to the appointment of officials and leading citizens in communities to ad- minister grants and to superivse the institutions receiving funds. In 13h8, the Council of Florence established what is generally regarded as the first lay governing board in history to protect the faculty from the sometimes harsh rule of students. Although the University of Florence was never to become the major institution that one might expect given the high place that the city held in Italian culture, it was an important institution as far as the development of the governing board concept was concerned. Other universities such as Florence's rival Pisa as well as Padua and Genoa also developed lay boards a few years later.8 Rashdall describes the appearance of lay governing boards and their influence on medieval universities in Italy: "In the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries such a body...was established by the city government or prince in all Italian universities, and the real control of the university more and more passed from students to this body of external governors, which by the sixteenth century succeeded in destroying student autonomy or reducing it to a shadow." It is interesting to note that until the Italian universities became dependent upon civil authorities for financial support, students were pretty much left alone to operate their institutions as they saw WQH. Cowley, "Professors, Presidents and Trustees", AGB Reports, 9zb-25, February, 1967. 9Hastings Rashdall, The Universities of nirgpe in the Middle Ages, London: Clarendon Press, 1936): pTBOS. 23 fit. The questions of autonomy and accountability, as we can see, are not new to higher education. In 1575, the concept of lay governing boards had Spread north to the low countries with the founding of the University of Leyden (sic) or Leiden, the oldest institution of higher learning in The Netherlands. The University was established with a board of curators consisting of from three to six citizen members. At about the same time, John Calvin led efforts to recreate an institution of higher learning in Geneva to be known as the Academy. In establishing the institution, which later became the University of Geneva, the Town Council develop- ed a governing board consisting of local citizens. While there are indications that Calvin may well have been influenced by the govern- ing board concept found at the Italian universities and at the nearby University of Basel, it is clear that the idea of lay governing boards blended well with Calvin's belief that laymen should participate in the management of all social institutions. The Calvinistic philosophy of lay involvement in the various institutions of society was well underway in Scotland by the time the University of Edinburgh was established in 1582 with a lay governing board. The opening of this new Scottish institution was viewed by its founders, the Town Council of Edinburgh, as a natural extension of eclesiastical affairs into society through educational institutions. Many writers such as Cowley, have argued that the concept of lay governing boards in higher education came to the New World not directly from Italy but from Scotland and Ireland whence it has been transported from the Netherlands and from the Calvin academy in Geneva. This view 2L: also is supported by the large number of Scottish and Irish settlers who came to colonies along with the English. To better understand the development of governing boards of state universities in the United States, one should look at the direct con- sequences the various European antecedents had on these governing boards. The Grecian antecedent which was closely linked with the needs and desires of its community can be seen in the interest of early colonial colleges such as Harvard, the College of William and Mary, Yale and Princeton in not only the training of clergy but also of civil officials to help the new land to grow and prosper. The Calvinistic influence, which was to be found in the development of American private higher education throughout the 1700's and 1800's, can be viewed in the religious mission established for the fledgling colonial colleges. The Italian antecedent, as stressed throughout this study, was the beginning of lay governing board concept itself. Harvard College was founded in 1636 as America's first institution of higher learning with a lay governing board of 12 Overseers. As had been true with the European antecedents, the new colonial college had a governing board representative of its local community--the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Board of Overseers had six magistrates and six minis- ters chosen by the General Court to direct the school's affairs. Harvard's mission of education was generally limited to religious training and its student enrollment was small. 0 . Cowley, on.01t., p. 10. 11OrleyR. Herron, The Role of Trustees, {Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, 1969}: p.7. 25 In 1693, the College of William and Mary was founded as a conse- quence of the Calvinistic religious influence as well as the Grecian antecedent of responding to the needs of the community, in this case a fledgling colony. ‘William and Mary was established to train ministers and to bring the Christian faith to the western Indians. But America's second oldest college also set out to train young people in good manners and good letters. Located in Virginia, it was the only institution of higher learning in the south during the entire colonial period.12 One of the College of William.and Mary's important alumni, Thomas Jefferson, was the first to try to obtain state support for the College in order that more civil servants and officials could be trained by the institution. Although his efforts were not accomplished, this Grecian- 1ike attitude of closeness to the needs of the community was later realized in the founding of the University of Virginia. Seeing a need for another institution, ten ministers acquired a charter from the General Court of Connecticut and established Yale College in that colony on October 9, 1701. The charter was granted so that young people could be trained for employment in church and civil affairs. Elihu Yale donated money for the first building and the new institution took the name of its benefactor.13 In 17b6, the College of New Jersey was founded by the Prespbyterian church as a ministerial training school for future clergymen. The institution changed its name to Princeton University and during early 1h years served much of the middle colonies and the south. 2 l 1 Ibid. 13Ibid. bIbid. 1 26 Most scholars of higher education history view Yale and Princeton, both institutions of the 1700's, as clearly consequences of the Scottish antecedent. Increasingly, the governing boards of these colleges had strong representation from their local communities with a mix of clerical and governmental backgrounds. Due to the concern on the part of America's early colleges for the cultural welfare of colonial society, the public members of the lay governing boards of Harvard, William and Mary, Yale and Princeton began to exercise an early influence. It was quite natural, therefore, that following America's independence in 1776, higher education began to shed its religious nature usually represented by a church-state relation- ship, not unlike the University of Leyden and the University of Edinburgh, and take on the public university form of higher education found today throughout the United States. Early state institutions of higher learn- ing, such as the University of Georgia (1785), the University of Nbrth Carolina (1789), the University of Michigan (1817) and the University of Virginia (1819), while still educating the sons of aristocrats, had a definite mission toward making higher education more responsive of the growing American society. Accomplishment of this mission appeared to be easier if the institution of higher learning were supported and controlled by the state than if it were to continue as some combination of church- state relationship as had existed up until the establishment of the University of Georgia in 1785. It is clear that as America became more agressive and restless-- always looking over the next hill and wondering what was on the other =3ide--higher education began to play an important role in society by Iproviding the governmental and technical leaders needed to develop the 27 young nation. The movement away from heavy religious emphasis in American colleges can be traced to the westward expansion. By the mid- 1800's, the concept of the "people's" universities had begun with the establishment of land-grant institutions as a natural evolution. Three basic factors responsible for the emergence of the form of higher education are: l) The need for lay leadership in administrative and technical roles in the new nation; 2) The intimate need in colonial days for a close relationship between church and local community leaders; and 3) The lack of any American tradition of scholarly guilds and the related vacum in top management of the new country. 15 The need for lay governing boards was proven at an early date and has been continually validated throughout the history of American higher education. It is not difficult to trace this need and to see how it was met as the basis of the now reasonably defined role of gover- ning boards of American colleges and universities. The influence of socio-economic and political factors on govern- ing boards can be seen starting with the founding of Harvard. The colonial colleges had an early concern for close relationships with the community, especially the local government. The inclusion of local officials and representatives on the college governing board often open- ed the institutions to direct influence from local socio-economic and political factors. The importance of the church in colonial times was also clearly reflected in the makeup of the governing boards which usually had strong 15 Burns, op.cit., p. 3b 28 clerical representation. This response to religion, viewed in the important mission of training clergy, was directly related to the cul- tural role that churches played in holding the fledgling colonial com- munities together. As these communities became firmly established, there was socio-economic pressure placed upon colleges to prepare young men to assume positions of leadership in local government and business as well as in the ministry. Accepting this mission was a response by the governing boards to the socio-economic pressure of the time. The development of the early state universities in Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan and Virginia were also responses to the need for training leaders. The natural evolution of this was the land-grant or "people's" colleges. Founded on the political climate of the need for strengthening the role of state government in higher education, the land-grant colleges were also a response to socio-economic demands for scientific, agricultural, and technical education. Many observers of American higher education note that in viewing the historical development of the concept of lay governing boards it is important to realize that American colleges and universities have currently reached a time of floundering as far as a philosophy of gov- ernance is concerned. Recent years have seen challenges to the gover- nance process of institutions of higher learning, first by students in the late 1960's, and more recently by faculty through collective bar- gaining. There is much confusion over the role of American higher education in today's society, in general, and the appropriate role of lay governing boards, in particular. Some critics argue that the lay board of control concept has responded to many socio-economic and political influences in the past, and today, no longer represents 29 anyone. Others point out that governing boards, due primarily to their membership composition, do not really understand the needs and desires of many segments of society, no matter how well-meaning boards may be. Opinion is to make faster movement toward improving the composition of governing boards to better represent society. At any rate, there does appear to be much questioning currently under way as to how governing boards of state universities in the United States should respond to the many socio-economic and political influences of American society in the 1970's. Proposition. On the basis of the preceeding discussion, the central proposition of the study is that the relationships between the nature, structure, functions and role of governing boards of state universities in the United States, on the one hand, and the socio-economic and political factors affecting the governance process, on the other hand, are mutual, reciprocal and cumulative. The proposition, then, suggests that these influences were necessary conditions for the historical development of governing boards of state universities in the United States. The proposition warrants a descriptive and analytical examination of the historical data. THE PROBLEM The Problem. The study, therefore, will attempt to answer the question as to how the socio-economic and political factors of a society influence the emergence and development of the various types of governing boards of state universities in the United States. 30 Purpose of the Study;’ Specifically the study proposes: 1) To examine the historical development of governing boards of a representative group of state universities; 2) To delineate the nature, structure, functions and role of governing boards of a representative group of state universities; 3) To describe the influences of socio-economic and political factors prevailing in American society on these governing boards as to their nature, structure, functions and role; and h) To generate speculations and suggest recommendations concerning the nature, structure, functions and role of governing boards of state universities in the United States. Importance of the Study. Many scholars of higher education adminis- tration have observed that the American concept of lay governing boards is under attack. While much of this criticism.was more pronounced during the campus unrest of the late 1960's, there are still indications that there is a need for governing boards to help to win back public confidence and support basic to the future of American higher education, both public and private. Hopefully, this study will provide an orderly setting for a better understanding of the nature, structure, functions and role of governing boards of state universities in the United States and how these boards evolved to their present form. This information should establish an important backdrop against which to view the questions of the day con- cerning the future of governing boards. In addition, it is hoped that the study will provide some indica- 'tion as to how the influences of socio-economic and political factors Sin a society affect the development of governing boards both as to their structure and functions . 31 Lastly, the study should produce generalizations as to the future of the American concept of lay governing boards and, hopefully, help in the development of an overall philosophy for governing boards of state universities. Observers see a pressing need for such a philosophy at this time and place in American higher education. Definitions of Terms Used. The study will utilize the following definitions: 1. Governing board— A body legally charged with the direct control and operation of a single institution of higher education. 2. Multi-campus governing board- A body legally charged with the direct control and operation of a university with more than one campus. 3. Single, statewide governing board- A body legally charged with the responsibility for both the governance and coordination of either or all state universities and colleges within a state or a portion of such institutions. h. Super Board- A body with legal authority for statewide coordin- ation and planning of higher education within a state with the body superimposed over existing institutional governing boards. 5. State university- A state supported educational unit offering, in addition to undergraduate programs, courses leading to various graduate and professional degrees. METHODOLOGY AND PLAN FOR THE STUDY This study of the historical development of governing boards of state universities in the United States relies heavily on the methods of historical research--primarily documentary and analytical techniques. The use of historical research methods in studies of this type has 32 long been acceptable as a means of better understanding various social institutions and structures. The historical method has gained respect- ability in the fields of social science and education. The current research literature clearly indicates that the historical approach is a reliable and effective tool in the researcher's toolbox.* REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE As discussed earlier, the documentary and analytical techniques of historical research is being relied upon in this study. The functions, structure and role of governing boards of state universities in the United States become more apparent through the analysis of institutional documents such as bylaws and policy'manuals. ‘With the additional infor- mation obtained from the questionnaire, these three elements of governing boards should become even more clear regarding the representative boards being studied. Governing boards in American higher education have been the subject of a number of examinations and a somewhat samller number of empirical studies. Like other topics in higher education, lay governing boards may be studied from.meny viewpoints and angles. One of the early studies concerned with governing boards was *Fbr detailed description of the historical methods of research see: Louis Gottschalk, Understandin Histo A Primer of the Historical Method, (New'YOrk: Kfiopfif, I9553, Fred M: Kerlinger;_Fbundations of- Bafiavioral Research, (New York: Holt, Rinehart andflWinston,II96h), Appendix II; Claire Selltiz, ResearchIMethods in Social Relations, (New'York: Holt, Rinehart andIWinston,‘I96h). 33 conducted by Veblen in 1918. He observed that while American institu- tions of higher education were still referred to as "seminaries of higher learning boards had been replaced by businessmen and politicians. He felt that discretionary control in matters of institutional policy rested too much in the hands of businessmen.1 In a statement which indicates Veblen's disappointment in governing boards, he writes: "The governing boards--trustees, regents, curators, fellows, whatever their style or title~-are an aimless survival from the days of clerical rule, when they were presumable of some effect in enforcing conformity to orthodox opinions and Observances, among the academic staff."17 Although this observation was made in 1918, it sounds very similar to the criticism of governing boards made by Galbraith in the September, 1967 issue of College Management. WOodering has observed that Veblen saw no need for administrators in higher education and that he felt the abolition of administrators and govern- ing boards was the answer to the structural problems faced by institutions of higher learning.18 Veblen is generally credited as the first scholar to sound an alarm concerning the membership domination of businessmen and politicians on governing boards. His fears that too many "non-educationalists" were 16Thorstein Veblen, Higher Learning in America, (New York: Sagamore Press, 1957). 17Ibid., p.66. 18PaulWoodring, The Higher Learning in America: A Reassessment, (New'York:iMcGrawaHill Book Company,l968), p.1hh. 3b making critical decisions regarding institutional policies were echoed by Sinclair in 1923.19 Empirical studies of governing boards are less plentiful and they have generally concerned themselves with biographical data. The early studies of McGrath in 193620 and Beck in 19L172l updated some of Veblen's findings and tended to support his views regarding the heavy proportion of businessmen and bankers on governing boards of American colleges and universities. They also noted the decline of clergymen and farmers on boards with a high proportion of older white males with high incomes serving on governing boards. The Hartnett studies in 196922 and 197023 surveyed governing board membership composition as well as board members attitudes on a wide range of issues facing higher education. In his book, The New College Trustees: Some Predictions for the 1970's, Hartnett presents a strong case for changes in the structure of university governance and in the membership composition of most governing boards. He points out: "It seems likely that the recent trend toward broader representation on governing boards is more than a passing fancy. In the long run, in fact, 19 James Paltridge, Julie Hurst and Anthony Morgan, Significant Relationships Between Types of Trustee Boards and Their Decision Patterns in Public EourJYear COlleges andiUniversities, (Berkeley, Calif}: University of California Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, 1973), p.2. 20McGath, 92. pip. 21 Beck, pp.gi§. 22Rodney T. Hartnett, College and University Trustees: Their BackgroundsL‘Roles and Educational Attitudes, (Princeton, J.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1969). 23 , The New College Trustees: Some Predictions for the 1970's, (Princeton, J.J. Educational Testing Service, 1970), pp.1§;23. 35 the whole idea of hierarchical structure in American colleges and univer- sities, with the board of trustees at the top, may give way to a more egalitarian form of governance."214 Providing more information as to how modern governing boards should operate in American higher education, Herron conducted a study in 1968 dedicated to the idea that governing boards needed assistance if they were to perform their multifaceted functions. Herron argues: "The board of trustees is the single most important agency of an institution to state its case and to guide opinion. Few men in American history have ever had such magnificent opportunities or such weighing responsi- bilities as college trustees have today."2S Also writing in 1968, Woodring argues with criticisms regarding membership composition of lay governing boards of colleges and univer— sities. He observes: "Today's boards of regents represent many facets of American life: politics, the professions, and even organized labor as well as the business community. And most men and women on today's boards are themselves well educated. Frequently their view of higher education is far more comprehensive than that of many academic men whose concern is only a single discipline. It is the exceptional board member who has an ax to grind or who is narrow, bigoted, ignorant, or cantanker- our who provides the basis for the stereotype held by many professors. Most boards are neither as ignorant or as powerful as professors. 2L'Ibid” p.h7. 2sOrley R. Herron, Jr., The Role of the TrusteesJ Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, 1969), p.15. 36 believe."26 Wbodring also takes issue with Veblen regarding the unimportance of governing boards in American higher education.‘ He argues that the primary responsibility of a governing board is to serve as a buffer between the institution of higher'learning and the community-at-large. A good governing board, he points out, helps to interpret the world to the campus and represents the academic community to the outside world. 'Woodering observes that without this buffer, the faculty would be much more vulnerable to attack than it now is--"most board members spend far more time defending the institution, its faculty and its students, than the faculty is ever aware."27 A number of prominent writers have also discussed the importance of 28 and Rauh in 196929 lay governing board concepts. Henderson in 1967 developed the list of general functions of governing boards mentioned earlier in this study. Another study on governing boards was conducted by Hughes in 19h3. As president emeritus of Iowa State College, now Iowa State University, he presented some insight into the governance of state universities, especially the operational aspects of governing boards. His Manual for Trustees has for many years been heavily re- lied upon as in-service reading for governing board members.30 26W’oodring, 2p. £33., p.1h6. 27Ibid., p.1h5. 28Algo D. Henderson, "The Role of the Governing Board", AGB Reports, 10:3-7, October, 1967. 29Morton A. Rauh, The Trusteeship of Colleges and Universities, (New York: McGrawbHill Book Company, 1969), pp.58-67: 3ORaymond Hughes, A Manual for Trustees, (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 19b3), PP-BO-SO. 37 More recently, a nationwide survey was conducted by a faculty member of Indiana University. This research effort looked at the policy- making function of governing boards of both state and private institutions of higher learning. The study also resulted in some 10 theses covering a wide range of topics concerning lay governing boards and with special attention to the addition of students and young people as members on boards.31 In 1972 the Higher Education Panel of the American Council on Education (ACE) conducted a study of student participation on governing boards in American colleges and universities. The research indicated that as American campuses cooled down from the student unrest of the late 1960's, so had the trend toward adding students to governing boards.32 During the same year, the Office of Institutional Studies at the Univer- sity of Southern California made a similar national research effort. In this study both faculty and student participation on governing boards was the central concern. The results demonstrates that the current trend is for faculty and students to serve on boards in advisory capacities rather than as voting members. The study also found that student and faculty representation on governing boards, whether as advisory or 31August W. Eberle, Policy Boards and PolicyeMaking in Institutions of Higher Learning in the United States, (Bloomington, Ind.: Department of—Higher Education, Indiana University, 1968), pp. 1-30. 32The Higher Education Panel of the ACE, Student Participation on Institutional Governing Boards, (washington, D.C.: American Council on Education(ACE), EducationiSurvey 11, 1972), pp. 1-5. 38 voting members, were more likely to occur at private rather than at state institutions of higher learning.33 In another look at the membership composition of governing boards, Godfrey developed an in-depth profile of women who serve on boards. She also presented comparisons of perceptions of female trustees with those of male trustees. She concludes that equal representation of women on the governing boards of state universities had not been recognized and/ or achieved. She argues that the data she collected from a national sample proves women board members to be more service-oriented than their more business-minded male couterparts. She observes that women should be "viewed as a valuable source of diverse thought in areas of academic policyemaking, direction for the social and cultural environment of the campus, public relatations and communications with constituents outside of the university, and vocational preparation.3b The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education located at the University of California at Berkeley, conducted research in 1973 concerned with the role of governing boards in higher education, especially in terms of decision patterns. Included in the research were the various structures of governing boards mentioned earlier in this study. While still not completed in terms of data analysis, the study 33University of Southern California, Student and Faculty Partici- tion on College and University Boards ofiTrustees, (Los Angeles, SaIif.: Office of Institutional Studies, University of Southern California, 1972), pp. 1-7. 3hHelen Ruth Godfrey, A Profile of Female Trustees of Four-Year Public Colleges and Universities and a CompariSOn of‘Female and Male Trustee Perceptions 5? Selected Trustees Fpnctions and Universipy Issues (East Lansing, Mich.: A thesis for the Ph.D. Degree, Michigan State University, 1971), p.6 of abstract. 39 shows that there appears to be little consistency in decision-patterns of single-campus governing boards, multi-campus governing boards and state- wide governing boards. Nabrit and Scott conducted one of the few studies of governing boards of predominately black institutions of higher learning in the United States. They expressed a special concern for the communications function of governing boards, in general, and of the 50 predominantly black insti- tutions in the study, specifically, and observed: "A board of trustees is effective in direct proportion to the extent to which it can commun- icate its policies and decisions clearly and quickly to students and faculty. The communications structure should provide for open-ended and informal conversations with students and faculty."36 As an important part of the research which resulted from the campus unrest of the late 1960's, the American Council on Education (ACE) conduc- ted a thorough study of governing board procedures relating to campus governance. ACE recommends that every institution should have carefully framed bylaws, subject to periodic re-examination that set forth the board's essential authority and responsibility as well as define its procedures. The study also found that students and faculty need to be better informed as to how decisions are made within their institutions of higher learning. ACE maintains that delegation of responsibility and accountability does not absolve the governing board members of the need to be well informed about their institutions' programs and to be serious 35 36Samuel M. Nabrit and Julius S Scott, Jr., An Inventory of Academic Leadership: An Analysis of Boards of Trustees of Fifty Predominately Negro Institutions,7htlants, Ga.: The Southern Fellowship Fund, 1969),p-11 Paltridge, pp, 912., p.15. “.1 . Stan - cise fan“: fihvlu iv L4. u“ L} to students of higher education in general. Presidents and others who exer- cise authority over board meeting agendas, the study pointed out, should focus agendas more on educational issues and less on fiscal and house- keeping chores."37 Another study resulting from research into the campus tensions of the late 1960's is The Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, referred to as the Scranton Report. This study contains some important recommendations to governing boards. The President's Commission observes that board members have a particular responsibility to interpret and explain their institution to the larger society. The study maintains that trustees should attempt to inform the public about the institution's values, goals, complexities and changes. The Commission also points out that governing board members have an equally important responsibility to assure that their institution maintains its central committment to teach- ing, research and the preservation of academic freedom against internal and external erosion.38 In 1973, the Carnegie Commission on Education issued a report on higher education governance which included some interesting observations about governing boards. The Carnegie Commission argues that the role of the lay governing board in American higher education is due for a.renai- ssance. The report supports the idea that to perform its functions well, 37Robert H. Murray, Dublin University and the New'Wbrld(London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1921) p.11. 8 3 The President's Commission on Campus Unrest, The Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest,Vfwashington,D.C.: Printing Office, 1970). 141 the governing board must be independent, free of conflict of interest, competent, devoted and sensitive to the interests of various groups involved in the life of the campus. The Commission opposed faculty members and students serving as voting members of their own institution's governing board because such membership might well constitute a conflict of interest and also because of difficulty in assuring that such faculty and student members are truly "representative". The study maintains: "We favor some impartial screening device for nomination of members of public boards, or legislative confirmation of appointment, or some com- bination of both. ‘we also favor providing an opportunity for faculty members, students and alumni to assist in the nomination of at least some board members in both public and private institutions-all for the sake of securing devoted and competent members. We favor broad inclusion of persons interested in the welfare of the institution drawn from different age, sex, and racial groups in order to represent concerns of the different groups that hold attachment to the campus, so that a greater variety of perspectives is brought to board deliberations. And we specially favor the consideration of faculty members from.other institu- tions and of young alumni as board members."39 A recent contribution to the study of higher education administra- tion, also resulting from the 'Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, is a book entitled, The University as an Organization, edited by James A. Perkins. In a chapter specially dealing with governing boards, 390arnegie Commission on Higher Education:Governance of Higher Education:_§ix.Priority Problems, (New York: McGraweHill Hook Cempany, I973), p.35. Eerkil can; authc me .u 03 l: 4+ - uh ‘3' h2 Perkins makes the following observation: "The board must still represent lay authority or the general public interest or specific interest of the religious state authority that created the board in the first instance. It must still act as a bridge and buffer between the University and society. If it does not continue to perform these functions, then the university will have lost its greatest shield and defender."ho Taking a look at campus communication problems faced by governing boards, Gould points out in his chapter, that boards are clothed in a kind of mystery with an "alien" quality because they come from the world outside the, campus. He adds, that governing boards function with a sort of absolute authority that can be disquieting to students and threatening to faculty. He maintains that like all problems involving human relationships, those of lay governing boards and their campus communities can be resolved only with painstaking, never-ending care and planning!"1 Gould concludes: "The basis for a sound relationship between trustees and the rest of the university community are a common understanding of educational purposes, a common dedication to these purposes, a deep loyality to the institution, a realization of what role is appropriate for each constituency, a sensi- tively fashioned system of sharing ideas when decisions are being reached, and above all, a full commitment to the protection of the independence of the university and its preservation in the face of impending erosions 0f whatever sort. The concept of trusteeship is sound. What remains to O h James A. Perkins, The University as an Organization, (New York: McGrawdHill Book Company, 1973), P.213. 141Ibid., pp.215-228. h3 be done is to refine the functions of trusteeship until they more nearly match the concept." In a recent study of governing boards and the law, Hull and Shapiro trace the evolution of lay boards, their place in American law and their current functions. Shapiro argues that a prime and immediate function of present governing boards of state universities should be renewed attempts at establishing new and diverse ways of encouraging general reviews and coordination of the various separate entities that make up the present state university; He points out that such efforts can not be limited, as is often the case, to the initiatives of colleges and programs by periodic "self-studies" usually brought about by the urging of some outside accrediting agency. Governing board members, Shapiro maintains, should rightly view the university with more discernible skepticism and make a more noticeable push to force the campus comm- unity to coordinate its efforts.)43 As Anderson rightfully observes: "The ideal university serves society by being only a custodian and tran- smitter of its culture but also a creator and critic for the culture. This is the. meaning of the university. To disturb this relationship is to change the culture."bh As a recent development in higher education governance, which while not occuring in the United States may still have some influence on “21bid., p.228. hBW. Frank Hull, IV and Allen H. Shapiro, The University Trustee in Law and in Practice, (Toledo, Ohio: The Center-for the Study of Higher Education, University of Toledo, 1973): PP.21-39. th. Lester Anderson, The Journal of Higher Education, 8: h65, June 1961. uh future models of governing bodies in higher learning, the Commission on the Government of the University of Toronto made a far-reaching report in 1972. The Commission recommended that the University of Toronto establish a sole governing authority with total control over fiscal and academic matters to be known as the Governing Council and that this new body com- bine the duties and powers of the institution's governing board and academic senate. The membership on the Governing Council would consist of 76 members with 20 lay members, 20 elected student members consisting of ;S graduate students and 15 undergraduate students, 20 elected nembers from the academic staff, 6 exrofficio members and 10 members elected by the graduates of the University of Toronto. In July, 1972, the University put these recommendations into action by creating the Governing Council. While it is still early to determine if this approach at making governing bodies more representative will function effectively, it is clear that at the present time it serves as a possible model for the future of the governance of colleges and universities in the United States.h5 OVERVIEN As pointed out earlier in this study, research concerning the con- cept of lay governing boards in American higher education have been concerned with many different aspects of boards. However, there still appears to be a need for focusing attention on the historical 1" ° I”The Commission on the Government of the University of Toronto, Toward CommunipyLin University Government, (Toronto, Canada: University 01 Toronto, 1970). 145 development of governing boards of state universities in the United States and thereby attempting to pull together the many views of lay governing boards in a definitive study as to how these boards got where they are and where they may be going. It is hoped that this study will contribute to this research effort. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STUDY The remainder of this study is organized in the following manner: Chapter II contains an in-depth study of the European antecedents of governing boards of state universities in the United States with an attempt to showing how these antecedents had consequences which resulted in the emergence of the American model of lay governing boards in the governance of colleges and universities. Chapter III presents the transition of the European antecedents and their American consequences in light of social, political and organiza- tional factors; war; campus unrest; the politicizing of universities; the quest for excellence; the shifting away from some of the original land-grant ideals; and the financial constraints. Chapter IV describes the current situation of floundering in the governance of higher education in the United States with particular concern for the nature, functions, structure and role of governing boards of state universities. A review of historical and current data will be presented concerning a representative group of state universities. Chapter V consists of the summary, conclusions, implications, spec- ulations, discussion of portents and recommendations for future research. CHAPTER II THE EUROPEAN ANTECEDENTS OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNING BOARDS FOR.STATE UNIVERSITIES: A HISTORICAL PROFILE. INTRODUCTION In order to better understand the governing boards of state universities in the United States, it is important that an examination be made in greater depth concerning the European antecedents of these boards. It is the purpose of this chapter to present a historical profile of the early development of the lay governing board concept and how this development had influence not only on the early American institutions of higher learning but also on the present governing boards of state universities in the United States. THE EUROPEAN ANTECEDENTS The Greek Antecedents. It is generally regarded that the beginn- ings of what is referred to today as higher education.came from ancient Greece. There is strong evidence that Athens stood as the center of philosophical learning in ancient Greece. To the Greeks of Athens there was general agreement that they had been the original settlers of the area. ‘However, historians indicate that there had been others living in the region before the Greeks came who were eventually assim- ilated into the population. The Athenians were inventive rather than :imitative and were considered a daring people with a strong curiosity; D6 h? Even in 65 A.D., St. Paul found the Athenians were interested only "in hearing and telling some new idea". Indeed, it was this interest in ideas as well as in the communicating of them which lead to the begin- nings of higher education. Since the days of Nestor and Odysseus, the art of persuasive speech was held in honor by the Greeks. With the rise of the democratic commonwealths or cityestates, oratory became more im- portant as a basic ingredient for the workings of government.1 An example of the great amount of attention and interest directed toward oratory can be found in the fact that the Greeks introduced a new class of proper names referring to excellence in addressing public assemblies. The power of clearly expressing ideas in such a‘way as to persuade an audience was an art to be learned and taught. This interest in oratory among the ancient Greeks, and especially among the Athenians, was one of the factors for a demand for higher education. Bury observes: "It was in an atmoshphere of critical inquiry and skepticism that Greece had to provide for the higher education of her youth, which the practi- cal conditions of the democracy'demanded." Most historians, observe that it was about the middle of 500 B.C. that the philosophers of Greece, especially those in the western region, had produced enough teachable knowledge to be utilized in the schools. Education up to that time had primarily been designed to teach military skills. Soon, experts---known as "sophists"---began to visit other lHarry G. Good and James D. Teller, A History of Western Education (London: The.MacMillan Company, CollieréMacMiIlan, Ltd}, 1969),pp.21-27 2 ' . J. B. Bury, A History of 'Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great (New York: The Modern Library, 1913), p.369. b8 cities where they earned a living by teaching grammar, semantics and style in expression. The results were that their students learned the art of effective public speaking so important to the Athenian culture. thinlskill in oratory, a young man could easily move to positions of leadership in Greek politicallife.3 Atkinson and Maleska point out: "The Sophists in due time faced caustic charges of being 'quacks', shallow sellers of 'tricks of the trade', rather than seekers after truth. However, the Sophists did give a powerful impetus to advancing education of an intellectual type; they contributed a great deal to the wrold by started to organize large bodies of knowledge in teachable form."h In regards to the charges by the "elders" of the Greek city-states that the studies of the "Sophists" were "subversive", historians report that the new generation did sometimes show itself unscrupulous. How- ever, in the fourth century, as the shock of the new learning passed, more academic schools of philosophy were established. These new in- stitutions were conducted much like seminars. Although they did not require competitive examinations or award degrees, these institutions of philosophy have generally been regarded as the equivalent of our universities. Although these schools were operated for the wealthy, for it required money and leisure to be trained in these advanced doctrines, 5 some of this "higher" education seeped down to the poorer classes. 3R..M. Cook, The Greeks Until Alexander (New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1962). 1‘Carroll Atkinson and Eugene T. Maleska, The Story of Education (New Ybrk: Chilton Company, Book Division, 1962). 5 Cook, lag. 313., p.128. h9 Atkinson and Maleska offer a basis for considering the "Sophist's" institutions as antecedents of American state universities. They ob- serve: "It was in the realm of higher education that the Greek influ- ence was most greatly felt. Long after Athens ceased to be a political power, its various philosophical and rhetorical schools (known collect- ively'as the University of Athens) served as a mecca for students from other parts of the civilized world, and the Greek tongue became the universal language of culture." A further reading of history shows that the conquests of Alexander the Great helped to spread the knowledge and mores of the Athenians throughout the world. Wherever Greek armies went, there soon followed Greek teachers, philosophers and other thinkers. It was not long until Greek universities were flourishing on the Island of Rhodes, at Tarsus and at Pergamum in Asia.Minor as well as at Alexandria in Egypt. 7 Dobson supports the importance of Athens, in this observation: "The establishment of the philosophical schools of Athens, each having def- inite provision for the succession to the headship and a fixed place for meetings of teachers and pupils, has been regarded as marking the beginning of university life in Greece." As pointed out earlier, the importance of the development of high- er education in ancient Greece is the fact that it may be viewed as an antecedent of the American state university in that they both resulted from community needs and concerns. In the case of ancient Greece, these 6 Atkinson and Maleska, 22,223., p. 2b. 7Ibid.. 8 J.F. Dobson, Ancient Education and Its Meaning to Us, (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1963), p.755. So concerns were the oratory skills required for governmental service as well as the development of philosophical thinking. In American state universities, the interest on the part of American citizens in education for all rather than just the elite can be seen as the basis for the de- velopment of these institutions. In their time, the early higher ed- ucation of ancient Greece was a direct response to the concerns, needs and interests of the city-states. This concept of responding to the wish of the public, remains as an important aspect of higher learning. The Italian Antecedent. The next historical profile is found in the Middle Ages in Italy where it is generally regarded that the an- tecedent of lay governing boards develOped. The universities of the Middle Ages, not unlike the private universities of today, were in- corporated higher schools, equipped with a charter, seal, by-laws and officers. Other schools were directly controlled by'a church, city, guild, founder or private owner. Universities were legal "persons" and were generally free from.oxternal control. However, it is important to remember that being in the same world as other agencies, universities were not completely free from outside influences. Both the church and empire, as well as kings, bishops and the Dominican and Franciscan Orders, found ways of shaping university policies and of using institu- tions of higher learning for purposes other than the pursuit and prom- ulgation of knowledge and truth. Much like the "Sophists" of ancient Greece, the teachers of the 12th and 13th centuries were entreprenuers who lived entirely on lecture fees paid by students. In the universities of medieval Italy, students soon gained control over the operation of the institutions and, therefore, completely controlled the faculty. ed to have :1 them 1 sitie: model. final (peel some um ing lr+ 51 As professors began to experience harsh rule by students they turn- ed to their local communities for aid. The natural alternative was to have municipalities provide salaries for faculty rather than leaving them to entirely depend upon student fees for their livelihood. Univer- sities in the Middle Ages experienced a wide range of administration models having at various times been controlled by students, faculty and finally, external authorities. As mentioned earlier, when municipalities decided to grant the re- quests of faculty to be placed on salary, they required that there be some supervision of the universities to insure that the funds were being utilized properly. This, of course, led to the creation of lay govern- ing boards. It is generally agreed that the first of the Italian municipalities to establish a lay governing board occured in Florence in 13h8. Histor- ians report that since Florence was rightly regarded as the center of Italian culture, one would expect that her university would be a leader in at least southern Europe. As Hyett points out, this was never to be true. Florence was even ahead of the rest of Italy in the establish- ment of state-aided education. But her university, which had been es- tablished as early as 1321, had no reputation beyond the citywalls.10 When the Black Death or plague hit Florence in the mid-13h0's, the educational institutions such as the University of Florence were greatly demoralized. In 13h8, a Papel Bull was issued establishing all 9Cowley, pp, 313.. pp.5-25. lO - Francis As Hyett, Florence: Her'History_and Art to the Fall of the Republic (London: Methuen &.Company, 19037. 52 faculties at the University. A place for its buildings was assigned between Duomo and the Palazzo Publico, on the site of what was known as the Collegium.Eugenianum. 11 Symonds argues that the Black Death was the major factor in the re- establishment of the University as a consequence of the depopulation in- flected by the plague. He points out: "By drawing residents to Florence from other states, they (city officials) hoped to increase the number of inhabitants, and to restore the decayed fame and splendor of the Commonwealth." 12 One could rightly argue that it was, in fact, the matching up of two forces---the desire of faculty to get out from under the sometimes harsh rule of students and receive a regular salary as well as the desire of city officials to bring inhabitants to the area-- which were the setting for the establishment of the first lay governing board in history. As a means of monitoring the activities of the University of Florence, the city council appointed eight burghers to manage and govern the institution. An annual sum was set apart from.oity finances for the maintenance of the University. As well as establishing the first gov- erning board, Florence may also have been the first in history to set aside annual appropriations for higher education. As a.matter of fact, state universities in the United States had generally not reached the point of receiving regular appropriations from.state legislatures as late as the 1890's. 11 John Addington Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: The Revival of Learning (New Ybrk: Henry Held and Company, 1888) 12Ibid. , p.119. fli'fir_ '-' A ' ".' author closed were 1 had a vast othe dis: the on 65‘ Gr. 53 In spite of the efforts by the Roman Catholic Church and municipal authorities to keep the institution going, the University of Florence closed its doors in 1h72. Some students of Renaissance argue that there were two major reasons for the University's difficulties: 1) Florence had a scarcity of lodgings for students and, therefore, never really was able to accommodate students from outside the region; 2) The University was too near the University of Pisa which was much more prosperous and which eventually absorbed the ‘Florentine institution. Rashdall observes: "The University of Florence never attained the position among the universities of Europe whidh the rank of Florence among Italian cities might have been expected to secure for it." 13 Although the University of Florence was never to be looked upon by other universities as an educational model and, as indicated earlier, it disappeared all together with its merger with the University of Pisa in lh72, it did set an example for institutional governance. Soon after the University was reestablished in 13h8 with a lay governing board, other Italian universities such as Genoa, Padua and Pisa followed suit. The Swiss Antecedents. The next movement of the lay governing board concept was northward. The University of Basel in what is now Switzerland, became the first university outside of Italy to establish a lay governing board. The University, which still exists, is the old- est institution of higher learning in Switzerland. The establishment of the University is directly related to the Great Church Council of Basel held in the early 1h00's. Hottinger l3 Rashdall, pp, 213., Vol. II, p. 51. 15.5.5 34!... . :3" 51: makes the following comments about the Council which had been called to deal with abuses in Church and State: "By lhh8, the Council was dissol- ved, having achieved little. But if it had not accomplished all that was expected of it, it had brought unforgettable days to Basel and be- queathed to the city the great idea.which was to be realized ten years later---the foundation of the University," Aeneas Sylvius, who resided in Basel and served as scribe to the Great Council during its sessions, was impressed by the educational zeal of the burgomaster and city council of Basel who strongly supported masters of grammar, logic and music in the city, ‘When Aeneas mounted the Papel throne as Pope Pius II, the Basel City Council took the oppor- tunity of petitioning their old friend for university priviledges. The result was the granting of a Papel Bull in 1&59 establishing the Univer- sity of Basel in all faculties. The Bishop of Basel was made Chancellor of the University and the "studium" was actually opened in 1h60. Again, as in the case of the University of Florence, the City Council agreed to provide monies for the operation of the University of Basel on the condition that a lay governing board be established to watch over the use of municipal funds. The University was placed under the control of a Board of Deputies or "deputati" appointed by the mag- istrates of Basel. The Board was responsible for the governing of the institution and the dispersing of funds obtained from taxes and land 1 production . 5 1h ' 'M.D. Hottinger, The Stories of Basel, Berne and Zurich (Nendeln/ Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970), p. 55. l . ' . SRashdall, 92. 333., p.275. idea we. ths ti irfluen sities I: import: .4 .4 - (I) T326! one Of Ita Switze "38 es 0 ! a rm 5. 0f the that j C6 or 55 It is interesting to note that the spreading of the lay governing board concept can be traced to the movement of students who came to Basel from other parts of Europe, north of Italy. As we will see, the idea was to appear in the Netherlands and, again, in Switzerland, but this time in Geneva. In both cases, there appeared to be a more direct influence from the University of Basel rather than from Italian univer- sities which had lay governing boards. In looking at the University of Basel model it is clear that the importance of municipal pride and determination was key in the estab- lishment of a university and in the demand that a governing board appointed by the local government be responsible for its operation. As we have seen, the first institution of higher learning outside of Italy to have a lay governing board was at Basel in what is now Switzerland. It was in the same country that the second such board was established in Geneva. While Basel is located at the northern tip of Switzerland near the German border, Geneva, in the westernmost part of the country, is quite near to France. It is very natural, therefore, that it would be a frenchman who would exercise a great deal of influen- ce over the city in the 1500's and eventually gain worldwide notice. The early people of Geneva had a zeal for religion, a vigorous energy in government, a passion for freedom.and a devotion to the devel- opment of engenious industries. In 1536, the people of Geneva establish- ed a school and made provision for free compulsory education. This was also the year that a frenchman who was already beginning to develop a new movement in the Protestant revolution entered the city to become pastor. The man--Jean or John Calvin. Geneva had thrown off obedience to Rome before Calvin came but the revolt was largely political against 56 the Duke of Savoy. Calvin immediately sought to bring "the enlighten- ment of divine knowledge" to the people of Geneva.16 Calvin drew his philosophy of education from his theology. Man's only hope, he stated, lies in an environment that policies him from birth until death. Calvin sought to make Geneva into an environment in which parents, friends, associates, government and the church were of one mind. In Calvin's thinking, church, state, school and family were one institu- tion devoted to desciplining, instructing and training the citizenry according to the will of God. The government was molded by the church so that all its laws and procedures supported the puritanical ideas of the pastors.17 In 1537, Calvin was invited to submit a plan for the educational and religious reorganization of Geneva. By 15h1, Calvin had been entrusted with the task of organizing Geneva into a little religious city-state. For this purpose, he combined the church and city government into such a close relationship that church and state appeared to be even more closely connected than had been the case in Roman Catholic countries. During the 23 years that Calvin dominated Geneva, the city became a kind of "Rome of Protestantism".18 In 1559, Calvin established his Academy as a natural extension of religious teachings. Since he preached the importance of the laity 16Charles Franklin Thwing, Universities of the world (New Ybrk: The MadMillan Company, 1911) pp.89-90. 17S.E. Frost, Jr., Historical and Philogpphical Foundations of ‘Western Education (Columbus, Ohio: Charles EL Merrill Books, Inc.,1966). 18Ellwood P. Cubberley, The History of Education (Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19b8) p.298. 57 becoming involved in affairs of both the church and state, it was quite natural that Calvin would establish a governing board of laymen over his school. The Academy was not, strictly speaking, a university, since it enjoyed no corporate privileges and conferred no degrees, but it did offer better instruction in the arts, theology and law than many univer- sities of the period. For Protestant youths, Geneva was the most stim- ulating educational center in Europe. The Academy, which was later to become the University of Geneva, became famous throughout the western world. Students came from all over Europe, and from it young men trained to spread Ca1vinism.in other lands. The graduates of the Academy were also to have influence in the establishment of other institutions of higher learning along the model of Calvin's ideas. As we will see, both the University of Leyden and the University of Edinburgh were heavily influenced by Calvin's Academy. 20 Frost observes: "Calvin made Geneva into a school of Protestantism and an environment every phase of which was dedicated to acculturating the child to Christianity, His school was but one in- stitution of a social complex ruled by the church. There a city was remade into a religious community along Calvinistic lines, and from its borders went men to make Calvinism the religion of much of western cul- ture for many generations." 19 Samuel Eliot Morison, The Founding of Harvard College (Cambridge, IMass.: Harvard University Press, 19357 pp. 1324133. 20Frost, 9p. _c_i_t., p.208. 21Ibid. 58 The principles upon which Calvin founded his Academy were logical- ly and pedagogically sound and its methods of administration were effi- cient. Though there was a need of preparing men for the ministry---a need which was also to be found in the early Americal colleges--- Calvin was also governed by a profound sense of the need for an educated Protestant laity. Broadly educated himself, he attracted learned schol- ars to the Academy and was able to place it on a plane which created a high reputation. In 1873, more than three centuries after the founding of the Academy by Calvin, the University of Geneva was finally and formally established. 22 Thwing writes of Calvin: "It is to the dis- advantage of Calvin that the greatness of his fame as a theologian has obscured his merits as an educator and administrator." The Dutch Antecedent. At the time of Calvin's great work in Geneva, The Netherlands was divided with Catholicism in the south and the Pro- testant Dutch Republic in the north. Calvinism was an undeniable force. In the middle 1570's, the first private Dutch Synod assembled at Hoorn. Calvinist congregations sprang up everywhere, so that there grew a demand for more ministers than could be found. This, then, created the need which was to bring about the establishment of another educational institution much like the Academy in Geneva. 2h Two men may be viewed as the major influences which created the 22 Georgia Harkness, John Calvin, The Man and His Ethics (New York: Abingdon Press, 1958). 23Thwing', pp. 333., p.90. 21'Petrus Johannes Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands, IPart III (New Ybrk: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1900). Uni?! Oral Does M‘i. v.JJ C J) 8. lie‘ UR: '1 . lea 59 University of Leyden (sic) or Leiden. The first was Prince William of Orange, also known as William the Silent. The second was Jan van der Does, who preferred the Latinized name of Janus Dousa. In 1571:, the city of Leiden provided desperate and triumphant resistance against the Spanish under the leadership of Janus Dousa. Following the defeat of the Spanish, the great "stadtholder", William of Orange, wanted to re- cognize the mighty courage and "nobility" of Leiden. He offered to re- lieve the city from taxation for a term of years or to found for it a university. In choosing between the two offers, there seemed to be little questioning by the citizens as to which to select. They chose the offer to establish a university. The history of the University of Leiden as well as the history of scholarship throughout the world proves the wisdom of their choice. 25 When Prince William decided to grant Leiden its choice, Janus Dousa was foremost of the city's citizens in helping to lay the found- ations for the new institution and he became the first appointed to the lay governing board established to govern the University---the Board of Governors or Curators, as they were known. 26 Barnouw points out that in Article 22 of the Statues of 1575, the year in which the University of Leiden was founded, there was provision appointing of two or three "patrons, curators or supervisors", whose task would be to administer and look after everything that they, in conjunc- 25Thwing, pp. 2132., p. 149. 26Adriaan J. Barnouw, The Pageant ofnThe .Netherl‘ d 1 (New York: ‘Longmans, Green and Company, I952). ”1' It“! tion usefx; were ill Pee oth d Uni Um‘ be 60 tion with the "Rector" and his "Assessors", considered necessary and useful for the welfare and prosperity of the University. Such patrons were known also at Pisa, Florence, Basel, Cologne, but no where except in Leiden was it ruled that the "College of Curators", as the Board of Governors was and is called, should have no competence whatsoever by itself, but together with either the City Burgomasters or with the Rector and his Assessors they had more power than any similar body at other universities. In conjunction with the Burgomasters they appointed and dismissed professors, fixed their salaries and administered the University's finances. 27 This constant collaboration between the city government and the University's governing board led to their fusion into one permanent body, officially recognized in the revised Statutes of 1631. Barnouw observes: "The College of Curators looked after details that no board of trustees would meddle with today, such as the choice of texts to be read in class, the subject matter to be discussed and the academic time- table. Since they held the purse strings, appointed and dismissed teaching staff and made decisions in all important matters, the Curators were the absolute rules of the University." The founding of the University of Leiden, which today stands as the oldest institution of higher learning in The Netherlands, marked the large emergence of the Protestant religion in western history. Just as Geneva had influence on the Protestant movements in Holland and in 27 28 . Ibid., p. 215. Ibid., p.216. 9—” 61 Scotland, the Dutch Calvinists were to have great influence on the lead- ers of the American colonists. ,Edmundson writes of the University of Leiden: "The act of William the Silent in founding the University of Leyden (sic) as a memorial of the great deliverance of 157h, was prophitic of the future that was about to dawn upon the land, which at the moment was at its lowest for- tunes, the successful defence of Leyden (sic) had done so much to save from utter disaster. Scholars of renoun driven by intolerance from their own countries found in the new founded academy in Holland a home where they could pursue their literary work'undisturbed,, and gave to it a fame and celebrity which speedily attracted thousnads of students not only from The Netherlands, but also from foreign lands." ‘Well endowed with ecclesiastical revenues and supported by govern- ment grants, the University of Leiden was indeed successful in attract- ing to her four faculties the most distinguished group of scholars in northern Europe. The University of Leiden in many ways appears to be an antecedent of the American state universities of the present time. Historians observe that Leiden's organizational structure curiously resembled that of the American state universities. A lay governing board appointed by the government had say in most academic matters, including the appoint- 30 ments of professors. 29 George Edmundson, History of Holland (London: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1922) p. 187. 30 . . Samuel Eliot Morison, The Founding of Harvard College (Cambridge Mass.: The Harvard University Press, 1935) p.1hb. 9 62 Morison points out: There were frequent conflicts between the Trustees and the Senate, the internal, academic governing group, the latter re- peatedly petitioning the 'Estates of Holland' (the Dutch federal govern- ment) to permit no academic promotions or appointments to be made by the Trustees, except after consultation with the Senate." 31 Morison's ob- servation that the University of Leiden, through its relationship with the government, its attempt at the reflecting concerns and interest of the society and the power of its governing board, in many ways was similar to the state universities of the United States appears to sup- port the idea that indeed the University may be the first state univer- sity. In addition to being an antecedent of the lay governing board concept, the University of Leiden was the antecedent of the land-grant and public universities. It is interesting to note that at the present time the institution still stands but, reflecting Morison's observations, it is now the State University of Leiden. This institution which drew much of its inspir- ation from the hard times of war and came forth as a memorial to a people, was to have peaceful influence on the Protestant movements in Scotland and in the American colonies as well as on their institutions of higher education. The Scottish Antecedents. As indicated in the presentation on the University of Geneva, Calvinism began in Geneva as a theocratic state. However, the religion of John Calvin was not allied to any government or reigning monarch. It was carried to Switzerland, Francs, England, 31 Ibid., p. 11.5. 63 Scotland, The Netherlands, Germany and, finally, the American colonies. Calvin's doctrine gave birth to the Reformed Church that recognized no geographic boundaries. Wherever it went, men turned to an educational system steeped in religion and morals and to an intellectual leader- ship that could be nourished only in the finest schools. John Knox was a Scottish priest, historian and by 15117, leader of a well defined Protestantism at Saint Andrews. When Saint Andrews fell into the hands of the French fleet, Knox was captured and later releas- ed. Then followed many years of preaching and travel. During this time he spent time in Geneva and was completely converted to Calvinism. In 1560, long-standing disagreements between England and Scotland were settled, Knox who had by that time returned and was the leading Protest- ant in all Scotland, led Parliament to a decree abolishing the Roman Catholic Church and making Calvinism, as expressed in the Presbyterian Church, the religion of the land. 32 In his plan for the development of a Calvinist Scotland, Knox call- ed for an autonomous church and government similar to that in Geneva. To insure the obedience of the Scots to the standards of the church, he proposed a graded system of education with an elementary school in every church, a secondary school in every town and a university in every city. He was eager to reproduce in Scotland the educational System he had seen in Geneva. However, the lords of Scotland did not agree, The Presbyterian Church did become the established religion of Scotland but the educational pattern so dear to the heart of Knox and 32FI‘OSt, 220 2120, p. 2080 6h his followers was not to take form until many years later. After years of sending their young men to England for higher ed- ucation, Scotland, with hostility toward England and leaning toward France, established its own institutions of higher learning: St. Andrews in 1hll and before the end of the 1500's, three others-Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. The Scots 'were to have heavy influence on the lay governing board concept taken to America. The Puritans from the American colonies, who were excluded from Oxford and Cambridge, would come to Scotland for advanced studies. Of interest in the study of the lay governing board concept is the founding of the University of Edinburgh. There is much discussion among scholars of Scottish history as to whether the original idea of the founders was to establish a university or create a "college" or school without all the faculties and programs of a university. This argument is not generic to this study but as eventually occured in Geneva, the institution founded in Edinburgh eventually did become a university. 'What is of most interest is the fact that as had been accomplished in Geneva, the new institution in Edinburgh was established by the local governing body and was to be controlled by a board con- sisting of laymen. Grant states regarding the founding of the Univer- sity of Edinburgh: "The precedent and the model in this manner was Geneva-"Geneva, to which the Scottish Kirk (sic) or church looked as the fountain-head of its doctrine and discipline---Geneva, which had been the political asylum for Scottish Reformers from 15514 until 1560. 33 Good and Teller, 9p. Elli" p. 588. 65 In the republic of Geneva the Municipal Council was of course supreme; and in 1559, while the place was still full of Scotchmen, the Council had, by the advice of Calvin, opened their Academy. King James VI put the Town Council of Edinburgh in the same position as the Municipal Council of Geneva, with the advice of the venerable company of pastors, had established their Academy. The magistrates and clergy who accepted this arrangement may have been secretly pleased with its democratic aspect; but they forgot that the Municipal Council of Geneva were the rulers of the entire republic, and therefore, had powers for carrying out what was best, which were wanting to the Town Council of Edinburgh."3)4 Not until the Universities Act of 1858, was the University of Edinburgh established as an independent institution free from the control of city government.35 Until then, the Town Council governed the institutions as a lay governing board tending to specific details of operation as did the Board of Curators at the University of Leiden and the Municipal Council of Geneva. These three institutions were early examples of publically-controlled universities. The Town Council of Edenburgh organized and controlled the University as the result of the initiative and endowments of the city's own citizens. The Council 314Sir Alexander Grant, The Stopy of Edinburgh During Its First Three Hundred Yearp, Vol. I (L6ndon: Longmans, reen andICompany, 35Janet R. Glover, The Stopy of Scotland (New York: Roy Publishers, 1958) p.152. 66 36 retained considerable authority, even to the appointment of professors. Other Antecedents. Some scholars of the lay governing board concept argue that in addition to the antecedents already mentioned, there were at least two others which had some influence on the development of governing boards in the United States. The first of these was the founding of Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, an institution which was later to be known as Dublin University. Originally, the powers of the "provost" or chief administrator and the "fellows" or faculty were limited as those of Harvard College, to be founded in the American colonies later, were limited by an external gov- erning board. The board at Dublin was known as the Board of Visitors and as a lay governing board held the same powers, generally, as the Board of Overseers at Harvard. The fellows at Dublin, unlike those at Harvard, were never able to take control of the operation of their in- stitution in the form of an internal governing body or senate. Murray reports the following regarding the institution at Dublin: "Trinity College was founded in 1591 and established in 1593, largely through the efforts of Oxford and Cambridge graduates living in Ireland, with the double purpose of providing a university education for their sons and of civilizing the "wild Irish". A royal charter was obtained from Queen Elizabeth I, a site from the Dublin Corporation and funds by public subscription. The University of Dublin, much like the University 36 . S. Leslie Hunter, The Scottish Educational System (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1968) p.210. 37Robert H. Murray, Dublin University and the New Wbrld (London: Iongmans, Green and Company, I921) p.11. 67 of New Ybrk many years later, had no legal existence apart from the college but was simply the degree granting aspect of the college."38 The second institution of higher learning which may be considered as an antecedent of lay governing boards but not mentioned earlier is the University of Franeker in The Netherlands. Ten years younger than the University of Leiden, Franeker was heavily influenced by the first Dutch institution of higher learning. Founded in 1585, Franeker, like Leiden, was governed by a Board of Curators or trustees appointed by the local government. The supporting reasons for considering Franeker as an antecedent is based on the fact that some of the founders of Harvard College in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 were graduates of the University'and attempted to shape America's first college as a model like the Dutch institution.39 Morison writes: "At Franeker the trustees kept careful watch on the professors' personal habits, noting down any evidence of failings and even attended their lectures to see that they followed the prescribed books." As with the institutions of higher learning at Edinburgh, Leiden and Geneva, the governing board of the University of Franeker exercised come plete control over the institution even to the point of paying great attention to exact details. This attitude on the part of governing boards was to be seen again in the early colleges of colonial America and many, as some might argue, be seen even today in the actions of some governing boards. At this point, a question might well be raised as to whether this 38;Eig.. 39Morison, pp, 213., p.1hh. bOIbid., p.1h5.. 68 presentation has placed too much emphasis upon religion in discussing the European antecedents of governing boards of American state universities. While other factors such as political, economic and social influences might also be included, it is the view of this study that religion in Europe during the Middle Ages permeated all aspects of society including the political, economic and social as well as its institutions of higher learning. In the preceeding examination of the European antecedents, it has been demonstrated that the teachings of religious leaders such as John Calvin did indeed have great influence on the development of higher education and the concept of lay governing boards. The importance of the various European antecedents can be summarized in the following manner: 1) From the Greek antecedents came the concept of higher education being reflective of community desires and needs; the idea of higher learning as an "open forum" for the discussion of ideas; and the emphasis on preparing young people to be able to demon- strate certain skills. 2) The Italian antecedent brought about the establishment of the lay governing board as a means of "protecting" the pmblic "trust". 3) The Swiss antecedents provided further refinement of the concept with an interest toward higher learning as a more active instrument of the social order. A) The Dutch antecedents was an example of the spreading of ideas tested at Basel and Geneva to other parts of Europe with some adaptations being made to the local invironments. 5) In the Scottish antecedent can be seen further development of the governing board concept in a cultural atmosphere which prepared it for importation to the American colonies. The following section will examine in more detail how the concept Which had been developed and tested in Europe was transported to the United States where it was to eventually spring forth in the present 69 structure of governing boards of state universities. First there had to be adaptations and refinements of the lay governing board idea to a growing and developing nation. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE EUROPEAN ANTECEDENTS It is the central proposition of this study that the antecedents previously discussed did in fact have a direct consequence on the devel- opment of lay governing boards in the United States and on the estab- lishment of state universities. As has been pointed out, there are various aspects of the different antecedents which are visible both in the development of higher education in the United States and, to some degree, in the present practice of institutional governance. The following section will treat in more detail the consequences of the European antecedents. Church and State. One obvious consequence of the European ante- cedents was the religious mission of the early colonial colleges. For almost a hundred years after the founding of Harvard College, the train- ing of ministers and missionaries would be the major motivating factor in the founding of American institutions of higher learning. ‘While one might argue that the early colonial colleges did graduate students who took positions of leadership in government and commerce, it can not be denied that the basic mission of their alma maters was religious. As we have seen with the development of the institutions of higher learning in Geneva, Leiden and Edinburgh, education was necessary to the Calvinist scheme, for Bible reading and for the maintenance of church and state. The Puritans who came to the New world brought with them from Holland and Scotland an overwhelming drive that education was not 70 only a necessity it demanded immediate attention. The first American colleges were small, conservative and widely scattered and isolated. Six of the first nine institutions of higher learning were less than thirty years old when the colonial period ended. In America, higher education was the daughter of the church. The early colleges, however, also had to appeal to the state for legal rights and powers, such as the right to receive and hold property and the power to grant degrees. bl Although it was not until the late 1700's and the early 1800's that the idea of a state university free from church control and relig- ious mission was to take place, historians argue that the colleges such as William and Mary, Yale and Princeton did play a major role in the preparation of young men for roles of leadership other than religious. In fact, it was Thomas Jefferson who tried, unsuccessfully, to complete- 1y free the College of William and Mary from its religious mission and have the institution train engineers and governmental officials needed so badly for the western expansion. His ideas were to be realized some- time later in the founding of the University of Virginia. In 1789, when the North Carolina Legislature chartered what was to be the first state university in.America to open its doors, there was a church-state relationship behind the founding of the University of Nerth Carolina. The churches founded no college or university of their own in North Carolina until near the beginning of the second quarter of the nineteenth century. There is strong evidence that the churches, partic-, ularly the Knox Presbyterians, played an important part in the founding h](’.‘-ood and Teller, c_>p. g_i_t_., p. 55. 71 and in the formative years of the University of North Carolina. In the North Carolina Constitutional Convention itself, the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians were prominent.)42 The Presbyterian Standard, looking back 128 years, gave expression to the feeling that but for the high educational spirit and great influ- ence of the Presbyterians there would not have been a University of Nerth Carolina.b3 Finally, as late as 1889, a movement was undertaken by a religious leader to stop the development of state universities and return higher education to the churches. Bishop'Warren A. Candler led an attack against the University of Georgia resulting in a slow-down in state fin- ances for many years. Candler's main contentions were: 1) It was not part of state government to undertake higher education and that the high- er phase of the educational process had historically always been a church function; 2) The church colleges asked no money from.state government and only desired good government in general with no hostile legislation; 3) The true function of the state should be to support a system of public common schools and all money appropriated to the University of Georgia should go to the schools; h) The policy of the University of Georgia had been hostile to church schools, which of course depended largely on tuition fees for their support and; 5) The University of Georgia was controlled by Presbyterians, in fact, most of the Chancellors of the szuther L. Gobbel, Church-State Relationships in Education Since 1776 (Durham, N.C.: Duke UniVersitytPress, 1938) p.8 L‘BPresterian Standgpd, Feb. 5, 1908, p.2. 72 University had been Presbyterians. hh Brooks observes that all animosity between the University and those who supported demoninational institutions had disappeared. The events of the past are important only because the enmity between the two in- terests seriously impeded the increase in state appropriations to the University. Furthermore, it is clear that the feeling was so bitter that it no doubt had a very serious effect on student enrollment. In fact, it may well be questioned whether, even if economic conditions and other factors had been more favorable, the popularity of the Univer- sity of Georgia would have continued when the churches were violently opposed to it. h5 As has been discussed concerning the two preceeding examples--the University of North Carolina and the University of Georgia--the mingling of the idea of church and state in higher education prevailed long after the colonial period of American history, The church and state period of American time may well be viewed as retarding the development of higher education completely financed by public support. Hofstadter and Hardy point out: "There are several major themes that command the attention of the historian of American higher education, but among these the oldest and longest sus- tained is the drift toward secularism. But there can be no doubt that while the early American college was founded in an ultimate union with the church, modern higher education.is predominantly secular. One can hardly touch the history of American colleges and universities at any'point from.the clos- ing decades of the seventeenth century to the opening decades thobert Preston Brooks, The University of Geor is Under Sixteen Administrations 1785-1955 (Athens, G .: The University 0 George Press, hSIbid., p. 86. 73 of the twentieth without finding some major development which is closely related to the process of secularization. In this respect, as in many others, education ha 6responded to the climate of the soCiety that it serves." IMany historians argue that the growing feeling of nationalism in the United States of the early 1800's may have been a contributing factor to the decrease of the church and state relationship. Americans were beginning to develop their own institutions rather than continuing with European models. As will be discussed in more detail later in this study, the early 1800's saw the development of state universities. The much reviewed U.S. Supreme Court case concerning Dartmouth College and an attempt to turn it into a state university took part at this time and, as will be studied more closely later, was the opening of the door toward the establishment of public institutions of higher learning. Soon, clergy began to fade from their domination of governing boards and increased representation came from the business and industrial world. These new members of governing boards tended to place greater emphasis on the practical considerations of life and foster the practi- cal in the programs of their institutions. Students of American history point out that this change in emphasis contributed to the erosion of h? religious and sectarian influences on.American higher learning. Harvard College. On Thursday, September 8, 1636, the General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay assembled under the governorship of b6Richard Hofstadter and C. DeWitt Hardy, The Develgpment and Scope of Higher Education in the United States (New Yerk; Columbia University Press,I952)7p.3T h7Hofstadter and Hardy, pp. 323., pp.32-33. 7h Henry Vane. This was only six years after the earliest settlement in Boston and while the surrounding country was still a wilderness. At its adjournment meeting on October 28, the Court passed the following resolution: "The Court agreed to give DOOL towards a schoale (sic) or colledge (sic) wheaof 200L to bee (sic) paid the next years (sic)1& 2OOL when the work is furnished, & the next Court to appoint wheare & wy building." On Nevember 15, 1637, the Court passed another resolu- tion: "The colledge (sic) is ordered to bee at Newetowne." The amount of the Court's first appropriation of hOOL, which it is estimated was equal to a year's income of the colonial government, and the selection of its most important leaders to oversee the establishment of a college, clearly show the high regard the colony had for founding an institution of learning in America. h8 One may clearly view the actions taken by the General Court as not only the first step in establishing Harvard College-~America's first institution of higher learning--but also as the first appropriation of government funds toward the support of a college or university in the United States. Indeed, it is this action on the part of the Court which supports the earlier contention of the church and state conse- quence which followed the European antecedents. In 1636, the name Newetowne was changed to "Cambrige" (sic) in memory of the English town at whose university many of the colonists had been educated. At this same time, the Reverend John Harvard, a John Hays Gardiner, Harvard (New York: Oxford University Press American Branch, l91h). 75 young dissenting minister who had received his degree at Emmanuel College in Cambridge in 1636, emigrated to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637 and died within a year of his arrival, bequeathed one half of his property and his entire library to the new institution of higher learning. D9 Richardson and Clark observe: "Created by a legislature, the new college was almost inevitably a state institution; established in a community where church-members alone were freemen and voters, it was also a sectarian institution; and being a reproduction in its essential features of an English university, its curriculum was made up almost exclusively of the studies pursued by candidates for the clerical pro- fession, that is to say, the learned languages and divinity, In a word, Harvard College was at its foundation and for many years afterwards a government school, established for the education of candidates for the ministry, and with the avowed purpose of maintaining and propagating a religious creed." In a letter to England, one of the Puritans writes: "One of the things we longed for and looked after was to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches, when our present ministers shall lie in the dust." In 1638 or 1639, and there is some argument as to the exact date, the General Court ordered that the colleges be built at Cambridge and h9Ibid., p.2. 0 ,.. Charles F. Richardson and Henry A. Clark, The College Book (Boston: Houghton, Osgood and Company, 1878), p. 1. 51Ibid.. 76 named it Harvard Colledge. In l6h2, the College held its first commen- cement with a graduating class of nine. By this time, Harvard had ex- perienced enough growth as to require a formal method of governance. On September 8, l6h2, the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed an act creating a Board of Overseers to have general management of the College. 52 In taking this important step, the Court interestingly did not rely on the English system of internal institutional governance but turned to the examples of Florence and Geneva. The new board was a body consisting of governmental officials, as in Geneva and Leiden, but also laymen, as in Edinburgh and Florence. Since it was the General Court which provided the original funds for the founding of the College and generally viewed the institution as a state institution, it is not surprising to find that the Board of Overseers was established in such a way as to give control to local government. The board consisted of the governor and deputy-governor and all the magistrates of the jurisdiction, together with the teaching elders of the next adjoining towns, such as Cambridge,‘Watertown, Charlestown, Boston, Roxbury and Dorchester, and the president of the college. The state, therefore, had controlling influence in the administration of the college. The Board of Overseers remained unchanged for nearly two centuries. There was a nominal change in 1780, whereby the new Massachusetts Constitution provided that the governor's council and the state senate 2 S John Hays Gardiner, pp, 333., p.2. 3 Richardson and Clark, pp; cit., p.2. 77 would be substituted for the local magistrates as members of the board. Again, in 1810, a change was made, this time by the Massachusetts Leg- islature, in which the permanent membership of the Harvard College Board of Overseers was set to be the governor, lieutenant governor, councilors, president and the Senate, Speaker of the House of Represen- tatives, the president of Harvard, 15 ministers of the Congregational churches and 15 laymen, all residents of Massachusetts. A change in the clerical part of membership on the Board of Over- seers came in 18b3 when clergymen of all denominations became eligible for membership and not just those of the Congregational church. In 1851, the State of Massachusetts renounced any claim of control over Harvard College and expanded the board membership to 30 members elected by the General Court other than the state governmental members. In 1865, this final right was abandoned and the Board of Overseers was changed to its present status of 30 members elected by the alumni of Harvard of five years' standing. As indicated earlier, Harvard also had and still has an internal governing system known as The Corporation. Harvard President Henry Dunster was able in 1650 to obtain for the College the charter from the General Court under which Harvard University operates today. The president, treasurer and five "fellows", usually members of the faculty or clergy, were established as The Corporation and given perpetual succession. Although for a period of time, The Corporation actually SbIbid., pp.2-3. 55:921. 78 ran the College with the Board of Overseers serving as a kind of "super" board. For a brief period of time the powers of the Overseers were sus- pended and The Corporation was totally in charge of the institution. Gardiner makes an important observation about the dual system of governance at Harvard which clearly established the lay governing board concept in America. "The purpose of retaining the Overseers along with the Corporation was to make sure that there should always be somebody to represent the general public opinion of the community, to whom the Corporation could give account of their stewardship." The College of William and Mary. Much like the settlers of Boston, the English settlers of the Virginia colony felt the need for estab- lishing an educational institution a very important part of building their community and insuring permanence. Jamestown was settled in 1607 and 12 years later the English friends of the Virginia settlers began to call for the founding of a college by the Crown. Through the influence of Sir Edward Sandys, president of the Virginia Company, 15,000 acres of land at Henrico, now known as Richmond, was set aside for the establishment of a university. At about the same time, con- tributions were collected in England through the bishops of the Angli- can church "to endow a college in Virginia for the Indians". George Thorpe, a man of the Royal chamber, came to the Virginia colony to be- come superintendent of the new university at Henrico but the Indian massacre of 1622, in which he and 3&0 other colonists were killed, de- feated the attempt. Nothing further was done about establishing an 56 John Hay Gardiner, pp. 223., p. 300. 79 institution in the Virginia colony until 1660. In 1660, a petition to King Charles II was made by the Grand Assem- bly of James City calling for the founding of a college. Like Harvard and Yale, the new institution was originally designed to be a deeder for the ministry. In Virginia, the need for trained men of the ministry was even more urgent than in the other locations in the New world due to the settlers concern for the Church of England belief in the necess- ity of the Episcopal ordination. English clergymen were scarce and the colonist could not expect to ordain from their own without the proper educational facilities. For the next thirty years, the Virginian colonists continued to talk about founding a college. One of a trio of men who played a major role in the founding of the College of William and Mary was the Reverend James Blair. A Scotsman who in 1673 received the degree of Master of Arts from the University of Edinburgh, Blair as an individual became the means by which the College became a consequence of one of the ante- cedents of the lay governing board concept--the University of Edinburgh. Having taken his religious training in the Anglican church and finding his situation in Scotland uncongenial, Blair migrated to Virginia some- 58 where around 1682. Dr. Henry Compton, who in 1685 induced Blair to become a missionary in Virginia after Blair's absense from religious duties for some years, 57Richardson and Clark, pp. 233., pp.5b-55. 58 Henry Hartwell, James Blair and Edward Chilton, The Present State of Vir inia and The College (Charlottesville, Va.: The Urfiversity Press ‘ of Birginia, I955.), PP- IU-IS. 80 was in charge of religious affairs for the overseas colonies. He felt the need for "providing a more able and Godly clergy and reforming the church generally". Hunter Dickinson Farish in his introduction to the l96h publication of the 1697 work, The Present State of Virginia and The College, observer "Blair began the custom of calling the clergy together occasionally in convocations, and soon plans were under way for founding an institution of higher learning with the purpose of providing the colony a Godly and suitably trained clergy for the churchfléO In 1691, Blair returned to England in search of the necessary support for founding the institution. He was successful in gaining the support of the Bishop of London, the Archbiship of Canterbury, Edward Stillingfleet, the Bishop of‘Worcester and other dignitaries of English church and state. On February 8, 1693, Blair obtained a chart- er from King William and Queen Mary establishing the royal College of 'William and Mary in Virginia. He also was successful in securing con- siderable funds toward the endowment of the new institution of higher learning which for many years had great difficulties in obtaining enough funds to operate their enterprises. Farish observes of Blair: "In accord with the expressed desire of the Virginia.Assembly, the charter named Blair the first president of the institution 'during his natural life'. It also designated him rector of the Board of Visitors for the first year. Backed by the Ibid., p. xxiii. 60 . M, pp. mil-xxiv. 81 enormous influence of the Anglican establishment, it seemed that Blair might now command from royal officials in the colony all the assistance necessary for the success of his plans."61 'When the actual plans for an institution of higher learning in the Virginia colony were revealed in 1691, the government of the new College through a lay governing board was clearly to be in the University of Edinburgh model which Blair as a masters student had been familiar. It is reported in The Present State of Virginia and The College: "For the government and visitation of this college, they appointed a College-Senate, which should consist of 18, or any other number not exceeding 20, who were then the lieutenant- governor, four gentlemen of the Council (the local governing unit), four of the clergy and the rest named out of the House of Burgesses, with power to continue themselves by election of successors. They petitioned the King that he would make these men Trustees for founding and building this college, and govern- ing it by such rules and statutes, as they or the major portion of them, should from time to time appoint. Accordingly, the King passed his charter under the Great Seal of England for such a college, and contributed very bountifully, both to the building and endowment of it." ‘With its charter from the King and Queen and its finances in good shape, the College of William.and Mary entered into a career of useful- ness and prosperity. During this period the royalty of England and local leaders of the Virginia colony appeared to vie with each other in regards to benefactions for the College. The royal charter gave the College large grants of money and land, the duty of a penny a pound on all tobacco exported from the colonies of Virginia and Maryland. Up to the Revolutionary War, the College of William and Mary was clearly 61 . 62 Ibid., p. xxiv. Ibid., p. 69. 82 the richest college in America. After the Revolution, the General Assembly of Virginia gave to the College "the Palace lands" and the houses upon them, a tract of land near Williamsburg known as "the Vineyard", and a few acres not far from Jamestown.63 As pointed out in earlier discussions, the College of‘William and Mary did experience various attempts at expanding its educational mission from training ministers to that of also preparing young men for careers in government. The College also went through a period of time in which an internal form of government, much like that of Harvard, 6X! ercised great control over the institution. HOwever, there was always a return to the lay governing board concept of prime concern in this study. In the establishment of the College of William and Mary, we see the consequence of two antecedents--the church and state and the lay gover- nance ideas of the University of Edinburgh and the University of Leiden. As pointed out earlier, it is of interest to note that James Blair, a Scot, was also a graduate of the Edinburgh institution. This Virginian college became the alma meter of four signers of the United States Constitution: Jefferson, Menroe, Tyler and Marshall. George'washington wrote of the College of William andiMary1 "The seat of leterature at'Williamsburgh has ever, in my view, been an object of veneration. As an institution important for its communication of 63Richardson and Clark, 92. _c__i_t_., p. 58. 83 useful learning and conducive to the true principles of national lib- erty, you may be assured that it shall receive every encouragement and benefaction in my power toward its re-establishment." Yale University. It was the idea of the Reva John Davenport concerning the establishment of an independent Christian state in the American wilderness, which lay behind the arrival of settlers from England in 1638 in the village of New Haven. According to Mr. Davenport not only were schools to be provided in the new state, where the whole body of children of each successive generation should be taught the rud- iments of education, but there were to be all those other institutions which distinguish a community of "the highest culture"--a classical school, a public library and a college.6 When the last of these three institutions-~the idea of a college-- was finally founded in 1701, its establishment was as an institution "wherein youth may be instructed in the arts and sciences, who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for publick employment, both in church and state." Both the idea of Davenport and those expressed in the founding of Yale in 1701, are clearly reprsentative of an antecedent of American higher education and the governing board concept--the John Calvin Academy in Geneva. True to Calvin's principles that laymen should be active the affairs of both church and state was the founding of a college dedicated to training young men for this important role. It 65Ibid., p. 61. 66Eranklin B. Dexter, Documentary History of Yale History (New Haven, Conn.: The Yale University Press, 1916), p. 21. 8h must be added, however, that the leaders of Yale did not always see their primary mission as including civil life. {As late as l7Sh, the president of Yale stated that "the great design of founding this school was to educate ministers in our own way."67 The actual founding of Yale College grew from the Collegiate School of Connecticut established in May, 1701 in Saybrook by the General Assembly of the Colony of Connecticut. The charter for the new college was passed by the Assembly on October 16, 1701. Included in the char- ter was the important concept that all governing prerogatives were given to the ten clerical trustees who originally organized the college. The presiding officer, called the rector, was not a member of the board of trustees of Yale until 1723, when he was made an ex officio member by statute. The new charter of 17h5 made the president of the College the presiding officer of the trustees. However, the trustees retained the right to do all the business of the institution and to choose or dismiss the president.68 In its power to control and operate the Yale institution, the board clearly was related to the governing boards of the Academy in Geneva and the University of Leiden. Since Yale started as a collegiate school, it also was a consequence of the Geneva Academy which, as we have seen, started out as higher school and not quite a university. 7 Hofstadter and Hardy, 92. 223., p. h. 68Franklin Bowditch Dexter, Documentary History of Yale University (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1916), pp. 3-h. 85 By 1720, the institution had been moved, after quite a bit of bat- tling in the General Assembly, to New Haven and was given the name Yale in honor of Elihu Yale, Governor of the Connecticut Colony. Yale had long been a supporter of the idea of establishing an institution of higher learning in Connecticut and had in 1718 disposed of a valuable cargo of goods to be sold for the benefit of the College. Due to the many arguments that arose about the College in the General Assembly and the strong competition between New Haven and Hartford as the permanent location of the institution, no monies were appropriated from the public treasury and the College was dependent upon the churches and such pri- vate benefactors as Elihu Yale.69 In May, 1792, a committee of the Connecticut Legislature met with Yale officials. The result was a plan whereby Yale would be assured of state funds if it would change the membership on its board of trustees to reflect the increased role of the state. "According to this plan, the balances of certain taxes, not yet collected, which were not needed for the original object they were im- posed, were to be paid into the hands of commissioners and applied to the imporvement of the college 3 and the trustees of the college in compensation for what was done by the state, were to receive into the corporation, the governor, lieutenant governor and '31:: senior assistants in the council of the state for the time being' , who were to constitute, with the president and fellows and their successors, one corporation. " 69 , Biographical Sketches of the Graduates o . ale College with Annuals of the College History, October 1701-May, 17145 (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1885). O 7 Richardson and Clark, 93. 92.3., p. 78. 86 Therefore, by the late 1700's Yale College's governance system evol- ved from being completely composed of clergy to one with an equal mix of clerical and nonclerical manbers. The Yale form of governance had also developed into a church-state relationship. The antecedent found in both Geneva and Leiden and based on the Calvinistic belief that lay- men should be involved in the operation of social institutions was clear- lu shown in the consequence of the governing board and church-state re- lationship found at Yale. Hofstadter and Hardy observe: "It is quite possible that the Protestant emphasis on the role of laymen and the supremacy of the con- gregation in the Congregational Church provided the founders of Harvard (and Yale) with a practical model for lay government of colleges. The self-governing universities of England had evolved from medieval univer- sities in which the principle of hierarchy was accepted ; the American college was founded in communities permeated with the Protestant ten- dency toward lay supremacy. "71 State Universities. Following the Revolutionary War, there were several attempts at turning the private, colonial colleges into public institutions of higher learning. Such efforts were made in the cases of Yale, William and Mary, Pennsylvania, Columbia and Dartmouth. America following the Revolution increasingly reflected growing democratic senti- ments which also were being applied to its institutions of higher learn- ing. Rank and social status were of decreasing importance and strict religious requirements were gradually abolished. The curricula of 71 Hofstadter and Hardy, op. git , p. 127 (footnote). 87 colleges were becoming broader than before, while newer and more scien- tific subjects were being added. Slosson points out: "The idea of a state university is older than the states themselves, though the institution was slow in developing and in differentiating itself as a distinct type. The germ of the state university came from.France, but it grew up under German influences. The Revolution that severed the political bonds connecting America with the mother country also broke the thread of educational traditions, and American educators turned from.their English enemies to their French friends."72 writing in the introduction to Hoopes' State Universities and Colleges, John A“ Hannah observes: "The public interest in higher educa- tion as opposed to church interest was staked out early in our history; It was a Congress meeting under the Articles of Confederation in 1787 that passed the famous Ordinance for the Nerthwest Passage which set aside public lands for the support of education and justified it with the famous phrase: 'Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary'to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged'."73 As an early attempt of at least expressing its desire for a.pub1ic institution of higher learning, the framers of North Carolina Constituh tion, who had been repeatedly defeated in their attempt to obtain a 72 Edwin E. Slosson, The Amsrican S irit in Education (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1921), pp. 168-169. 73 Roy Hoopes, State Universities and Colleges (washington, D.C.: Luce Publishers, 1962), p. vii. 88 charter from the Crown for a college, put into the fundamental law of the state in 1776 a clause providing: "That a school or schools be established by the Legislature, for the convenient instruction of youth, with such salaries to the masters, paid by the public as may enable them to instruct at low prices; and all useful learning shall be duly encour- aged and promoted in one or more universities." ‘ This appears to be the earliest mention of the term university rather than colleges in an American book of laws. However, finances and difficulties immediately following the Revolutionary War delayed the carrying out of the Constitutional provision until 1789 when the charter for the University of North Carolina was passed by the Legislature. The first official act of establishing a state university requires a look further south than North Carolina to Georgia. While other southern states preceded Georgia in planning public universities, Georgia was the first state to actually ' charter a state university. This charter was granted by the General Assembly on January 27, 1785 .75 Brooks writes: "The Act is titled 'An Act for the more full and complete establishment of a public seat of learning in‘ this state.‘ The reason for this wording is that in the preceding year, 1781:, the General Assembly had by its Act of February 25, created lands recently acquired from the Indians two new counties, Franklin and Washington, and set aside lands in the new counties for the endowment of a state insti- tution of higher learning. This Act of 1781: really created the 71‘Luther Gobbel, 92.31.}, p.3. 75Robert Preston Brooks, 39. cit., p. 5. 89 University. It provided for such an institution, named a Board of Trustees, and endowed the college with land."76 Of special interest in terms of this study, is the system of governance provided by the charter--a combination of political control and management by a self-perpetuating Board of Trustees. The political organization was accomplished by the creation of an ex.officio Board of Visitors, a term obviously borrowed from earlier colonial colleges such as the College of William and'Mary. The Board of Visitors con- sisted of the governor and his executive council. In the Constitution of 1789, the Governor's Council was eliminated and the membership on the Board of Visitors was changed to be all the members in the Georgia State Senate.77 The Board of Visitors and the Board of Trustees combined consti- tuted the Senatus Academicus which was given supreme authority for governing the University of Georgia. As we will see later, the Univer- sity was finally opened in 1801. Good and Teller comment about the University of Georgia's governing board: "The trustees were the active policyemaking and governing body, and the visitors had power to examine the students and to review and even veto trustee action. The early Americans, possessed of a dread of irremediable tyranny, resorted to such checks and balances."78 In South Carolina and North Carolina, the movement to create a state university antedates the charter of the University of Georgia. 77 6 7 Ibid.,pp.5-6. Ibid.,p.6. 78Good and Teller, op.cit., p. 95. 90 As early as 1723, plane for a state college had been advanced in South Carolina with no success as far as support from the General Assembly was concerned. In 1770, the governor recommended a system.of free schools including a provision for a state college. The Revolutionary ‘War ended all efforts to establish a state college in South Carolina and it was not until 1801, the year the University of Georgia opened its doors, that a bill passed the General Assembly creating the Univer- sity of South Carolina. The University opened in 1805.79 As indicated earlier, the efforts for establishing a state institution of higher learning in North Carolina were strong. Although Georgia has the distinction of being the first state to charter a public institution of higher education, it is Nerth Carolina which is credited with first opening a state university--a prototype of America's state universities. In 1789, the General Assembly of Nerth Carolina chartered the University of North Carolina. The charter called for the governing board to be self-perpetuating and to consist of a represen- tative of each judicial district in the state. It is interesting to note that this may well have been the first time that a lay governing board was established with the specific concern for geographical representation. It is much later that with the governing boards of the University of Minnesota and Oklahoma statewide coordinating boards came the provision for representation from certain districts, be they judicial or congressional. As Good and Teller point out: "Each 79D.W’. Hollis, History of the University of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Cardlina‘Press,*l951), p.79. 91 judicial district was to have one representative on the board, but distances and travel difficulties made this an unwise provision." The first governing board of the University consisted of forty prominent men. The trustees held their first meeting, an informal and unofficial one, in Fayetteville on December 18, 1789. Plans were made at that time to seek contributions and it was announced that Benjamin Smith had given some 20,000 acres of land to the University of North Carolina. On November 15, 1790, the trustees met again in Fayetteville to hold their first official meeting at which they elected a president. "With proper legal authorization, a hope for financial support and an enthusiastic Board of Trustees, the University was launched." With its charter granted in 1789 and students entering for instruc- tion in 1795, the University of North Carolina, although not chartered earlier than the University of Georgia, became the first state univer- sity in the United States. Rather than converting an institution of higher learning from private to public, the people of Nerth Carolina decided to establish a new institution--a state university. An example of an attempt at changing an existing institution from private to public control took place in New Hampshire and was to have far-reaching effect on the question of state control of higher education. Although chartered by the state of New Hampshire, Dartmouth College operated as a church college since its founding in 1769. By the 1800's, 81William S. Powell, The First State University': A Pictorial History of the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, N. C. The University of North Carolina Press, 1972), p. 5. 92 the president of Dartmouth was John Wheelock, the son of the institu- tion's first president. Richardson and Clark set the scene: "An unfriendly feeling had gradually grown up between the president and some of the officers and trustees. The president had naturally come to exert a con- trolling influence, not only on the faculty, but among the trustees. He was more acquainted with the condition of the institution than could any body of men living at a distance and visiting the college but seldom. He had come, in fact, to con- sider the college sort of a family affair. But the condition of things had changed. Its reputation and its numbers had increased, and most of the trustees lived near Hanover. There was a growing demand that the immediate government of the students should be representative and not autocratic. A quarrel in the local church added fuel to the flame. The breach between the president and the board gradually widened until 1815, when the trustees relieved him from a part of his duties. Wheelock retorted by charging the trustees with an attempt to subvert the charter. He also asked the legislature Bo appoint a committee to investigate the affairs of the college." 2 The political fires in the state had risen to such heights that in 1816 the Governor of New Hampshire sent a message to the legislature in which he argued that the Dartmouth charter of 1769 contained "monarchial" principles, especially the cooptation principle by which members of the governing board had the power to fill their own vacan- cies--the principle of self-perpetuation found on most private college governing boards. The governor argued that this principle was "hostile to the spirit and genius of a free government". He advised a change in the mode of selection of board members.83 It is interesting to note that the structure of a governing board, an important element in this study, was involved in the famous Dartmouth case. Eventually, the Legislature established a state university to 82 83Good and Teller, 22. 313., p. 9h. Richardson and Clark, op, 332., p. 1h5. 93 replace Dartmouth College. Finally the case was appealed to the E. S. Supreme Court. The decision in 1819 reached far beyond the immediate issue to declare that a charter is a contract that a state legislature is not competent to annul. The New Hampshire State Legislature was compelled to return Dartmouth College with all its former rights and property to its old board, and the college has continued as a private institution. Many historians argue that the result of the decision was to encourage the development of private, especially church-related colleges, and discourage the development of state universities. There does not appear to be any strong evidence that state universities were discouraged in the 1800's but there does appear to be some support for the idea that state universities did not really expand until the last half of the 1800's as the result of many factors. Good and Teller observe: "The decision may'have stimulated the founding of private colleges by assuring their continued private status: and it has been asserted that it convinced the public authorities that they would have to establish their own state colleges and universities in order to complete the public school systems. This they proceeded to do."85 The Dartmouth case brought to an end attempts on the part of states to transform independent colleges into state institutions. It also gave h Good and Teller, 92, git. 8SIbid. 9h assurances to thos donating funds that their wealth would remain in control of the institution designated. The State of New Hampshire was not to have its own public institution of higher learning until 1868 when the University of New Hampshire was established as a land-grant institution with no connections to Dartmouth College. While the Universities of North Carolina and Georgia are generally considered the first state universities, a review must be taken of two other early developments in order to better understand the consequences of both the antecedents of the lay governing board concept and of state universities. The third example of a state university took place in Virginia where there developed an institution often referred to as the "child of Thomas Jefferson"--the University of Virginia. The establishment of Virginia's first state institution of higher learning can be traced to the founding of the Albemarle Academy in Charlottesville in 1803. The institution was to go through three major changes--the Academy, Central College and finally the University of Virginia. The Academy was established with a lay governing board and in many ways appeared to be a direct consequence of the Geneva Academy founded by Calvin. On March 25, 181h, the trustees of the Academy met to fill a vacancy on the board caused by a death. They appointed Thomas Jefferson to fill the vacancy. It was Jefferson who proposed to the trustees that they "convert their paltry Academy into a College and 86 procure for it an endowment by subscription." 86Paul Brandon Barringer, James Mercer Gannett and Rosewell Page, University of Virginia (New York: Lewis Publishing Company, 190b), p.18. 95 On April 5th of the same year, the 18 trustees of the Albemarle Academy, including Jefferson, met and named a president--Peter Carr. On September 7, 181b, Jefferson sent a letter to Carr which more clearly outlined his expectations of the Academy as only the start toward the final outcome-~a university. "I have long had under contemplation, and been collecting materials for the plan of a university in Virginia which should comprehend all the sciences useful to us, and none others." On February IL, 1816, the Virginia Legislature passed an act creating the Central College to replace Albemarle Academyu The action, resulting from the urging of Jefferson, was taken in response to a petition by the trustees of the Academy. The act made the Governor of Virginia "Patron" of the College giving him.power to appoint six members to the Board of Visitors, a lay governing board for the new institution. By 1818, before Central College could actually be established, the legislature passed another act replacing the College with an institution to be known as the University of Virginia and appropriating $15,000.00 a year for its endowment and toward its support. The lay governing board was to be a nine-member Board of Visitors to be annually appointed by the Governor of Virginia. .As with the University of North Carolina, the University of Virginia was to be governed by a board structured in such a way as to better represent the different sections of the state. The act of the legislature required that members of the Board of. 8 7Ibid., p. 21. 96 Visitors "represent the different geographical divisions of the state". As pointed out earlier, the act establishing the University pro- vided for an annual appropriation from the legislature of $15,000.00. In 1875, the amount was increased to $30,000.00 in consideration for the establishment by the University of 18 free scholarships for Virginia youth. This appears to be the first time that an American institution of higher learning was provided with annual state appropriations and it certainly was to be a forerunner of the future direction of chief means of support for state universities--annual appropriations from legislatures. As has been presented in this section, the concept of lay govern- ing boards found in the various European antecedents continued to have a consequence on the development of higher education in the United States. The model of lay governance continued to appear as an import- ant part of the state university. In addition, the University of Virginia appears to have been an American extension of the Ancient Greek institutions of higher learning by reflecting the needs and concerns of its society. The next example of the development of both the lay governing board concept and the institution knows as the state university move westward, as much of the country was doing in the early 1800's. As has been mentioned earlier, the Ordinance of 1787 organizing the Northwest Territory contained a clause which declared that "schools 88 Richardson and Clark, 92. 933., p. 277. 89mm, p.281. 97 and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." It was while this spirit still prevailed, that an institution to be known as the University of Michigan had its beginning. Richardson and Clark note: "In the year 1826 two townships of land were appropriated by Congress for the founding and support of a university in Michigan; and, best of all, the governor and judges of the Territory were authorized to locate these lands, even in small tracts, wherever they might desire. It was owing to the judicious exr ercise of this privilege that in Michigan the university fund, arising from the sale of these lands, was somewhat greater than the fund accumulated in any other of the Northwestern states. It was also the good fortune of the university early in its history to fall into the hands of men of culture and wisdom."90 The first step toward establishing a university in Michigan had been taken in 1817, when the Territorial government had passed an act creating the "University of Midhigania" and providing for 13 professor- ships. In 1821 this preliminary organization was repealed and a board of trustees, a lay governing body of 21 trustees, was established by the Territorial Legislature. In an arrangement at least augury of religious toleration, the Scotch parson and Roman Catholic bishop of the Territory were included as members of the Board of Trustees.91 9OIbid., p. 3&2. 9 ¥Herbert B. Adams, "The Study of History in.American Colleges and Universities", in Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, No.2, 1887. p. 88. 98 As had been the case with other states which wanted to open univer- sities, Michigan needed funds to carry out the idea of a state univer- sity. The sale of the federal lands in 1826 presented the opportunity of providing the needed financial support. However, due to the great work required in setting up a new state, no action toward opening a university was taken until 1837. On March 18th of that year, the Michigan Legislature established the University of Michigan with a lay governing board—~the Board of Regents--to be appointed by the Governor of Michigan with the approval of the State Senate. Adams observes some of the difficulties in carrying out the wishes of the legislature. Before the university was formally opened in 18b1, an attempt was made to emancipate it from political control. It was recommended by a legislative committee in 18h0 that the entire manage- ment be entrusted to a board of regents. The committee stated: A board of experienced regents can manage the funds of the university better than any legislature; and the faculty can manage the business of educa- tion--the interior of the college-~than can any regents."92 we see here a strong verbal defense of the concept of lay govern- ance in higher education in the United States. Coming from.a legis- lature, it is even more impressive. However, as Adams points out; "It took the State of Michigan 12 years to discover, experimentally, the truth of this proposition (the one advanced by the legislative 93 committee)." 93 921bid., p. 89. Ibid.. 99 As originally established in 1837, the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan consisted of 12 members appointed by the governor. However, increasingly, through the appointment procedure of the gov- ernor, the Board of Regents became dominated by politicians. The situation soon developed in which the University was caught between political factions in state government and on the Board of Regents. The result was that public concern over the situation brought about a change in the 1851 Michigan Constitution calling for elected rather than appointed regents. The new constitution, besides providing for election of the regents by the people, conferred upon them largely increased powers. This change was of the greatest importance to the institution. The authority vested in the regents from that time forward was so great that they were no longer subject to the interference of the legislature. They might be impeached, but they could not be controlled. Under the shelter of this constitutional protection, the regents did not hesitate to disre- gard even the commands of the legislature whenever the welfare of the university was threatened; and in this course they have been sustained by the supreme court of the State.9h The Constitution reduced the number of regents from 12 to 8 in an effort to make the body more workable. 'When the new Board of Regents took office in 1852, public sentiment in Michigan was undivided in its loyalty to the new university. The institution began to rise, not only in name, but now in fact, as the head of the state's educational 1: Richardson and Clark, 92, 333., p. 3h5. 100 system. The institution, while clearly a state university and sometimes referred to as "the Mother of State Universities", was heavily influ- enced by the universities of Germany and in some respect its academic atmosphere was more like that of a private institution. In 1868, Michigan's first superintendent of public instruction who was very influential in the beginnings of the University, the Rev. John D. Pierce, stated: It was reserved to Michigan to rear up, within thirty years from its inception and the location of its site, an institution rivaling, not only Yale and Harvard, but outstripping them both. This is now universally acknowledged. Men from the oldest institutions in the United States concede the great fact. The best authorities say that the University of Michigan is a marvel. Ybu will find in all the history of the past nothing to compare with it in the rapidity of its development and growth."95 This glowing tribute to the University of Michigan appears to be somewhat representative of the feeling the Michigan citizens had toward the institution during its early development. To many it was symbolic of culture and education coming to the wilderness. Historians observe that between the time of founding of the University of Michigan and 1850, the new institution served the people of the state in nearly every field with the exception of one--the scientific teaching of agriculture in Michigan. The state had nearly 90 per cent of its population engaged in agriculture by 1850. 9SCharles Lanman, The Red Book of Michigan: A Civil, Military and Biographical History (Detroit, Mich.:E.B. Smith &.Company, 187l)p. 92. 3 101 Developments were taking place in soil chemistry, horticulture, husbandry and technology which seemed to have implications for American agriculture. At the time agriculture could still be described as basically crude and exploitative farming. Voices were beginning to rise in America for a type of higher education which.would be more of a practical nature and would apply some of the new ideas to American farm- ing. In Michigan, the stage now appeared to be set for an early move- ment in the direction of an institution of higher learning in the field of scientific agriculture. Blair and Kuhn report: "By the year l8h9, public opinion, as well as governmental opinion, was more than ever aware of the crying necessity of serving the inhabitants of the state in such a manner, and in that year, the State Agricultural Society was formed. This society was made up of a remarkable body of people. Whilst their primary duty was to promote agriculture they had a vision which allowed them to realize the importance of education to agriculture. In 1850,--they took the initiative and petitioned the State Legislature of Michigan for an agricultural college. The State Legislature could r 6 not see its way to finance such a plan at that time."9 In 1855, the Society again pushed for an agricultural college. 4 After much discussion as to whether the teaching of agriculture should be instituted as a department in an existing institution of higher learning or as an independent college, the Agricultural Society was successful in the passage of an act creating the Agriculture College 96 Lyle Blair and Madison Kuhn, A Short History of Michigan State (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State College Press, 1955.) p. 6. 102 of Michigan to be located in East Lansing.” On February 12, 1855, Gov. Kinsley S. Bingham signed the bill into law. For its early days, the institution was not to be governed by its own lay governing board but by the State Board of Education. In later years, its government was turned over to the State Board of Agriculture until the approval of the current Michigan Constitution creating the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University. It is important to point out that the three boards which have had governance responsibility for this forerunner of the land- grant college were elected by the people of Michigan in statewide elec- tions. On May 13, 1857, the Michigan Agricultural College was formally opened with 63 students, an almost unprecedented enrollment for the opening day of a new college in the United States.98 Historians generally credit Michigan State College and the insti- tution that later became Pennsylvania State College, also founded in 1855, as being the "pioneer" land-grant institutions. Both of these colleges, with their emphasis on scientific agriculture as well as liberal arts education, were clearly the "peoples" institutions and general models for the land-grant colleges and future state universities. It must also be added that Iowa and Massachusetts chartered agricultural schools in the mid-1800's but did not begin instruction until after the Morril Act had been passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law. 'Wahlquist and Thornton observe: Breaches appeared here and there in the traditional framework of American higher education through- out the first half of the nineteenth century. Unceasing pressures 97 98 Ibid., p.8. Ibid., p.10. 103 continued to mount. The nation's boundaries pushed all the way to the Pacific. Immense areas were opened for settlement. The rich agricultural lands of the Midwest were drawn closer to met- ropolitan markets through a network of railroads and waterways. Dramatic changes in the nation's economic fabric grew out of the industrial revolution. The demand for the greater democratization of higher education, first voiced decades earlier by Thomas Jefferson and others, now reached clamorous proportions. Thus the interaction of a wide variety of powerful economic, social and political forces led to the creation in 1862 of the land-grant college system. So began the era of modern development in American higher education."99 As indicated earlier, these new institutions dedicated to educating 'the sons of farmers and factory workers also included the lay governing board concept. The governing boards of these institutions were natur- ally more representative of the people they served. This meant that for the first time, governing boards were becoming less dominated by 'the clergy and political leaders and there was somewhat of a limited attempt at giving other segments of the American population a voice in operating these "people" universities. It would not be honest to paint a picture that the American people,