DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 111 242 HE 006 604

AUTHOR Wren, Scott C., Ed.TITLE Student Participation in the Governance of

Institutions of Higher Education: An AnnotatedBibliography.

INSTITUTION California Univ., Berkeley.PUB DATE Jan 75NOTE 70p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$3.32 Plus PostageDESCRIPTORS *Administration; *Annotated Bibliographies; College

Administration; Decision Making; *Governance; *HigherEducation; *Student Participation; Trustees;University Administration

ABSTRACTThis bibliography represents a survey of selected

works on student participation in academic decision making publishedbetween 1968 and 1974. It is divided into three major areas. Thefirst section, 81 items, is concerned exclusively with studentparticipation in academic decision making, focusing on models,justifications, attitudes, and current practices. The 39 items in thesecond section examine the student role in the broader context ofcampus and institutional governance, including alternative governancestructures, goals and objectives of governance, and the distributionof power within various institutions. The 17 items in the thirdsection deal with literature devoted to unicameral, or broadly based,decision-making bodies which incorporate all campus constituenciesinto a single policy making structure. (Author/JMF)

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. nevertheless, items of marginal ** reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality ** of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available ** via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.***********************************************************************

STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN

THE GOVERNANCE OF INSTITUTIONS

OF HIGHER EDUCATION:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION &WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

An Annotated Bibliography

Edited by Scott C. Wren

January 1975

Vice President--University RelationsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720

4

INTRODUCTION

This bibliography represents a survey of selected works on studentparticipation in academic decision making. It is divided intothree major areas:

I. The literature concerned exclusively with studentparticipation in academic decision making,focusing on models, justifications, attitudes,and current practices (Items 1-81, pages 1-38);

II. The literature examining the student role inthe broader context of campus and institutionalgovernance, including alternative governancestructures, goals and objectives of governance,and the distribution of power within variousinstitutions (Items 82-121, pages 39-56); and

III. The literature devoted to unicameral orbroadly-based, decision-making bodies whichincorporate all campus constituencies into asingle policy-making structure (Items 122-139,pages 57-65).

Most of the literature on student participation in the governanceof institutions of higher education appeared during the studentprotest era from the time of the Free Speech Movement at Berkeleyin 1964 until shortly after the Cambodian invasion in 1970.During this time, students were urged by campus officials to seekconstructive change through nonconfrontation tactics. After thecampuses returned to relatively normal conditions in 1970-71,institutional efforts to strengthen student input diminishedmarkedly. Much less was written on the subject, too, which maybe indicative of this development. Apparently, once the immediatecrisis had passed, many institutions assigned a lesser priority tothe evaluation of the roles and responsibilities of students ininstitutional governance.

Many of the more recent articles suggest, however, that thegovernance crisis may not be over. Current trends toward power-ful external student lobbies and collective bargaining, coupledwith declining enrollments and rising tuition, form a potentiallyexplosive situation. Indeed, the Carnegie Commission on HigherEducation noted that "it is highly possible that a new period ofstudent activism will occur again in the future--it would bequite remarkable if it did not." (Governance of Higher Education,1973, page 55.) Going even further, the Commission warns that"new confrontations on campus and off are just as possible inthe future as the potentialities for such future confrontationsare blindly ignored in the present." (Final Report: Prioritiesfor Action, 1974, page 4.) Support for the Commission's position

iii

can be found in much of the literature covered by this bibliog-raphy. This commentary suggests that colleges and universitiesshould seriously consider examining their existing governancestructures in order to determine whether they are likely tofunction effectively in the decade ahead.

The author acknowledges his debt to Dr. Harold L. Hodgkinson,Carol H. Shulman, and the ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.Many annotated citations from their previous works are includedin this bibliography.

4

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION iii

SECTION I.

STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC DECISION MAKING

A. Theory, Models, and Opinion 1

B. Research on Attitudes, Practices, and Trends . . 21

C. Institutional Reports, Recommendations,and Guidelines 29

SECTION II.

CAMPUS AND INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

A. Theory, Models, and Opinion 39

B. Research on Decision-Making Authority 47

C. Institutional Reports, Recommendations,and Practices 51

SECTION III.

BROADLY-BASED DECISION-MAKING BODIES

Research and Reports on Unicameral Governance 57

5

SECTION I. STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN ACADEMIC DECISION MAKING

PART A. THEORY, MODELS, AND OPINION

1. Alexander, William M. "Rethinking Student Government forLarger Universities." Journal of Higher Education 40,January 1969, pp. 39-46.

The author suggests a unique form of student govern-ment and outlines some of its features. The represen-tatives to a student parliament would be selected bypetition on a ratio of one representative to twentypetitioners. A cabinet would be elected from theparliament to prepare the parliamentary agenda. Theparliament would meet two hours per week and would bedirectly responsible to the university president.(Shulman)

2. Betts, William W., Jr. Hermes and Apollo. Address tothe Meeting of the Council of Graduate Schools in theU.S., Washington, D.C., December 4-6, 1969.

Many of those who oppose student participation inacademic governance argue that the students are notqualified to plan essentially professional services.This is not what most students want; they want to beacknowledged and taken into account. They want toparticipate in the governance of the university notout of a desire for power, but to improve the insti-tution. Others argue that most students are not inter-ested in governance, or that their transitory presenceat the university makes their participation in decisionmaking undesirable. But students form a permanentconstituency. Evidence indicates that faculty andadministration can benefit from student consultation.Students have already effected changes in their pro-grams and will continue to do so. Both undergraduateand graduate students have an obligation to participatein academic administration. (ERIC)

3. Bloustein, Edward J. "The New Student and His Role inAmerican Colleges." Liberal Education 54, October1968, pp. 345-364.

The purpose of this paper was to inquire into thereasons for and the nature of the student assertion ofa right to share in the management of the American

college and university. The author describes theclassical American college and contrasts it withtoday's institutions. He then details how the emer-gence of the "new student" may be traced from weaknessesin each of the characteristic elements of the classicalcollege system--the hierarchical structure of authority,the fixed and ordered system of certain knowledge, arigidly defined and severely limited set of educationalfunctions, and a completely paternalistic relationshipbetween the student and the college. (Shulman)

4. Bond, Linda. Collective Bargaining and Its Impact on theLearning Environment: The Need for a Closer Look.Speech presented to the Conference of the AmericanAssociation for Higher Education, Chicago, March 1974.

Student concern regarding faculty unionism stems fromthe possible impact unionism will have on the qualityof instruction and on student participation in gover-nance. The author notes that most colleges haveadopted a bilateral industrial-type bargaining processthat excludes students from participation. She arguesthat education is a process, not a product to be viewedin terms of a producer-consumer model. Distinctionsshould be made between collective bargaining in theindustrial and public service sectors, and more atten-tion should be given to the impact faculty collectivebargaining will have on the learning environment ineducational institutions. Because faculty collectivebargaining has gone beyond economic issues, studentsmust involve themselves in the bargaining process orforfeit their role in university decision making. Theonly way student participation can be ensured is bystipulating it in enabling legislation. Studentsshould not be content with observer status; they shouldhave the right to participate in discussions, to berepresented by counsel, and to caucus. Finally, stu-dents should have veto power over specific issues, suchas student evaluations of teaching for faculty promo-tion and review, class size, grading policy, etc.(Wren) See also 6, 8, 27, 36, 37.

5. Bowles, W. Donald. "Student Participation in AcademicGovernance." Educational Record 49, Summer 1968,pp. 257-262.

This author discusses the power structure of highereducation institutions and suggests how students whowish to achieve real influence should approach thetask. Basically, his prescription is to keep in mindhow academic governance actually does take place, nothow it should take place. This necessitates identify-ing the mainsprings of power in a given institution in

-2-

order to determine where to begin. The departmentis named as a likely target. The author suggestsways students might make themselves more acceptableto the powers that be.

Although it is not uncommon to find sympathizers forthe student power movement among administrators, itis rare to find one who describes methods for obtain-ing influence. (Shulman)

6. Brandes, Frederic M. "Point of View: Students ShouldTake Part in Collective Bargaining Between Facultyand University." The Chronicle of Higher Education,April 16, 1973, p. 12.

Students have the right to participate in collectivebargaining for two major reasons. First, studentshave a community of interest which includes mattersunder negotiation. Second, exclusion of studentsfrom the negotiations would damage their academicenvironment. The author notes that the college existsprimarily to teach students, and not to set the termsand conditions for the employment of teachers. Thus,the student "community of interest" is built uponmaintaining academic freedom in the terms and condi-tions of education. And when conditions of employmentaffect conditions of education, students are vitallyinterested in protecting the quality of their educa-tion. Students have been excluded from participatingin collectively bargained agreements in the past be-cause of adherence to the narrow industrial model.But the author notes that the public service sectornegotiates issues like academic freedom, tenure andgovernance, which takes collective bargaining out ofthe industrial sphere, and thus he calls for partici-pation of student representatives in negotiations.(Wren) See also 4, 8, 27, 36, 37.

7. Brunson, May. "Student Involvement in University Gover-nance: Sense or Nonsense?" Journal of the NationalAssociation of Women Deans and Counselors 32, Summer1969, pp. 169-175.

The author lists several of the traditional argumentsagainst student involvement such as immaturity, tran-siency, lack of legal responsibility, and apathy--andthen refutes each one. She feels that a major factoraffecting the type of involvement is institutionalsize. She advocates student participation, arguingthat: the institution should be viewed as a communityincluding the students; students have potential formaking worthwhile contributions; the experience offerstraining for leadership and is good for student morale.

0

She then lists some approaches to student participationwhich have been taken by various institutions.(Shulman)

8. Bucklew, Neil S. "Unionized Students on Campus." Educa-tional Record 54, Fall 1973, pp. 299-307.

This article explores the possibility and the implica-tions of student involvement in collective bargainingthrough forming independent student unions. Theauthor discusses this subject from three vantage points:as a student, as a university employee, and as anaffected third party. Experiences at a number of cam-puses are traced for possible indications of futuretrends. The article closes with a list of advantagesand disadvantages of the student union model. Theauthor also notes that, while firm conclusions aboutstudent collective bargaining cannot be drawr atpresent, where the labor relations model has been soughtby a constituency, it has eventually been put into prac-tice--first informally, then by law. (Wren) See also4, 6, 27, 36, 37.

9. Carter, E. S. Planning Students' Roles in EmergingUniversities. Address to the Meeting of the Councilof Graduate Schools in the U. S., Washington, D. C.December 5, 1969.

An imaginary ccnsultant (with some resemblance to theauthor) makes a survey of graduate student-facultyrelations and their views of their decision-makingroles. The results of the survey are intended toguide deans of graduate schools in emerging institutionsin working out suitable roles for graduate students inacademic decision making. Based on the findings, theconsultant made the following observations: (1) Care-fully selected representatives of modern student groupsmay be more influential in making changes than anyother single group. (2) Selecting student represen-tatives is a critical step. Those most anxious torepresent their peers are not necessarily the oneswho will take the time and assume the responsibilityof participating sufficiently and effectively. (3)Avoid, planning, including long-range planning, FORstudents; plan with them. (4) Don't be surprised tofind students who want neither the opportunity to takeover, nor the responsibility of running the whole uni-versity. (ERIC)

10. Committee on the Student in Higher Education. The Studentin Higher Education. New Haven, Connecticut: HazenFoundation, January 1968.

-4-

The Committee on the Student in Higher Educationconducted an 18-month study of various social andpsychological influences that shape student attitudes,interests, and activities and presents several recom-mendations that it believes could improve the qualityof higher education. The report is based on the assump-tion that the college is a major agent in promoting thepersonality development of the young adult between theages of 17 and 25, and must therefore assume responsi-bility for the quality and direction of this develop-ment. The Committee does not take issue with thetraditional emphasis of higher education on intellec-tual development, but stresses a current need for thekind of intellectual development that has some visibleimpact on the student's life, values, feelings, goals,and deeds. Developmental education is suggested asan effective way of providing the student with a col-lege experience that integrates his cognitive develop-ment and the development of his whole personality.Other recommendations include a reorganization of in-struction in the freshman year, the recruitment ofcompetent faculty who are primarily concerned with thedevelopmental experience of undergraduates, increasedstudent participation in educational policymaking,and opportunities for student volunteer work. (ERIC)

11. Ferguson, Donald G. Student Involvement: A Working Paper.Paper presented at Convention of the American Associa-tion of School Administrators, Atlantic City, New Jersey,February 1971.

Students are clients of the educational system, buttraditionally have had little voice in decision-makingabout the services they receive. Students are nowdemanding greater involvement, and administrators havetried a number of programs designed for student partic-ipation, generally with success. Some examples ofsuccessful programs are (1) student centers that providea focus on students and serve to improve relations withstudents, (2) inclusion of students on deliberativeand decisionmaking bodies to encourage greater communi-cation and understanding between staff and students,and (3) involvement of students in producing innovativeeducational programs and services that better meet theneeds and interests of students. (ERIC)

12. Frankel, Charles. "Student Power: The Rhetoric and thePossibilities." Saturday Review 51, November 2, 1968,PP. 23-25.

This article is a general essay on the topic of studentinvolvement in governance. The author begins by dis-cussing the ramifications of the use of slogans andphrases common to the movement. He then relates how

-5-:11.6-

students have influenced the evolution of educationaltheory and practice in the past. Now the question isnot whether students have the right to say something,but whether it would be educationally desirable tocreate arrangements permitting a more visible and for-mal participation in the making of academic decisions.He feels that if people have some power over the wayin which they live and work, they will have more inter-est in their experiences, learn more from them, andtend to become more responsible. Nevertheless, theauthor would limit student power, and would not approveof student involvement in faculty selection and reten-tion. (Shulman)

13. "Governing Boards: Trustees Strive to Close GenerationGap--But Not By Opening Board to Students." Collegeand University Business 47, April 1969, p. 24.

Trustees from ten universities comment on their rela-tionship to the students in their institutions. Thegeneral consensus is that: times are changing; atrustee's role is changing; and students should not berepresented on governing boards. There is no identi-fication of what a "new" role or "new" demands willentail. (Shulman) See also 47.

14. "Governing a College: The Pros and Cons of Student In-volvement." College Management 4, May 1969, pp. 40-44.

Two faculty members from the University of Delawaredebate the role students should play in the selectionand retention of faculty, in curriculum decisions,and in choosing a president. The feelings and atti-tudes expressed toward student involvement are basicallyambivalent. (Shulman)

15. Heffner, Ray L. "The Student Vote in Institutional Policy."A.G.B. Reports 10, February 1968, pp. 3-10.

Speaking from his experience as president of BrownUniversity (Rhode Island), the author discusses therole of the president in current times. He gives someof the history of Brown and relates it to current con-cerns. He also relates how Brown's regulations onstudent conduct were modified. His three prescriptionsfor institutional progress are: (1) enunciate institu-tional goals and seek understanding and acceptance byall elements of the academic community; (2) acceptstudents as junior partners in the enterprise; (3)

provide alternatives in which experimental approachescan develop, so that components of the community, suchas the students, are not faced with the choice of eitheraccepting or rejecting the "system." (Shulman) See also19, 73.

-6--4 AI

16. Henderson, Algo D. "The Administrator-Student Conflict."The Administrative Law Review 21, November 1968, pp.65-77.

Colleges are undergoing a transition from havingresponsibility for the protective care of studentsin loco parentis to the position of treating andcounseling students as young adults. Many adminis-trators are academic specialists, but are not preparedto respond to the basic questions raised by studentsabout the university's role as an educational institu-tion and its role in society. The growing permissive-ness of parents and exposure to today's communicationsmedia have produced more sophisticated college-agechildren over whom administrators can no longer assumean arbitrary authority. Administrators are usuallyconfronted with problems arising from 1 of 2 sources:(1) militant student and faculty insistence that theinstitution should take leadership in social action,and (2) student pressures for change in the institu-tion itself. The numerous criticisms that evolvefrom these sources seem to be justified. Unfortunately,many administrators have resisted new ideas and main-tained bureaucratic modes of administration, actionsthat have turned student aggressions from the solutionof educational problems to the achievement of studentpower. It is suggested that administrators be morequalified for their responsibilities. It is felt thatthey should have qualifications in addition to a repu-tation as a scholar or a scientist, in order to commu-nicate effectively with modern students. (ERIC)

17. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Students and An IntellectualCommunity." Educational Record 49, Fall 1968, pp.398-406.

In this article the author touches on the topic ofstudent participation in governance. He believes theview that students are well equipped in terms both ofcompetence and longevity on campus to participatemeaningfully in academic governance has more validitythan customarily assumed. He supports his contentionby comparing the campus adults' way of life to that ofthe students. He claims the notion of "readiness" isused to hold students back, whereas there is evidencethat five- and six-year-olds are able to build theirown curriculum in a disciplined way. (Shulman)

18. Johnstone, Bruce D. "The Student and His Power." Journalof Higher Education 40, March 1969, pp. 205-218.

The author discusses six methods of exercising informal,indirect or lower level student power which would bring

-7-

the total student body into an effective decision-making role. He feels that such mechanisms "constitutea far more fruitful approach to the entire set ofissues concerning student power than do the traditionalmodels of formal student government and joint governingcommittees." Students can attain power through: (1) lowerlevel planning, such as the joint planning of individualcourses. (This would involve students in departmentaland divisional policy making.) (2) individual programs,such as credit by examination, independent study andindividualized programming. (This would transfer powerfrom faculty to students.) (3) indications of consumerpreference. (4) involvement in the faculty rewardsystem, such as publishing, course and teacher evalu-ations, and compelling faculty to prepare students forexternally administered examinations. (5) the exposureof alternatives in experimental colleges. (6) theexpression of dissent, such as lobbying, ad hoc com-mittees and underground publications.

Since the "disenchanted perceive themselves as unableto influence events and unable to gain respectfulrecognition, the heart of student discontent is theproper decision-making role of college students. Theauthor discusses the limitations of various traditionalmechanisms of participation, such as communications chan-nels, student councils, and joint committees. (Shulman)

19. Joughin, Louis. The Role of the Student in College andUniversity Government. Address at the Symposium ofAcademic Freedom and Responsibility, California StateCollege, Los Angeles, May 22, 1968.

If an institution of higher education is to function,it is necessary that all components--trustees, adminis-tration, faculty, and students--fulfill their individualresponsibilities. However, students cannot fulfilltheir responsibilities for self-development unlessthey are allowed certain rights and freedoms. Anycollege or university can benefit from the talentsof its students. To facilitate their involvement,institutions should: (1) provide for more informationexchange; (2) consult with students; and (3) give stu-dents decision-making responsibility in many areas ofuniversity life and complete responsibility for someareas of student life. As "consumers" of institutionalservices, stu&.:ts should be heard on all academicmatters that concern them. The proper student rolein non-academic life is difficult to discover, buta good beginning can be made in intensive cooperativestudy--such as that at Brown University and PembrokeCollege. A great deal of misunderstanding between

-8-

students and the local community might be avoided byinstituting channels of communication. Students havevalid complaints about the conditions of the countryand should not hesitate to offer considered approachesto solving our problems. There is no group betterqualified to improve the colleges and universitiesthan the students in them. (ERIC) See also 15, 73.

20. Kerlinger, Fred N. "Student Participation in UniversityEducational Decision Making." Teachers College Record70, October 1968, pp. 45-51.

This author opposes giving students university or col-lege decision-making power. He bases his stand onthree criteria--legitimacy, responsibility, and compe-tence--and explains how their application would dis-qualify students from areas of governance. If studentswere allowed to vote, he says, the result would be botha weakening of the educational program and a change inthe nature and purpose of the university. (Shulman)

21.' Main, Jeremy. "The 'Square' Universities are Rolling, Too."Fortune 79, January 1969, pp. 104ff.

This is a general article about the current expansionof student involvement into a wide range of universityaffairs. The author makes distinctions among the typesof involvement according to the levels at which partic-ipation takes place. One level is that of studentaffairs in which students are self-governing, e.g., indormitories. Another is that of the joint committee(student-faculty or student-administrator) concernedwith housekeeping matters such as parking. The thirdis that of the joint committee which deals with educa-tional policy such as curriculum and tenure--the heartof university policy making. (Shulman)

22. Marchese, Theodore J. "Student Participation in Plans IsNo Longer a Question of Whether, But How?" College andUniversity Business 47, August 1969, pp. 37-38.

This article makes a strong plea for genuinely involvingstudents in governance. The author lists two mainreasons for his stance. It would be a means of improv-ing the range and quality of advice while enlargingand enriching the input into the planning process. Theexperience would also provide maximum opportunity forstudent growth and fulfillment. He points out prac-tices in the past which have belied the significanceof involvement. Involvement implies more than havingtwo students attend a monthly planning meeting; "theplanner-educator needs to sense that student partici-pation has to be practically on student terms." (Shulman)

4"A

23. Martin, Warren Bryan. "Student Participation in AcademicGovernance." Current Issues in Higher Education.Washington, D.C.: American Association for HigherEducation, 1967.

As a rationale for his approval of substantive studentparticipation in academic policy formation and insti-tutional governance, Martin lists and then refutes thearguments usually given the opposition. (1) Studentsare immature and lack the experience needed for suchresponsibility. But, as consumers, students can con-tribute a unique view of the classroom and educationalprocess. (2) Students have only a short -term affili-ation with the school, thus their loyalty toward it islimited. But, the average tenure of college and uni-versity presidents is about four years, and the facultyvalue job-mobility and their professional guilds abovetheir institutions. (3) If students can do a betterjob than the faculty, they ought to be doing theteaching. This reaction is extreme; there is no evi-dence that more than a tiny minority of students wantto take over the univeristy, in the classroom or any-where else.

Martin discusses the reasons why the prospects forsignificant student participation are poor and chal-lenges colleges and universities to become organizedinto tripartite communities in which faculty, adminis-trators and students all share in forming and imple-menting policy. He outlines the framework of a pro-posed university-wide council. (Shulman)

24. McDonough, John R. "The Role of Students in Governingthe University." A.G.B. Reports 10, April 1968, pp.24-31.

This author opposes extending student participation incollege and university decision making, arguing that itshould not be a democratic process. He draws an anal-ogy between a hospital and the university. Patientsdo not manage the hospital. The student's position isthat of a patron or consumer who can discontinue hispatronage or go elsewhere.

The author does say students have the right to be heard.But even granting this much complicates the governanceprocess because: students think problems are urgent;new students have to be continually filled in on theissues; and students do not have to live with thedecisions which are made. He then discusses the Com-mittee of Fifteen established at Stanford to discussuniversity problems and policies with power only tomake recommendations. (Shulman)

-10-

25. McGehee, Nan E. Faculty and Students, or Faculty VersusStudents. Speech given at meeting of the NationalAssociation of State Universities and Land-GrantColleges, Chicago, November, 1969.

In an attempt to discover why students are demandingparticipation in the decision-making processes of theuniversity, the author examines four of the most com-mon issues they have raised: (1) student conduct codesand disciplinary procedures. This is an area in whichmodern college students reject institutional authority;(2) a voice in the hiring, promotion, and dischargedecisions with reference to faculty, and sometimes ad-ministrators. This issue seems to stem from students'concern with instructional quality; (3) curriculumplanning. A major concern is for the relevance ofundergraduate education to students' needs, goals, andlives in general; and (4) admissions and graduationrequirements, grading systems, and other matters whichlead to certification. Today's students come to col-lege with the intent of learning "how to make lifegood to live" rather than "how to live the good life."Because students and faculty are more heterogeneousthan before, are more aware of social issues, and areless patient with the traditionally slow academic pace,it would seem that the goals of colleges need to bechanged from those stated 20 years ago. Conflictsseem to stem from the college goals perceived byfaculty and administration as opposed to those seenas appropriate by students. When communication amongfaculty, students and administration breaks down, crthe students are unable to bring about changes bygoing through regular channels, then demonstrationstake place. (ERIC)

26. McGrath, Earl J. Should Students Share the Power? Phil-adelphia: Temple University Press, 1970.

Revolutionary changes are occurring in the structure ofgovernment in American colleges and universities, andsome of the most significant changes are related tothe role of students in academic governance. Thisbook reviews (1) the history and present practices ofstudent involvement in governance: the early studentand faculty guilds, the rise of paternalism, the in-direct influence students have always exerted, andthe successful experiences at Antioch and in Canadianuniversities; (2) the arguments for and against stu-dent participation which include on the one side thesophistication of students today, the need to educatestudents for a democratic living, the abolition of inloco parentis, and the possibility that students canhelp to improve instruction and higher education as

-11-

4ALU4

a whole, and on the other side the fear that studentswill dominate academia, the immaturity of students,their brief involvement in the institution, theirignorance of professional values, and interferencewith study and employment; and (3) problems of stu-dent participation, including selection methods andvoting rights, and techniques for achieving thisparticipation, which include restructuring academicgovernment, specific preparation for governmentalservices, and making it feasible to the students.The appendix includes some tables on student partici-pation in selected policy-making bodies. A bibliog-raphy concludes the book. (ERIC)

27. McHugh, William F. "Collective Bargaining and the CollegeStudent." Journal of Higher Education 42, March1971, pp. 175-185.

The author argues that students will become substan-tially involved in collective bargaining becausefaculty will seek to introduce matters which willaffect student self-interests into the bargainingprocess. Also, because students are now participat-ing in many areas of decision making which may be-come the domain of collective bargaining agreements,they would be eliminated from the governance struc-ture if not accommodated in the bargaining process.The author does not recommend that students be in-volved as principals in negotiations, but as an in-terested third party presenting their views on rele-vant issues during fact-finding or arbitration pro-ceedings. The negotiated contract itself may providefor student participation where post-contract proce-dures or committees are created to resolve a particularproblem or to make a study. (Wren) See also 4, 6,8, 36, 37.

28. Mitau, Theodore G. Student Participation in CampusGovernment. Paper presented to Student Convocation,St. Cloud College, St. Cloud, Minnesota, February18, 1969.

There is no doubt that U. S. institutions of highereducation are often encrusted with traditions to thepoint where they no longer meet contemporary facultyand student needs. It is high time for educators inthe U. S. to admit that there is much merit in stu-dent desires for participatory campus governance,without which colleges and universities may cease toexist as viable and dynamic centers of intellectualgrowth. But the students' right to speak, protest,organize, and demonstrate for greater social justiceand their perception of a more mature society must

-12-'""q

be safeguarded within the framework of campus law.Three considerations are offered that could ensurecontinuous inter-communication between students,faculty, and administrators. First, each campusshould have an up-to-date table of organization thatreveals the major decision-making agencies andresponsible personnel. Second, each student leadershould have a clear-cut understanding of his campusorganization, and take responsibility for explainingit to his fellow students. Third, student leadersand faculty members should be continously informedon the status of their suggestions, petitions, andrequests in the campus governmental structure. Apart of the educational experience should be experi-mentation with structures within which students,faculty, and administrators may solve problems in anenvironment of mutual respect and trust. (ERIC)

29. Morris, Arval A. Student Participation in UniversityDecision Making. 1969.

The causes of student rebellion against establishedsocial and educational systems are rooted in manyforces that impinge upon their lives, three of whichare rapid social change, affluence, and the fear oftechnological death. The firm conviction of the"new left" activists--the third generation of radi-cal, militant students--is that they must do some-thing about social problems that alienate humanbeings, such as poverty, racism, militarism, urban-ization, and war. Believing themselves to be vitallyaffected by university policies and practices, stu-dents are claiming a democratic right to participatein institutional decision making. But within theuniversity, each of the many communities shoulddecide its own affairs, and conditions necessary fordemocracy do not exist. However, three areas inwhich just student demands could be met involve (1)voting on non-academic policy such as the right tocontrol their private and social lives on campus,(2) voting on non-academic questions that concernthe entire university community, such as allowingcars on campus, and (3) an effective voice in certainacademic areas such as curriculum, effective teaching,examinations, and grading, on which they would notvote but could be consulted and, when possible,accommodated. The principle of consultation and ac-commodation would help to resolve the problem ofstudent participation in decision making, make con-structive use of students' energies, and protectcolleges and universities from outside forces. (ERIC)

-13-

I Z;

30. Pelczar, Michael Y., Jr. The Relative Rolesand Students in Academic Decision-Making.to the Meeting of the Council of Graduateof the U. S., Washington, D. C., December

of FacultyAddress

Students5, 1969.

Student-faculty participation in academic decisionmaking should exclude those who see this process interms of a power struggle. Though students have beeneffectively and productively involved in decisionmaking for generations, the current demand for multi-level involvement differs because it represents agrasp for student power. If decision making includesthe collection and interpretation of facts, studentsand faculty are equally qualified to do the first,but faculty by virtue of experience may be more qual-ified to do the latter. However, students and facultycan work together to develop sound solutions to uni-versity problems. As Kingman Brewster has stated:the great majority of students do not want to spendmuch of their time and energy in the guidance of gov-ernance of their university. In addition, it is im-portant to recognize that a student generation lastsfor only four years and students are therefore notaccountable for the policies they help devise. Whilestudents should serve along with faculty on universitycommittees, their role in decision making should belimited to policies that will have short-range effects.(ERIC)

31. Powell, Robert Jr. "Participation Is Learning." Satur-day Review 53, January 10, 1970, p. 56ff.

The subject of the twelfth annual symposium cosponsoredby the Saturday Review and the Committee for EconomicDevelopment was "Who Runs the University?" Most ofthe material presented at the meeting is included inthis issue. The student's perspective is provided byRobert Powell, past president of the U. S. NationalStudent Association. He argues that student power isaimed at changing the undemocratic character of univer-sities, and describes steps that must be taken to en-able students to take responsibility for their ownlearning. Most important, the current grading systemmust be abolished and the monopoly of faculty powerover key academic decisions broken. Many examples ofhow students can help to shape university policies aregiven. Some of the other papers recommend increasingstudent participation in governance but none of themdevelops the rationale for doing so as carefully asthis one. (Shulman)

-14-

ei

32. Roth, Darlene. Graduate Students and Academic Affairs.Address to the Meeting of the Council of GraduateSchools in the U. S., Washington, D. C., December 5,1969.

The participation of graduate students in academicdecision making is not only desirable, but necessaryand inevitable. The momentum of the reforms at theundergraduate level is now carrying over to graduateschools. Students no longer consider graduate edu-cation a privilege, but a right to advanced trainingand to something besides a "worthless" degree. Theywant involvement, and the opportunity to establishnew criteria for educational professionalism, whichemphasize the quality of teaching and service toschool and community. Long a fragmentized group,graduate students are now organizing to improvetheir position. The faculty is generally more con-cerned with publishing and consulting than withteaching, and their loyalty is not to the student oruniversity, but to the outside world. As a result,students have not been getting the instruction theydeserve. Graduate students could be effectivelyinvolved in bridging the gaps between undergraduatesand faculty by acting as counselors for undergraduates,as critics and evaluators of the educational process,and as members of university committees and advisorycouncils. (ERIC)

33. Schwartz, Edward. "Student Power: In Response to theQuestions." The Future Academic Community. Washington,D. C.: American Council on Education, 1968.

In order to make the student quest for power morereadily understandable, it is necessary to put forwardthe general propositions of student demands. Thedemand for student power arises only after studentshave become dissatisfied with university policy, whentrust between administration and students has brokendown. First, students want control over their ownaffairs, especially in the area of parietal ruleswhere the issue is enmeshed in the overall generationalbattle over personal morality. Second, within the areaof teaching and curriculum, only students are solelyconcerned about good teachers and judge professorsalmost exclusively on the standard of their teachingability. Third, because students are more acutelyconcerned with the moral implications of the univer-sity's financial investments and interaction with thewider community, they contend they should participatein institutional decision making. When leaders of thesociety and the university resist the kinds of changes

that students propose, the students then demandtutional power to enact the changes themselves.

34. Scranton, William. The Report of the President'ssion on Campus Unrest. Washington, D. C.: U.Government Printing Office, 1970.

insti-(ERIC)

Commis -S.

The commission recommended that students, faculty andstaff should have increased participation in the for-mulation of policy. Competence and the degree thatdecisions affect a group should be major criteria fordetermining involvement. Procedures for electingrepresentatives of constituencies should be designedto guarantee representativeness. The commissionconcluded that governance reforms should not undermineadministrative leadership, but should be designed toproduce policies and leaders with broad support of thecommunity. (Wren)

35. Shaffer, Jay C. "Students in the Policy Process."Journal of Higher Education 41, May 1970, pp. 341-349.

The author notes that effective student participationin the policy process depends upon involving represen-tative students and manageable numbers. He sees stu-dent governments as the only viable vehicle for achiev-ing effective participation. But a vital studentgovernment is not developed by urging students to bebetter citizens and vote, or by telling student leadersto "become more representative." Students will voteonly when their self-interest demands it. The mainreason for the lack of interest in student governmentis the absence of power and influence; therefore, theauthor believes it is necessary to invest extensivepower in the hands of the student government. Thereader is cautioned not to equate student apathy withstudent conservatism, as the goals of student leadersare tacitly supported by a large segment of the studentpopulation. The author outlines several handicaps inachieving effective student participation in the policyprocess. He also recommends that students receiveacademic credit for their participation, and have staffsupport and access to the same information availableto the faculty and administration. (Wren)

36. Shark, Alan. "A Student's Collective Thought on Bargain-ing." Journal of Higher Education 43, October 1972,pp. 552-558.

This article presents a case for the direct participa-tion of students in collective bargaining. The authorsays the majority of colleges in the U. S. have no

-16- r1.4 Fd JL

formalized effective grievance procedure for students.Had students been recognized in the past as a collec-tive force with vital interests, many confrontationsmight have been avoided. At the City University ofNew York, where the faculty has unionized, no atten-tion has been given to the rights and prerogatives ofstudents. So while unionized faculty pursue betterteaching conditions, students must pursue betterlearning conditions without the benefits of collectivebargaining. Faculty conditions of employment can becompared with student conditions of enrollment.Faculty protect academic freedom, i.e., what theyteach; students must protect academic freedom, i.e.,what they learn. Because faculty contracts rangefrom the realm of economic issues to the realm ofacademic freedom, the author argues that studentsshould participate in collective bargaining througha tri-partite process: students, faculty, and adminis-tration. The only legitimate means of achieving aca-demic freedom for students is through sharing academicresponsibility. (Wren) See also 4, 6, 8, 27, 37.

37. Shark, Alan R. "Viewpoint: The Students' Right toCollective Bargaining." Change Magazine, April 1973,pp. 9ff.

The author argues that the industrial model of collec-tive bargaining which clearly establishes a relation-ship between the employer and employee is inappropriatefor higher education. Faculty contracts have been con-cerned with more than economic issues. Such issues asgovernance and educational policy have also been con-sidered. Both economic and noneconomic issues affectstudents greatly and students must have a mechanismsuch as collective bargaining to defend these interests.Students will have to demonstrate that they can estab-lish organizations which provide for greater account-ability to their constituents. The author argues thatsince many of the areas of concern to students alsoconcern faculty and administration, a tripartite con-tract would be most desirable. (Wren) See also 4, 6,8, 27, 36.

38. Shoben, Edward Joseph, Jr. Student and University Gover-nance. Buffalo: State University of New York, 1969.

It is necessary to provide organizational and politicalbases from which genuine student influence can be exer-cised if we assume that (1) extensive and meaningfulparticipation by students in university governance islikely to be a permanent feature of academic life;(2) participation legitimately represents serious

-17-

student concerns and provides a channel for their con-tributions; (3) construction of suitable machineryfor greater participation is the only process bywhich students can become fully committed members ofthe academic community. To be effective, forms ofrepresentation must be personalized and demonstrablylinked to humane goals. One possible governancearrangement conceives of the central administrationas analogous to the federal executive, and the FacultySenate and Student Assembly as upper and lower housesof the legislature. Service in the Assembly would betied to special related academic programs and awardedacademic credit. To ensure that the Assembly was trulyrepresentative, the student body would be divided into"districts" of about 100-200 members who would electa representative to the Assembly. Districts would beorganized around common ideological interests. Judi-cial functions could be exercised in a variety ofways, involving, perhaps, distinctive trial courtsand appellate tribunals. These provisions brieflyoutline one response to the fundamental question ofwhat constitutes the appropriate basis of authorityin the contemporary university. (ERIC)

39. Spurr, Stephen H. The Relative Roles of Faculty andStudents in Decision-Making. Address to the Meetingof the Council of Graduate Schools in the U. S.,Washington, D. C., December 5, 1969.

Although student participation in academic decisionmaking has become generally acceptable, there is stillcontroversy about who has the ultimate decision-makingauthority within the university: the faculty or stu-dents. Historically, universities based on facultypower, prevalent in northern Europe and the U. S.,have in general been governed by consensus methodsand have been productive in scholarship, while uni-versities in which student influence is strong havebecome highly politicized and have generally ceasedto be academically distinguished. The U. S. univer-sity has been based on the "generational concept" inwhich the faculty alone are the enfranchised citizensof the community and students pay for the privilegeof attending the institution. Students are objectingto that concept and see the university more as a city-state in which there should be only one class of citi-zen, with equal rights in the decision-making process.When the faculty attempts to compromise on these is-sues, it may compromise on the principles on which theuniversity is based. Direct and formal student in-volvement is desirable. But, in the final analysis,the faculty must determine what standards of behavior

-18-

are to be required of all in the interest of the con-tinued existence and development of the university.(ERIC)

40. St. John, Edward. Students in Campus Governance: Reason-ing and Models for Student Involvement. Davis: Uni-versity of California, Department of Applied BehavioralScience, June 1973.

This report posits that governance change is a pre-requisite to institutional reform. The author feelsthat the inclusion of students in the vital processesof the university is overdue. The study traces thehistory of student participation up through 1960 andmakes recommendations, with extensive justifications,for new models of student participation. The reportoutlines two alternatives: (1) Students can be con-sidered the third major power and be given delegationalauthority strong enough to check the other two, or (2)the governance process and structure can be reevaluatedand modified to include students. (Wren)

41. St. John, Edward. "Students Work from Within Now toInfluence the Governance of Higher Education."California Journal 4, May 1973, pp. 169-172.

The author discusses new student attempts to gaininfluence in academic decision making by workingwithin the institution. He cites evidence from theUniversity of California, Davis, which shows thatstudents can influence decisions even if they arenot accepted as equal partners with the administration,but he notes that most daily decisions on that campuscontinue to be made without student involvement. Heargues that the governance system must be modifiedtowards creating a more democratic institution--i.e.,one which involves those who are affected by decisions.He adds that just because the number of students oncommittees increases, it does not mean they are be-coming a major force in the decision-making process.The eventual goal should be to creat,, a governancesystem consistent with the uniqueness of each campusand in keeping with the concept of community govern-ment. (Wren)

42. Student Participation in College and University Govern-ment: A Report of Committee T. American Associationof University Professors, 1970.

This report attempts to determine the principles andto identify several appropriate areas of student par-ticipation. The report recommends that students be

2s. 0'

ow

involved in academic affairs in the areas of admissions,academic programs, academic courses, academic evalua-tion, and the academic environment. It leaves toindividual institutions the determination of the modeand extent of the involvement. In extracurricularaffairs and student regulations, students should haveprimary responsibility and should participate inestablishing standards and procedures for studentdiscipline. (Wren) See also 116, 119.

43. Susman, Warren I. Is Increased Participation in DecisionMaking Enough? Paper presented at the Conference ofthe American Association for Higher Education, Chicago,March 2, 1970.

Much of the student rebellion has been attributed tothe impersonality of the academic institution, andthrough the 1960's it was believed that all problemscould be solved through increased student participationon college and university committees. Though increasedparticipation has met with some success, it is by nomeans the major reform in governance that is needed tomake academic institutions more responsive to currentneeds. Student representation has not really beenrepresentative of the student body; the membership ofgoverning bodies has been changed, but the nature andfunction of the university has not been defined. Per-haps, instead of ignoring the students, the universityhas traditionally been too protective of students. Thetime has come for the university to withdraw as com-pletely as possible from all nonacademic areas of stu-dent life and welfare, and transfer responsibility tothe students themselves. If the university abandonssome of its welfare state role, it may be able to con-centrate more on learning and teaching or possiblyextending educational opportunity more widely. Andin rethinking its welfare function, the universityshould not only think of the students, but of thegreater needs of the whole community. (ERIC)

44. Wheeler, Burton M. Students and the Shaping of theCurriculum. Paper presented at the Conference ofAmerican College Personnel Association, St. Louis.,March 18, 1970.

Whenever the issue of student participation in curric-ulum reform is raised, the opposition can be expectedto express itself in two ways: (1) the rational argu-ment which justifies faculty control in terms ofrightness; and (2) entrenchment or keeping controlaway from the activists. There are costs and risks,as well as potential gains in greater student partic-ipation. There are also costs and risks to denying

student participation. While defending the preroga-tives of the faculty with regard to curriculum planningin the fields of specialized, preprofessional training,students should be involved in working out effectiveways of accomplishing the real objectives of liberaleducation. Reasons for student involvement include:(1) faculty often solve curriculum problems by addingcourses; (2) often faculty have no skills for cur-riculum development; and (3) the experience and in-sights gained by these students who do help plan willbecome part of the student culture. Problems that arepossible with student planning include: (1) manystudents feel they cannot change anything around tnem;(2) students become entrapped in their own organiza-tional patterns; (3) students are anxious for adultapproval; and (4) a sense of impermanence hovers overstudent groups. (ERIC)

PART B. RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES, PRACTICES, AND TRENDS

45. Armstrong, Ronald. Student Involvement: Analysis andBibliography, Series No. 14. Eugene: University ofOregon, 1972.

Intended primarily for educational administrators, thisreview presents an analysis of the literature concerningstudent participation in educational decisionmaking.The educational and legal ramifications of student in-volvement in several decisionmaking spheres, such asschool board and committee membership, student govern-ment, extracurricular activites, student publications,and curriculum issues, are discussed. Some suggestionsare given to administrators for channeling student ener-gies into a constructive improvement of the educationalprogram. A 54-item bibliography of related literatureis also included. (ERIC) See also 59, 60, 61, 102.

46. Bayer, Otto F. "Student Trust at Berkeley." EducationalRecord 52, Fall 1971, pp. 361-367.

The author reports on a survey of student trust of thefaculty and administration in Berkeley during 1970.With a possible low score of 10 and a high of 70,results showed student trust of faculty at 54.348,and of administration at 43.15. An analysis of thedata in terms of demographic breakdowns revealed nosignificant differences in response. The author links

these scores to the quality of communication and de-gree of cooperation between the two groups. He con-cludes with several suggestions for increasing trustin a university setting. Most important is the taskof creating structures of university governance whichfacilitate communication and interrelationships amongstudents, faculty, and administration. Competitionshould be avoided in the problem-solving process; theadministration should try to create an atmosphere inwhich students are motivated to cooperate with othergroups in the decision making process. (Wren)

47. Blanford, Barbara A. Student Participation on Institu-tional Governing Boards. Washington, D. C.: AmericanCouncil on Education, 1972.

The results of this survey on student participation oncollege and university governing boards indicate that14% of all institutions in the U. S. have students asmembers of their boards. Of the different institu-tional types, public 4-year colleges and universitiesstand at one end of the scale with about one in fourincluding students on their governing boards, and the2-year colleges stand at the other, with only 8% ofthe public and 6% of the private 2-year collegeshaving students on their boards. Of the 86% of theinstitutions that do not now have students as membersof their boards, 63% indicated either that they havehad no plans for considering the possibility or thatthey have considered the possibility but are takingno definitive action. Concerning the possible author-ity students have as,Minfrd?9,of-governing boards, ofthe 14% of institutions that do have students on theirboards, less than half permit voting on all issues and58% indicated that students were not permitted to voteon any board issues. (ERIC) See also 13.

48. Carr, Alden J. Student Participation in College PolicyDetermination and Administration. AACTE Study SeriesNo. 4. Washington, D. C.: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education, 1959.

This study reports the findings obtained from a ques-tionnaire returned by 109 institutions belonging tothe American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu-cation. The areas in which students participate indetermining general policy and the channels throughwhich this participation takes place were ascertained.Respondents indicated the extent and value of presentand probable future levels of student participation.Generally, it was felt that participation should be

-22-

increased, but that it should be accompanied by ade-quate evaluation. A short historical section andrecommendations are also included. Although thisstudy is dated, it is worth mentioning because of itssystematic approach. (Shulman)

49. Constructive Changes to Ease Campus Tensions. Washington,D. C.: Office of Institutional Research, NationalAssociation of State Universities and Land-GrantColleges, 1968.

This compilation documents steps taken by approximately90% of the state universities and land-grant collegesto involve students in governance, and to developpolicies and procedures aimed at handling disruption.Part I, dealing with student participation in univer-sity policy making, is subdivided into participationin governance, membership on committees, participationon search and screening committees, self-studies andevaluations, communication and consultation with stu-dents, involvement with boards of trustees, ombudsmenand adoption of student suggestions. Part II containspolicies on obstruction and disruption, student codes,preparedness for disruption, policies and practicesregarding police, and policies on firearms. The sur-vey strongly indicates that universities have "beenmaking diligent efforts to deal with legitimate con-cerns." (ERIC)

50. Davis, John B. A Survey of Practices Related to StudentMembership on Academic Committees. Greenville, N. C.:East Carolina University, 1969.

This study was conducted to determine the prevalentpractices of selected institutions of higher educationconcerning student membership on academic committees,and on certain other governing groups. Questionnaireswere sent to 85 institutions and 59 were returned andanalyzed. More than 85% of those that replied indi-cated that students serve on one or more academic com-mittees, and almost half reported that students alsoserve on other governing groups. Students are mostoften involved on committees concerned with the ad-missions and financial aid programs, curriculum,library, calendar, and guidance programs of the uni-versity. Almost 60% of the institutions reportedthat student committee members are elected by thestudent body. The general trend regarding qualifica-tions is the requirement that a student be a full-timeundergraduate, and an upperclassman. Student partic-ipation is generally successful, as 43 of 52 institutions

reported that student contributions were "moderate"or "substantial." Approximately 90% of the institu-tions indicated that student membership on academiccommittees was initiated at their schools after 1960.Tables document responses to the questionnaires andappendices include a copy of the questionnaire andnames of the institutions to which they were sent.(ERIC)

51. "Governing a College: How Much Should Students Have toSay?" College Management 4, May 1969, pp. 53-54.

The views of 212 deans of students were obtained onseveral aspects of student participation in decisionmaking. Responses to each question were tabulatedfor the total and by type of institution: university,four-year, and two-year colleges. The results give agood picture of the amount of participation studentsnow have and in which of eight areas: clubs, dormrules, discipline, curriculum, faculty appointment,admissions, endowment use, and selection of a presi-dent. It was found that students have the least tosay about faculty appointments, admissions, endowmentuse, and selection of a president. For the same eightareas, deans indicated whether the current votingpower of students was "too little," "enough" or "toomuch." About one-half believed that current studentparticipation was too low. Sixty-five percent reportedappeals for a larger role in governance at their insti-tutions. Sixty-one percent believed that student mem-bers of governing bodies were as responsible as theregular members. The faculty was seen as most resis-tant to change.

This is an extremely good, current survey on the topicof student participation in governance. Although theresults are based on less than one-half of the totalsample, similar trends were found in later returningresponses. (Shulman)

52. Hawes, Leonard C. and Trux, Hugo R. "Student Participationin the University Decision-Making Process." Journal ofHigher Education 45, February 1974, pp. 123-134.

This study, conducted at Ohio State University, evalu-ates four major functions of the committee process atthat institution as they relate to student participa-tion in the university decision-making process: deci-sion making, representation, feedback, and delay. Thereport notes that neither faculty nor student membershave clearly defined constituencies. The authors argue

that student participation has been effective but thatits potential for power integration on campus has notbeen fully realized. (Wren)

53. Hodgkinson, Harold L. Student Participation in CampusGovernance. Paper presented at the AERA Conference,Los Angeles, 1969.

The concept underlying the research discussed in thispaper is that governance has to do with the perceptionsof campus problems held by different groups and theperceptions of those who are knowledgeable and influen-tial in dealing with these problems. Data were col-lected from over 3,000 persons on 19 selected campuses,and more than 900 interviews were held with students,faculty, administrators, department chairmen, andtrustees. At some institutions, the administrationand faculty favored student participation on the groundsthat better decisions would result, while at othersstudents were placed on major committees merely to"take the heat off." Administrators at some institu-tions asserted that students should have absolutely nosay in the governance of the institution, while someat others gave students more responsibility than theywere willing to accept. In most situations, studentparticipation in governance has worked well, but prob-lems that they face include the inflexibility of someadministrative structures, the lack of information onbudgetary and other fiscal matters, and the diversityof student bodies for whom no one student representa-tive can speak. However, data show that students aremore concerned about the quality of teaching than arefaculty or administrators, and because of this reasonthey are needed to improve the quality of universitydecision making. (ERIC)

54. Lunn, Harry H., Jr. The Student's Role in College PolicyMaking. A report prepared for the Commission onStudent Personnel. Washington, D. C.: American Coun-cil on Education, 1957.

This book is largely a descriptive report emphasizingthroughout specific examples of different forms ofstudent involvement in administration and policy for-mation. It is an important source in the study ofthis topic as a social movement. (Shulman)

55. McGrath, Earl J. "Student Governance and Disorder."Change Magazine 3, May/June 1971, pp. 10ff.

This article summarizes a study of a random sample ofinstitutions taken from a population of more than 800

ay

-25-

colleges and universities. The results show that therewas no escalation of student protests following increasedstudent involvement in governance. According to theauthor, student participation in policy-making bodiesactually reduced disorders in a large number of insti-tutions. He notes that students in almost all institu-tions were cooperative, often adding substantial in-formation, enriching discussions, and contributing toa broader understanding of the issues under discussion.Several liabilities of student participation are docu-mented, and the author suggests remedies to make par-.ticipation more effective. (Wren)

56. Milton, Ohmer. Survey of Faculty Views on StudentParticipation in Decision Making. Washington, D.C.:Office of Education (DHEW), May 1968.

Many students seek and many administrators have calledfor greater student involvement in important academicdecision making. And because faculty members, whocontrol most academic policies and procedures, haveremained strangely silent about such matters, it wasdecided to investigate, in a more detailed and system-atic fashion than had been done previously, their atti-tudes toward student participation in determining cogentcampus policies. At the same time, an effort was madeto obtain data that might indirectly reflect the con-ventionality of faculty thinking about approaches toteaching and learning. A randomly selected sample of200 faculty members was interviewed at four collegesand two universities. "Yes," "No," or "Don't know"answers to questions regarding specific areas of stu-dent participation (e.g., curriculum planning) couldbe qualified. There was general agreement that stu-dents should participate extensively in matters ofstudent discipline, but not in the affairs of a legalgoverning board. They should be encouraged to completeevaluative types of questionnaires on teachers, but theresults should be seen only by the teacher concerned.In other areas, a "Yes" vote meant only that studentideas should be heard, but the means for obtainingtheir views is left unclear. This study has beenhighly limited in its sampling of institutions, andmore land-grant colleges and universities should besampled via mailed questionnaires. (ERIC)

57. Muston, Ray A. "Governance Changes are Catching CollegesBy Surprise: A National Survey Shows." College andUniversity Business 47, July 1969, pp. 29-31.

Of 1769 institutions surveyed for significant changesin governance during 1968, it is not clear how many

institutions reported changes. The data were analyzedby type of control, regional accreditations, state,enrollment, level of degree programs, type of academicprograms, and board size. They revealed that the mostfrequent means of involving both faculty and studentswas through increasing membership on standing and ad-visory committees. Other types of change are listed inorder of the frequency of occurrence, but their fre-quency is not given. The author notes that the kindsof change reported were almost as numerous as the in-stitutions reporting them. '(Shulman)

58. A Report on State System Provisions for Student Participa-tion in Governance and for Student Conduct and Discipline.Salem: Oregon State Board of Higher Education, July 1969.

The purposes of this report were: (1) to provide in-formation concerning the policies of the Oregon StateBoard of Higher Education as they relate to institu-tional governance, with particular reference to studentparticipation; and (2) to provide a description of thepolicies and practices adopted in the colleges and uni-versities of the state system regarding student partici-pation in institutional governance, and student conductand discipline. The report presents: (1) a briefstatement of the legal authority of the Board to enactrules and bylaws for its institutions; (2) a review ofthe essential features of the Board's policy statementon institutional governance, with particular referenceto student participation; (3). a summary of institutionalefforts to implement Board policies with regard to stu-dent participation in governance; and (4) an appendixwhich presents the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedomsof Students, prepared by 33 representatives from tennational educational organizations. (ERIC)

59. Robinson, Lora H. and Shoenfeld, Janet D. Student Partic-ipation in Academic Governance, Review 1. Washington,D. C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1970.

This report deals with the growing student role incollege and university administration. It contains anessay reviewing trends and findings in the literature,a lengthy annotated bibliography, and a compendium ofrecent institutional changes which have increased stu-dent participation in governance. The bibliography isdivided into six sections: Surveys of Current Practices,Survey of Attitudes, Arguments For, Against, and AboutStudent Participation, Hypothetical Models of Governance,Methods of Increasing Student Involvement, and Institu-tional Proposals to Increase Student Involvement orEstablish New Governance Structures. The compendium

o-27-

covers: Addition of Students to Existing Bodies,Formation of New Committees, and New Governance Struc-tures. Most of the items in the compendium are con-cerned with changes in private institutions of highereducation. (ERIC) See also 45, 60, 61, 102.

60. Robinson, Lora H. and Shoenfeld, Janet D. StudentParticipation in Academic Governance, PREP-15.Washington, D. C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on HigherEducation, 1970.

PREP-15, a review and annotated bibliography, focuseson the topic of "Student Participation in AcademicGovernance." This kit of six documents deals with thetopic of student participation: (1) Survey of CurrentPractices and Policies; (2) Survey of Attitudes; (3)

Arguments For, Against, and About Student Participa-tion; (4) Models of Governance; (5) Methods of Increas-ing Student Involvement; and (6) Institutional Proposalsfor New Governance Structures. A seventh document in-cludes a listing by university and state of recentchanges in governance. (ERIC) See also 45, 59, 61, 102.

61. Sceiford, Chester L. and Wheeler, Ray E., Jr. UniversityGovernance: Current Changes and an Annotated Bibliog-raphy: Bloomington: Indiana University, December 1970.

The first section of this report discusses the questionof university organization and the general problem ofstudent participation in university governance. Thebulk of the section deals with different forms of stu-dent participation in governance, primarily at stateuniversities. These arrangements include: studentson the board of trustees, students on advisory commit-tees, and students added to old and new legislativebodies. The second part is an annotated bibliographyon the subject of governance. (ERIC) See also 45,59, 60, 102.

62. Schwebel, Robert. "Waking Our Sleepy Universities:Student Involvement in Curriculum Change." TeachersCollege Record 70, October 1968, pp. 31-43.

This article describes specific examples of studentinvolvement in producing curriculum changes both fromwithin and outside the governmental structure. Theauthor notes that the most widespread form of studentinvolvement in educational policy making has beenstudent attendance at meetings of curriculum and aca-demic committees. (Shulman)

63. Wilson, Robert C. and Gaff, Jerry G. "Student Voice- -Faculty Response." The Research Reporter 4, 1969,pp. 1-4.

As part of a study of faculty characteristics and theirinfluence on students, questionnaires covering a widevariety of faculty attitudes, values and behaviorswere sent to over 1500 professors at six diverse col-leges and universities. For this report, data weredrawn from those collected on faculty attitudes towardstudent participation in campus governance. While the1069 responding faculty were generally favorable towardstudent participation in the formulation of socialrules and regulations, they were reluctant to sharetheir academic power with students. Ninety-five pro-fessors thought that students should have an equalvote with the faculty on academic matters (equal votegroup) and 41 others felt that students should haveno role in the formulation of academic policy (novote group). The remaining faculty fell between thesetwo extremes. Both "extreme" groups were composed ofcommitted and responsible teachers, but their responsesto student participation in governance were found to berelated to their educational philosophies, conceptionsof and extra-academic contact with students, fields ofstudy, political orientation, and involvement in campusaffairs. The equal vote group had a liberal view ofsociety and life and a positive view of students, andthe no vote group was basically conservative and tendedto believe that external control, motivation, anddirection were needed in order for students to profitmaximally from their education. (ERIC)

PART C. INSTITUTIONAL REPORTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GUIDELINES

64. Arkoff, Abe. "An Undergraduate Course in Higher Education.Journal of Higher Education 40, November 1969, pp. 643-648.

The author notes that a common criticism of studentparticipation in governance of institutions of highereducation is that students are often unfamiliar withthe issues and problems of higher education. Theauthor describes a course on higher education called"The College Experience Seminars" which was startedin 1966 at the University of Hawaii to better preparestudents for participating in policy-making decisions.(Wren) See also 67.

4.,

etti

-29-

65. Auerbach, Carl. Memo to the Members of the UniversityFaculty on the Subject of the Task Force Recommendationson Student Representation in the University Senate andCampus Assemblies. Minneapolis: University of Minne-sota, February 24, 1969.

The Task Force on Student Representation of the Univer-sity of Minnesota recommended that 75 student represen-tatives be added as voting members of the UniversitySenate, and that the 62 student senators from the TwinCities campus also serve as voting members of the TwinCities Assembly. The memorandum sets forth reasons whythese constitutional changes should not be adopted andrecommends some alternatives to the Task Force proposal.If the proposed changes were to be adopted, it is feltthat there would be no organ of university governmentthat would reflect the views of the faculty alone, andadoption plus university adherence to the one-man,one-vote principle would result in student control.It is believed that university government is best whenit helps to accomplish the institution's missions ofteaching, research, and public service. Therefore,university items of business could be divided intothree categories: (1) those on which students aloneshould vote, (2) those on which students and facultyshould have an equal vote, and (3) those on whichfaculty alone should vote. Also, students should havean opportunity to be heard on all items, even in caseswhere they may not vote. The memorandum contains listsof university matters that have been handled by theUniversity Senate for the past ten years. It is feltthat responsibility should be redistributed, and thatincreased decisions on student affairs by studentswould be desirable. (ERIC) See also 76, 101.

66. Benovich, Joseph B. Report of the President's Committeeon Student Involvement in the University. Cleveland:Cleveland State University, May 16, 1969.

Originally established to consider expanded facultyand student involvement in the governance of ClevelandState University, the Committee decided to recommendchanges within the existing governmental structurerather than encourage the establishment of a new sys-tem. Background material was studied, meetings wereheld,and two questionnaires were administered--one todeans, departmental chairmen and various other aca-demic units at Cleveland State, and another to sixty-six universities asking for information on student in-volvement in governance at their institutions. Theresponses to the second questionnaire are tabulated.

All of the universities indicated they were "rethinking"or had recently revised their policies on student in-volvement in governance. Brief explanations of theirreasons for doing so are offered. Recommendations ofthe committee call for student membership on seventeenuniversity committees and representation at depart-mental meetings. Recommendations also include pro-visions for: the number of students to be includedon each committee, method of selection, academic quali-fications necessary and terms of appointment. (ERIC)

67. Clark, Freeman T. An Undergraduate Course in College andUniversity Governance: Awareness of the Complexity ofInstitutions of Higher Education. Paper presented atthe National Conference of the American Association ofHigher Education, Chicago, March 3, 1970.

An objection often raised against student participationin university governance is that students don't knowenough about institutions of higher education. Anundergraduate course that focuses on the functions androle of the university would help answer that objection.Such a course has been developed at the University ofMichigan and includes the following topics: the his-torical, contemporary, and possible future functions ofhigher education in society; financing the university;the campus and the city; the campus as a mass society;the need for intermediate groups; rehumanizing thecampus; the structure of organizations--functioning,internal dynamics and communication patterns; educa-tional roles--faculty, students, and administration;classroom management; and simulation learning. In thisway, students may learn not only about their own insti-tution, but also about others. (ERIC) See also 64.

68. The Crow Report. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on theRole of Students in the Government of the MadisonCampus. Madison: University of Wisconsin, February6, 1968.

This committee report examines past student participa-tion in the government of the University of Wisconsin,formulates princi:J.les concerning the role of students,and recommends structural and functional changes toachieve greater student participation. Except for theestablishment of certain new committees, the reportrecommends changes within the existing governmentalstructure. The seventeen recommendations fall intofour general categories which correspond to the guidingprinciples of the committee. First, the committeeadvocates complete withdrawal of all in loco parentis

to

4

activities by the University. Second, noting thatstudent representation on practically all Universitycommittees was inadequate, the authors urge that com-mittees review their structures and responsibilitieswith a view toward accommodating more student members.Third, students should be allowed to govern themselvesto a greater extent. Faculty and administration super-vision should be reduced and simpler means of communi-cation between students and faculty should be developed.Finally, restructured and limited university disciplin-ary procedures are recommended. The committee urgesno duplication of any civil law penalties by the Uni-versity except in certain cases. Trials should beconducted by joint student-faculty panels with abso-lutely no administrative involvement. (ERIC)

69. Departmental Governance: Interim Report. Durham, N. C.:Duke University, May 29, 1970.

This report reviews the policy-making processes withindepartments at Duke University, as well as the relation-ships between departments and central administration onthe one hand, and with students on the other hand.Specifically, the report examines and makes recommenda-tions regarding: (1) the office of the departmentalchairman, his selection, term of office, incentives,and powers; (2) faculty mechanisms of departmentalgovernance; (3) mechanisms for student participation;undergraduate and graduate program committees and othermethods of ensuring greater student participation; and(4) the composition of the Advisory Committee to theDean of Faculty. A proposed statement on proceduralstandards regarding the renewal or non-renewal offaculty appointments by the American Association ofUniversity Professors, and a separate statement ofviews on student participation in departmental gover-nance are included in the appendix. (ERIC)

70. "Governing a College: Whose Man is the Chancellor?"College Management 4, May 1969, pp. 56-60.

This article describes an attempt by the trustees ofSyracuse University (New York) to involve students andfaculty in the process of selecting a new chancellor.(Shulman) See also 78.

71. Knock, Gary H. and others. The Report of the Commissionon Student Participation in University Life. Oxford,Ohio: Miami University, September 1969.

The Commission on Student Participation in UniversityLife at Miami University examined many dimensions of

student life and university affairs with the objectiveof providing a framework within which a student mayaccept greater responsibility for the consequences ofhis own behavior and for planning his own future. Inthis statement, the Commission presents the basis forits investigation, offers a rationale for studentparticipation in university life, and considers howsuch participation may be accomplished within thestructure of Miami University. The discussion ispresented with the Commission's recommendations underten major headings: university governance, academicactivities, student advising, communications withinthe university, freshman orientation, commutingstudents, black students ac Miami University, womenstudents at Miami University, residential activities,and extracurricular activities. Emphasis is placed onstudent involvement in policy-making. Separate recom-mendations and six appendices containing papers dealingwith other subjects related to student participationin university life accompany the report. (ERIC)

72. Macneil, Ian. The President's Commission on StudentInvolvement in Decision-Making: A Comment. Ithaca,N.Y.: Cornell University, August 29, 1969.

Based on the premise that intellectual liberty withina university must permeate the institution's teaching,scholarship, research, publications, relations withthe outside world, internal operations and management,this comment is directed to individuals at CornellUniversity who do not understand the processes,restraints, and techniques that are required to preserveacademic freedom. It focuses exclusively on relation-ships between student involvement in decision-makingand intellectual liberty and suggests that before anysignificant change in the university is allowed to takeplace, the impact of such change on academic freedomshould be considered. Increased student involvementin university decision-making, one such significantchange that may have either beneficial or adverseeffects on intellectual liberty, is discussed in thecontext of nonacademic matters, teaching, scholarship,and research. One complete section deals with theavoidance of activities that are inconsistent with theexercise of intellectual liberty. Another presentsinherent differences between students and faculty, themost important of which are considered to be age,experience, permanency of relation to the university,degree of professionalization, numbers, and thedifference between being a teacher and being taught.The author was a member of the President's Commission.(ERIC) See also 74, 77.

40.1-33-

73. Magrath, C. Peter. "Student Participation: What HappensWhen We Try It?" The Future Academic Community.Edited by John Caffrey. Washington, D. C.: AmericanCouncil on Education, 1969.

Because student participation in university governanceis already a reality and will inevitably become morewidespread, the task for American colleges and univer-sities is to move toward more formal and institution-alized modes of student involvement. The experienceof Brown Univeristy, which moved from essentially in-formal to formal student participation in making andenforcing rules regarding student conduct providesinsight into the problems of structuring this change.There, an Advisory Committee on Student Conduct wasappointed. It surveyed by questionnaire the attitudesof undergraduates, their parents, faculty and alumnitoward conduct issues; canvassed procedures at a sam-ple of other schools, took testimony from universityofficials and faculty and student organizations andindividuals, and received numerous written communica-tions. In the end, the Committee, consisting offaculty, student, and administration representatives,voted unanimously on 28 recommendations that wereoverwhelmingly endorsed by the faculty, students,trustees, and administrators. The recommendationswere divided into those proposing new substantiverules and those proposing structural arrangements formaking and enforcing future rules. In academic andcurricular matters, students should have an advisoryrole, and channels should be established for the com-munication of their opinions. (ERIC) See also 15, 19.

74. Morison, Robert S. The President's Commission on StudentInvolvement in Decision-Making: The Chairman's Report.Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University, June 11, 1969.

This report is based on the premise that the principalfunctions of the modern university are teaching, re-search, and public service. The first section of thereport briefly reviews these three functions and dis-cusses: (1) the development of relationships betweenthe university and society, particularly as this de-velopment has occurred in the United States; (2) thecomplex nature of university administration, andauxiliary but quasi-independent enterprises; and (3)reasons underlying student discontent and how theyare related to the quality of a student's life as amember of the university community, to the quality ofhis educational experience, and to his relationshipsto the university as a concerned citizen. The second

4411 4-*

0*,

-34-

section of the report recommends administrative changesthat could be undertaken for the distribution of insti-tutional government within the existing framework ofCornell University in particular and at any univin general. This discussion covers Cornell iversity'sacademic matters and educational enviro nt as theyrelate to student development; the need for a newadministrative device for dealing with major policyissues; and fundamental issues concerning the univer-sity's relationship to U. S. national policy. (ERIC)See also 72, 77.

75. Report of the Task Force on Student Participation inCampus Governance. Berkeley: University of California(Office of the President), December 29, 1969.

This report to the California legislature outlines inbroad terms the role students should play in governanceon the different campuses of the state university.The report upholds three "major guidelines." (1)

Student leadership should dominate in matters concerningstudent life on campus, with participation of adminis-tration and faculty. (2) Faculty leadership shoulddominate in the area of academic decision making, withstudent and administration involvement. (3) In areaswhere the administration must take the lead, the rolesof students and faculty have to be cafefully considered.Recommendations are made which discuss: studentinvolvement in decision making on departmental, collegeand school, and campus-wide administrative levels; therole of the Academic Senate; greater effectiveness ofstudent government; and the need for a mechanism tofacilitate campus-wide communication. The mode ofimplementation is left to the individual campuses.(Shulman)

76. Report of the University of Minnesota Task Force on StudentRepresentation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,January 2, 1969.

In May 1968, the President of the University ofMinnesota appointed a task force to study the questionof student representation in the University Senate andin individual campus assemblies, and to explore waysin which students might be elected to serve. The taskforce noted that although students were well represent-ed on many committees, the University Senate remainedlargely a faculty body. It recommended incorporationof students as full participants in the Senate andAssemblies and increased student membership il Senateand Assembly Committees. Specific recommendations

AMt...1

-3

were made regarding: the constituencies, election,term of office, and eligibility of student Senators;the number of students on various Senate committeesand their selection and election; student Assemblymen;the number of students on various Assembly committeesand their selection. (ERIC) See also 65, 101.

77. Sindler, Allan P. "A Case Study in Student-UniversityRelations." The Future Academic Community. Editedby John Caffrey. Washington, D. C.: American Councilon Education, 1969.

Much of the outcome of the students' desire to directtheir lives on and off campus, to shape universitypolicy, and to involve themselves in controversialpublic issues will depend on the insight of facultiesand administrations. Responding to the pressing issueof University principles and practices in regulatingstudent misconduct, Cornell established a UniversityCommission on the Interdependence of UniversityRegulations and Local, State and Federal Law. TheCommission comprised roughly equal proportions ofadministration, faculty, and students, and was givena broad mandate to write a report dealing with allaspects of student affairs, judicial procedures,artistic freedom, freedom of expression, and to includepolicy recommendations delineating the appropriate roleof the University in each sector. Endorsed by allCommission members, the Report was widely disseminatedon campus and in the community. Stemming from theReport were a University Statement of Principles andPolicies Governing Student Misconduct, and legislation(largely consistent with the Report) altering theUniversity's adjudicative structure for handling mis-conduct. Although student ferment and dissatisfactionprovoked the re-evaluation of policies, there wassurprisingly little student reaction to the Report.This was probably because of general agreement with itsfindings and suggestions and, more importantly, becausethe students realized they had become effective anddesired participants in the University's administrativeprocesses. (ERIC) See also 72, 74.

78. Splete, Allen P. An Interim Report on Student Represen-tation in the Academic Community at Syracuse University.New York: Syracuse University, May 1969.

This report documents and describes the substantialstudent representation at the all-University, collegeor school, and departmental levels of Syracuse Univer-sity. It notes that 25 students are members of sixmajor policy-making committees, that 17 graduate and28 undergraduate students will become members of the

41..-36-

University Senate in Fall 1969, and that eleven stu-dents were members of the 33-member Selection Com-mittee for a New Chancellor. "These are major changesat Syracuse and I think we will find other schoolsseeking to broaden avenues of student participationin a similar manner." The Bylaws of the Senate asamended on December 17, 1969 are included. They de-scribe the Senate's membership and the functions ofits committees. (ERIC) See also 70.

79. Student Involvement: A Bridge to Total Education:Revised Edition. Raleigh, N. C.: North CarolinaState Board of Education, January 1971.

This report recommends to administrators and studentsways of opening channels through which students canexpress their opinions about administrative decisionsand assume greater responsibility for solving theireducational problems. The recommendations covergeneral administrative policies, attitudes and actionsof administrators, attitudes and actions of students,extracurricular activities, student councils, humanrelations, hypersensitive areas (such as studentelections for cheerleaders and activity queens), andcurriculum. (ERIC)

80. Student Involvement in Tenure Decisions. Salt Lake City:Utah University, March 3, 1969.

The principal justification for granting faculty mem-bers academic tenure has historically been associatedwith the idea of academic freedom and economic security.However, tenure at the same time may also tend to per-petuate mediocrity and incompetence within a collegecommunity if faculty members are not carefully scruti-nized prior to granting them tenure. Students, be-cause of their close association with faculty, shoulddefinitely be included in the evaluation of teachercompetence. Thus, it is recommended that the Univer-sity of Utah create a Student Advisory Committee com-prised of upperclassmen and graduate students in eachdepartment to make recommendations regarding curriculumor other departmental changes, and evaluations of allteachers being considered for retention or tenure. Itis also recommended that three qualified students begranted membership on the University Tenure AdvisoryCommittee. Their role would be to ensure that studentconcerns and opinion are considered by the committeein reaching their decisions. (ERIC)

1tt

-37-

81. The Student Role in Governance. Olympia: WashingtonState Legislature, Joint Committee on Higher Education,January 1973.

This document presents the results of a study made bythe Joint Committee on Higher Education on the systemsof governance at institutions of higher education inWashington State. The study directs particular atten-tion to the role and function of students and theirorganizations in the governance process. The mainconclusion of this report is that students should bean integral part of governance organizations andshould have ample opportunity to discuss their viewson governance within the higher education community.The legislative proposal made is directed toward in-suring student involvement in decisions regarding theuses of the student services and activities fee.(ERIC)

SECTION II. CAMPUS AND INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

PART A. THEORY, MODELS, AND OPINION

82. Baldridge, J. Victor. Power and Conflict in the Univer-sity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971.

This article rejects both the bureaucratic and collegialmodels of university governance to describe the realprocesses of decision making. The author attempts toshow that governance is a "political" process in whichvarious academic interest groups interact as they tryto shape the destiny of the university. A campuspolitical system can be divided into three components:(1) a complex social structure that generates many formsof power and multiple pressures that impinge on decisionmakers, (2) a legislative stage that translates thesepressures into policy, and (3) a policy implementationphase that generates feedback with the potential fornew conflicts. (Wren)

83. Bowen, Howard. "Governance and Educational Reform." InAgony and Promise. Edited by G. Kerry Smith, SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.

The author views governance primarily as a means toachieving the educational goals of the university, oneof which, he notes, is to remain educationally progres-sive. He suggests that governance is the mechanismneeded to achieve academic reform and that a coalitionof students and administrators is needed to work withthe faculty to achieve change. Bowen proposes a newgoverning structure with independent constituenciesto replace the old legislative structures. His planis to create a joint council representing the inter-ests of the entire university, not the goals of variousinterest groups. Final authority and accountabilitywould rest with the president, who would work cooper-atively with such a council. (Wren)

84. Corson, John. Governance of Colleges and Universities.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

This book, although a decade old, has become one ofthe standard works on college administration. Corsonsees governance as the task of establishing rules andmaking the succession of decisions that are requiredto relate and order various subdivisions which willmake them productive. The study, based on Corson's

4 IL A

-39-

observations of fifteen colleges and universities ofvarious types, is essentially descriptive. He describesthe roles of the university-wide officers, the academicofficers, the faculty, and the departments. He does,however, pose questions for further study and discus-sion at the end of most chapters. (Shulman)

85. Corson, John. "New Developments in Campus Governance."In New Teaching_v New Learning. Edited by G. KerrySmith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.

The author outlines five major proposals for modifyingthe structure of college and university governance andurges their consideration. They are: (1) that newmechanisms be developed which make possible community-wide participation; (2) that the redistribution ofauthority be made explicit; (3) that leadership (admin-istrative) be strengthened; (4) that every extension ofauthority include a means to enforce accountability;and (5) that the traditional structure of colleges anduniversities be modified. The author's main contentionis that governance can no longer be founded on a struc-ture which relies on authority to command. What mustbe designed is a system of governance which is able tocreate consent. (Wren)

86. Elliot, Lloyd H. "Changing Internal Structures: TheRelevance of Democracy." In The Future AcademicCommunity. Edited by John Caffrey. Washington, D.C.:American Council on Education, 1969.

Because the scene of the struggle to control men's mindshas shifted from other battlefields to the university,the university must reappraise its role and responsi-bilities as a democratic institution within a democracy.The important question is not "who shall govern the uni-versity" but "for what end shall the university begoverned." Procedures must be established to nurturethe pursuit of truth in the academic program, the mostfundamental work of the university. Institutional re-form may be approached in two major ways. One is tocreate a departmental advisory body comprised of pro-fessors, students, alumni, and the public. Its dutywould be to formulate recommendations for change inthe academic program which would then be presented tothe department chairman and faculty. A byproduct ofthis arrangement would be increased communication amongconstituencies as new and closer working relationshipswere established. The second area of reform involvesthe toal abolishment of the concept of "in loco paren-tis." Academic freedom must be firmly upheld so that

41

-40-

all voices may be heard. Participation in governancecalls for objectivity and personal responsibility, forthe effectiveness of the institutional structure willdepend on the extent to which individuals can accommo-date themselves to the university and its goals. (ERIC)

87. Gustad, John W. "Community, Consensus and Conflict."Educational Record 47, Fall 1966, pp. 439-451.

The author believes that the rapid pace of change inhigher education is uprooting old patterns and well-established roles, and that the major obstacle in thisnew environment is role conflict. Gustad argues thatwithin each campus constituency several differingreference groups exist with goals which often con-flict; only if these goals can be identified andclarified can effective leadership emerge. This leader-ship would be capable of achieving consensus among theconstituencies. Conflict will undoubtedly still exist,but what is urgently needed is an atmosphere of open-ness to stimulate creative dialogue. Finally, theauthor suggests that inquiry be directed toward theconditions for change so that it can be effected with-out waiting for crisis situations. (Wren)

88. Hallberg, Edmond C. "An Academic Congress: A Directionin University Governance." Phi Delta Kappan 50, May1969, pp. 538-540.

The author believes that students can and should par-ticipate in college and university governance. Heproposes that a governmental form grow out of the mutualneeds and purposes expressed by those governed. Thislong proposed concept is impossible to realize underthe present system of governance. The author seesthree governmental alternatives for the future: (1)

students will find a place as "necessary" representa-tives in faculty governance as it now exists; (2) eachpower group will retain a separate organization andvie for power; or (3) an all-college government willbe formed. The author advocates and discusses thethird possibility. (Shulman)

89. Henderson, Algo. "Effective Models of University Gover-nance." In Search for Leaders: Current Issues inHigher Education. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. Washing-ton, D. C.: American Association for Higher Education,1967.

The author discusses three models of university gover-nance: (1) a vertical hierarchy of power and authority,

(2) an entity to mediate among subgroups, and (3) aforum for group participation in decision making. Theauthor argues against the hierarchy model because itdoes not harmonize with the objectives or nature ofeducational institutions; and against the model ofmediation which leads to confrontation tactics thattend to disunify the institution, and which emphasizesworking conditions rather than educational goals. Hesupports the model for group participation because itbest takes into account the complexity of individualand group interests in the university. Moreover, thismodel provides an orderly pattern for involvement ofpeople in relation to their ability to contribute.(Wren)

90. Hodgkinson, Harold L. and Meeth, Richard. Power andAuthority: Transformation of Campus Governance. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.

This book consists of ten articles dealing with manylevels of campus governance. Three of the articles- -those by Brewster, Powell, and Johnston--bear directlyon the subject of student participation in campus gov-ernance. Kingman Brewster believes governance reformneeds to focus on accountability rather than on repre-sentation. Robert Powell thinks student power isfundamentally an educational principle, not a politicalone. He advocates a more democratic institution, withless faculty domination of academic decisions. RobertJohnston argues that the thrust of student concern hasbeen for personal freedom and a more egalitarian society.He believes students seek to rework the structures ofpower and authority, to decentralize them, and to bringthem closer to the people they affect. The remainingarticles treat student participation in more peripheralways, but nevertheless include important viewpoints onthe subject. (Wren)

91. Jenks, R. Stephen. "An Internal Change Agent's Role inRestructuring University Governance." Journal ofHigher Education 44, May 1973, pp. 370-379.

The author describes the change in the University ofNew Hampshire's governance structure from a faculty-administration body with a parallel student senate toa unicameral university senate with equal faculty andstudent representation, and assesses the structureafter it has been in operation for four years. Heoutlines six principles for bringing about change:(1) take on the right task, (2) do your homework, (3)

be open, (4) stick to important basics, (5) be an

-42-Lit I

advocate, and (6) don't work uphill. The author con-cludes that discussion and agreement among members onprocesses for distributing work, decision making, andmanaging conflict are critical to the success of anycommittee. (Wren) See also 101, 128, 131, 132.

92. Martin, Warren B. Governance--For What? Paper presentedat Conference of Council of Protestant Colleges andUniversities, 1970.

This paper poses the question: What goals is governancedesigned to further? The author divides the questioninto three dimensions: (1) What will be the socialand political environment in which it operates? (2)

What will be the values served or objectives sought?and (3) What will be the effect of the type of gover-nance for society and for institutional goals? Theauthor sees a major social struggle developing over thecontrol of educational institutions. Thus, the gover-nance model which is adopted will figure significantlyin the outcome of this struggle. The author advocatesthat institutions move away from the hierarchical-authoritarian model toward the egalitarian-participatorymodel. The latter, he notes, is more consistent withthe need for pluralism and process, and is the best wayto be responsive to external forces without succumbingto them. (Wren)

93. Martin, Warren B. "The University as Community." Edu-cational Record 48, Fall 1967, pp. 320-326.

The author believes that the modern university isdivided and indecisive because it is still trying tofollow a social consensus which no longer exists. Thisindecisive character does not arise from disagreementover its essential nature: collective opinion regardsservice as the central function of the university; dif-ferences of opinion arise over what forms its serviceshall take and what priorities it will establish.Rather than attempt to define its service mission fromthe viewpoint of a society in conflict, the universitymust become a center of service as determined by theacademic community itself. The author argues that,despite divergences, the various groups in academe dohave enough in common to provide the basis for meaning-ful community, and it can be achieved without sacrific-ing diversity. While universities are large, complexorganizations, it is important for the individual torelate to a group small enough to be affected by his/her presence. Thus, within the larger organization,smaller "life-core" units need to be provided. The

4 ^t0

-43-

author advocates the structuring of the university intoundergraduate colleges, each with not more than 500-800students. Each college should have enough autonomy toestablish its own curriculum and special character.Governance would be conducted by college councils com-posed of students, faculty, and administrators. Theauthor concludes by noting that in a true community,interest groups prosper, but their aspirations topower are checked. Educational institutions should notbe dominated by any single constituency; rather, eachone has something unique and significant to contribute,and community makes possible the contribution of all.(aren)

94. Mortimer, Kenneth P. Forms of Campus Governance: JointParticipation, Separate Jurisdictions and CollectiveBargaining. Speech presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Association of Colleges, San Francisco,January 16, 1973.

This paper discusses three major statements on sharedauthority and points out that there appear to be threetypes: joint participation in decision making, separatejurisdictions, and collective bargaining. Academicsenates and campus councils are the major manifestationsof the first two types and a brief discussion of thestate and their evolution is provided. A major sectionof the paper deals with collective bargaining as agovernance mechanism. The paper concludes with a briefdiscussion of the directions in which governance reformsappear to be heading. A 16-item bibliography is in-cluded. (ERIC)

95. O'Neil, Robert M. "Paradoxes of Campus Power." In NewTeaching, New Learning. Edited by G. Kerry Smith, SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.

This article explores some of the paradoxes in thegovernance of higher education and presents some tenta-tive recommendations for designing the process. Fiveparadoxes are discussed: minimal change, disappearingpower, unselectivity, redistribution of power, andformalism. The author notes that in view of theseparadoxes, the student of governance must be a supremerealist. He suggests several approaches to reformwithin this context: (1) concentrate upon one insti-tution, (2) study the functional aspects of governanceas opposed to structural ones, (3) appraise the claimsof each constituency for participation, (4) considergovernance options within a selective grid of particularclaims and tasks, and (5) keep in mind the independence

-44-

of various forces. The author concludes by noting thatthe growth of external pressures on educational insti-tutions makes study and reform of internal decisionmaking especially urgent. (Wren)

96. Richardson, Richard C., Jr. "Governance Theory: AComparison of Approaches." Journal of Higher Education45, May 1974, pp. 344-354.

This article explores two traditional models of gover-nance, the bureaucratic and the collegial, and discussesthe political model as the most recent development ininternal governance. The author notes that the bureau-cratic model has been most applicable to administrativedecision making in higher education. The collegialmodel has two major versions--the separate jurisdictionsapproach and the more modern version of shared authorityor joint participation. Under separate jurisdictions,it was assumed that each constituency was concerned aboutdifferent issues and would respect the boundaries betweentheir separate jurisdictions. The joint participationapproach was an attempt to update this notion, realizingthat interests and competencies could not be rigidlyestablished. The author believes, however, that neitherthe bureaucratic nor the collegial model by itselfcan work successfully to resolve serious conflict, dueto the limitations of each. He suggests that both ofthese models, as well as the political one, offer sig-nificant insights into organizational processes; and noneof the three should be seen as mutually exclusive, sinceeach focuses on a different aspect of institutional life.(gren)

97. Schimmel, David. "Conditional Decision-Making: AnAlternative to the Committee Octopus." Journal ofHigher Education 43, February 1972, pp. 85-96.

The values of participation and efficiency in decisionmaking frequently compete with one another in debateover campus governance. The structure which has de-veloped to accommodate both values has been the committeesystem. But the current trend toward greater participa-tion has resulted in more committees dealing with alarger number of issues, many parallel and overlappingcommittees, and a minimum of coordination and communica-tion among the committees. The author argues that theresults do not justify the great amount of time andresources committed. The committee system, he says, isineffective and is built on the assumption that partici-pation is an end in itself. It also implies a beliefthat more participation will result in better decisions,

-z45 -

t- ft

a notion the author disputes. He argues that an approachcan be found which would protect the rights of studentsand faculty to participate in issues of major importanceand at the same time cut the costs of decision making.This system is called "conditional decision making."Under this system each issue that would normally bereferred to a committee would be conditionally decidedby an administrator. A copy of the decision and thereasons for making it would be issued to all affectedfaculty and students. If ten percent of the faculty andstudents did not register their objections within tendays, it would become final; if sufficient objection wereregistered, the issue would then be referred to the reg-ular committee system. The author presents seven premisesand arguments to support his proposal. Variations of theproposal are presented which would allow institutions topursue limited experimentation with such a process.(Wren)

98. Who's in Charge? Special Report by Editorial Projectsfor Education, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, 1969.

This short report outlines the roles and problems ofcollege trustees, presidents, faculty and students ingoverning their institutions. The main topic discussedis the burgeoning power of students and the differingaims of some of the major student organizations. Thearticle emphasizes that factions must find ways towork together as a community to preserve academic free-dom and avoid the total destruction of the university.The influences of the public, the alumni, and the federalgovernment are considered. The report notes that in-creasing numbers of institutions have devised or areseeking ways to make students an integral part of thecampus decision-making process. It includes some sug-gestions of President Kingman Brewster (Yale University)for peaceful student involvement. (ERIC)

99. Wilson, Logan. "Changing University Governance."Educational Record 50, Fall 1969, pp. 388-404.

The author notes that many institutions have establishedor are studying governance reform. But he believes thatfive basic questions must be addressed before an insti-tution restructures its governance system: (1) Who nowdecides what? (2) Which facets of governance are sourcesof dissatisfaction and for whom? (3) What changes arebeing proposed and why? (4) How can their feasibilityand desirability be assessed? and (5) What are the impli-cations of the proposed changes? The author exploresthese questions and concludes that the university must

-46-

maintain some governance system to give it coherenceand proper direction, and that for the rule of reasonrather than force to prevail, authority must be rational.He says that, if academic governance is regarded as amechanism for problem solving, the alternative modesof decision making should be judged by the results theycan produce. The author argues that nothing in the realmof governance is sacrosanct, and that the redistributionof campus power and authority is a means to--not an endof--the educational enterprise. However, participantsshould remember that colleges and universities are cre-ated and maintainee for the good of the larger society,not just for the benefit of those directly connectedwith them. Thus, the main institutional concern in thelong run must be the "public interest." (Wren)

PART B. RESEARCH ON DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY

100. Chickering, Arthur W. "Communications--Bedrock forCollege Governance." Educational Record 5, Spring 1970,pp. 148-153.

A survey of thirteen small colleges indicated thatthere was limited communication between students andfaculty outside class and limited thought and exchangeof ideas in class despite the fact that American under-graduates today are better prepared, more complex, moresophisticated, and more autonomous than ever before.These students need frequent opportunities for communi-cation, open debate and widespread involvement, butthese conditions do not prevail at most colleges anduniversities. Exchange increases and the dimension ofdiscussion expands only when students perceive teachingand curriculum as relevant to their concerns and back-grounds. Outside the classroom, student-faculty rela-tionships should be based on accessibility, authenticity,honesty, knowledge, understanding, and the ability totalk with, not at each other. The report recommendsthat campuses redirect energies toward achieving thesegoals. A 15-page study of college dropouts is appended.(ERIC)

101. Dill, David D. Case Studies in University Governance.Washington: National Association of State Universitiesand Land-Grant Colleges, 1971.

This book is a detailed examination of four examples ofnew forms of university governance. It examines

-47--

governance at the all-university level and focuses onprocess rather than on structure. The institutionswere Florida A & M University, the University of Minne-sota, Columbia University, and the University of NewHampshire. Each institution had piloted a now form ofgovernance and the bulk of each case study is concernedwith selected aspects of the new system in operation.(Wren) See also 65, 76, 91, 120, 128, 131, 132, 137, 138.

102. Hodgkinson, Harold L. Campus Governance: The AmazingThing Is That It Works at All. ERIC Clearinghouse onHigher Education, Washington: Office of Education,July 1971.

This paper reviews the literature on governance from1965 to 1970. The author surveys the attitudes ofthose who participate in the governing process--students,faculty, administration--and illustrates how patterns ofgovernance are undergoing change. Several innovativegovernance models are given along with a review of re-lated problems, such as accountability, decentralization,versus centralization, who should be represented, andthe influence of forces outside the educational com-munity. Topics for futher research are recommended andan extensive bibliography concludes the report. (ERIC)See also 45, 59, 60, 61.

103. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "The Next Decade." The ResearchReporter 5, 1970.

In our society, the majority of the population is under25, and the value orientation of this group is replacingthe old one of the Protestant Ethic. Work is deempha-sized and fulfillment stressed; joy is substituted forguilt. The campus has, however, not moved an iota towardthis new ethic, and much of student protest revolvesaround that. During the next decade, the number of ad-versary situations in governance will probably increaseand factional struggles for power and control of theuniversity may ruin it. The great public institutionswhich enroll an ever greater number of students havereported significant increases in student unrest, andbecause of their size, will continue to be vulnerableto disruption. Existing institutions must be selectivelydecentralized so that their governance systems be bothsmall and large simultaneously: decisions affectingindividual lives and commitments should be made in thesmallest possible units, while matters of logistics andsupport services should be decided in the largest con-text available, tapping into national networks. (ERIC)

-48-

It)

104. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Who Decides Who Decides?" InAgony and Promise. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.

In several projects, the Center is studying the ques-tion: who will decide which factions will be representedin the decision-making process? In the Campus GovernanceProject investigating the nature of governance, over3,000 questionnaires were administered and 900 intensiveinterviews conducted at 19 institutions. The question-naire was designed to identify problems of governanceand determine which individuals were considered knowl-edgeable and influential in dealing with them and howthey became so. It was generally found that today'sgovernance is more complex, more involved with nego-tiated exchange among many internal and external factionsthan before. Presidents retain accountability for allthat happens on their campus though their ability tocontrol it has declined. Patterns are hard to changebecause: most academicians believe that practicesadopted by other institutions are inappropriate totheir own; most change occurs by accretion; self-interestrather than concern for the institution dominates deci-sion making. Major sources of friction are the budgetand distribution of information regarding it, delegationof authority, and the method of announcing decisions(particularly bad news). Extreme resentment was ex-pressed against state education departments, presidentsand deans of students. Among a number of suggestionsfor improving governance, the most widely adopted isthat of a campuswide governing body composed of repre-sentatives from all factions. Despite complaints, how-ever, changes might provoke even greater dissatisfaction.(ERIC)

105. Keeton, Morris. "The Disenfranchised on Campus." InThe Troubled Campus. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970.

The author recommends three changes in campus governanceto reduce disenfranchisement: (1) a realignment ofauthority among campus constituencies, (2) a stressupon communications rooted in the legitimation of dif-fering perspectives, and (3) the decentralization ofstructures and processes of management to foster col-laborative self-government. The author does not implythat using a collaborative style of authority sharingwill put an end to conflict, but rather that conflictwould be resolved out of a determination to work to-gether toward joint achievements. (Wren)

I" A

-49-tt

106. Keeton, Morris and others. Shared Authority on Campus.Washington: American Association for Higher Education,1971.

This book was the result of an extensive campus gover-nance project sponsored by the American Association forHigher Education. The data were collected from nine-teen campuses selected for their diversity of control,programs, size, etc. The authors make recommendationson two subjects: (1) who should have prerogatives ingoverning, and (2) on what grounds and how these pre-rogatives should be exercised. They conclude thatauthority should be more widely shared on campuses,and they outline processes of consent, accountability,and leadership which would enable participants to exer-cise their authority more responsibly and effectively.(Wren)

107. Lee, Eugene C. and Bowen, Frank M. The Multi-CampusUniversity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

This study, undertaken in 1968 -E9, was sponsored bythe Carnegie Commission. It represents an in-depthanalysis of the governance of the modern multi-campusuniversity, focusing c-,1 nine multi-campus institutions,including the University of California. The authorsconsider the environment, structure, and processes ofgovernance, and examine some major problems, trends,and issues facing the multi-campus university in the1970's and beyond. They also examine the state ofstudent organization and the administration of studentaffairs at the system-wide level. (Wren)

108. Locklin, Ralph H. and Steward, Clifford T. Student,Faculty, and Administrator Perceptions of Decision-Making at Four Colleges. Paper presented at the Con-vention of the American Educational Research Associa-tion, Minneapolis, March 1970.

This study reports an attempt to look at differencesbetween the views of students and "faculty-administra-tion." The study also sought to determine whether eachgroup was misunderstanding the amount of control desiredby the other group. To investigate the problem, ques-tionnaires containing questions about 38 campus issueswere distributed to a sampling of students, faculty, andadministrators at four different types of institutionsin the West. Respondents were asked to indicate howdecisions should be made regarding either policy formu-lation or rules and regulations in each of the areas.In addition, students and faculty-administrators reportedtheir perceptions on the degree of control desired by

skOr0

-50-

each other. Responses indicated that the studentswanted more control over decision making than faculty-administration found desirable. Misunderstandings ofthe desires of the other group complicated the situa-tion and led to intensification of problems. There weremany issues, especially those related to individualstudent behavior, in which dominant norms in studentdesires did not exist. Faculty-administration responseswere varied on most items. (ERIC)

109. Shulman, Carol. Governance: Compendium Series of CurrentResearch, Programs and Proposals, No. 1. Washington,D. C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 1970.

This compendium lists and describes 61 ongoing orrecently completed studies and programs dealing withcollege and university governance. Items are listedalphabetically by title and include beginning andexpected dates of completion, principal investigator,source of availability and source of funding. Anintroductory essay discusses trends in governanceresearch and identifies major topics under investiga-tion: (1) student participation; (2) faculty role;(3) trustee responsibility; (4) institutional goalsand planning; and (5) administration problems. Indexesof authors, institutions, and sponsoring agencies areincluded. (ERIC)

PART C. INSTITUTIONAL REPORTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PRACTICES

110. The Assembly on University Goals and Governance. A FirstReport. Sponsored by the American Academy of Arts andSciences, Cambridge, 1970.

This report proposed 85 theses covering the roles andresponsibilities of higher education. Of the 85, threeof the theses concerned student participation in gover-nance: (1) Colleges and universities should reexaminetheir support of extracurricular activities. Studentsare increasingly adult, and if they are to be indepen-dent, they should choose the activities they wish tomaintain; (2) Many activities in addition to extracur-ricular ones might be delegated to students (e.g.,housing). Some functions might be performed better bystudents than by others; (3) Student government is amisnomer; it rarely governs, though it often providesa forum where student views are heard. Involvement of

U

-51-

students in decentralized schools and departments shouldbe fostered because the greatest possibility of studentinfluence on educational policy occurs there. (Wren)

111. Campus Tensions: Analysis and Recommendations. Reportof the Special Committee on Campus Tensions. Washington,D. C.: American Council on Education, 1970.

Chapter 1 of this report on campus unrest examines thenature of the crisis: the kinds of institutions whereviolence is most likely to occur; the issues that gaverise to protest including generational conflict, thesocial "irrelevance" of youth, obsolete educationalpractices, the breakdown of authority, and social malaise;and institutional reactions to this unrest. Chapter 2discusses: (1) what's troubling the students--experi-ences of indifference and neglect, political impotence,lack of information, disciplinary or policy action, dis-crimination, bad teaching, etc.; (2) what's troublingthe faculty--governance, departmental functioning, aca-demic questions, relations with students, and universitygoals; (3) what's troubling administrators--faculty,financial problems, communication, governance, institu-tional goals, and student unrest; and (4) what's troublingthe trustees--finances, the faculty and teaching, gover-nance, student unrest, institutional goals and societalrelations, and institutional leadership. Chapter 3contains recommendations regarding the roles and respon-sibilities of students, faculty, administrators, andtrustees. Statistical tables on campus unrest, 1968-69,are included at the end of the report. (ERIC)

112. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Governance ofHigher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, April 1973.

The Commission's report and recommendations concerned:(1) adequate provision for institutional independence,(2) the role of the board of trustees and of the presi-dent, (3) collective bargaining by the faculty, (4)rules and practice governing tenure, (5) student influ-ence on campus, and (6) handling emergencies. TheCommission defines governance as the structures and theprocesses of decision making, and thus distinguishesgovernance from administration and management. Itrecommends increased student participation within thelimits of their interest, competence, and ability totake responsibility. The Commission recommends thatin these areas students should serve on joint commit-tees with faculty and/or administrators and should havethe right to vote. The report also notes that some ofthe most valuable contributions of student participation

4' 10.fto

-52- ad

can be at the departmental level. Finally, it empha-sizes the educational value of such participation. TheCommission's report includes a number of useful appen-dices which summarize other major reports on studentparticipation in the governance of higher education.(Wren)

113. The Challenge to the University. Dissenting Report.Study Commission on University Governance. Berkeley:University of California, April 4, 1968.

See also 114.

114. The Culture of the University: Governance and Education.Report of the Study Commission on University Governance.Berkeley: University of California, January 1968.

This book is the complete official report of the faculty-student Study Commission on University Governance ap-pointed in January, 1967 by the Berkeley Academic Senateand the Senate of Associated Students. Although thebook is concerned with total university governance, itis especially concerned with increasing effective stu-dent participation. Governance is discussed primarilyfrom the standpoint of the University of California,Berkeley campus. Chapter VI deals primarily with therationale for student participation and gives specificconsideration to the areas of education policy making,conduct, and welfare services. General goals ratherthan specific recommendations are offered. (Shulman)See also 113.

115. The Governance of The George Washington University.Report of the Commission on Governance of the University.Washington, D. C.: George Washington University, May1971.

Charged with examining "responsibility, authority, anddecision making" within The George Washington Univer-sity, the Commission first explored the impact of modern-ization on governance. Chapter I of its report discussesthe topic and summarizes major recommendations. ChapterII deals with participation in the academic communityand discusses the appropriate role of students, facultytrustees, administrators, and others. Chapter III dis-cusses self-discipline with relation to the student bodyand the faculty. Chapter IV contains guidelines forinformal and formal channels of communication withinthe University. Chapter V describes the present statusof the University's fiscal management and suggestschanges in planning and programming functions. Appendix

:;(3

-53-

A details a proposed Office of Planning and Budget.(ERIC)

116. Government of Colleges and Universities. Statement ofAmerican Association of University Professors, AmericanCouncil on Education and Association of GoverningBoards of Universities and Colleges. Washington, D.C.:AGB, 1966.

This report notes that the variety and complexity oftasks performed by higher education produces an ines-capable interdependence among its constituencies. Thisrelationship necessitates communication and opportuni-ties for joint planning between constituencies. Thereport recommends that ways be found to permit signifi-cant student participation within the limits of attain-able effectiveness. It cites certain obstacles, butpresents four rights essential for student involvement:(1) the right to speak in the classroom without fear ofinstitutional reprisal, (2) the right to discuss ques-tions of institutional policy, (3) the right to aca-demic due process, and (4) the right to hear speakersof their own choice. (Wren) See also 42, 119.

117. "Government of the University." In The Study_ of Educationat Stanford: Report to the University. Stanford:Stanford University, February 1969.

This report, the tenth and last of a series, is pre-sented by the Steering Committee, the Study of Educationat Stanford. The series, based on the concept thateducation should be a continuous process of discoverythroughout life, sets forth recommendations for strength-ening the academic enterprise at Stanford University.In this report, the Committee on Government of theUniversity's recommendations focus on those aspects ofuniversity governance for which certain specific changesmight afford some promise of marked administrative im-provement. The recommendations cover the responsibilitiesof the Board of Trustees, the roles of the president andother principal administrative officers, school and de-partmental administrators, university-wide faculty com-mittees, and student participation in faculty committees.Also proposed are certain responsibilities for officerswho oversee the academic aspects of undergraduate lifeat Stanford and a Dean of Graduate Studies who would beresponsible for the management of graduate education.(ERIC)

754- v ittff

118. Issues in University Governance. A Report to the FordFoundation on the Summer Colloquium on University Gover-nance. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,September 1968.

The colloquium on issues in university governance wasorganized to identify and define major governmentalissues facing U. S. colleges and universities and,following an interdisciplinary analysis of the issues,to propose solutions or to determine next steps to betaken. Explanations that emerged as to why the gover-nance of academic institutions has become an increasingsource of debate were the inadequate adaptation of U.S.college and university structures to social change, theloss of academic institutions' protective coat ofisolation as they are drawn into the mainstream of U.S.life, the drastic shift of the institutional balance ofpower, the loss of college students' bargaining powerin influencing policies at their institutions, and thechanges in U.S. society and their influence on studentsof the late 1960's. It was also agreed that problemsexist in university financing, curricular planning,institutional efficiency, and the adjudicating of dif-ferences of opinion about institutional purposes androles. Two serious problems must be resolved in orderto lessen the conflict over governance: inadequateanalysis of the problems of governance, and insufficientunderstanding or knowledge of the data that exist onthese problems. The recommendations in the report focuson these two problems. Summaries of the general sessionsof the colloquium are appended. (ERIC)

119. Proposed Alterations in the Governance of the University.Stanford: American Association of University Professors,Stanford University Chapter, October 3, 1968.

The introduction reads: "We are dissatisfied with thestyle or manner of administration at Stanford. Hithertothe faculty and students have had insufficent informationto discuss University policies effectively. Informationthat has been provided has come too little and too late.Our goal is for greater participation in setting Univer-sity policy and not just ratifying it. Hence numerousrecommendations ask for a greater quantity of timelyinformation relevant to major decisions and urge in-creased faculty and student participation in the deci-sion-making process." The resolutions, which are ac-companied by discussion and which were accepted by theStanford chapter of the A.A.U.P. deal with: the Boardof Trustees, appointment of administrative officers,discussion of University issues, faculty and student

-5

participation in decision making, the student role ingovernance, crisis handling, financial matters, protec-tion of personal privacy, and the implications for theuniversity of external social pressures. (ERIC) Seealso 42, 116.

120. Statement on Student, Faculty, Administrative Relation-ships. National Association of State Universities andLand-Grant Colleges. Washington, D. C.: NASULGC,November, 1969.

The purpose of this report was to provide a perspectivefor institutional self-assessment of current governancemodels. The report does not prescribe specific solu-tions, but rather attempts to give a fuller understand-ing of the problems which will allow explorations oncampuses to be more sensitive and fruitful. The reportsketches the historical background and modern contextof gover- nce and includes some theoretical and practicalconsiderations to reform. Several models of universitygovernment are developed, including the academic com-munity, the independent constituency, and the city coun-cil model. (Wren) See also 101.

121. Toward Community in University Government. Report of theCommission on the Government of the University of Toronto.Toronto: University of Toronto, 1970.

This is an in-depth report examining the structure ofthe University of Toronto. The Commission establishesa philosophical claim that the University is still acommunity. But it was convinced that the definitionsof purpose of the past 'could not unify a community today.The Commission thus attempted to formulate clear prin-ciples and structures for a new community. It recom-mended that governing bodies known as Councils be es-tablished for each department, center, and institute.These Councils would make policy on personnel, curric-ulum, budgets, research and consulting, short- and long-range planning, teaching methods, and other appropriatematters. Membership on Councils would be elective- -consisting of two-fifths academic staff, two-fifthsstudents, and one-fifth administrators. (Wren)

0 A-56- 0.9 J.

SECTION III. BROADLY-BASED DECISION-MAKING BODIES

122. Allan, George. Summary Report of the Ad Hoc Committeeon Campus Governance. Carlisle, Pa.: Dickinson Col-lege, May 1971.

These proposals for the reformation of Dickinson Col-lege's governmental structure are the result of threeyears of study and debate by a single committee ofstudents and faculty, with shifting membership. Part Ireproduces the initial recommendations for a bicamerallegislature combined with a strong College Cabinet.Flow charts illustrate the text. Part II presentsresolutions for the establishment of All-College com-mittees to replace parallel faculty and student com-mittees. Following rejection of the College Cabinetand bicameral legislature, new proposals for a CollegeSenate were submitted. The proposals and a summary ofthe committee's reasoning appear in Part III. Part IVcontains a proposal for an All-College Committee onPersonnel, which was rejected by the faculty in favorof an All-Faculty Committee. (ERIC) See also 139.

123. Babbidge, Jr., Homer D. Eighth Annual Faculty Convocation.Storrs: University of Connecticut, November 6, 1969.

In this address, the President of the University ofConnecticut reviews a number of important issues on hiscampus. He discusses a recent "separatist" move of theStudent Senate to assume control of the dormitories."The alternative to student separation is, of course,more effective and powerful student participation insome form of community government, based on a reco9n4tionof common interests and the legitimacy of each one'sinterest in the affairs of all." Rejecting the notionof a separate student government, he urges adoption ofa unicameral governing body and a major overhaul of theexisting governmental structure to make it more respon-sive to members of the academic community. He arguesthat the people of Connecticut (because they "have paidfor and own all of our academic facilities") deserve toparticipate in designing a charter or constitution forthe University. He suggests that a constitutional con-vention be convened and that, later, the Board of Trusteesassume the role of supreme court charged with ensuringthat the actions of everyone involved in institutionallegislative or executive policy are in accordance withthe constitution. (Shulman)

U2-57

124. Blair, Carolyn L. All-College Council at MaryvilleCollege. Maryville, Tenn.: Maryville College, 1969.

In May 1968, the Special Committee on Community Lifeand Structure of Maryville College recommended that anAll-College Council be organized by January 1969.Following approval of this recommendation by the Execu-tive Council of the Faculty, the Special Committee pro-posed the nomination of fifteen council members whowere subsequently chosen in a campus wide election.The members comprised six students from the three upperclasses; six faculty members from three groups chosenon the basis of tenure; and six administrative officersfrom those whose position, in the judgment of the ad-ministrative staff, would make them most useful on theCouncil. The President, Academic Dean, and Secretaryof the Faculty would be automatic members. In January1969, the 18-member All-College Council was installedas the chief deliberative and legislative body forMaryville College. It is responsible for long-rangeplanning and for directing the activities of the entirecollege community, under the broad purposes and policiesset forth by the College's Board of Directors. Thethree coordinating councils that supplement the Councilare responsible for activities in academic, religious,social, cultural and recreational affairs. Smaller com-mittees within the coordinating councils will directspecific programs. (ERIC)

125. Committee on University Governance Report to the Regentsof the University of New Mexico. Albuquerque: Univer-sity of New Mexico, May 1971.

The Committee on University Governance was charged withthe responsibility of conducting a new study of theUniversity of New Mexico's governance and to recommendimprovements. This report contains a discussion andrecommendations relating to: (1) the creation of aUniversity Community Council, including its functions,size, and composition; (2) the need for a student voicein matters of curriculum and quality of instruction;(3) faculty organization; (4) the creation of the posi-tion of University Ombudsman; and (5) grievance anddisciplinary procedures. Included in the appendicesare: (1) examples of statements which might be usedin the Regents' Statement on Rights; (2) a model Billof Rights and Responsibilities; and (3) the HarvardResolution on Rights and Responsibilities. (ERIC)

-58-

G5

126. Constitution of the Yeshiva College Senate. New York:Yeshiva College, 1969.

According to the preamble to its new constitution, theYeshiva College Senate will "share responsibility forthe operations and improvement of the College among thegroups that constitute the College." The Senate is tobe composed of five administrators, eight faculty mem-bers, six students and one nonvoting alumnus. Article Idetails their selection, terms of office, and proceduralmatters. Article II delineates the Senate's scope. Itis to have jurisdiction over: academic standards; ad-missions policy; curriculum; degree requirements; theestablishment of new majors and courses; policy deter-mination in the areas of standards of scholastic per-formance, student attendance, the grading system andacademic honors; and disposition of all matters sub-mitted to it by the administration, faculty and studentcouncil. In addition, the Senate will make policy rec-ommendations on matters affecting faculty welfare in-cluding appointments, promotions, leaves of absence,honors, and remuneration. Article III outlines theappointment of two student members each to a number ofcommittees. Article IV refers to constitutional amend-ments. An appendix lists the functions of the Senatecommittees. (ERIC)

127. Governance Report. New York: Queens College, City Uni-versity of New York, November 1969.

This "Governance Report," attacking "fundamental andimportant campus issues," grew out of the work of acommittee of students, faculty and administration. Itrecommends creation of an Academic Senate to replacethe Faculty Senate as the supreme legislative body ofQueens College. It is to be composed of 54 tenuredfaculty, 18 non-tenured faculty, and 36 students aswell as several ex-officio, non-voting members. Rulesgoverning meetings and selection of members are in-cluded. The Senate is to have the power to: determinepolicies, standards, programs and goals of the College;safeguard academic freedom, advise and consent on theappointment of the president and all deans, recommendcandidates for the presidency and deanships as vacanciesoccur; propose amendments and revisions to the By-lawsof the Board of Higher Education; and provide for theimplementation of the foregoing powers. (ERIC)

G4 41

-59- ,

128. "Governing a College: A Unified Command." CollegeManagement 9, May 1969, pp. 48-49.

This article describes a new unicameral university senateadopted by the University of New Hampshire. The senateis composed of 30 faculty members, 30 undergraduates, 12administrators and five graduate students. Other fea-tures of the plan are also given. (Shulman) See also91, 101, 131, 132.

129. The Governing of Princeton University. Final Report ofthe Special Committee on tie Structure of the University.Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University, April 1970.

This report of the Special Committee on the Structureof the University proposes extensive modifications inthe governing of Princeton University. Part I discussesthe University's procedures for making decisions onimportant policy issues, including undergraduate andgraduate courses of study, the appointment and advance-ment of members of the faculty, research contracts, theUniversity's affiliation with other organizations andinstitutions, rules of conduct, and conflicts of inter-est. Part II discusses the organization of the Univer-sity, including the Board.of Trustees, the Presidency,the organization of the faculty, the undergraduateassembly, the organization of 1-he graduate student body,a University Ombudsman, and a Committee on the Futureof the University. Part III suggests ways of improvingcommunication among the various constituents of theUniversity. The recommendations on the proposed changesare included in the appendix. (ERIC) See also 134.

130. Hodgkinson, Harold L. The Campus Senate: Experiment inDemocracy. Berkeley: Center for Research and Develop-ment in Higher Education, 1974.

This study, undertaken in 1972-73, examined the operationof broadly based campus senates. Such bodies are typ-ically unicameral legislative or advisory groups (usuallyto the chief executive), made up of students, faculty,and administrators. The report outlines their composi-tion and powers and analyzes their effectiveness atvarying types of institutions. It concludes that theirsuccess will depend not only on the issues and the typesof individuals that make up the body, but also on regu-lating the senate process, training its members, andexplicitly defining its jurisdiction. (Wren)

-60- G 7.;

131. Jenks, R. Stephen and Others. Report of the Committeeon Government Organization. Durham: University ofNew Hampshire, March 6, 1969.

This report presents in detail a unicameral governmentstructure with supporting student and faculty caucuses,recommended for the University of New Hampshire by itsCommittee on Government Organization to (1) providemaximum participation to all members of the universitycommunity on a fair and equitable basis, and (2) providea more efficient structure than the existing one withits competing power groups. The proposed 77-memberUniversity Senate would comprise 30 undergraduate stu-dents, 30 faculty members, 12 administrators and fivegraduate students. Its work would be organized by aninternal Executive Council that would, among otherthings, serve the President of the University in anadvisory capacity, prepare the agenda for Senate meet-ings, recommend nominations to all Senate committees,and take actions on an interim basis. (ERIC) See also91, 101, 128, 132.

132. Jenks, R. Stephen and Others. The Student Role in FacultySelection, Evaluation and Retention. Durham: Univer-sity of New Hampshire, November 10, 1969.

Arguing that it is difficult to discuss the student'srole in faculty selection, evaluation and retentionoutside the broader context of the student's role indecision making, the author describes the new unicameralsystem at the University of New Hampshire and some ofthe processes the institution went through in achievingthe reorganization. The Committee on Government Organi-zation found that most institutions that had recentlyincluded students in the governance process had done soby adding students to existing decision-making bodies.They decided that merely adding students to the OldUniversity Senate "would leave an already inefficientand unwieldy body even more so" and thus a completerestructuring was necessary. Two convocations and manyopen meetings were held to explain the details and pur-poses of the proposed changes before they were approvedby a referendum, the president and the board of trustees.The new Senate held its first meeting in June 1969.(ERIC) See also 91, 101, 128, 131.

133. A Progress Report by the Committee on University Governance.Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University, May 6, 1969.

Based on its conclusion that a unicameral senate wouldbe both desirable and feasible, Florida Atlantic Univer-sity's Committee on University Governance drafted a

proposal to establish a "single university-wide Senate,which truly represents Administration, Faculty, andStudents." The two parts of the proposal present (1)the composition of the Senate membership and proceduresfor selecting Senate members; and (2) the compositionand number of Senate committees. This report discussesboth parts in detail. The proposed 139-member Senatewould comprise 70 faculty members, 48 students, and 21administrative officers, all of whom would serve one-year terms. Fifty faculty members would be elected bycollege and 20 others would be elected at-large. Fourstudent members would be elected from each of eightcolleges in the fall of each year; the three studentofficers and 21 student members-at-large would be elect-ed in yearly spring elections. No election procedurewould be required for the administrative officers, all ofwhom would be ex officio members. Senate committee mem-bers would serve one-year terms on eleven committees thatwould deal with the following matters: university bud-get; steering and policy; promotion, tenure, and honorarydegrees; academic freedom and due process; admissionsand petitions; curriculum; research; library; publica-tions; physical space; and cultural affairs and activ-ities. (ERIC)

134. A Proposal to Establish the Council of the PrincetonUniversity Community. Princeton, N. J.: PrincetonUniversity, May 1969.

To effect a system of university governance in which abroad range of opinion may be brought to bear on policyissues and in which differences of opinion within andamong groups may be heard, Princeton University'sSpecial Committee on the Structure of the Universityhas proposed the establishment of the Council of thePrinceton University Community. The proposed Councilwould have the authority to "consider and investigateany question of University policy, any aspect of thegoverning of the University, and any general issuerelated to the welfare of the University." Part I ofthis report presents the basic features of the Council,and states how it may be expected to operate in prac-tice and how it would fit into Princeton's governmentalstructure. Part II contains the Charter of the Council,which describes the authority, membership, organization,and procedures of the proposed Council. (ERIC) Seealso 129.

-621;7

135. Proposed Constitution for a University Senate of MoreheadState University. Recommendation of the Special Committeeon University Governance. Morehead, Ky.: Morehead StateUniversity, May 20, 1969.

This proposed constitution was approved by the facultyof Morehead State University in May 1969, and by the Boardof Regents in June 1969. The Senate's duties are to act:as an advisory body in developing institutional policies;as a liaison among various elements in the University andbetween those elements and the Board of Regents; as adeliberative body on any issue that might arise; and asa coordinator of the work of University committees.Students are voting members of the new Senate. Rulesgoverning their election are included. (ERIC)

136. Revised Report of the Committee on University Governance.Binghamton: State University of New York, March 14, 1969.

The Committee on University Governance of the State Uni-versity of New York at Binghamton was established toinvestigate the institution's system of governance andto recommend changes that were necessary for institutinga system of communal governance. The Committee was com-posed of elected representatives from four groups:undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty andadministration. The Committee's report, based on theconcept that the university is a community, presents anew form of governance in which authority and responsi-bility in university decision-making are shared by stu-dents, faculty, and administration. Section I detailsthe structure of college, graduate school, and universityassemblies. Sections II to V cover educational policies,admissions, university personnel policy and procedures,and social regulations. Section VI recommends an inte-grated judicial system composed of four levels of boards,and specifies their respective areas of jurisdiction.Sections VII to IX discuss the rights and obligationsof faculty, students, and administrators, amendment pro-cedures for changing the overall structure of universitygovernance, and implementation of the proposals in thereport. If the system is approved, it would be imple-mented not later than September 1969, reviewed at theend of three years of operation, and again ratified bythe four constituencies. (ERIC)

137. Second Interim Report of the Special Committee of theTrustees of Columbia University. New York: ColumbiaUniversity, March 17, 1969.

The Special Committee of the Trustees of Columbia Uni-versity was appointed "to study and recommend changes

14- sr

G

-63-

in the basic structure of the University." The secondinterim report contains recommendations of the Committeeon the participation of faculty and students in univer-sity governance through a proposed University Senatethat would replace the existing University Council andthe Advisory Committee on the Faculties to the President.Each school would be represented by at least one electedmember in the Senate, and the President of the Univer-sity would be the presiding officer. The power andduties of this unicameral body would include those setforth in Sections 22 through 24 of the University'sStatutes. Th,B Senate would also have powers, with theconcurrence of the trustees, to act in the area of fac-ulty, students, and staff conduct. These powers wouldbe supplemented by the responsibility to propose andrecommend courses of action in matters affecting morethan one school or faculty, others surrounding univer-sity relations with its affiliates, and any matters ofuniversity-wide concern. The Committee also recommendsthat procedures be established whereby the Senate wouldbe consulted on certain matters for which the trusteeshave the ultimate responsibility, and that additionalopportunities be fostered at school, faculty, or de-partmental levels for meaningful faculty and studentparticipation in university affairs. (ERIC) See also101, 138.

138. Third Interim Report of the Special Committee of theTrustees of Columbia University. New York: ColumbiaUniversity, May 12, 1969.

In their third interim report, the Trustees of ColumbiaUniversity responded to a proposal on the participationof faculty and students in the governance of the Uni-versity on the University-wide level. Specifically,they adopted an Executive Committee resolution toestablish a representative University Senate. Theresolution had earlier been overwhelmingly approved bya vote of almost 44% of the faculty and students. TheSpecial Committee recommended that the Deans of ColumbiaCollege and Graduate Faculties be included in the Senatemembership and clarified the role of the Trustees. Ac-companying the report are the Statutes of the Universityrelated to the establishment of the new Senate. TheStatutes contain provisions on the election, eligibility,recall and terms of office of faculty, students, admin-istrators, and other representatives, and on the respon-sibilities and powers of the Senate. (ERIC) See also101, 137.

r rUV

-64--

139. "Two Heads Are Better Than One." College Management,May 1969, pp. 45-47.

This article describes the proposal for a new bicameralsystem of governance at Dickinson College in Carlisle,Pennsylvania. Its main provisions would draw theexisting faculty and student senates together in a bi-cameral government under a central cabinet composed ofsix faculty, six students, the academic dean, and thepresident. Other provisions include: (1) election ofseveral faculty to the Senate by students, (2) electionof several students to the Congress by faculty, and(3) filling several seats by chance lottery. (Wren)See also 122.

F.1

1U

-65-