The Precedent Higher Ed Can’t Afford to Set (opinion)

American higher education stands at a critical juncture following the emergence of reports that the Department of Justice is seeking a consent decree with Columbia University. While Columbia’s acting president responded by stating, “We would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution,” the very possibility of such a decree signals a new chapter in the relationship between colleges and universities and the federal government. Even the proposition of a consent decree sets a dangerous precedent for American higher education, one that erodes institutional autonomy and the independence of governing boards.

At a time when our colleges and universities are navigating political crosswinds, social unrest and increasing scrutiny, the integrity of board governance has never mattered more. Independent governing boards are not symbolic structures—they are foundational to higher education’s ability to serve the public good, safeguard academic freedom and maintain mission-centered leadership through both crisis and calm.

The concern is not whether institutions should comply with the law. Of course they should. The question is whether legal settlements or government actions should be allowed to intrude on the role of boards, setting terms that weaken governance authority or sideline trustees from their fiduciary duties.

What should trustees at other colleges and universities do if faced with similar pressure to agree—without legal adjudication—to external controls that appear to compromise governance independence?

First, they must reaffirm their fiduciary duties—not just as a formality, but as a framework for bold, mission-driven leadership. Boards must remain grounded in their legal and ethical obligations: duty of care, duty of loyalty and duty of obedience to the institution’s mission. In the face of political pressure, these aren’t abstract ideals—they are anchors.

Second, boards must seek independent legal and governance counsel early in any negotiation process. The interests of compliance and governance are not always aligned. Trustees must understand the distinction between politics, policies and law and be prepared to assert their responsibilities.

Third, if presented with a consent decree or settlement that overreaches, trustees should insist on clear, limited and transparent terms—not vague provisions that allow for creeping oversight or ambiguous veto powers. A board that relinquishes its authority may be trying to protect its institution in the moment, but in doing so it places the long-term health of not only its own institution but the entire educational sector at risk.

Finally, boards must speak—together. We need a collective stance among governing boards, higher education associations and institutional leaders that reasserts the value of independent governance in a democratic society. The erosion of board autonomy doesn’t just threaten governance structures—it jeopardizes the trust, freedom, credibility and sustainability of our institutions.

This is a defining moment. If we allow undue influences—whether government agencies, political appointees, donors, alumni or others—to dictate the terms of campus governance, we risk undoing the foundation of American higher education. Trustees must act independently—with clarity, courage and an unwavering commitment to their institutions’ missions and values.

The future of higher education depends on it.