Evaluating Campus Power Struggles with Michael Poliakoff

Philanthropy Roundtable recently met with Michael Poliakoff, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), to discuss the current climate on college campuses and how his organization is working to help higher education leaders and philanthropic donors make reforms. 

Q: Since October 2023 we’ve heard a lot from our campuses from students, administrators and faculty. But we’ve heard far less from trustees. Why do we need to hear more from trustees, and why are they so critical to higher ed reform? 

Trustees hold a pivotal role within educational institutions, as they are entrusted with the overarching responsibility for all campus matters. This responsibility, however, does not imply that trustees should involve themselves in day-to-day management. Instead, their role is to delegate authority strategically to qualified expert groups who can better handle such matters. Ultimately, trustees must ensure the institution remains on the right track, and when challenges arise, it is their solemn duty to step in and rectify the situation. 

Trustees hold a unique position above other interest groups on campus, providing them with a broader perspective that is essential for safeguarding the institution’s welfare. Faculty members, while dedicated to their disciplines and professional associations, sometimes prioritize those affiliations over the institution itself. This allegiance can be beneficial as it keeps them at the forefront of their fields. Nonetheless, there must be someone – namely, the trustees – whose focus is the institution’s holistic well-being and its alignment with state and national needs. 

As former Harvard University president Derek Bok once articulated, trustees serve as the vital interface between educational institutions and society. Their failure to fulfill this role could erode public trust in higher education. Trustees must, therefore, uphold their duties with integrity and foresight to maintain the institution’s standing and societal contribution. 

Q: Public university trustees are often held accountable because their stakeholders include not just faculty, administrators and students, but also the legislators and the taxpayers who fund them. No such infrastructure exists on the private university side, however. What incentives can we put in place to ensure private university trustees do the right thing? 

I’m going to be a gadfly for a moment and say simply there are no private universities. Despite their classification, these institutions receive substantial public funds from federal or state sources, and often both. This reality hasn’t been fully reflected in tax law, but it underscores a significant point. From Title IV funding to large federal grants, all universities are supported in part by public money. Every trustee—whether at a public or private institution—should operate with the awareness that their actions are under the scrutiny of a wide audience. 

This leads me to discuss the importance of accountability, or what some might call a sense of shame. Trustees at private universities should embody this sense of responsibility when their institutions fall short of their obligations to both the nation and the global community. This isn’t just a theoretical stance; it has practical implications too.  

Recently, we’ve observed a growing trend of donor dissatisfaction, which is quite logical. Organizations like Philanthropy Roundtable and ACTA are guiding trustees to make impactful, purpose-driven donations instead of offering blank checks. I anticipate that this evolving relationship between private philanthropy and public interest will foster a productive dialogue across both public and private institutions. 

Q: Tell us about ACTA’s work training college and university trustees. How does it empower trustees to become change agents? 

At the heart of our organization, we emphasize the term “fiduciary” to describe a university trustee. Trustees hold critical responsibilities, even though they fulfill this role without financial compensation. The significance of their position remains paramount, as it is a demanding task that requires a deep understanding of both the institution and the broader policy landscape. 

ACTA plays a unique role in this by equipping trustees with insights into national policy issues and best practices. We achieve this through our retreats, publications, programs and webinars, all designed to help trustees adopt a comprehensive and holistic perspective on emerging challenges. It’s crucial they move beyond the comforting notion that the status quo is sufficient. In reality, it hasn’t been effective for a long time, and if trustees fail to recognize upcoming problems, it will only worsen in the years to come. 

In recent months, we’ve conducted at least six major retreats with trustees. For example, on October 7, we hosted an event in Ohio attended by 70 trustees from the state’s public universities. These gatherings are not only about discussing essential actions but also about establishing networks of best practice among institutions. 

Q: Let’s turn to another important matter – accreditation. It’s a big issue, because legacy accreditors have consistently supported a progressive agenda in higher ed, including the use of DEI in hiring. How would alternate accreditors boost reform? 

During Betsy DeVos’s tenure as secretary of education, one of the key changes was the restructuring of the accreditation process for colleges and universities. Previously, these institutions were limited to working with specific regional accreditors with monopolies in their respective areas. This system has been reformed, allowing colleges and universities more freedom to choose their accreditors. 

This change is significant as it introduces competition among accreditors, encouraging them to specialize and improve their services. The purpose of accreditation is to ensure quality control, an area where many regional accreditors have underperformed. Evidence of this includes low graduation rates from schools that have maintained accreditation without issue and the unchecked spread of ideological biases that have diluted curricula. 

The hope is that with the emergence of new accrediting bodies, there will be a more efficient and transparent process for setting academic standards. Importantly, this shift does not imply a lowering of standards. On the contrary, it could lead to higher standards, focusing on the essential elements that define academic excellence and operational efficiency at universities. 

Q: Many higher ed donors have been shocked to see the extent of antisemitism on our campuses. Were you surprised to see this? Where are the roots of this? And how should university leaders react to it while also honoring free speech rights and academic freedom? 

Let’s start on a positive note. We’ve recently launched a significant initiative to encourage schools to adopt institutional neutrality, which is crucial for fostering a genuinely free campus environment. I’m pleased to report that we’ve seen promising results, with around 25 institutions, some unexpectedly, moving toward making such declarations. On our website, we maintain a list of schools that have achieved this credential by scrutinizing their declarations. 

Our benchmark consists of 20 criteria for assessing freedom of expression on campus, and institutional neutrality is a key component. We draw inspiration from the Chicago Principles of Freedom of Expression and the Kalven Committee Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action, which are pivotal for campus freedom. 

Now, am I surprised by the current state of affairs? Not really. Many institutions have become echo chambers or monocultures where there is little challenge to prevalent ideas like settler colonialism or the oppressor-oppressed narrative. When a school leans predominantly liberal or progressive, these ideas are often reinforced without critique. True intellectual diversity requires a significant shake-up, and this is where trustees can play a crucial role. 

Reflecting on recent events, I question why campus voices haven’t been challenging these academically unsupported notions more vigorously. Junior faculty seeking tenure and even tenured faculty often shy away from challenging prevailing ideologies due to potential repercussions, particularly at elite institutions. Trustees should consider more radical—yet practical—actions, like appointing distinguished voices to campus, to restore intellectual diversity. 

The insightful reflections of Harvey Mansfield in The Wall Street Journal highlight a concerning trend—it’s becoming increasingly rare to find professors like him. The current system of faculty recruitment, hiring, tenure and promotion is heavily influenced by ideology rather than merit. The introduction of DEI screening before assessing credentials such as teaching ability and research skill exemplifies how deeply the system has been co-opted. This must change to revitalize the lifeblood of great universities. 

Q: Regarding free speech, what do you think of the revised campus conduct/speech codes we’ve seen pop up? 

Speech codes are fundamentally flawed because they risk suppressing minority viewpoints, ultimately reinforcing echo chambers rather than fostering genuine dialogue. True progress comes from fully and sincerely supporting freedom of expression—not just paying lip service to it. This means revitalizing campus debate through initiatives like diverse speaker series hosted by campus administration and even university boards.  

If schools struggle to present diverse perspectives, including classical liberal and conservative voices, then trustees should step in, ensuring these voices are heard. Board members must model good citizenship by actively participating in these events, demonstrating that this is not micromanagement but sound management. 

The goal is to establish a culture where no student considers canceling or de-platforming speakers, and where heterodox opinions are welcomed as tools to refine personal viewpoints. Codes of conduct for both faculty and students should clearly define that actions like shouting down or de-platforming speakers are serious offenses, on par with plagiarism, warranting suspension or even expulsion.  

Until institutions enforce these standards consistently, we are in precarious territory. Furthermore, every student should sign a statement upon registration acknowledging these rules and consequences. Boards have a critical role in spearheading this leadership effort. 

Q: Let’s turn to some other constituents, starting with higher ed donors. What’s your message to those who are about to give up on higher education entirely? For those who choose to continue funding in this area, what do you see as the most strategic opportunities to make needed changes? 

When engaging in philanthropy, it’s crucial to be intentional with your donations. Sometimes, it may be necessary to withhold financial support until certain reforms or conditions are met. Always aim to make donations that are carefully targeted, accompanied by robust gift agreements. For this purpose, we offer free advice through Arnold and Porter on drafting these agreements. Philanthropy Roundtable also provides support and recommendations to prevent any violations of donor intent. 

Our first priority is understanding donor intent and providing guidance to prospective donors. We explore various options, including, if necessary, taking a break from supporting one’s alma mater—a bit of tough love, if you will. There are many worthwhile organizations that truly value the opportunities donors bring to make a lasting positive impact. 

Donors have played a significant role in shaping higher education into a force for enduring, positive change. It’s vital to remember that it is their money at stake. If their ideas aren’t welcomed by an institution, there are surely other institutions ready to honor, cherish and implement those ideas. 

Q: Finally, alumni are also active in the fight for higher ed reform. We’ve seen the birth of alumni free speech associations that are agitating for needed reforms at their alma maters. What do you make of these groups and what else can be done on the alumni front? 

Our message to all donors, including alumni, is akin to advice a parent might give a child—supportive but with expectations. We encourage them not to simply hand out blank checks, but to collaborate with the institution to maintain specific standards of behavior and excellence. We envision them as constructive partners, actively thinking about how they can further their alma mater’s mission. This could involve sponsoring campus debates or engaging with our Campus Debate Discourse Alliance, a partnership with organizations like BridgeUSA and Braver Angels.  

These initiatives aim to foster a campus environment where freedom and civility thrive, and where students learn to exchange ideas constructively. Disagreement should not be seen as disloyalty, but rather as a vital part of the pursuit of truth. Furthermore, alumni donors can contribute by establishing opportunities such as endowed chairs, which are thoughtfully designed to support the institution’s growth and direction. It’s crucial for them to deliberate on how they can be effective partners in helping their alma mater make the necessary course corrections for its future success. 

This interview was first published by Philanthropy Roundtable on November 15, 2024.