BY MILES D. MAYER

I recently spoke with students and colleagues at Doane University regarding failing leadership in higher education. After many spirited discussions, the conclusion was that in higher education, as in the corporate world, some leaders are taking advantage of the times, making decisions that would otherwise call for discussion and approval of policy and institutional changes. This austerity pedagogy, seemingly brought about by the pandemic and other factors such as declining enrollment and online alternatives, has led many institutions to make huge cuts and reduce academic freedoms. Claims of deficits that ostensibly require the removal of faculty, staff, and programs have become commonplace. Curiously, the consideration of administrative cuts is often excluded, as is the open review of deficit and endowment data, though claims of financial exigency are often informally made, and more of these claims are likely in the future.

Fortunately many in the liberal arts education community refuse to get on board with this approach, and those in leadership are often failing miserably to convince their institution’s constituents that these steps are necessary. The lack of inclusion of faculty councils may be the biggest mistake made by leadership, as faculty at smaller institutions like Doane have sway within their communities—likely more so than members of the administration and board. No amount of nondisclosure agreements, disciplinary actions, or the reduction of community freedoms will prevent information from reaching the ears of those beyond these institutions.

At this small liberal arts institution in Nebraska, faculty members, staff, students, and alumni aren’t buying into their leadership’s claims. Clashes between faculty and leadership have led to widespread distrust within the community, creating a hazardous “us versus them” mentality. Now, as prioritization processes have continued since their introduction just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic—with cuts to apparently profitable and interdependent programs—the responsibility falls to leadership to convince the community that unilateral decisions are indeed necessary. Yet, as the pandemic nears its end, failure by leadership to accomplish anything positive has led to administrative resignations by many that directed the ill-conceived prioritization charge. Further, many anticipate the future resignation of multiple faculty members. The community is left wondering, “What now?”

Review of Doane’s finances prompts questions about alternative funding, especially because documentation regarding the salaries of resigning administrators, donor gift revenue, and available unrestricted endowment assets is readily accessible. These questions are being asked by many right now, as they should be.

However, the issue of budget deficits at Doane remains focused on cutting programs, faculty and staff positions, and even student media, using the pandemic as a pretext, when much of this problem began far before COVID-19. Meanwhile, the reliance on increasing tuition and fees has become more of a hindrance for students. Rather than conferring with the community and considering alternatives, the institution is proceeding with cuts while also seemingly decreasing enrollment standards.

The intention of some in leadership genuinely appears to have been institutional growth, but the mistakes made by those in charge seem irreconcilable. In recent years, leadership attempted positive changes, such as investment and development of massive open online courses (MOOCs) and the creation of programs in health and nursing (which have high employment rates for new graduates). These were not bad ideas. However, the top-down approach to building these programs has been their downfall.

Exclusion of most faculty in the development of online curriculum and the request by leadership that the few involved sign unvetted contracts handing over their intellectual property have led to despondency about the disregard for Doane’s policies stating that faculty own their scholarly works in most cases. Now, though the revenue from online courses is urgently needed, no true role for faculty departments in development and design exists, and administrators determine the curriculum and instruction. Meanwhile, students are unhappy with Doane’s rushed alternatives for pandemic teaching.

Academics value transparency, collaboration, and honest communication. It follows that institutional leaders should share and protect those values. Higher education in the United States, however, has been operating under the working hypothesis that universities should run as businesses, often at the expense of the above values. It appears commonplace for universities to “adopt the corporate model of profit and loss as though they’re businesses themselves.”

So, as Doane’s leadership has suffered a slew of negative media attention, sowing fear and distrust within the community, intentionally or not, how does this institution that, until recently, was considered a pinnacle of liberal arts education in Nebraska, mend fences and move forward? This issue will likely be left up to faculty and those entering unoccupied leadership positions, if new leadership chooses to involve the greater community.

Faltering leadership is not unique to Doane University, but what denotes a good leader? In my opinion, a leader holds the same responsibility regardless of whom they lead: to care for those they serve. An institutional leader should advocate for shared governance and academic freedom, foster a sense of community responsibility, and facilitate relationships among faculty, staff, and students. Those within the community are then responsible for asserting their positions should the administration fail them.

Austerity pedagogy is manifest in the idea that more inclusive decision-making processes are an unaffordable luxury. This idea limits an institution’s plasticity and compromises its health and stability. In such unsteady times, unilateral decisions by leadership are dangerous. The incorporation of healthy shared governance and respect for academic freedoms are crucial for the survival of an institution.

What can be gleaned from the experience at Doane? How can those in higher education fortify institutional constructs to survive this crisis and ensure future crises are properly addressed? How do institutions return to normalcy after disruption, with the likelihood that further trouble is ahead? Building community solidarity could foster a sense of safety not felt by many in academia in some time.

For Doane, with management changes in progress, many look forward to new leadership. Who might step up to head an institution, a family, which desperately needs affectionate decision-making as much as it does strong business strategy? The Doane community is one of open arms and open hearts. Who might, in this unsteady time, lead a family out of austerity and into a postpandemic world?

Guest blogger Miles D. Mayer is a former visiting professor of chemistry at Doane University, former technician for the Doane Lied Science Departments, and Doane alumnus.