Wednesday, April 1, 2015 // The Statement
6B

The Public Ivy: A brief history of University governance

by Claire Bryan, Senior Opinion Editor

P

ublic Ivy.”

Richard Moll, an admissions officer at Yale 

University, originated the term in his 1985 book 

titled “Public Ivies: A Guide to America’s best public 
undergraduate colleges and universities.” He noted 
eight schools that offer an Ivy League experience at a 
public school price, naming University of Michigan as 
the leader — “the prototype Public Ivy.”

History Prof. Terrance McDonald, director of Bent-

ley Historical Library, echoed this sentiment in an 
interview with the Daily. He said the term Public Ivy 
defines public universities with very high prestige that 
are on par with the Ivy League universities.

Though the term has been used in defining the Uni-

versity for the past thirty years, the University has 
experienced success since its origin in 1817 because of 
two unique factors.

Unlike many state universities, 

the University was founded at a 
request from the federal govern-
ment: specifically, a land grant from 
Congress. Congress — not the state 
— initiating the creation of the Uni-
versity suggests to some that the 
University should equally strive to 
serve all Americans, not primarily 
Michigan state citizens.

Second, because the Univer-

sity was created before the state of 
Michigan was created, the original 
1851 state constitution did some-
thing unheard of in the history of 
state universities: the constitution 
granted the University complete 
autonomy from the state legisla-
tor. That is, the governing Board of 
Regents had complete control over 
all University matters and in no way 
was controlled by state legislators.

“The constitutional autonomy is 

one of the most important features 
of the University,” said President 
Emeritus James Duderstadt, who 
served as President from 1988 to 
1996, in an interview. “It allows the 

University, its Board of Regents, and faculty to really 
think very carefully of how to build the quality of the 
institution and not be subject to the whims of today.”

Regent Kathy White (D), chair of the Board of 

Regents, said the end result of the Michigan framers 
intentions has been the creation of fifteen excellent, 
autonomous public universities.

“It is very impressive that framers of the state Con-

stitution thought carefully about higher education and 
how important autonomy is for good governance,” 
White wrote in an e-mail.

McDonald agrees that these characteristics are 

unique.

“This (autonomy) had a huge impact on the rest of 

the history of the University because it was a publicly 
run but a very self-organized institution in contrast 
with public universities elsewhere that were micro-
managed by the state legislator,” McDonald said

McDonald likens this historical independence, as 

well as religious independence — the University has 
consistently been a secular institution — as contribut-
ing factors to why the University has been so success-

ful.

Moreover, this autonomous system took the Univer-

sity out of the public realm while still provided political 
accountability, because the people of Michigan must 
vote to elect the regents.

The regents serve eight-year terms. They are not 

constantly running for re-election, which allows them 
to take a long-term view of how the University is grow-
ing.

“Having an autonomous governing board that is 

solely focused on the university allows the Regents to 
make decisions that are best for the institution over the 
long-term,” White said. “Those who seek election to the 
Board of Regents have a very deep commitment to the 
University and to the public that it serves.”

The citizens of Michigan elect regents so that citi-

zens’ voices and concerns about the University are rep-
resented.

“At the time, the public had a much more cyni-

cal view toward standard politics and government,” 
Duderstadt said. “That is one of the reasons why they 
wanted to control how regents were elected rather than 
appointed by a governor or other mechanisms.”

The University of California system — the other flag-

ship public research university comparable to the Uni-
versity of Michigan — also boasts a Board of Regents 
constitutionally autonomous from its state legislator.

After the Civil War and the passage of the Morrill 

Act — an act providing public lands to each state to 
build colleges with a focus on agriculture and mechan-
ics education — the California Assembly passed the leg-
islation creating the University of California. According 
to Duderstadt, pages from the Michigan constitution 
were inserted in this legislation, giving the University 
of California the same constitutional autonomy the 
University of Michigan has held for many years.

The UC system is different though, because Califor-

nia’s state governor appoints the regents, instead of the 
people of California electing them.

Additionally, the University of Michigan Board of 

Regents has sued the state, which has strengthened the 
true meaning of their autonomy, unlike the regents of 
the UC system.

The 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, 

concerning the use of affirmative action in college 
admissions policy, is an example of the University’s 
Board of Regents national leadership.

“The (UC system) regents’ autonomy hasn’t been 

defined through the courts in the same way the state 
of Michigan has had constitutional autonomy defined,” 
Duderstadt said.

The UC system has historically received gener-

ous funding from their state legislator, whereas in the 
Michigan state legislator higher education funding has 
not been a large priority.

Duderstadt likens this lack of state support, con-

tradictorily, to this autonomy, as well as the success of 
national research funding the University has received 
from outside donors and the state of Michigan’s eco-
nomic tragedy of 1980.

Prior to the Civil War, the University relied on the 

sale of its federal lands and student fees instead of the 
state’s resources to fund expansion. According to Dud-
erstadt, this is a continued reason that has caused the 
University to regard itself as much as a national univer-
sity as a state university.

These opposing facts — that the University must 

serve the nation but is run by leaders who capture the 
votes from citizens of Michigan only — contribute to 
issues of ownership and who exactly the University 
should be serving.

White said she believes that, in striving for excel-

lence, the University not only serves the state of Michi-
gan well but the nation and the world. She stressed 
though that the commitment made to state students is 
particularly extraordinary. An example of this is the 
University’s commitment to lower tuition for in-state 
students.

“(The election process) ensures that those who 

become stewards of the University have listened to the 
people of the state of Michigan, separately from other 
political entities in the state,” White said. “This gives 
great ownership of this institution to the people of the 
State of Michigan.”

Different University presidents have had a variety of 

ideas of what the University should be providing when 
it comes to if they are serving the state or the nation 
first.

While serving as President of the University in the 

late 1800s, President Emeritus James Angell said the 
University of Michigan’s purpose was to “provide a 
common education for the common man.”

According to Duderstadt, the fraction of students 

who come from low-income families has dropped in the 
last 10 years. In 2011, 63 percent of incoming freshmen 
reported family incomes over $100,000.

“Today, we are not providing a common education 

for the common man.” Duderstadt said. “This is in part 
because the state has abandoned its level of support for 
students based on need.”

Duderstadt says right now is a time where less than 

10 percent of support comes from the state, and this fact 
may change, therefore changing citizens sense of own-
ership.

“I think right now if you look at the quality of the 

University, our form of selecting regents seems to work 
so well,” he said. “I’ve seen both sides of it though and 
I think it depends on the time. It is my hope we can be 
much more influential in the years ahead in persuading 
the people of the state just how important it is to invest 
in higher education.”

McDonald argues that the citizens of Michigan have 

a large sense of ownership because of how expansive 
the University campus is and how far it reaches, but 
may not always be attentive to the changes the regents 
are making.

“Michigan citizens on the whole are not paying close 

attention to what is going on at the University but at the 
same time they appear confident in the University and 
are pretty proud of it,” he said. “The average attitude 
towards the University I think is quite positive.”

Despite conflicting views, because of how the Uni-

versity is defined as a state university and how the 
Board of Regents is elected by the citizens of Michigan, 
the University should be serving the people of Michi-
gan first. But because of its origins, the University has 
always done its best to go beyond the state level and 
serve the nation and the world.

Its creation from a congressional land grant and the 

Board of Regents being autonomous from the state of 
Michigan have shaped the University’s unique struc-
ture. This structure has allowed the University to think 
bigger, grow expansively and truly be distinctive in the 
higher educational world.

“The 

constitutional 

autonomy 
is one of 
the most 
important 
features 
of the 

University.”

