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.”