Log in to view the full article
Morris Brown College’s board of trustees voted Jan. 12 to terminate President Dr. Kevin E. James, ending a seven-year tenure marked by the institution’s return to accreditation, restoration of federal financial aid eligibility and significant enrollment growth.
About a week later, he was back at work — with that same board’s blessing.
At issue, both James and board leaders later said, were provisions in James’ contract that had not been properly followed.
The abrupt decision and equally swift reversal stunned alumni and supporters. In a Facebook post announcing his termination, James said the board’s action disregarded best governance practices and reflected broader concerns about “board overreach and interference” that have plagued some historically Black colleges and universities for years.
The Morris Brown episode is hardly the only recent example of tension between governing boards and campus leaders. Across institutions of higher learning, disputes over presidential hiring, evaluations and dismissals have raised questions about whether governing boards possess the expertise, training and structure needed to oversee increasingly complex institutions.
Governance experts, current and former college presidents, and board advisors say the issue is often not bad intentions but a model struggling to keep pace with the realities facing modern colleges. Trustees are frequently selected because of their loyalty to an institution, philanthropic support, or community standing, they say, yet are expected to oversee organizations confronting enrollment declines, financial pressures, political scrutiny, and rapid technological change.
“Most board members care deeply about the institution,” said Dr. Melik Peter Khoury, president and CEO of Unity Environmental University in Maine. “They want the best for [the institutions]. They’re not equipped for it.”
Built for a Different Era
Khoury argues that higher education continues to rely on a governance structure largely developed for wealthy, stable institutions. Boards, he said, were originally designed to protect assets and ensure institutional continuity, not to help colleges navigate disruption and transformation.
“They were designed to lead in an era of stability and abundance,” he said about the traditional board structure most universities have in place. “We took that model that worked for an R1 school and tried to duplicate it. We don’t have models that were designed for this level of disruption.
“We’re trained to optimize. We’re not trained to redesign.”
Trustee boards often bring together successful leaders from different industries and backgrounds, said Kyle Beltramini, senior research fellow at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which advocates for strong governance and accountability at colleges and universities. They often don’t understand the nuts and bolts of higher education, he said.
“It’s an incredible strength,” he said of the skills many board members bring to the table, “but essential that they deal with some onboarding.”
Drumm McNaughton, chair and CEO of The Change Leader Inc., said many boards simply lack the mix of higher education expertise needed to effectively evaluate and support presidents. He said a small percentage of governing boards at colleges and universities are actually structured with the right people and a clear understanding of the work.
“If you’ve got a board that’s really great when it comes to raising money, but nobody who understands enrollment, how can you hold the president accountable in a meaningful way?” McNaughton said. “Or be able to advise the president when he or she needs advice?
“You can’t.”
The Expertise Gap
McNaughton said because so few boards are equipped for the work needed from them, trustees either venture into day-to-day management or fail to provide the needed strategic oversight.
The consequences can be significant. Average presidential tenure has fallen from 8.5 years in 2006 to 5.9 years, according to the American Council on Education, whose most recent study also found that more than half of sitting presidents planned to leave their posts within five years. Some higher education leaders argue that boards increasingly expect presidents to function like corporate chief executives while governing through consensus-driven structures that can limit their authority to make major changes.
That dynamic, Khoury said, contributes to what he calls a “presidential graveyard” across higher education, where leaders are recruited to transform struggling institutions but often find themselves constrained by governance systems resistant to change.
The question facing colleges and universities, experts say, is no longer simply whether boards are fulfilling their responsibilities. It is whether the traditional model of higher education governance remains suited to an era defined less by stability than by disruption.
College presidents occupy a unique position in American institutions. Unlike corporate executives, who primarily answer to shareholders and boards, presidents must balance competing expectations from trustees, faculty, students, alumni, donors, accreditors and elected officials.
That complexity can create friction, particularly when institutions face difficult decisions involving finances, academic programs or organizational change.
Khoury believes many of those tensions stem from governance structures that have not evolved alongside the challenges confronting higher education.
A longtime president who has spent much of his career working through institutional turnarounds, Khoury argues that many colleges continue to rely on board models developed during a period when higher education operated under fundamentally different conditions.
Historically, boards were often designed to safeguard institutional assets, oversee fundraising, and preserve continuity. Those responsibilities remain important, he said, but they do not necessarily prepare trustees to help institutions navigate disruption.
Many trustees, Khoury said, are selected because of their affinity for an institution rather than their expertise in governance, organizational change or strategic planning.
Khoury said he has personally witnessed numerous presidents lose their jobs despite broad agreement that institutional challenges extended beyond any one leader’s control.
Khoury said he has watched more than a dozen presidents lose their jobs recently as the same “kabuki theater” unfolds: Boards cite transparency and communication, presidents defend their records, and the deeper governance questions rarely get addressed.
A Growing Crisis of Leadership
Effective board governance should also include where they get the information that aids their decision-making, said Beltramini of ACTA. He added that trustees should hear regularly from faculty, students, staff, and outside stakeholders.
“The downside is the board becomes reliant on getting information from one or two places on campus, usually the president’s office,” he said. “They need to be exposed to differing views on and off campus. They need to seize control of their own destiny in this area, effectively. Take an active role in getting the information they need to be informed fiduciaries in an institution.”
Higher education’s governance challenges have become increasingly visible through public conflicts over presidential hirings and firings, campus controversies, and disputes over institutional priorities.
At New College of Florida in Sarasota, a newly appointed board of trustees removed President Patricia Okker in 2023 and installed a political ally of Gov. Ron DeSantis as interim president as part of a broader effort to reshape the college.
At St. Augustine’s University in Raleigh, North Carolina, trustees removed President Christine McPhail in 2024 as the historically Black university grappled with financial challenges and accreditation concerns. McPhail later said she was given no explanation for her dismissal and alleged the action followed her discrimination complaint against the board.
At the University of Florida in Gainesville, President Ben Sasse resigned after less than 18 months, citing family health concerns. Subsequent reporting described deteriorating relationships with board leadership and questions surrounding his administration, fueling debate over the role governing boards play in presidential departures.
Overstaying Their Effectiveness
In a Facebook post announcing his termination, James — the Morris Brown president — noted he had recently received a positive annual evaluation and highlighted achievements during his seven-year tenure.
He also argued that the board’s actions ignored established governance practices and contractual obligations.
Although the board later reinstated him, the episode drew attention to questions that governance experts say extend well beyond any single institution.
For McNaughton, one concern is board turnover — or the lack of it.
He has seen trustees remain on boards for decades, sometimes becoming deeply invested in longstanding assumptions about how an institution should operate.
“You start identifying yourself as that type instead of seeing the needs of the institution,” said McNaughton, who advocates for term limits for trustees and board chairs.
Governance experts also frequently point to trustee education, board assessments, and skills-based recruitment as ways institutions can strengthen oversight.
Identifying the Right Skills
The goal is not to transform trustees into administrators, they say, but to ensure boards possess the collective expertise needed to ask the right questions and make informed decisions.
Not everyone agrees that higher education’s governance model is fundamentally broken.
Supporters of the traditional trustee structure argue that independent governing boards remain essential for accountability and institutional stewardship. They note that many colleges continue to benefit from highly effective boards that provide strategic oversight while respecting the distinction between governance and management.
Even critics acknowledge that successful boards exist.
The challenge, they say, is ensuring that more institutions adopt the practices that distinguish effective governance from ineffective governance.
That conversation is likely to become more important as colleges continue facing financial uncertainty and demographic headwinds.
Questions about enrollment, sustainability and institutional mission increasingly require boards to make consequential decisions that can shape an institution’s future for decades.
For colleges navigating those challenges, governance experts say the issue is no longer simply whether boards care about their institutions.
Most do.
The question is whether the structures, expectations and training surrounding board service have kept pace with the realities of modern higher education.
The answer may determine not only the fate of individual presidents, but the future of the institutions they are trying to lead.
