While you could argue that these issues are reflective of the current board members’ characters, the closer we examine these recurring problems at MSU, the more we find an underlying issue with the institutions MSU participates in and the university itself.

When Trustee Brianna Scott accused then-board Chair Rema Vassar of misconduct in October 2023, the following investigation done by Miller & Chevalier concluded that multiple trustees’ actions were unethical, violated bylaws and “created fissures” in university government. 

Very reminiscent of the theatrics we see in modern politics.

However, raising the question of who allowed these people to control university funds may just leave you pointing your finger at yourself and saying “Really? Us? We’re the reason these people are running the university?”

If you are a voter in the state of Michigan, then yes.

This is not necessarily news, though. What might be news for voters who have never lived outside of Michigan is that we are practically alone in how we choose our university governance. In most states across the United States, voters have little direct influence in these decisions, which are instead left to the state’s governor usually with legislative consent. 

But how do these systems compare? The process of choosing members for the Board of Trustees via a statewide vote is one that establishes MSU and other public universities as institutions participating in the American democratic system. Perhaps more importantly, it politicizes academic institutions, making it so the people brought into these positions are motivated by political or monetary interests rather than academic ones. It’s not a new issue in American politics.

When we leave the decision up to the ten million people living in Michigan, the unfortunate truth is that more often than not, people with zero ties to MSU, the University of Michigan, or Wayne State University are either going to end up party-line voting or filling in random boxes when election season comes around. Sometimes people simply don’t care.

“I would hope citizens would care,” said Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University. Harris said it’s often hard to get necessary information out to every voter in a state, leading them to make decisions with little or poor information.

Harris’ research and education ranges from university student affairs to governance and how we can best structure and lead universities. 

Ideally, who we want on our university boards are people who care about the university and consider how they can best serve the state, Harris said. But when you introduce a statewide vote, Harris said other agendas may come into play since trustees have to worry about reelection and appeasing a population of voters. Or in some cases, trustees might just be using the position as a steppingstone for another office. 

“There's just other considerations that an appointed trustee doesn't necessarily have to deal with,” Harris said. 

But the existing alternative is also far from perfect. 

As I see it, leaving the decision to just one person (i.e. the governor) can prove to be less effective and somewhat more politicized, as the governor will undoubtedly choose either members from their own party or otherwise wealthy campaign donors. This coupled with the unethical conduct as described in both the report and Scott’s letter reveals an ugly truth: Our trustees aren’t just voted in like American politicians, they act like American politicians.

Suddenly a new system doesn’t sound so crazy.

If a new structure were to be built from scratch, Harris believes that, ideally, we’d want multiple groups to have influence as opposed to just one. He said that while the governor and legislature should be involved to some extent, we should also have spots reserved for other interest groups. At MSU, this could look like one spot being reserved for a faculty trustee, one for an alumni trustee, and one or more for student trustees, with each position being chosen by the group they represent.

But that’s not to say that a faculty trustee or a student trustee would only represent the constituencies that they’re chosen by, because they would also bring an entirely different perspective to the board.

Perspective is key here. Because aside from research and education, one of the most compelling aims of higher education should be to serve as a place for exchanging ideas. If modern criticism of the two-party system tells us that the system polarizes our options and prevents the exchange of new ideas, then what function does it serve in higher education? 

“Anytime you've got only one body, whether that's the voters of the state, whether that's the governor,” Harris said, “that limits the number of perspectives and viewpoints you might get on your board.”

One way we’re seeing this issue currently unfold is through divestment and unionization protests, two issues that are eliciting similar responses from both parties. Without a faculty or student board member who can represent those constituencies' interests, it makes it much easier for the board to employ stall tactics against unionization or simply remain unresponsive to student requests.

Jesse Estrada White, a student organizer at MSU, is one of many activists on campus who have been experiencing this unresponsiveness for years.

Prior to speaking with Estrada White, he told me via text that the activist groups he is both part of and leads talk about student board representation a decent amount and that it’s an undercurrent to all of their activism. Between divestment from Israel, LGBTQ+ representation on campus, and a previous movement to get the university to divest from the fossil fuel industry, he said there’s a recurring ‘wall’ in their way that represents a lack of democratic accountability to students, staff, faculty, and community members.

“​​We don't see it as an institution that we can work inside of and get something through the means that they prescribe to us,” he said.

He added that it’s not uncommon at MSU for student activists to be told to work through ASMSU (our undergraduate student government) or to set up a meeting with administrators, which almost always ends up with nothing happening. 

In an ideal system, ASMSU would have some kind of influence on actual university governance. However, here at MSU, the policies passed by ASMSU are merely suggestions to the Board of Trustees. That’s not to say that ASMSU doesn’t discuss important topics, it’s only to say that the institution that it exists under rarely allows ASMSU’s policies to affect Board policy.

And it’s by challenging this institution structurally that Estrada White said activists can be closer to getting what they want. He said that we can call the Board of Trustees ‘democratically elected,’ but at the end of the day, they’re not democratically elected in the community in which the institution is placed.

His point seems to be at the core of the issue, and the solution lies in more representation of constituencies. This is obviously a lot easier said than done, as actually getting a fully voting student on the Board of Trustees could require a change to Michigan’s constitution, or at the very least, MSU’s bylaws.

Organizing on this level, Estrada White said, is especially hard now because it would divert away from the divestment campaign. Still, he said, “None of us really set out trying to completely change the way the university works. It has become almost a necessity.”

This next election in November will see two member’s board seats up for grabs: Chair Dan Kelly and Trustee Dianne Byrum. The Democratic and Republican parties nominated two candidates each. Regardless of whether the seats end up split or they both end up red or blue, MSU’s track record indicates that its struggles with university governance will not cease anytime soon. 

As voters in this upcoming election, it’s important to remember that these issues do not start or end at the polls. It is up to students to organize to achieve institutional change by circumventing and challenging the system, not going through it. Continuous organizing and advocating for your peers will be essential for any kind of institutional change.