Rosenberg, Brian. Whatever It Is, I’m Against It: Resistance to Change in Higher Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2023. ISBN 978-1-68253-828-9
They say that change is the one true constant. That might be true in most contexts. But in the field of higher education, change is usually the exception rather than the rule. It is hard to name an industry that is more change-averse than higher ed.
In Whatever It is, I’m Against It, Brian Rosenberg, president emeritus of Macalester College, explores the pressing need for transformative change in higher education while dissecting the factors that have made such change so difficult to achieve.
Summary of Contents
Rosenberg identifies the root challenge facing IHEs as an unsustainable financial model characterized by rising costs, stagnant productivity, and declining enrollment. Colleges have traditionally responded to these pressures by either cutting programs or discounting prices. But these are short-term solutions that don’t address the underlying issues.
The author argues that the existing reputational model in higher education, heavily influenced by rankings like US News, creates a disincentive for change. For top-tier institutions with strong reputations, there is little motivation to risk major changes. At the same time, lower-tier institutions often feel resigned to their position, believing that change will greatly increase their risk while unlikely to significantly improve their standing.
Colleges and universities tend to overestimate their distinctiveness, leading to a lack of differentiation and innovation among large groups of schools. The IHEs with the most incentive to innovate are those with weak reputations, declining enrollments, and growing budget deficits. However, even for these institutions, bold action is difficult due to pushback from various constituencies.
The author draws from his own experience as a college president to illustrate the challenges of leading transformative change. He argues that there is often a lack of incentive for change among presidents, boards of trustees, alumni, and faculty. Tenured and tenure-track faculty, in particular, have the least to gain from change, as it could disrupt their job security and comfortable routines.
Rosenberg also critiques the departmental structure of universities, arguing that structure fosters a fragmented and siloed approach that hinders collaboration and innovation. He proposes reforms to graduate education, suggesting programs that are more student-centered and aligned with the changing job market for PhDs.
The concept of shared governance, often touted as a cornerstone of academic decision-making, is another target of Rosenberg’s critique. He maintains that shared governance, while valuable in theory, often becomes a barrier to change due to its reliance on consensus and the involvement of numerous constituencies with competing interests.
Tenure is another obstacle to change, according to Rosenberg. While acknowledging the importance of academic freedom, he questions whether tenure is the only or best way to protect that freedom. He proposes alternative models, such as long-term contracts with guaranteed academic freedom. Yet in the end, he all but admits that such changes are unlikely to be implemented.
In the final chapter, Rosenberg outlines a path to change, drawing inspiration from African Leadership University, a young institution with whom he has had a close relationship. African Leadership University, claims Rosenberg, is largely unburdened by the legacy structures and resistance to change that characterize many American universities. He identifies several misconceptions that have hindered change in higher education. These include the belief that higher education is to be a meritocracy, the idea that faculty are the focus of the university, and that having students major in a specific area is the best way to structure a higher education. He proposes a new model focused on student-centered learning and experiential education. Such a model would address the societal challenges that have placed so much pressure on the traditional college and university model.
Rosenberg concludes by acknowledging the challenges of achieving transformative change in higher education but emphasizes the urgency of the situation. He calls for bold action and innovation, warning that the window of opportunity for many institutions is closing rapidly.
Critical Review
Rosenberg has correctly diagnosed the fundamental problem with contemporary American higher education: a financial and organizational structure that is simply unsustainable in the current environment (or any other environment that is likely to appear within the next generation). He is in large part despairing of the likelihood that this structure will change enough to forestall significant pain and loss within the industry in the coming years. I largely agree. The forces that currently shape American higher education are far too entrenched to be uprooted without forceful and painful change. That’s the bad news.
But slightly better news is that books like this help us understand what we in the higher ed industry need to do to move our schools toward that kind of change. My experience in the industry has been strictly within small, faith-based liberal arts schools. But at all schools, regardless of type, change must begin with an informed, engaged, and courageous board. In the vast majority of cases, only boards have the power to undercut and deconstruct the systemic impediments to change that have the potential to undo their schools.
The Role of Trustees In Initiating Transformative Change
Many of the questionable practices Rosenberg cites (tenure, academic structure, shared governance, etc.) aren’t simply habits that schools have fallen into. They are instantiated as formal policy and formalized by written documents that in some cases have contractual weight. The most specific example is the Faculty Handbook. All interested parties–faculty, administration, trustees, and accreditors–look to this document to verify that the institution possesses and implements policies consistently. While at a few institutions, the administration can make changes to the Handbook unilaterally, in the vast majority of cases, such change either requires faculty input and/or trustee intervention. To change a process such as tenure (arguably the most radioactive third rail in faculty life) requires a level of trustee engagement and commitment seldom seen in higher education. In the case of state-sponsored schools, such moves usually begin within the state legislature.
Academic Freedom and Tenure
Rosenberg’s views on academic freedom and tenure deserve a closer look here. While he doesn’t come out plainly and say that tenure needs to be abolished, he works hard to undercut the major arguments for tenure, thereby leaving his stance on the issue plain to see. He objects to the notion that tenure is necessary to protect academic freedom, correctly pointing out examples when tenure has failed in that regard (pp. 124-125). He also points out that tying academic freedom to the attainment of tenure actually curtails the academic freedom of untenured faculty. Finally, he observes that the AAUP’s original justification for tenure–that it is necessary “to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability”–is certainly no longer true in the vast majority of cases. The image of the poverty-stricken professor eking out a living on pennies a day is largely a relic of days past. That is not to say that no college or university faculty are underpaid or do not suffer from any financial hardship. It is only to say that the huge strides made in appropriately compensating faculty in recent decades undercuts the argument that no sane person would become a college professor unless he or she were offered lifetime employment.
Despite these harsh-yet-correct observations about tenure, however, I believe there is still a place for the concept in contemporary higher education, albeit on a much more limited basis. I will make this claim on a more extensive basis in an upcoming post. But for this review, an overview of my case will suffice. Tenure as it is currently practiced across the industry is based upon assumptions that once were accurate but that are now outdated. In its current form, it must either change, or it will die a slow and painful death at all but the most elite institutions. Tenure should be reserved for faculty whose contributions to an IHE have been so singular and exceptional that the institution has been permanently changed by their presence on campus during their time there. With this limitation, tenure should not be a reasonable expectation of a newly-minted PhD upon arriving at a campus. And tenure certainly shouldn’t be a reasonable expectation after a mere six or seven years of service.
A Model for Change: Small, Limited-Mission Institutions
To overcome the range of cultural and financial difficulties with the current model of higher ed, Rosenberg sees models in wo small institutions whose very limited missions make them outliers within the industry. He mentions African Leadership University, with whom he has had a strong informal relationship, and tiny Sterling College of Vermont, which has around 125 students and whose mission and curriculum are built around the theme of ecological sustainability.
Admittedly, both of these institutions excel at focusing strictly upon their very limited missions, expend no effort trying to be everything for every prospective student, and manage their own houses well. But for most IHEs, the very limited purpose of these two small schools is unlikely to be a real inspiration for transformative change. Existing schools have grown too large, diverse, complex, and tradition-bound for that sort of change to take place. For higher education to have any meaningful impact upon society, there needs to be a critical mass of such complex institutions that will perform research and remain thought centers within our culture.
Radical reinvention in the mold of these two small institutions might be the path forward for some small, struggling IHEs. But it is not a feasible solution to a whole swathe of large institutions that likewise need reinvention but for whom the tiny college model is infeasible.
Conclusion
More than likely, Rosenberg’s book presages a great deal of pain across American higher education. Given the difficulty of the transformative change he advocates, there will inevitably be a continued rash of closures, mergers, or other types of institutional paroxysms across the industry in the coming years. Whatever It is, I’m Against It offers a critical analysis of the barriers to change in higher education and a call to action for institutions to embrace innovation and adapt to the changing needs of students and society. Rosenberg’s insights, drawn from his extensive experience as a college president and scholar. It provides valuable guidance for higher education leaders navigating the complex challenges facing the industry today.
⭐⭐⭐⭐ stars out of five