Senior Fellow Peter Eckel Weighs in on MSU Board Turmoil

The recent turmoil at Michigan State University, culminating in President Kevin Guskiewicz’s decision to leave for Clemson University after just two years and then return to MSU before he started the Clemson role, has brought renewed attention to a growing national debate: What is the proper role of university trustees, and how should governing boards balance transparency, accountability, and institutional stewardship?

According to Penn GSE governance expert Peter Eckel, the conflict at Michigan State reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about how university boards are designed to function. As detailed in a recent Crain’s Detroit Business report, divisions among trustees over issues of confidentiality, public dissent, and board authority contributed to escalating tensions that ultimately helped drive the president's departure.

“Elected university trustees hold the public trust to work for the collective good of the institution,” Eckel told Crain’s. While Michigan’s elected trustee model can create an expectation that individual board members represent constituents in the same way legislators do, he argues that university governance operates differently. The authority of a governing board rests with the board as a collective body, not with individual trustees acting independently.

“The authority of boards lies in the collective body, not in individuals,” Eckel said. “The oversight of the fiduciary work is that of the board, not of each individual trustee.” 

Eckel, a senior fellow and director of leadership programs at Penn GSE, said effective governance requires robust debate behind closed doors followed by unified leadership once decisions are made. “There’s a refrain to fight like cats and dogs in the boardroom but speak with one voice after decisions are made,” he noted. Public disagreements may sometimes be necessary, but they should be reserved for rare, high-stakes circumstances because of the risks they can pose to institutional stability.

The Michigan State dispute centered on whether individual trustees should be free to publicly challenge board decisions and disclose concerns they believe are in the public interest. Several trustees argued that their elected status requires them to prioritize transparency and constituent accountability. Others contended that such actions undermined board governance norms, damaged trust, and made it increasingly difficult for university leadership to operate effectively. 

The tensions became so pronounced that the board sought assistance from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Following a governance review, trustees revised their ethics and conduct policies in an effort to align more closely with widely accepted governance standards. The changes, however, failed to resolve the underlying disagreements.

The issues raised at Michigan State have drawn attention beyond the university itself. They were also the subject of a recent episode of Penn GSE adjunct assistant professor Karen Weaver's podcast, Trustees and Presidents: A Podcast for University Leaders on College Athletics. In the episode, titled “Trustees Can’t Do the Job They Are Told To Do: Michigan State’s Battle Over College Athletics Oversight,” Weaver hosted a discussion with Michigan State trustees about board oversight, transparency, and governance responsibilities in the increasingly complex landscape of higher education and college athletics. 

Weaver’s podcast frequently examines the intersection of institutional leadership, athletics, public accountability, and governance—issues that are becoming more consequential as colleges and universities navigate mounting financial pressures, political scrutiny, and rapid change across higher education.

For Eckel, the Michigan State case serves as a reminder that governance structures are only effective when trustees share a common understanding of their responsibilities.

“At the end of the day, the president is following the directives of the board, the decisions of the board, not individual trustees,” he said. When board members act outside established governance norms, he cautions, they must weigh the potential consequences for the institution against the value of public dissent.

As universities nationwide grapple with increasingly complex challenges—from athletics governance and financial sustainability to political pressures and public accountability—the events at Michigan State underscore the critical importance of effective board leadership and a shared commitment to fiduciary responsibility. And for governance scholars like Eckel, they offer a timely case study in how differences in governance philosophy can shape the future of an institution.

Read the whole article.