Trusteeship - March/April 2021 - 34

RACIAL TENSIONS BETWEEN PRESIDENTS AND GOVERNING BOARDS

ever, that some presidents are not as committed to racial equity as
they claim, and that they blame their boards instead of themselves
for institutional inaction. As previously noted, all presidents with
whom I interact tell me they are committed to equity, diversity, and
inclusion. Some actually are not, but saying so seems inappropriate, especially during this era. Saying the board is blocking progress
is politically less risky for a president than is confessing one's own
resistance or personal carelessness for race work.
Third and most importantly, I must acknowledge how racial
tensions play themselves out in particular ways among different
groups of campus leaders and their boards. What I have presented
thus far is based on conversations I have had with presidents
across all racial groups, including White people. These tensions
and political vulnerabilities are often exacerbated for Asian American, Black, indigenous, Latinx, Pacific Islander, and multiracial
presidents. Because there are so few of them, they are often the
first non-White persons to serve in the role on their campuses,
and their governing boards are overwhelmingly (sometimes exclusively) composed of White members, presidents of color are especially burdened by the possibility of pushing board members too
far on racial issues. Regardless of one's race or ethnicity, presidents
serve at the pleasure of their boards. But attempting to advance
a racial equity agenda is especially tricky for a Latina president
serving at the pleasure of a mostly White board. Intersectionality
further complicates this. If that Latina president is a lesbian reporting to a mostly White, male, heterosexual board, then she must
navigate the complexities of being a person of color, a woman, and
a queer campus leader. This undoubtedly places her at higher risk
of fallout over racial misunderstandings with the board.

Reducing Racial Tensions
There are at least four things presidents and boards can do to
eliminate, or at very least reduce racial tensions. The first is to
acknowledge that tensions exist. It is painfully apparent to me that
presidents do not feel safe communicating to their boards what
they convey to me. A skillful external facilitator could help create a brave space for presidents to offer feedback to their boards,
and for board members to explain the undercurrents of their
resistance. Without this, unspoken racial tensions will go unexposed and will likely worsen over time. Second, presidents and
board members must learn about a range of racial equity topics
alongside each other. Here at the USC Race and Equity Center, we
offer several rigorous professional learning experiences for senior
higher education leaders. Our USC Equity Institutes, for example,
bring together 20 senior leaders (usually presidents, their cabinet
members, and a handful of other administrators) for an eight-week
virtual professional learning series; they also collaboratively create
institutional change projects. Rarely are governing board members
involved. They should be. Additionally, boards should host racial
34 TRUSTEESHIP MAR. APR. 2021

equity learning retreats that include all members (not just the
diversity subcommittee) and presidents.
Third, presidents and boards, together, should carefully examine data from campus racial climate surveys as well as other data
sources that show racial differences in student and employee
opportunities, experiences, and outcomes. It is important to
resist the minimization of racist institutional policies, cultures,
and practices in the interpretation of these data. Raceless actions
from boards will sustain, and in some instances worsen racial
inequities that exist on campuses. And fourth, revisiting lists of
demands issued by generations of student activists and their allies
is something presidents and boards should do together. This could
help board members understand why recent actions taken are
insufficient in satisfying the expectations of students, employees,
and alumni of color. Taking the most recent list of demands and
creating campus workgroups separately for each demand is one
approach I often recommend. Every workgroup should have at
least one cabinet-level administrator, tenured faculty members,
students, alumni, staff, and a governing board member. Workgroups like these also could be created for specific challenges and
opportunities presented in racial equity strategic plans.

Conclusion
Safeguarding an institution's reputation is among the many
responsibilities of a governing board. When a racial incident
occurs on campus that makes national news, board members,
presidents, and senior leadership team members often scramble
to calm the crisis. Depending on its magnitude, boards sometimes
fire presidents for their mishandling of racial situations. The
culpability of the board is not often well understood in instances
such as these-either by external audiences or by board members
themselves. It could be that presidents actually tried to get the board
to take serious, strategic action on racial problems, but members
were resistant. It could also be that presidents felt unsafe raising
these issues because of power asymmetries, lack of diversity on
their boards, or racially offensive and dismissive statements that
certain members made in previous meetings. Regardless of the
reason, when presidents and boards fail to deal with racial issues,
racial inequities, and people's experiential encounters with racism
on campus, they share responsibility for threats to the institution's
reputation. More alarmingly, they share blame for the institution's
failure to enact its espoused equity, diversity, and inclusion values.
Shaun R. Harper, PhD, is a provost professor in the Rossier School of Education
and the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California.
He also is the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership, the founder
and executive director of the USC Race and Equity Center, and the president of
the American Educational Research Association. He will offer keynote remarks
during the AGB National Conference on Trusteeship, April 12-14, 2021 (virtual).
Email: sharper@rossier.usc.edu.

Trusteeship - March/April 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Trusteeship - March/April 2021