Running head: UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF TEXAS
University System of Texas
Coco Roberts
Higher Education Governance
Georgia Southern University
1
Running head: UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF TEXAS
2
I covered the University of Texas system in my research. The University System has a
very detailed order of organizational structure. The organizational theory consist of defining
how a group of people or a social unit come together to be structured in a way that meet the
needs and collective goals of an entity. The University System of Texas is made up of a
coordinating board. The board consists of variety of people that carry out specific jobs. The
board and other entities of the university system of Texas oversee many different accredited
universities within the state. The coordinating board sits at the top of the system and all other
entities branch out of the board. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board was created
by the Texas Legislature in 1965 to provide leadership and coordination for the Texas higher
education system to achieve excellence for the college education of Texas students. The
Coordinating Board meets quarterly in Austin, Texas. Board meetings are usually broadcast via
the Internet as well. The Board is made up of nine members appointed by the Governor for sixyear terms. The Governor also appoints the chair and vice-chair. No Board may be employed in
education, serve as a community college trustee or university agent. Raymund A. Paredes is
currently the Commissioner of Higher Education at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board. The board members consist of qualified personnel that serve the University System of
Texas appropriately. The board along with other key stakeholders in the University System of
Texas has come up with key policies to organize the system. Organization is the key to making
university systems work. Throughout time people have brainstormed ideas to make universities
system work. I think that it is important for university systems to govern their colleges in the best
way that fits them. I believe that it is also important to have a variety of governing boards,
committees, students, faculty, etc…governing a university system because no one group of
people knows what it takes to make a school system successful.
Running head: UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF TEXAS
3
The governance structure of American colleges and universities can be traced back to
medieval Europe and in particular, England. The charters of the first two colonial colleges,
Harvard and William and Mary were patterned on the English college model. Under the English
college model, colleges and universities were established as corporate bodies and derived their
power from charters. Charters also permitted the right of supervision and participation by
representatives of the monarchy or parliament. In addition, the charter offered the corporation
legal protections as a distinct artificial or legal entity (Moran, 2012).
The colonial colleges were also influenced by the university governance model of
continental Europe, which included joint oversight of secular and religious authorities. Thus, as a
hybrid of both of these models, the original colonial colleges were extensions of their churches,
but intertwined with their colonies’ civil governments (Moran, 2012). However, American
university governance took on a different form of governance structure.
Instead of following
the lead of Harvard and William and Mary which adopted the pattern of dual structures of
internal and external control, most American colleges – comprised of governing boards of
external members. For example, The University System of Texas governing coordinating board
consists of nine outside members that were appointed by the governor. These members include
company owners, retiree professors, retired teachers and doctors. This shows us that Texas takes
pride in how America university systems go beyond the traditional board of members and choose
members that are not affiliated with one particular school.
In the nineteenth century, it became common practice for legislatures to delegate
governing power over state institutions to boards of control established as public corporations.
These boards received authority to control property, contracts, finances, forms of internal
governance, and relationships with internal personnel—students, faculty members, and
Running head: UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF TEXAS
4
administrative employees (Brown, 2000). The 1745 charter of Yale College granted a single
nonacademic, external board with the right of self-perpetuation and final control over the affairs
of the institution. American colleges and universities adopted a novel interpretation of the statecollege relationship. The royal charters included both a grant of specific power and the right of
revocation by the king and/or parliament. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries,
American colleges and courts challenged this one-sided interpretation that allowed government
officials to alter charters. They claimed that charters were binding contracts between the
institutions and the state, which could not be changed at the whims of politicians. This belief
found codification in the Dartmouth college case (1819) before the Supreme Court of the United
States. In this case, the state of New Hampshire attempted to pass legislation that would increase
the board membership of the college and grant state politicians the authority to appoint new
representatives to the board (Moran, 2012).
Throughout the 19th century, faculty and alumni participation altered the power of the
board within the university organization. In 1889, the first faculty senate was established at
Cornell University. Several Midwestern institutions followed Cornell’s lead, and at the turn of
the century, faculty began to assert nearly sovereign control over academic affairs. Alumni
participation also expanded during the 19th century. Driven by institutional and class
commitment as well as a growing appreciation for intercollegiate sports, alumni began to
participate in the affairs of colleges and universities in a number of capacities, including as
fundraisers, lobbyists, patrons, and board members. In 1865, Harvard became the first institution
to hold alumni elections for board members (Moran, 2012). However, with the University
System of Texas you do not see alumni on the coordinating board but it seem like it would be a
good idea to have alumni on the governing board because they have experience what it is like to
Running head: UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF TEXAS
5
be a part of the University System of Texas as a student. In conclusion, the systems and
structure of governance in universities have change tremendously and I hope that change will
continue to happen and that students will be able to become more of a key asset to the governing
universities boards throughout the United States.
Running head: UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF TEXAS
6
References:
Brown, C. (2000). Organization and Governance in Higher Education. Boston: Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Moran, P. (2012). Higher Education Governance, Penn State and Land-Grant Tradition. Penn
State Altoona.