Reconsidering Organization and Management Strategies of the Private University

Abstract

　 Academic freedom in the university is protected and guaranteed through faculty self-governance. The Faculty Meeting retains decision-making power on all major issues that pertain to university affairs. This arrangement, thus far, has been socially acceptable. However, the appropriateness of this type of governance creates tensions in private university management. Administrators argue that it is not possible to manage a private university based on the Faculty Meeting as it does not take fiscal responsibility yet has decision-making authority. If experts do not manage finances, the university will cease to exist. Therefore, Boards of Trustees, which hold managerial authority, are limiting the self-governance of Faculty Meetings. Faculty Meetings should exercise the right to self-governance only when actions of the Board of Trustees threaten academic freedom.

　 The tension between the Faculty Meeting and the Board of Trustees is exemplified in the presidential selection process. Based on the right to selfgovernance, the Faculty Meeting selects the president through a democratic process. However, the most important characteristic of what is needed in a private university president today is management ability and the democratic process does not guarantee the selection of such a president. Thus, the leadership of the president is based on the structural situation. Here we might learn something from the American university presidential selection process.

　 The continuation of the ideals of the university is of central importance to the management of a private university. It is hoped that faculty members are supportive of those ideals. Furthermore, in private universities, educational activities are the basis for the existence of the university. The appointment of faculty who place educational activities ahead of all others is what permits the continued existence of private universities.