|
Shared governance in higher education rests on a straightforward principle: institutions make better decisions when the people who comprise them have meaningful opportunities to participate in the conversation. Faculty, staff, administrators, students, trustees, and community partners bring different perspectives and responsibilities to the table. Those differences are not obstacles to effective governance; they are part of what makes thoughtful governance possible.
In early October 2026, the UCSF Academic Senate held its annual Leadership Retreat for new committee and council chairs to discuss issues facing them this academic year and to collaborate on core discussion and action points across the committees and councils. UCSF hosted John Aubrey Douglass, PhD, MA, Senior Research Fellow – Public Policy and Higher Education, Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) and Professor, Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley as a guest speaker.
The University of California offers a particularly instructive example of shared governance. Historian John Aubrey Douglass has traced the history of the UC model – in which faculty and administration share responsibility for guiding the University, while the Board of Regents retains ultimate authority over policy. This arrangement developed through both formal delegation and the less formal practices that brought faculty into university decision-making. Shared governance is not simply a matter of inviting comment; it is a structure of responsibility in which distinct participants contribute their expertise. Guest Speaker Douglass credited shared governance itself as contributing to the quality of the UC campuses globally.
The concept of shared governance at UCSF, a campus that comprises of professionals schools, academic endeavors and a health care system, is somewhat more complex to achieve as compared to other UC campuses that may not have as many or any professional schools, or more specifically professional schools related to health care. It is imperative that the Academic Senate, the Academic Leadership, and the Health Care System work together to achieve a system of “shared governance”. Paramount to achieving this goal is to develop a system inclusive of our clinical faculty.
The most robust discussion at the Retreat was on the Report and Recommendations put forth by the UC Presidential Task Force advocating for clinical faculty representation in shared governance. This has long been the practice at UCSF, but not so readily at the undergraduate campuses. This fall 2026 the Academic Senate on all campuses is reviewing the Report and Recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Clinical Faculty Representation in Governance. Executive Vice Chancellor & Provost Catherine Lucey led this discussion at the retreat and summarized the report’s five recommendations to bolster inclusion of clinical faculty:
- Remove the 1/6 cap on appointments in the Professor of Clinical X Series
- Allow for 80-100% full professional effort appointments in the Professor of Clinical X Series
- Engagement with the Academic Senate Committees on Academic Personnel on the review criteria for the different disciplines and different faculty series
- Develop a reclassification pathway for faculty – clinical and non-clinical – who are currently misclassified
-
Implement the Formation of a Special Committee of the Academic Council
Three of the above five recommendations UC San Francisco enacted years ago; the UCSF Academic Senate looks forward to commenting on the success the campus has already had by incorporating clinical faculty and their concerns in Senate actions. The Senate itself continues to be an environment in which ideas can be examined, challenged, and responses refined through informed and respectful exchange.
Other topics discussed at the Leadership Retreat were the launch of two faculty surveys: one this fall and another that remains in development during 2026-2027.
-
The first is a brief survey on Academic Freedom put forth by that committee as part of the Committee’s bylaws; it currently sits with IRB awaiting approval.
- The second survey is awaiting conceptual approval by the Senate’s Executive Council. The primary objective of this one is to delineate current faculty priorities and how these issues affect faculty well-being. It is hoped through dialogue and shared governance, the Academic Administration and the Health Care System Leadership, can navigate solutions that can be acceptable to all. The survey aims to draw out more detailed information about faculty priorities in common and those within the different schools. The Senate is facilitating discussion at a committee and council level to narrow the survey’s focus to ensure it is worth faculty’s time and productive use of survey results.
For an institution entrusted with providing educational opportunity to the people of California, maintaining those channels of participation is essential to ensuring that decisions about access and academic standards receive careful consideration from the many perspectives that sustain the University. The same principle has value beyond our campuses. Hearing all voices does not require agreement, nor does shared governance mean that every participant has the same role in every decision. It does require that dialogue remain open, disagreement be treated seriously, and that individuals have a genuine opportunity to contribute. When we preserve space for differing voices while maintaining rigorous standards and a commitment to constructive dialogue, we strengthen both our institutions and the broader communities they serve.
| 
