America’s Universities Need Serious Regulation

If you want real change in large organizations, focus on governance and personal accountability.

By Arthur Levitt

The Wall Street Journal

November 12, 2023


Americans who are rightfully appalled by the pusillanimous response to anti-Semitism on college campuses have been pulling their donations and calling for restrictions on anti-Israel student groups. Maybe those tactics will work. But in my experience, if you want real change in large and unwieldy organizations, you need to focus on fixing governance and assigning personal accountability. You need to regulate.


After the accounting scandals of the dot-com and Enron era, Congress passed laws requiring auditors to tighten their operations, establish clear boundaries between their consulting and audit businesses, and assume far more accountability than they had before.


Directors, too, were informed that they bore a personal interest in preventing fraud. One rule made it clear that if a company passed fraudulent numbers off to investors, the person who signed the filing—usually the chairman—would be personally liable.


Lawmakers have also tightened anti-money-laundering statutes, requiring banks to review their customers closely and to ensure they aren’t unwittingly providing services to organized crime, terror entities, tax evaders or other bad actors. The rules are difficult to enforce and require a lot of work. But they come with real penalties for failure: Bank officers can go to prison if they fail to prevent money laundering, and several have.


Think of the difference this makes. When Russia invaded Ukraine, America’s banks and other multinational corporations quickly had to implement sanctions—including anti-money-laundering rules—on Russia’s government, politicians, financial institutions, oligarchs and others who make up the country’s elite. This happened effectively because people had real skin in the game: their own.


Which brings us back to campus. Clearly, America’s universities are in need of similar encouragement.


Universities have lately seen a raft of scandals related to their fundamental mission of scholarship and teaching. Students are graduating unprepared for basic work and deeply in debt. Prominent scholars are found to be fudging their own research. Admissions officers and other officials are found to be engaging in pay-for-admission schemes. Athletic programs are regularly found breaking rules and laws. Universities have taken charitable gifts from questionable sources such as Jeffrey Epstein and Chinese military and Communist Party fronts.


Add the explosion of anti-Semitism. America’s campuses are the source of some of the vilest Jew-hatred America has seen since 1939, when the German American Bund held a pro-Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden. Not only do some faculty and students call for Israel’s destruction; they celebrated Hamas’s brutal massacre as an act of “resistance.”


If public companies featured such systematic failures, they would be visited by regulators and called before Congress. Universities, by comparison, are lightly regulated. There are accrediting agencies, and the Education Department focuses on enforcement of civil-rights laws. In the case of professional education, some membership organizations set curricular standards.


But these don’t constitute regulation in a comprehensive sense. Universities can pretty much set their own rules, and they answer to no one. They face no meaningful external pressure to tell the truth or honor their promises to students and others. They don’t need to report or punish fraud or corruption. They don’t set consistent standards for contributions or spending.


None of this is acceptable. Not to students and parents. Not to alumni and donors. And not to taxpayers, who subsidize universities to the tune of $1 trillion a year. The public has a clear interest in how these institutions operate and deserve to know how they became hotbeds of anti-Semitism.


Imagine what a difference it would make if universities were subject to the same kind of regulatory oversight the Securities and Exchange Commission provides to public companies. Administrators would have to meet basic standards of truthfulness and governance or face stiff financial penalties and sanctions, including permanent bans from working in higher education. If criminal acts were discovered, the Justice Department would step in.


When I led the SEC, I often spoke about my duty to the investing public. I said every public corporation needs to be trusted, and all should treat their investors with respect. Someone who breaks that trust should pay the price—including with time in prison.


Given what we are seeing on college campuses, it is time to impose the same standard on universities, their managers and their directors and trustees. It may be the only way to save them.




America’s Universities Need Serious Regulation - WSJ

Where Liberty and Learning Endure

June 29, 2026
As America commemorates 250 years of independence, we reflect on the enduring principles of liberty and learning that have defined Davidson College for nearly two centuries.

Bankruptcy and Higher Education

June 21, 2026
By Todd Zywicki The Wall Street Journal June 21, 2026 Auburn University is known for its agricultural and STEM programs, its flight school and athletic programs. But the land-grant university recently became notable for another reason: The board of trustees is taking control of the school back from its faculty. The board began seizing the university’s academic programs—including curriculum, course offerings, degree requirements and academic credentials—at its June 5 meeting. The board also dissolved the faculty senate and replaced it with an advisory council to the president, which includes two faculty members from each of the university’s colleges and additional members appointed by the president. The board’s assertion of authority mirrors incoming mandates by the Alabama Legislature restricting the role of faculty senates in the state’s public university system. Predictably, Auburn’s faculty has responded with howls of outrage, decrying these intrusions on the faculty’s authority over academic operations. How could outsiders appointed through a political process have the expertise to make such delicate decisions? I’ve been a professor at a state university for almost 30 years, and I am sympathetic up to a point. But before becoming a professor I was a bankruptcy lawyer. And bankruptcy law teaches an important lesson for how academia can respond to this moment. Bankruptcy gives businesses an opportunity to admit mistakes, reform and emerge stronger. Successful enterprises don’t need bankruptcy lawyers. But when an enterprise loses its way, it goes into receivership. Most universities aren’t financially bankrupt but have lost their mission and direction. Society has long recognized certain institutions’ authority to manage their own affairs. Two notable examples are licensed professionals—such as doctors and lawyers—and universities. Universities, even state universities, have run their enterprises with minimal external oversight. Faculties enjoyed substantial rights of self-governance because they committed to higher standards than those required by ordinary jobs. Professors would establish and maintain standards of scholarly integrity, freedom of speech and inquiry, and rigorous dedication to merit-based assessment of research in specialized areas. They policed their own house, enforcing norms of truth-seeking, maintaining scholarly integrity and rigor, and ensuring that students emerged with basic knowledge, employable skills and civic competency. But over the past several decades, commitment to those values collapsed. Surveys by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression consistently reveal fear among students and faculty around expressing unfashionable ideas. Universities have seen shout-downs, cancellations and even violence against speakers. Merit and quality yielded to “diversity” and “equity.” Truth-seeking has been displaced by faddish theories and ideologically charged teaching and research. Professors design esoteric departments and teach niche classes to cliques of activist students while the needs of other students and taxpayers for real education go unaddressed. Like companies I represented, universities have lost their way. And many have proved either unable or unwilling to self-correct. When that happens, it is appropriate to put institutions into receivership until they reform and rededicate themselves to their mission. At Auburn incoming students must now take certain required civics and history courses to master basic competency in U.S. history and government. To ensure the classes actually meet that objective, professors will have to make their syllabi publicly available. In the classroom, instructors will be expected to stick to the matter at hand and avoid free-ranging political punditry. Just as other companies can learn from the ones that go bankrupt, other institutions of higher education can learn something from Auburn: Fix what’s broken, or someone else might fix it for you. Mr. Zywicki is a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He was a Dartmouth College trustee, 2005-09. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bankruptcy-and-higher-education-4c2b178e

Race Preferences Are Falling Nationwide

June 19, 2026
By the Editorial Board The Wall Street Journal June 19, 2026 The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against racial preferences is turning out to be a landmark with profound consequences as its influence spreads. On Thursday the famously progressive Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a state program that issued scholarships based on race violates the U.S. Constitution. Justice Annette Ziegler wrote for the court that the Constitution requires “that every person ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,’” and that the state cannot “use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” That must have been painful for the activist liberal majority on the court. In a concurrence, Wisconsin Chief Justice Jill Karofsky took some shots at Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023) before acknowledging that “I am bound by the precedent set forth in SFFA” and other Supreme Court rulings “when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.” The case was brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty against a 1985 Badger State law that reserved need-based scholarships through a grant program for “Black American,” “American Indian,” “Hispanic” and some Southeast Asian undergraduate students enrolled in Wisconsin’s private and technical colleges. Last week the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a scholarship program earmarked for black University of Iowa students studying physical sciences was “impracticable” under SFFA. State governments would be wise to repeal these discriminatory grant programs, or the courts will do it for them.
Show More