Last week, I published an article exploring a question that few Michigan State stakeholders had previously considered: What options exist when stakeholders believe a university has been harmed by governance failures?
The response was immediate.
For the detailed analysis, read the article here if you haven't yet:
The TLDR version of the article goes something like this:
In the corporate world, shareholders sometimes have the ability to bring what is known as a derivative lawsuit. The theory is that if directors or officers breach their fiduciary duties and harm the corporation, the corporation itself is the injured party. Under certain circumstances, shareholders can seek relief on the corporation's behalf. Michigan State is not a corporation, and it does not have shareholders. However, trustees still owe fiduciary duties to the university they govern. That raises an interesting question: What options exist when stakeholders believe the institution itself has been harmed by those entrusted to lead it? That question sparked a broader discussion about accountability, stakeholder rights, governance, and whether remedies exist beyond simply waiting for the next trustee election.
In the days that followed publication, hundreds of Spartans voluntarily submitted their names and email addresses through an online form expressing interest in learning more about the discussion and any potential next steps.
The individuals who signed up represent a broad cross-section of the Michigan State community, including alumni, donors, season ticket holders, parents, faculty, students, and others who care deeply about the future of the university.
For many, the article was about a different way of thinking about accountability. For years, most discussions involving Michigan State's Board of Trustees have focused on elections. Trustees stand for election every eight years, voters render their verdict, and the cycle begins again.
The article explored the possibility that accountability may not begin and end there.
That idea clearly resonated.
This week, the first update was sent - from ConcernedSpartans1855@gmail.com - to those who joined the email list.
The email informed participants that a group operating under the temporary name "Concerned Spartans" has begun organizing and is currently focused on gathering perspectives, evaluating options, and determining what path forward, if any, makes sense.
According to the email, the group is in the process of assembling an advisory board composed of individuals with experience in higher education, governance, law, business, communications, fundraising, and university affairs. The objective is to ensure that future discussions are informed by expertise, grounded in facts, and focused on the long-term interests of Michigan State University.
The advisory board concept reflects the seriousness with which many participants are approaching the conversation.
The original article was intentionally exploratory. It did not accuse any trustee of wrongdoing. It did not conclude that litigation was warranted. It simply examined a legal and governance framework that most university stakeholders have never considered.
What followed was a realization that many Spartans are hungry for a deeper conversation about governance than the one that currently exists. That should not come as a surprise. Michigan State has lost its president. Michigan State has lost its athletic director.
The university now finds itself searching for two of its most important leaders while continuing to navigate highly public disputes involving members of the Board of Trustees.
Reasonable people can disagree about the causes of those developments. Reasonable people can disagree about whether governance problems exist. Reasonable people can disagree about what solutions, if any, should be pursued.
What has become increasingly difficult to dispute, however, is that many stakeholders are looking for a more substantive conversation about accountability. At this point, the most significant development is not that a particular course of action has emerged. It is that hundreds of Spartans have signaled they want to be part of the discussion.
The original article asked whether accountability tools exist beyond elections. The response from hundreds of Michigan State stakeholders suggests there is considerable interest in finding out.
Those interested in learning more and receiving future updates can continue to add their names through this signup form linked in this article:
