(OPINION) The Same Debate, Again: MSU’s presidential instability reignites longstanding questions about trustee elections

When Michigan State University began searching for a new president after the departure of former president Samuel L. Stanley Jr., one of the conversations that quickly resurfaced around East Lansing was whether Michigan’s system of electing university trustees was still serving the institution well.

That debate itself had already been fueled for years by fallout from the university’s handling of the Larry Nassar scandal and the governance failures that many critics believed followed. During and after the Nassar crisis, the Board of Trustees became the subject of repeated scrutiny over infighting, public disputes, leadership instability, transparency concerns, and questions surrounding oversight responsibilities. Calls for reform intensified as trustees openly clashed, presidents departed, and outside observers questioned whether the structure of the board itself was contributing to institutional dysfunction.

Now, barely two years after Kevin Guskiewicz arrived in East Lansing, that same debate has returned with even greater force following his decision to leave MSU for Clemson University.

For Spartans, today's conversations were remarkably familiar to the conversations we've had in the past. Once again, Spartan Nation is living its own miserable Groundhog Day, through no fault of their own.

The names change. The presidents change. The individual controversies evolve. But the underlying themes continue to repeat themselves with exhausting consistency - board infighting, public leaks, governance disputes, factionalism, instability, and yet another conversation about whether the structure itself is contributing to the chaos.

For many within the Michigan State University community, that familiarity may be the most discouraging part. The university has spent years attempting to move beyond one crisis after another, rebuilding credibility, restoring internal trust, and stabilizing leadership. And yet here we are again - searching for another president while publicly debating the conduct and effectiveness of the board overseeing the university.

It shouldn't need to be said, but let's say it anyway - this does not mean every trustee is responsible for every controversy, nor does it mean every disagreement inside a governing board is inherently unhealthy. Strong institutions should have disagreement. But when the same governance concerns repeatedly resurface across multiple presidencies, multiple board compositions, and multiple eras of university leadership, it becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss the instability as isolated or temporary.

At some point, people naturally begin asking whether the problem is larger than the individuals involved.

Over the past decade, repeated governance controversies at Michigan State University have triggered repeated calls for structural reform of the university’s Board of Trustees. Each cycle tends to follow the same pattern: internal dysfunction becomes public, confidence erodes, outside observers call for reform, and discussion inevitably turns toward Michigan’s unusual constitutional system in which trustees at MSU, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State University are elected statewide rather than appointed.

Michigan is one of the few states in the country that still elects major university governing boards through partisan statewide elections. The system is embedded directly into the Michigan Constitution, meaning any effort to convert the boards into appointed bodies would require a constitutional amendment approved by voters.

At various points over the last decade, reform advocates have argued that statewide partisan elections often produce trustees selected more for political alignment and convention support than for university governance expertise (defenders of the system argue the elections preserve institutional independence from governors and legislatures while keeping the universities accountable to the public).

But whatever side one takes in that debate, the instability surrounding MSU’s presidency has become increasingly difficult to ignore.

In less than five years, Michigan State has now lost multiple presidents under dramatically different circumstances. Stanley resigned following clashes with the board over governance and transparency issues. Now Guskiewicz, hired specifically as a stabilizing outside leader after the turmoil of the previous era, is leaving after just two-plus years.

And notably, Guskiewicz himself directly connected his departure to board dysfunction.

In his farewell letter Wednesday to the Spartan community, Guskiewicz praised the university extensively and highlighted what he viewed as significant institutional progress during his tenure. He pointed to initiatives including Spartan Ventures, the Williams Scholars program, the Green and White Council, modernization of the university’s general education curriculum, the Student Success Center, and continued work surrounding relationship violence and sexual misconduct reforms.

He also emphasized fundraising and infrastructure momentum through the university’s “Uncommon Will, Far Better World” campaign, specifically citing projects such as the new Leinweber Engineering and Digital Innovation Center, the Student Recreation and Wellness Center, renovated greenhouses, the Plant Sciences building, and the Multicultural Center.

Throughout the letter, Guskiewicz repeatedly emphasized collaboration and institutional unity. But the tone of the letter shifted sharply when he addressed the Board of Trustees directly.

“At the same time, effective university leadership requires a shared commitment to collaboration, trust and a forward-looking vision,” he wrote. “While many across this university community have embraced that spirit, it has become increasingly clear that there are differing perspectives within the Board of Trustees regarding how best to move MSU forward.”

Guskiewicz then described what amounted to an extraordinary public indictment of portions of the board’s internal conduct.

“At times, too much energy has been spent revisiting past conflicts and internal disagreements rather than focusing collectively on the opportunities and aspirations ahead of us,” he wrote.

He continued:

“Our ability to make meaningful progress is hampered when disagreements move from offering alternative perspectives into publicly undermining decisions and putting personal interests above the best interests of the university and our faculty, staff and students.”

Perhaps most notably, Guskiewicz alleged misuse of confidential information inside the board structure itself.

“What is perhaps most troubling is the actions of some to abuse their access to privileged and confidential information to mispresent facts, manipulate situations and selectively use and leak that information to promote personal agendas,” he wrote.

Those comments arrive less than two weeks after the board’s controversial special meeting focused on revisions to the Board of Trustees’ code of ethics and conduct - changes that themselves became public flashpoints amid disputes over governance authority, confidentiality, and enforcement mechanisms.

Guskiewicz explicitly referenced that effort in his letter as well, praising the trustees who voted in favor of strengthening the code.

“Despite this discouraging behavior by a few trustees, I am appreciative of the five trustees who recently voted to strengthen their code of ethics and conduct in alignment with what our national governance advisors have said are best practices for university boards,” he wrote.

He also singled out Board Chair Brianna Scott and former chair Kelly Tebay for support during his presidency. Ultimately, however, Guskiewicz made clear that he no longer believed the situation was sustainable.

“While I am incredibly proud of what we have accomplished these past two-plus years, I have always said that your health, family and faith must come first above all else,” he wrote. “The ongoing and continuous nature of the aforementioned actions has created an unsustainable situation.”

That sentence may ultimately become one of the defining lines of this entire era of Michigan State governance.

Because regardless of where individual trustees, administrators, faculty, donors or alumni fall politically or philosophically, universities generally do not want to become places where presidents publicly describe board behavior as “unsustainable” while departing for another institution.

And that reality is why the trustee-election debate is likely to intensify once again.

The broader question now facing Michigan State is no longer simply whether individual trustees behaved appropriately in a given dispute. The larger institutional question is whether the current governance structure itself is repeatedly producing instability severe enough to damage leadership continuity, national perception, and long-term institutional trust.

That is the same question many people were asking a decade ago.

They asked it several years ago as well.

Now they are asking it again.

And unlike many governance reforms that could be accomplished internally by the university itself, changing how trustees are selected would require action at the constitutional level in Michigan.

The Michigan Constitution specifically requires that trustees for Michigan State, Michigan, and Wayne State be elected statewide. Because of that, the Legislature alone cannot simply pass a bill converting the boards to appointed bodies.

However, a proposal already introduced in Lansing would move this idea down the tracks toward eventual implementation.

Subscribe to Spartans Illustrated to continue reading...