How Political Polarization Impacts Public University Governance (and How to Overcome It)

The United States is experiencing a period of intense political polarization that has profoundly influenced public discourse and institutional functioning. This study investigated the impacts that polarization has on the governance of public flagship universities. Specifically, it set out to 1) analyze the forms, causes, and consequences of political polarization; 2) explore its effects on the governance structures of public flagship universities since 2010; and 3) examine how university leaders conceptualize “good governance” in light of shifting political dynamics. The literature review examines scholarship on university governance and political polarization. It traces historical trends, key frameworks, and themes in governance studies, emphasizing how political forces like polarization affect public flagship universities. The polarization section defines partisan-ideological and affective forms, outlines their causes and consequences, and frames partisanship as a group identity that shapes political perception and behavior. The methods section describes the case study approach employed in this study, which focused on the state of Wisconsin and its flagship university in Madison. Wisconsin was selected for its relevance to the researcher's local context. Data collection included 19 semi-structured interviews with members of the Wisconsin Board of Regents, senior university administrators, faculty leaders, and state policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches. In addition, documents such as Board minutes, Faculty Senate resolutions, policymaker speeches, and public statements from key stakeholders were analyzed. The findings address the primary and supporting research questions, revealing two overarching conclusions. First, higher education governance decision-makers in Wisconsin since 2010 share a consistent understanding of good governance, emphasizing shared governance principles and the minimization of external political pressures. Second, affective political polarization has intensified during this period and has influenced governance practices at UW–Madison. The findings are discussed in relation to existing literature. The study concludes with actionable recommendations for governance decision-makers at public flagship universities facing political polarization. First, leaders should cultivate personal relationships that transcend institutional identities. Second, universities should extend their educational mission beyond campus by engaging communities statewide and highlighting their contributions. Third, efforts should aim not only to inform the public about university activities but also to build widespread support and enthusiasm.