As GW seeks to boost the presence of corporate leaders on its Board of Trustees, experts caution that a dominance of business-minded voices could tilt the board too far toward financial and real-estate considerations at the expense of its academic mission.
GW for more than a decade has strategically downsized its Board of Trustees and recently announced plans to boost the share of members that come from corporate backgrounds — a move that more than 10 higher-education experts said likely reflects a growing priority of making business-driven decisions, like real-estate investments and sales, which could come at the expense of the quality of GW’s academic enterprise. They said officials should instead focus on adding members from diverse backgrounds, like those in the field of education, to strike a balance between ensuring the University’s financial stability and supporting its academic enterprise in its decision-making.
Granberg is the only person who serves on the Board ex-officio and with a vote with a professional focus in higher education. At least five of the 23 total trustees come from the finance and investment sector, two from technology companies, three from healthcare, three from law and two from consulting.
“Board membership is an opportunity to make a statement about what you value and about the values of the institution,” Gary Rhoades, a professor of higher education at the University of Arizona, said. “I don’t think identifying that we need more people or leaders of large corporations really speaks to that moment.”
In recent months, University President Ellen Granberg said officials plan to increase corporate experience on the Board of Trustees, and Vice President for Board Relations and Secretary of the University Jonathan Post said the Board made the “strategic shift” toward a more corporate, less philanthropy-focused board structure. Their comments follow the Board’s efforts to downsize its number, decreasing from 43 to 23 members between 2013 and 2026.
A University spokesperson said the University does not operate on a corporate government model and does not seek to implement a corporate strategy, but GW is looking to add “some” trustees with corporate experience. They said the University’s Board is responsible for acting in GW’s best interests for its long-term benefit and sustainability, unlike corporate directors, who have a duty to maximize shareholder value.
University spokesperson Julia Garbitt declined to comment on how officials will ensure that increasing representation from corporate sectors on the Board does not shift decision-making toward corporate-style priorities. She declined to comment on how trustees’ professional backgrounds influence the Board’s priorities or strategic decision-making, including in areas like financial planning, major investments and sales.
The Board last June elected four new trustees, three of whom are GW alumni, including a technology executive, philanthropist, real-estate company president and healthcare CEO.
Rhoades said the University’s strategy to increase corporate representation on the Board “doesn’t fit” its existing composition because the Board already includes numerous trustees with experience running businesses. He said it’s important to consider who isn’t on the Board, especially when accounting for the relationship between GW’s location and students’ common majors, such as international relations, to add members that align with the University’s academic strengths.
“It’s not unusual that GW has a lot of corporate representation on its Board,” Rhoades said. “But given that it already does, why the emphasis on getting more, especially at a time and a place where there’s all kinds of other opportunities and all kinds of other interests whom you might think it’s important to have represented?”
Benjamin Ginsberg, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, said universities are in some ways business corporations because they need to protect the long-term vitality of the institution, but their primary duty is to protect the academic enterprise. He said universities cross a line when they act like real-estate firms, citing GW’s heavy real-estate investments that picked up during former University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg’s tenure, which lasted from 1988 to 2007.
GW’s real-estate holdings comprise about 40 percent of its $2.8 billion endowment portfolio as of fiscal year 2025 — a significantly higher allocation than is typical for higher education institutions.
Officials in recent years have made strategic real-estate decisions — including purchasing 2001 Pennsylvania Ave. in 2024 for administrative offices and selling its Virginia Science and Technology Campus last month to bolster the University’s financial health and help fund the strategic framework.
“It’s easy for them to forget that the University should be focused on teaching, should be focused on research, and not on real estate,” Ginsberg said.
Ginsberg said universities across the country started becoming more corporatized 25 to 30 years ago because colleges became more affluent from things like federal student loan programs, which allowed tuition hikes due to greater access to loans. He said colleges at the same time raised administrative salaries and hired additional officials, with more of universities’ revenues now going toward officials’ salaries than toward faculty compensation.
GW’s five highest-paid officials each earned more than $900,000 from January to December 2023, including several deans, former Provost Chris Bracey and a professor.
GW’s average associate and assistant professor salaries trailed behind those of peer schools in the academic year 2024-25, and Staff Councilmembers have reported low salaries and insufficient opportunities for professional growth in previous years.
“What you’re seeing there is that universities are spending the more university administrators are spending the money on themselves,” Ginsberg said. “They pay themselves more, and they hire more people to do less work.”
James Finkelstein, a professor emeritus of public policy at George Mason University, said it’s challenging when trustees on boards have careers in the corporate sector because they view the University as a business, struggling to balance finances with the University’s educational mission. He said the corporate lens they use when making decisions could cause them to view something like academic programs with low enrollments as money-losing units, rather than as a part of the University essential to its structure.
Finkelstein said trustees typically don’t have a full understanding of how to run a complex university because most of their experience comes from attending college rather than helping run it. He said officials, at the same time, probably want at least one trustee with real-estate experience because of GW’s location, though they could also hire outside expertise if needed.
Several of GW’s trustees have experience in the real-estate sector, including Michelle Rubin, Ted Segal and Charles Bendit.
Garbitt declined to comment on how the Board weighs the financial benefits of real-estate decisions against GW’s academic mission and long-term institutional needs.
“I rarely run across board members who have a sophisticated understanding of how universities really work,” Finkelstein said. “That’s a problem today, and it’s where I think you see the divide between faculty and boards growing.”
Chris Newfield, the director of research at the Independent Social Research Foundation in London, said the Board should include members with experience at universities because they understand the academic mission. He said there needs to be a mix on the Board of Trustees, including members with educational backgrounds and business experience to balance the University’s priorities.
“What I would love to see is a university like GW in the position that it’s in trying something new around governance, that would say, ‘You know, well, let’s get together and try and think about this together,’” Newfield said.
