In developed Anglophone countries, we basically take it for granted that Universities are run by Presidents (or occasionally Principals) who are not only responsible to a Board of Governors, but are also selected by them. But this is not the only way to select institutional heads. They can be selected directly by the Ministry of Education (which still happens in many places, including China). Or they can be elected, which is the case in much of Europe. Indeed, in much of Europe, the concept of “academic freedom” is tied pretty closely to the “freedom” of a community of scholars to select their own chief executive (i.e. its closer to our notion of “institutional autonomy”).
And, intriguingly, in a couple of universities in Quebec.
These past couple of months, both Université Laval and Université Sherbrooke have both held elections for new rectors (Presidents). At the former, Sophie D’Amours won a three-cornered race with 50.7% of the vote to become Laval’s first female Rector in its 350 year history. At Sherbrooke, Dean of Medicine Pierre Cosette beat out three rivals to become the President.
Now technically, these are not campus-wide elections, as does occur in some universities around the globe. At both Sherbrooke and Laval there are “electoral colleges” which hold the necessary votes. These are pretty broad in their composition. For instance, at Sherbrooke, it consists of 13 nonacademic staff members (split across 3 bargaining units), 11 chargés de cours, 30 students, 4 “external members” and 90 academic staff (some of whom also are also administrators). At Laval, all members of the Board of Governors and Senate have a vote, as to members of three “commissions” for academics, research and student affairs (I don’t completely understand what they do or they fit in the governing structure, but they seem like super-committees of the Senate except they report to VPs rather than the Senate). In terms of votes, the proportions are similar to Sherbrooke (fewer students, chargés de cours, and non-academic staff, more external members) with the academic representation split 70-30 or so between regular academics and academics with decanal positions or higher. (Laval has an excellent website explaining its election procedures if you want to check it out).
One thing about this kind of selection procedure: it tends to reward insiders. Not always: in the 1990s, Francois Tavenas managed to get elected at Laval despite being a Vice-principal at McGill at the time (though he wasn’t a total outsider having spent much of his career there). But on the whole you’re not going to get outsider candidates like Santa Ono or Richard Florizone using this method (flip side: you’re probably not going to get a Karen Hitchcock either). It’s a system less likely to challenge entrenched academic interests. People may legitimately disagree as to whether that’s a good thing or not.
Or, at least, that’s the theory. At a practical level it’s not clear to me that these two universities are actually managed that differently than other Quebec universities (francophone ones, anyway). Certainly, I’ve never heard anyone in Quebec make that case (though granted I spend a lot less time there than I used to). After all, they are trying to attract the same staff, dealing with the same government, operating under the same regulations. Elected and theoretically beholden to their constituencies they may be, but they’re still mostly facing the same sets of incentives as Presidents who are appointed by Board of Governors, so maybe there’s not that much of a difference.
This might be heresy in continental Europe, where internal autonomy over top appointments are sacrosanct (Danish academia has just spent months freaking out over a proposal that government might name Board chairs), but it’s probably worth a deeper dive than I can provide here to find out. All you higher education grad students out there: there’s a killer doctoral thesis in this.