The new report Rethinking Student Voice: How higher education must design effective student governance (HEPI Report 195), written by Darcie Jones exposes a key issue within university governance: the marginalisation of student governors.
With financial pressures intensifying across the sector, thee stakes for effective governance have never been higher. Yet, despite being core stakeholders within universities, many students on governing boards feel sidelined by opaque processes and exclusive norms. The evidence within this report reveals a persistent gap between symbolic representation and meaningful participation.
However it’s not all bad news, the report also highlights what is possible when the student voice is taken seriously. Using examples of effective practice it demonstrates the transformation value of empowered student governance.
Drawing on extensive evidence and sector insights, the report sets out clear, actionable reforms – from accessible governance culture, to improved recruitment, induction and development. They provide a pathway from why student perspectives and voices can be embedded at the heart of decision-making within universities.
Professor Steven Jones on behalf of the Council for the Defence of British Universitie
Published:
HEPI’s new Policy Note finds striking consensus across the higher education community for more ethical, transparent and balanced university governance.
Summarising responses to the draft Code of Ethical University Governance from the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU), this Policy Note finds that 81% of the 129 submissions received endorse the principle of a new ethical code. This signals a widespread recognition that governance structures must better reflect the educational and public missions that universities serve.
The revised CDBU Code directly responds to the concerns raised in the consultation and offers practical ways to reduce power imbalances, avoid insular decision-making and bring greater transparency to governor recruitment.
The author of this report, and the author of a second report HEPI is publishing on governance in the run-up to Christmas will be at a free webinar on governance issues running on Thursday, 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key issues.
Every college and university president I know has on their faculty the Angry Eight. Or the Furious Five. Sometimes just the Irked Individual. One president told me about an initiative that was resisted but finally passed with all but one vote in favor. That lone no was a victory: If the person had voted yes, it would have signaled compromise of values.
When I ask whether the Angry Eight are still producing scholarship or doing good work in the classroom, you can guess the answer. After one president at a fancy-pants institution got a vote of no confidence, I read the many pages of materials filed against him. Then I googled each faculty name to check their research activity. Looks like these folks sure had a lot of free time.
What’s most troubling to presidents, they say, is when the Angry Eight take the floor to rant and everyone else in the room starts looking at their phones or nails. No one stands up to the bullies. It’s hard for faculty to argue for decisions they know their colleagues won’t like; most of us remember being not picked for middle school teams. Plus, we know our peers will be evaluating us when it comes to tenure and promotion. Even when they’re not angry, it still always seems to be the same people doing all the talking. Not a great example of classroom management or collaborative decision-making.
To be clear, the presidents and chancellors I know respect and admire their faculty. They say that the vast majority take their jobs seriously. They are devoted teachers, they publish, they shoulder the massive workload of helping run a university. This is also my experience. I am grateful to have colleagues willing to staff all the necessary committees. I’ve done enough service to know I’m generally more useful in the classroom and am smarter, nicer and more temperate on the page than I ever was when I served in Faculty Senate.
As an assistant professor, I kept my big fat mouth shut in Senate. Before I had tenure, I knew I needed to learn the culture of the professoriate. But after a few years sitting silently through meetings wondering why so much time was devoted to copyediting policies and procedures and also hearing colleagues rant about how the administration was doing wrong and terrible things, I thought, Oh! This is how we were supposed to behave. Distrust and don’t bother to verify! Accuse and rant! So I learned to speak out. And never shut up.
I wish I could blame my previous bad behavior to youthful arrogance or on a life spent in school without exposure to professional work, where you have supervisors and are expected to deliver. But nope. I came to a faculty role in my early 40s with plenty of “real world” experience. When I was staff as a university press editor and in an admissions office, I knew if I didn’t do my job, I could and should be fired. Post-tenure? Party time!
Over time I was enculturated into an attitude of you’re not the boss of me. When administrators asked for reports, colleagues shrugged: We’re not going to do that. The reasoning? They always ask; nothing happens; it’s a waste of effort. Forget it.
I’ve seen faculty members who, once promoted, stopped even pretending to do the scholarly work that had earned them promotion and just spent time on committees doing the “whatever it is, I’m against it’ dance.
Which brings me back to shared governance, the thing that makes academe both fascinating and baffling to outsiders. Curriculum must be controlled by subject matter experts, otherwise you end up with, say, a health official who believes long-effective vaccines are harmful. Expertise matters. No physicist should decide which books writers read and no writer should be teaching organic chemistry.
But neither should I be telling the basketball coach who needs more playing time (though I think I know) or the CFO which budget model to use. Sure, I worked in admissions a long time ago, but the enrollment VP knows more than I ever did.
And yet, we faculty members often think we know more than we do about, well, everything and feel like we can express that in Faculty Senate.
It would be an interesting experiment to ask everyone on a campus for a definition of “shared governance.” Like “Foucauldian,” it gets tossed around with more bravado than clarity. One former president told her faculty, “Shared governance is not the same as co-management.” Too often the Angry Eight are up in arms about things that are clearly outside their lane.
And too often, free speech and academic freedom get conflated (though both may be a thing of the past, as we’ve been seeing in recent weeks). Faculty must have control over what goes on in the classroom. And we need leaders who will fight against legislators who’d prefer we include in our syllabi things like phrenology and pastafarianism.
Here’s what scares me: That threat may not be as crazy as it seems. While most presidents are swept up tracking the deluge of doo-doo coming out of D.C. (and the states), faculty members tend not to keep up with general higher ed news and don’t realize how dire things are beyond their campus walls.
Why? Because faculty are focused on doing their jobs (and doing them well, even as all of us are being asked to do more with less). Most don’t have the time, bandwidth or interest to track higher ed policy shifts, public distrust or enrollment crises. Most have not paid attention to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its evil policy spawn. Many don’t even know how their own budgets work, clinging to the naïve belief that cutting football would rain millions down on academic affairs. Every campus has its magic-money-tree myth.
And those who have been around a few blocks feel like they’ve heard this song before. Administrators come and go but we’ve been here and we’ll outlast you. The last guy who came in said we were broke. So did the guy before him. Whatev.
Um. No. Right now things are pretty freaking dire.
Presidents’ hardest task may be educating their campuses on these realities without scaring the bejesus out of everyone. How to convince people who have never really had to worry about job security that the sky is in fact falling? That the world has changed and we’re no longer respected? That not everyone thinks college is worth it and they’re showing that by not showing up? That AI has already changed everything?
Our roles as teachers and scholars are more essential than ever, and we need to protect and defend higher ed to keep doing what we do best. It’s not the time to be fighting in Faculty Senate meetings about where the recycling bins should be placed on campus or if there are dust bunnies in offices or which departments, with four tenured faculty and three students, need to be preserved.
Shared governance is an important way of keeping each other accountable. Yes, there are presidents who do hinky things. There are careerist and craven provosts. Some deans operate out of self-interest or play favorites. Many administrators never learned to be good managers. A system of checks and balances used to be built into our nation’s government is essential.
The average tenure of a president has gone down from six years to about 60 days. When a president “resigns abruptly,” it’s not usually because they were embezzling or sleeping with students, but because they are caught between boards who want change and faculty who do not. They are faced with a number of seemingly insurmountable challenges from the outside. Before we take votes of no confidence or dig in for a fight about dust bunnies, it might be helpful to remember we can’t keep going through leaders like Kleenex during flu season if we want our institutions to survive.
Given how many institutions are closing, merging or getting rid of faculty, I’m grateful there are still a few people who are willing to step up in higher education so I can just focus on my students and feel fortunate to still have a job.
Though really, if I’m being honest, I still think that little point guard deserves more minutes.
Rachel Toor is a contributing editor at Inside Higher Ed and the co-founder of The Sandbox, a weekly newsletter that allows presidents and chancellors to write anonymously. She is also a professor of creative writing and the author of books on weirdly diverse subjects. Reach her here with questions, comments and complaints compliments.
Across global higher education, the terms of justice, equality and inclusion are being rewritten. In recent years, the rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the United States (Spitalniak, 2025) has unfolded alongside a global resurgence of anti-gender, ultra-nationalist, racialised and colonial politics (Brechenmacher, 2025). At the same time, the rise of authoritarian and far-right ideologies, together with deepening socioeconomic inequalities fuelled by an ascendant billionaire class (Klein and Taylor, 2025) and the growing portrayal of feminist and queer scholarship as ideological extremism (Pitts-Taylor and Wood, 2025), signal a profound shift in the rationalities shaping the politics of higher education. These developments do not reject inclusion; they refashion it. Equality becomes excess, dissent is recast as disorder, and inclusion is reconstituted as a technology of governance.
This conjuncture, what Stuart Hall (Hall in Hall and Massey, 2010, p57) would call the alignment of economic, political and cultural forces, requires a vocabulary capable of capturing continuity and rupture. It also reflects the deepening crisis of neoliberalism, whose governing logics become more coercive as their legitimacy wanes (Beckert, 2025; Menand, 2023). As Hall reminds us, ‘a conjuncture is a period when different social, political, economic and ideological contradictions… or as Althusser said ‘fuse in a ruptural unity’’ (Hall in Hall and Massey, 2012, p57). A conjuncture, in this sense, does not resolve crisis but produces new configurations of ideological coherence and institutional control. In my recent article, ‘Managed Inclusion and the Politics of Erasure: Gender Governance in Higher Education under Neoliberal Authoritarianism’ (Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 2025), I theorise these developments as a global grammar of illiberal inclusion: a political rationality that appropriates the language of equity while disabling its redistributive, democratic and epistemic force. The article develops a typology of symbolic, technocratic and transformative inclusion to examine how feminist, anti-caste and critical vocabularies are increasingly absorbed into systems of civility, visibility and procedural control. Transformative inclusion, the configuration most aligned with redistribution, dissent and epistemic plurality, is the one most forcefully neutralised.
Across geopolitical contexts, from postcolonial states to liberal democracies, gender inclusion is increasingly appropriated not as a demand for justice but as a mechanism of control. The techniques of co-option vary, yet they consolidate into a shared political rationality in which equity is stripped of redistributive force and redeployed to affirm institutional legitimacy, nationalist virtue and market competitiveness. This is not a rupture with neoliberal governance but its intensification through more disciplinary and exclusionary forms. For example, in India, the National Education Policy 2020 invokes empowerment while enacting epistemic erasure, systematically marginalising the knowledges of women from subordinated caste, class and religious communities (Peerzada et al, 2024; Patil, 2023; Singh, 2023). At the same time, state-led campaigns such as Beti Bachao elevate women’s visibility only within ideals of modesty and nationalist virtue (Chhachhi, 2020). In Hungary, the 2018 ban on gender studies aligned higher education with labour-market imperatives and nationalist agendas (Barát, 2022; Zsubori, 2018). In Turkey, reforms under Erdoğan consolidate patriarchal norms while constraining feminist organising (Zihnioğlu and Kourou, 2025). Here, gender inclusion is tolerated only when it reinforces state agendas and restricts dissent.
Elsewhere, inclusion is recast as ideological deviance. In the United States, the Trump-era rollback of DEI initiatives and reproductive rights has weaponised inclusion as a spectre of radicalism, disproportionately targeting racialised and LGBTQ+ communities (Amnesty International, 2024; Chao-Fong, 2025). In Argentina, Milei abolished the Ministry of Women, describing feminism as fiscally irresponsible (James, 2024). In Italy, Meloni’s government invokes ‘traditional values’ to erode anti-discrimination frameworks (De Giorgi et al, 2023, p.v11i1.6042). In these cases, inclusion is not merely neutralised but actively vilified, its political charge reframed as cultural threat.
Even when inclusion is celebrated, it is tethered to respectability and moral legibility. In France, femonationalist discourses instrumentalise gender equality to legitimise anti-Muslim policy (Farris, 2012; Möser, 2022). In Greece, conservative statecraft reframes inclusion through familialist narratives while dismantling equality infrastructures (Bempeza, 2025). These patterns reflect a longer political repertoire in which authoritarian and ultra-nationalist projects mobilise idealised domestic femininity to naturalise social hierarchies. As historian Diana Garvin (Garvin quoted in Matei, 2025) notes, ‘what fascisms old and new have in common is they tend to look to women to fill in the gaps that the state misses’, with contemporary ‘womanosphere’ influencers in the US reviving fantasies of domestic bliss that obscure intensified gendered precarity (Matei, 2025).
Such gendered constructions coexist with escalating violence. More than 50.000 women and girls were killed by intimate partners or family members in 2024, which means one woman or girl was killed every ten minutes, or 137 every day, according to the latest UNODC and UN Women femicide report (UNODC/UN Women, 2025). This sits within a wider continuum of harm: 83.000 women and girls were intentionally killed last year, and the report finds no sign of real progress. It also highlights a steep rise in digital violence, including harassment, stalking, gendered disinformation and deepfakes, which increasingly spills into offline contexts and contributes to more lethal forms of harm. These global patterns intersect with regional crises. For example, more than 7.000 women were killed in India in gender-related violence in 2022 (NCRB, 2023); eleven women are murdered daily in femicides across Latin America (NU CEPAL, 2024). At the same time, masculinist influencers such as Andrew Tate cultivate transnational publics organised around misogyny (Adams, 2025; Wescott et al, 2024). As UN Secretary-General António Guterres (2025) warns: ‘Instead of mainstreaming equal rights, we are seeing the mainstreaming of misogyny’.
These global pressures reverberate across institutions that have historically positioned themselves as democratic spaces, including universities, which increasingly recast gender equity as a reputational risk or cultural flashpoint rather than a democratic obligation (D’Angelo et al, 2024; McEwen and Narayanaswamy, 2023). Equity becomes an emblem of modernity to be audited, displayed and curated, rather than a demand for justice. Ahmed’s (2012) theorisation of non-performativity is essential here: institutions declare commitments to equality precisely to contain the transformations such commitments would require. In this context, symbolic and technocratic inclusion flourish, while the structural conditions for transformative inclusion continue to narrow.
These shifts reflect broader political and economic formations. Brown (2015) shows how neoliberal reason converts justice claims into performance demands, hollowing out democratic vocabularies. Fraser’s (2017) account of ‘progressive neoliberalism’ illuminates the terrain in which market liberalism coupled with selective diversity politics absorbs emancipatory discourse while preserving inequality. Patnaik (2021) argues that the rise of neofascism is a political necessity for neoliberalism in crisis, as rights are redefined as privileges and inclusion is repurposed to stabilise inequality. In this conjuncture, these tendencies intensify into what Giroux (2018, 2021, 2022a) names ‘neoliberal fascism’, a formation structured by three interlocking fundamentalisms: a market fundamentalism that commodifies all aspects of life, a religious fundamentalism that moralises inequality; and a regime of manufactured ignorance and militarised illiteracy that discredits critical thought and erases historical memory (Giroux 2022b, p48-54).
The United States now offers a further manifestation of this global pattern, illustrating how attacks on DEI can function as a broader assault on higher education. As recent analyses of US politics show, the first and particularly the second Trump administration is actively modelling itself on Viktor Orbán’s illiberal statecraft, centralising executive power, purging public institutions and mobilising ‘family values’ and anti-‘woke’ politics to reshape education and media governance (Giroux, 2017; Smith, 2025; Kauffmann, 2025). The dismantling of DEI under the Trump administration, framed as a defence of merit, free speech and fiscal responsibility (The White House, 2025), marks the beginning of a wider attempt to consolidate political influence over higher education. Executive orders targeting DEI have been followed by lawsuits, funding withdrawals and intensified federal scrutiny, prompting universities such as Michigan, Columbia and Chicago to scale back equality infrastructures, cut programmes and reduce humanities provision (cfBleiler, 2025; Pickering, Cosgrove and Massel, 2025; Quinn, 2025). These developments do not simply eliminate DEI; they position anti-gender politics as a mechanism of disciplining universities, narrowing intellectual autonomy and extending political control over academic life. They exemplify wider global tendencies in which inclusion becomes a field through which illiberal projects consolidate authority. The assault on DEI is thus not a uniquely American phenomenon but part of a broader authoritarian turn in which inclusion is recoded to stabilise, rather than challenge, existing power.
Understanding gender governance in higher education through this conjunctural lens reveals not merely the erosion of equity but the emergence of a political formation that reconfigures inclusion into an apparatus of civility, visibility and administrative control. These tendencies are not aberrations but expressions of a larger global grammar that binds emancipatory rhetoric to authoritarian-neoliberal governance. The result is not the dilution of equality but its rearrangement as a practice of containment.
The implications for the sector are profound. If inclusion is increasingly reorganised through metrics, decorum and procedural compliance, then reclaiming its democratic potential requires an epistemic and institutional shift. Inclusion needs to be understood not as a reputational asset but as a commitment to justice, redistribution and collective struggle. This means recovering equality as political and pedagogical labour: the work of confronting injustice, protecting dissent and renewing the public imagination. Academic freedom and equality are inseparable: without equality, freedom becomes privilege; without freedom, equality becomes performance.
As Angela Davis (Davis quoted in Gerges, 2023) reminds us: ‘Diversity without structural transformation simply brings those who were previously excluded into a system as racist and misogynist as it was before… There can be no diversity and inclusion without transformation and justice.’ And as Henry Giroux (2025) argues, democracy depends on how societies fight over language, memory and possibility. That struggle now runs through the university itself, shaping its governance, its epistemic life and the courage to imagine more just and democratic possibilities.
Ourania Filippakou is a Professor of Education at Brunel University of London. Her research interrogates the politics of higher education, examining universities as contested spaces where power, inequality, and resistance intersect. Rooted in critical traditions, she explores how higher education can foster social justice, equity, and transformative change.
This week on the podcast, live from our Festival in London, we discuss access and social mobility as the Office for Students reshuffles its leadership, and the Sutton Trust publishes a new report that paints a sobering picture.
Plus we discuss university governance and our new paper for the Post-18 Project, and we capture the vibes from our event, from the best quotes to the big debates shaping the sector’s future.
With Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive at Advance HE, Janet Lord, Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor for Education at Manchester Metropolitan University, and Michael Salmon, News Editor at Wonkhe – and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.
Berenschot (2017) Van toezicht naar verantwoording: rapportage hoger onderwijs [From Supervision to Accountability: Higher Education Report]. Utrecht: Berenschot.
Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur (2013) Een lastig gesprek: rapport van de Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur [A Difficult Conversation: Report of the Committee on Proper Governance]. The Hague: Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur.
Commissie Behoorlijk Bestuur (2013) Een lastig gesprek. Over de (interne) dialoog in semipublieke instellingen [A Difficult Conversation: On the (Internal) Dialogue in Semi-Public Institutions]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties.
Commissie onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis (2012) Autonomie verplicht: Rapport onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis [Autonomy required: Report on the financial problems at Amarantis]. Den Haag: Commissie onderzoek financiële problematiek Amarantis.
Department for Education, Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (2025) Post-16 Education and Skills. White Paper CP 1412. London: HM Government.
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (2021) Evaluatie wet versterking bestuurskracht [Evaluation of the Law to Strengthen Governance]. Brief regering, Kamerstuk 34 251, Nr. 95. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.
Rijksoverheid (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verantwoorde invulling van rijksinspecties [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Responsible Role for National Inspectorates]. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verantwoorde invulling van rijksinspecties [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Responsible Role for National Inspectorates]. The Hague: WRR.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2013) Toezien op publieke belangen: Naar een verruimd perspectief op rijkstoezicht [Safeguarding Public Interests: Towards a Broadened Perspective on National Oversight]. Den Haag: Amsterdam University Press.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2014) Van tweeluik naar driehoeken: Versterking van interne checks and balances bij semipublieke organisaties [From Diptychs to Triangles: Strengthening Internal Checks and Balances in Semi-Public Organisations]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) (2015) Improving internal checks and balances in semi-public organisations: synopsis of WRR report no. 91 [Van tweeluik naar driehoeken]. The Hague: WRR.
Jacinta Allan’s government has initiated an inquiry into universities. Picture: Jake Nowakowski
Universities will face even more scrutiny in the coming months after a third government announced it will probe the governance and management of public higher education institutions.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Businesswoman Melinda Cilento was asked to evaluate governance at universities. Picture: Newswire
Universities will be required to justify how much is spent on consultants and disclose whether vice-chancellors are drawing multiple incomes as recommended by a governance committee on Saturday.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Student voice is not a survey or metric but rather fostering a culture of participation on campus
Erin MorleyOctober 15, 2025Last Updated: October 15, 2025
0 2 minutes read
Students participating in management decisions starts in the classroom and should be supported right through to governing bodies, a student experience expert has said.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Facilitron is rolling out what it says is the first U.S. governance standard for community use of public school facilities, the digital facilities rental platform said Sept. 10.
The California-based company will debut the framework in San Diego this November at Facilitron University, its annual conference for school district leaders and facility managers.
The standard aims to align school facility use with districts’ mission and strategy, reduce legal risk, improve consistency and transparency across district operations, and ensure equitable access for community members and groups, the company says.
Dive Insight:
Facilitron provides facility rental and management support for some of the largest school districts in the U.S., including Florida’s Broward County Public Schools, Nevada’s Clark County School District and California’s San Diego Unified School District.
That broad reach helped the company design a governance framework that goes beyond school boards’ existing model policies to encompass administrative regulations, site manuals, renter terms and audit tools, the company says. It draws on data from more than 15,000 schools, many of which have outdated, inconsistent and unenforceable facility-use policies, “exposing where current systems fail,” according to the company.
“Every district on our platform has a data trail that tells a story,” Facilitron Chief Marketing Officer Trent Allen said in an email. “Even when data is missing — because poor policy and enforcement means a lot of facility use never gets documented — you can still see the problems, like a black hole bending light in its direction.”
Allen said many of those problems have a financial dimension. For example, many districts offer automatic subsidies for registered nonprofits, regardless of the actual public benefit the organization provides — so a national nonprofit with high participation fees gets effectively the same treatment as a grassroots group with a much smaller budget, Allen said.
Districts’ facility-use policies — and the state statutes enabling them — leave money on the table in other ways, like sweetheart deals for school employees, rates that remain static for years, and ambiguous language that discourages districts from tapping their facilities’ full value.
As an example, Allen said, some Tennessee districts interpret a vaguely worded state statute prohibiting “private profit” in school facility use to mean that only nonprofit organizations can rent them, creating a situation where “essentially every use becomes a subsidized use.” That leaves out the possibility that private companies could use the facilities for charitable or other purposes.
Additionally, many school boards give school administrators or facilities managers free rein to adjust or waive fees, or approve informal use outside the plain text of board policy, he said.
The upshot of all this, Allen added, is that larger districts forgo millions in potential revenue annually from facility rentals while creating conditions ripe for favoritism and inequity.
Once one group gets access under favorable terms, every similar group is usually given the same,” he said. “Suddenly the district is on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It quickly runs into the millions and it is never budgeted for.”
Facilitron says its national governance standard pushes back on the status quo by laying out detailed model school board policies and administrative regulations; a “modular policy toolkit” and site-level operations manual; a national terms and conditions template; and a “facility use audit framework,” which the company describes as “a diagnostic tool that reveals cost, risk and underperformance.”
The national governance standard also includes frequently asked questions, case studies and other resources for school boards.
“We require annual reporting, including an estimate of total subsidization. We make cost recovery the governing philosophy [and] move away from ‘nonprofit’ as the trigger for discounts, because that’s the wrong proxy for public benefit. And we separate policy into layers — board-level rules, administrative regulations, and site-level guidance — so principals aren’t left to invent their own rules,” Allen said.
