Contemporary issues in campus governance are part of a long chain of history. Our ways of perceiving the environment create trained incapacities which make it very difficult for us to see the world in any other way. Administrators, faculty and students all operate on the principle of "self-fulfilling prophecy"--or, according to their "perceptual set." There are various alternative patterns of governance but faculty and administrators will have to alter their perceptual sets if they are to be put into practice. One is the notion of a central committee consisting of faculty, student and administration representatives and some trustee representation; another pattern is the joint long-range planning committee composed of the same groups. The questions of what criteria should be used to justify participation in governance and how to define the limits of the university community must be faced. Despite the growth of huge organizations, there is a strong move toward decentralization; breaking up large campuses into small units has been suggested. Some argue that administrators be given more power, and, perhaps, a clear allocation of responsibility would be desirable. The pattern of governance an institution adopts will depend upon its size, complexity of organization, amount of faculty commitment to campus and discipline, extent to which a clearly identified institutional purpose exists and role of internal and external organizations in decision making. Structure should flow from functions. (JS)