The view that peer review and faculty self-government are detrimental is expressed. Peer review, a procedure in which the conduct of faculty members is subject to review by other faculty members, is used primarily in personnel and research decisions (e.g., tenure, promotion, and/or salary increases, and to assess grant or contract proposals). Faculty self-government refers to a governance structure in which the faculty formulates policy and makes critical personnel decisions. Faculty accountability under peer review and faculty self-government is viewed solely as a collective outcome: faculty would share in any institutional decline resulting from poor recommendations. Therefore, professors are not truly accountable for their policy decisions or recommendations. It is suggested that in public colleges faculty self-government presents a paradox, if not an inconsistency, with representative democratic government, whereby people have the right to change their policy-makers. It is argued that there is no need for professors to "police their own ranks" to protect the public. Unlike fee-paying clients who go to doctors and lawyers, colleges can exercise effective managerial controls. External peer review, the question of merit, and decisional patterns under faculty self government and collective bargaining are also considered. (SW)