Tag: Boards

  • Tex. Boards Abolish Faculty Senates, Create Toothless Councils

    Tex. Boards Abolish Faculty Senates, Create Toothless Councils

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | BraunS, malerapaso and vi73777/iStock/Getty Images

    The University of Texas System Board of Regents voted Thursday to disband the system’s long-standing faculty senates in compliance with Senate Bill 37, the sweeping Texas higher education law that gives university boards and presidents control over faculty governing bodies.

    The UT board also voted Thursday to create faculty advisory groups, which will “perform the work of faculty governance bodies”—such as reviewing degree requirements, suggesting curricular changes, coordinating campus events and revising the faculty handbook—while keeping all decision-making power in the hands of the administration.

    The University of Houston system Board of Regents did the same Thursday, voting to create faculty councils that will “provide structured, meaningful avenues for faculty to help shape academic priorities, strengthen excellence and contribute to decisions that guide our future,” a university spokesperson said in a statement.

    But the groups won’t give the faculty independent representation or any real power. In accordance with SB 37, the board bylaws now state, “a faculty council is advisory only and may not be delegated the final decision-making authority on any matter.”

    As of June 20, any faculty governing body in Texas—whether it’s a senate, council or advisory group—may not exceed 60 members unless otherwise decided by the board, and every college or school within the university must be represented by at least two members, SB 37 dictates. The university president will appoint at least one of the representatives from each college or school within the institution, while the faculty elects the others, meaning that as many as 30 members could be chosen by the president.

    The president will also choose the presiding officer, associate presiding officer and secretary for each group. Appointees may serve for six years before taking a mandatory two-year break from the group, while faculty-elected representatives may only serve for two years before the two-year break.

    While the new groups are still faculty bodies, they won’t “authentically speak with the faculty voice,” said Mark Criley, a senior program officer in the department of academic freedom, tenure and governance at the American Association of University Professors. “No matter who is selected, the process by which they’re selected matters. We learned when we’re in elementary school—the teacher didn’t appoint the class president, the principal didn’t appoint them, this was one of our first exercises in representation. You choose the people who will speak for you in an institutional body.”

    Across the state, college and university system boards are taking different approaches to scrapping and reshaping their faculty senates. The Alamo Colleges District Board of Trustees voted earlier this month to consolidate the faculty senates at each of the five campuses into one group of up to 35 members. Previously, the five senates comprised 114 voting members.

    While the Texas State University system board gave presidents the ability to create new faculty groups, it did not approve a new faculty governing body at its Aug. 14 meeting and will let the existing senate lapse on Sept. 1, the deadline set by SB 37. Texas A&M University regents are expected to vote on their approach to the new law at their Aug. 27 board meeting, The Austin American-Statesman reported.

    Even as university governing boards design their toothless, SB 37–compliant groups, two professors at the University of Houston on Monday unveiled what they’re calling the Faux Faculty Senate. “I know that people feel that faculty senates are kind of arcane … but it’s a part of civil society,” said David Mazella, an associate professor in the English Department at the University of Houston and president-elect of the faux senate. “[SB 37] is an antidemocratic bill that essentially eliminates the faculty voice in order for the state to directly control what we do.”

    The faux senate is largely symbolic; it won’t replicate any of the governing functions of the now-defunct 100-member senate, Mazella said. Instead, it will serve as an off-campus meet-up for faculty to socialize and talk about ongoing issues in Texas higher education. “Even getting to a faculty cafe is really difficult, so giving people an opportunity [to talk] that is not in a university space feels really important to us,” Mazella said.

    He and his co-creator, María González, also an associate professor of English at Houston, plan to start hosting events in October, though nothing concrete has been scheduled. Without support from the university, the money to host these events will come from Mazella’s and González’s own pockets. They’re looking for a space in the Houston area that’s “not too gross, but not too expensive,” said Mazella, for their first faux senate convening.

    Source link

  • AGB Reports on Governing Boards’ Top Public Policy Issues

    AGB Reports on Governing Boards’ Top Public Policy Issues

    Concerns about the Trump administration’s plans for higher ed loom large in a new report by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, outlining the top public policy issues facing higher ed governing boards.

    The report looked at emerging public policy challenges through six different lenses:  

    • Accountability and regulation
    • Judicial outcomes
    • Political intrusion
    • Federal and state funding
    • Federal tax legislation
    • Intercollegiate athletics

    According to the report, boards could confront a wide range of issues in the 2025–26 academic year, including federal research funding cuts impacting university budgets, uncertainties about the future of federal financial aid, possible changes to the accreditation system, federal interference into institutional governance and shifting immigration policies affecting international student admissions and faculty hiring. The report raises additional concerns about how possible changes to the federal tax code could affect colleges and universities and how boards should respond to federal policies currently facing court challenges.  

    The report also offers lists of questions for boards to consider through each lens, like how students might be affected if income-contingent loan repayment programs undergo significant changes or how to honor donors’ intent for scholarships, endowed positions or research projects that could conflict with state or federal anti-DEI laws.

    “Governing boards have a critical role to play in ensuring that their institutions emerge stronger, more adaptable, and committed to their core educational values and must be prepared to confront policy shifts head-on,” Ross Mugler, AGB board chair and acting president and CEO, said in a press release. “This report provides the essential knowledge trustees need to make informed, strategic decisions that preserve institutional missions, ensure financial sustainability, and promote student success.”

    Source link

  • Boards Must Fight for Institutional Independence (opinion)

    Boards Must Fight for Institutional Independence (opinion)

    The academy is facing a crisis of confidence. Where shared governance once nurtured robust debate and institutional progress, a climate of fear is taking hold, stifling dialogue and endangering the very mission of higher education. Decision-makers, ensnared in an atmosphere marked by uncertainty, are both terrified to act and paralyzed by inaction. They are troubled by a well-orchestrated effort that seeks to fundamentally alter higher education, forcing the sector into a state of existential terror for the foreseeable future. Consequently, we are witnessing a shift from shared governance to scared governance, and the consequences are profound.

    At present, presidents seem to be thunderously quiet, boards approach critical issues with trepidation and faculty members feel suppressed in their teaching and research. The insidious costs of these constraints—the lost opportunities, the stifled innovation, the further erosion of trust—are staggering. These costs must be exposed to public scrutiny, as they are not confined to higher education. The repercussions of external intrusion will manifest in every facet of our society.

    Governing boards—guardians of institutional mission and values—must recognize the gravity of this moment. This isn’t simply about diversity, equity and inclusion, though the attacks on DEI initiatives are a major part of the problem. This is about institutional independence, the freedom to pursue knowledge and the very DNA of our nation’s colleges and universities. Too often board members have permitted faculty or presidents to take the lead in governance and have used shared governance as an excuse, explanation or cover for their own lack of involvement. They have successfully hidden in plain sight.

    Governance, however, is not a spectator sport. Boards have to champion the preservation of institutional independence and recognize that inaction under the guise of shared governance is still inaction. They cannot afford to be passive observers, expecting others to shoulder the burden of defending the institution’s core values while they remain detached. This is not a middle school group project; everyone has to participate or we will all fail the assignment.

    The threats are widespread: curricula are under siege, co-curricular life is being dismantled, research programs are targeted, medical schools are undermined and free speech is gagged. This is not a series of isolated incidents; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend the foundations of higher learning, and it demands a unified, unwavering response.

    The responsibility falls on governing boards to work with presidents to answer (clearly and immediately) some key questions:

    • What principles defined our institutions before the current political climate?
    • Do we still stand for these principles? If so, how can we hold fast to them now?
    • What price are we willing to pay to uphold those foundational values?
    • If we abandon our values now, what remains of our institutional identity?

    Autonomy is not merely a privilege; it’s the bedrock of our academic mission. It is not only our institutional independence at stake, but our very integrity.

    Many boards, understandably, are hesitant to address these challenges directly. But silence and inaction are not options. Board members are the ultimate arbiters of their institutions’ destinies. It is time to abandon the narrow focus on isolated initiatives and confront the broader, systemic assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Board leadership will determine how we navigate this defining moment.

    Boards of trustees are the protectors of institutional values. They carry the legacies of their institutions forward. If they fail in this duty, the consequences may be irreversible. While other higher education decision-makers respond to executive orders, policy shifts and legal rulings, the board’s role is clear and unchanging. The only uncertainty is whether members will fulfill their responsibilities in alignment with the institution’s mission.

    The future of higher education depends on boards of higher education. The 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities makes it clear that “The governing board has a special obligation to ensure that the history of the college or university shall serve as a prelude and inspiration to the future … When ignorance or ill will threaten the institution or any part of it, the governing board must be available for support. In grave crises, it will be expected to serve as a champion.”

    Board members: This is that moment. Your institutions—and the public they serve—are waiting for you to lead. The future of higher education depends on your courage, your convictions and your willingness to champion the values upon which your institutions were built. Will you rise to the occasion? We need you now more than ever.

    We’ve recently made some suggestions for concrete actions trustees and senior leaders of institutions can take immediately to advance the great work higher education does while partnering with good-faith collaborators to address the field’s challenges. For those boards that want to be proactive and not just reactive, here are a few ideas.

    One key action is to highlight the implications for resources. A public, transparent review of the university’s budget should explicitly showcase areas under threat—like research and DEI programs. To take this further, institutions could consider reallocating funds from traditionally “untouchable” areas, such as athletics, to fortify initiatives focused on inclusivity and academic freedom. Publicly challenging politicians to justify cuts in the face of these demonstrated priorities could push the conversation beyond rhetoric.

    Fundraising strategies also need reimagining. Universities could launch targeted campaigns specifically designed to offset federal funding cuts and support programs under siege. A bolder approach might frame these efforts as “impact investments,” emphasizing the societal returns on supporting research and DEI. This reframing could inspire donors who care deeply about the university’s role in shaping a more equitable future.

    Equally important is stressing the human cost. Universities should conduct and publish comprehensive reports that quantify the real-world consequences of funding cuts—measuring lives impacted, medical treatments delayed, rising attrition rates and mental health issues among students and staff. Presenting these findings to legislators and the public forces a direct reckoning with the human toll of these policy decisions. The facts, laid bare, can speak louder than fear.

    Finally, institutions must build collective strength through research consortia. By forming inter-institutional partnerships to pool resources and expertise, universities can ensure the continuation of vital research projects at risk. A more assertive stance could position these consortia as a direct counter to political interference, underscoring the importance of academic inquiry free from external pressure.

    The path forward is clear: Governing boards must lead with transparency, strategy and courage. Higher education’s survival—and its ability to serve the public good—depends on it.

    Raquel M. Rall and Demetri L. Morgan are co-founders and co-directors of the Center for Strategic & Inclusive Governance. Rall is an associate professor and associate dean of strategic initiatives in the School of Education at the University of California, Riverside. Morgan is an associate professor of education at the University of Michigan’s Marsal Family School of Education, within the Center for the Study of Postsecondary and Higher Education.

    Source link