Introduction and summary
The United States is facing unprecedented threats to higher education teaching and research—including from the executive branch unilaterally canceling research grants and contracts for political purposes, state legislation banning the teaching of certain topics, and university governing boards increasingly acting in the interest of elected political figures.1 This report surveys notable instances of recent governing board overreach, considering issues such as board interference in teaching and curricula, the weakening of tenure protections, and intervention into the free dissemination of research at public colleges and universities. It also examines the threats to university autonomy from states themselves, in which governing boards are leveraged for expressly political purposes and to reshape teaching and learning at universities in wide-ranging ways. It concludes with policy recommendations to insulate universities from such intrusion and ensure governing boards remain responsible and effective stewards for the institutions they oversee.
Safeguarding free academic inquiry ensures both that research is not shaped by political ideology—as in the countries discussed below—and that students receive quality postsecondary education grounded in academic merit. When carefully composed and transparently operated, state higher education governing and coordinating boards have the potential to serve as vital safeguards for free inquiry and institutional autonomy.
The politicization of higher education under global authoritarian regimes
Higher education in the United States is a vast and diverse enterprise, encompassing more than 3,500 degree-granting institutions and enrolling more than 25 million students in 2024 alone.2 With annual expenditures exceeding $700 billion,3 the U.S. higher education system stands not only as a cornerstone of economic activity but also as a globally admired model of academic excellence, innovation, and intellectual inquiry. Such standing is deeply rooted in a tradition of academic freedom and institutional autonomy that enables the free pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore, governance by lay boards of trustees insulates colleges from direct governmental control—a tradition that was affirmed and protected in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1819 decision in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward.4 Yet while these principles have long underpinned the strength and impact of research and teaching at universities5 across the country, state governance boards have begun to play an outsize role in public universities’ internal affairs.6 These developments create critical governance and economic concerns.
Some of the clearest examples of how authoritarian control erodes higher education quality come from Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. These countries demonstrate how quickly academic freedom and institutional independence can be dismantled once political actors exert control over and compromise the independence of the higher education sector. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan used the aftermath of a failed coup attempt as a pretext to force the resignation of more than 1,500 university deans, consolidate control over university budgets, and give himself the sole authority to appoint university presidents, while also sharply restricting free expression and penalizing speech that diverged from official positions.7 This centralization of power stripped universities of their autonomy, suppressed critical inquiry, and overhauled academic curricula to suit political goals. As a result, the country has seen a marked narrowing of academic freedoms, decline in student performance, rising tuition costs, and a diminishment in global prominence, with Turkey’s universities experiencing a significant decline in global rankings.8
In Hungary, the higher education landscape has undergone sweeping changes marked by a decline in institutional autonomy and growing political influence.9 Beginning with the Orban government’s privatization of public universities, these reforms have turned academic institutions into arenas for broader culture wars.10 In 2021, new legislation triggered the most extensive transformation to date, resulting in the closure of 18 degree programs in the social sciences and humanities at the Gaspar Karoli Reformed University.11 The Hungarian government restructured university financing, cutting funding by 40 percent while separately allocating funds for teaching, research, and infrastructure—tying support more closely to institutional output and political alignment than to student enrollment.12 It shut down master’s degree programs in gender studies and forced a private research university to relocate beyond Hungary’s borders.13 Such changes have dismantled the independence of universities and redirected funds to advance the ruling party’s political and ideological goals.14 As a result, many academics have left the country to seek employment abroad, and research, innovation, and international competitiveness have all declined.15
In a 2018 higher education law, Poland’s Law and Justice government, a far-right populist party, restructured university governance, enabling tighter political control over decision-making and funding and opening the door to state interference in academic content.16 Most notably, the bill shifted power from collegial bodies, such as the faculty board, to the head of the university (rector), giving them more power over university policy.17 Over time, this stifled pluralism in academic discourse and degraded the capacity of universities to serve as independent engines of knowledge.18 Polish universities, such as those in Turkey, experienced a decline in global rankings. In the 2025 Academic Ranking of World Universities, Poland saw its share of universities ranked in the top 1,000 globally fall by 20 percent.19
The lesson for the United States is urgent: Scientific and economic progress depend on the independence of higher education institutions. The consequences of central political power assuming control are not just a decline in educational quality but also a broader collapse of innovation and societal progress. Allowing authority to override the autonomy of universities risks dismantling the infrastructure that underpins democratic resilience and global competitiveness. If the United States slips into this pattern, it will sacrifice a generation’s worth of scientific, cultural, and civic advancement. While there are threats to the independence of U.S. universities from the Trump administration—ranging from the selective, ideological cancellation of research grants to the politicization of accreditation and a coercive “compact,” which offered universities preferential access to research funding in exchange for adopting administration-aligned policies—state-level actors have similarly been imposing political dictates upon public universities for years.20
Already, the United States is experiencing the impacts of a political climate that is increasingly hostile to free inquiry in higher education. A 2025 survey of faculty members in the southeastern United States found that nearly a quarter of academics sought roles in other states due to the political climate.21 Seventeen percent of respondents reported experiencing administrator interference in curricular decisions, and others reported “fear of talking openly about academic findings that may contradict political ideology.”22 In the authoritarian regimes described above, brain drain was a stark outcome of political repression in academia; already, some U.S. states are experiencing similar dynamics.
University governing boards and the freedom to teach and learn
Universities operate on a principle of shared governance, which is the division of responsibilities between faculty, administrations, and governing boards.23 In this model, “differences in the weight of each group’s voice on a particular issue should be determined by the extent of its responsibility for and expertise on that issue.”24 Faculty have intensive and specialized training—generally doctorates, which typically take 5 to 7 years to earn—and deep knowledge of their fields, which make them distinctly qualified to teach and oversee curricula in their areas of expertise.25 Principles of shared governance hold that faculty members are therefore best qualified to make decisions in matters of teaching and research. While many decisions about university operations are made jointly, with the consultation of faculty, administrators, and the board, matters that are fundamentally academic or curricular in nature should be ultimately decided by faculty.26 And such academic decisions should always prioritize the education, growth, and long-term success of students with an emphasis on student-centered outcomes and ensure that faculty are supported and rewarded for pedagogical excellence.
In many of the examples of board overreach considered in this report, the governing board oversteps its authority by overriding faculty decision-making and allowing nonexperts to determine what is taught, published, and disseminated. In other examples, state laws explicitly shift powers to governing boards that should belong to faculty.
What are governing boards?
University governing boards, commonly known as boards of trustees, regents or governors, are the ultimate legal and strategic authorities for higher education institutions.27 The primary purpose of these boards is to ensure that colleges and universities fulfill their educational missions, act as responsible stewards of public and private resources, and uphold legal and ethical standards.28 As fiduciaries, they serve as trustees and stewards that oversee the institution—acting with diligence, avoiding conflicts of interest, and ensuring legal compliance while maintaining alignment with institutional values.29 Their responsibilities include overseeing finances, approving strategic plans, appointing and evaluating university presidents, fundraising, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the institution.30 While governing boards are the final institutional authority, in upholding the mission of a higher education institution they should not infringe upon academic freedom or weaken institutional autonomy, as doing so would conflict with the institutional mission and their fiduciary duties.
Board members are often corporate leaders, donors, political appointees, or alumni, and they frequently have limited experience working in academia: Only about 12 percent of trustees at American colleges and universities have professional experience in higher education.31 Yet, board members hold significant power over institutional direction. Furthermore, the vast majority of public institution board members are appointed through political processes, often by governors or legislators.32
Some states have individual boards for each university, and some universities have both a state governing board and specific university governing boards.33 States also employ different models, including coordinating boards, regulatory boards, and governing boards, each with varying degrees of authority over academic policy, budgetary oversight, and institutional leadership.34 Public and private university governing boards may differ in their appointment processes, structures, and sources of authority. While the governing boards of public universities derive their authority from state law and are accountable to the public as well as the institution, those of private universities derive authority from the private institution’s charter and and are primarily accountable to the university community.35 This report primarily focuses on the operation of public university governing boards, although many of the recommendations may also apply to private institutions and boards.
Board members are most commonly selected by gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation—60 percent of governing boards are formed this way,36 10 percent are appointed by the governor without legislative confirmation, 7 percent are appointed by the state legislature, and 15 percent have other processes.37 The political nature of these appointments creates the potential for the politicization of higher education systems.
Violations of these principles threaten the fundamental freedom to teach and learn based on the merits and quality of academic content, which is the foundation of academic excellence at universities in the United States and around the world. Together, these standards ensure that professors and researchers can teach, publish, and share ideas freely, according to their caliber as judged by other subject matter experts in their professional field, not the dictates of political figures, donors, or administrators.38 Academic freedom allows teachers and students to engage in open debate and challenge ideas freely, which allows for a marketplace of ideas to operate in both the classroom and in academic forums such as journals and conferences. Free inquiry is indispensable to the development of scientific knowledge and to technological advancement, with studies showing that higher degrees of academic freedom lead to more technological and scientific progress.39 The suppression of ideas by governing boards at the behest of political interests is antithetical to academic freedom and American constitutional principles.
What is academic freedom?
At its core, academic freedom refers to the rights of faculty to teach, research, and publish without outside interference. Academic freedom fosters free inquiry and open debate, as it roots research and teaching in the pure advancement of knowledge. It insulates research and teaching from external interference, such as that which might come from “administrators, boards of trustees, political figures, donors, or other entities.”40 Like the free press, academic freedom is a key pillar of a healthy democracy with protection and independence from political power and, thus, can work as a check on it.
Academic freedom is both a professional standard and a legal right. It is widely accepted by faculty associations as a guideline for how academic instructors and researchers should conduct their work.41 It is also protected to an extent in law by the First Amendment and through contractual obligations between institutions and their faculty.42 Most accreditation agencies, which set and enforce academic program quality standards, also include academic freedom in their standards, although enforcement of accreditation standards in general is lax.43
Academic freedom differs from freedom of speech because it is subject to the evaluation of peers in the field through processes such as peer review.44 While free speech allows for an almost complete freedom of expression without government or legal retaliation (with limited exceptions for things such as calls to violence and criminal actions), academic freedom operates as a “marketplace of ideas” where the ideas that other experts judge to have the most merit are more likely to be published and taught.45
While academic freedom is primarily accorded to faculty, its most significant impact may be on students.46 When professors are free to teach honestly and comprehensively, students are exposed to a wide range of viewpoints and complex, sometimes uncomfortable truths.47 Such an educational experience gives students the tools and knowledge to prepare for both the workforce and civic life. Students who can think critically and who have accurate knowledge about the society they live in will be better equipped for careers in the knowledge economy and will have the skills and tools they need to make informed choices as citizens and voters. Quality education is fundamental to a democratic society and hinges upon students having access to a full spectrum of ideas, including those that may challenge dominant narratives.48 When such autonomy is restricted—whether through state-mandated curriculum bans,49 politically-driven constraints on what subjects can be taught,50 or the appointment of politically-aligned boards51—students bear the costs.
The politicization of higher education through governing board overreach
Increasingly, governing boards are being used as vehicles to impose state legislators’ political will through the passage of laws that confer to the board duties that are traditionally reserved for the faculty. Both of these types of interventions not only threaten university independence, but also the public’s trust in these institutions as nonpartisan venues for scholarship and community service.52 At the University of North Carolina, for example, the governing board overstepped its authority by making changes to programs for which control “rests at the campus level,” according to the university’s policy manual.53 This section outlines that and other examples of board overreach, state-sanctioned and otherwise, and demonstrates how such a trend threatens the independence—and, correspondingly, the strength—of higher education institutions.
Virginia: Blocking new diversity-focused course requirements
In May 2024, two public university governing boards in Virginia intervened to stop the inclusion of courses in general education curricula.54 The boards of visitors of George Mason University and Virginia Commonwealth University voted to block the introduction of new courses in race- and diversity-related subjects in general education curricula.55 The development of these courses were multiyear efforts led by students and faculty.56 The effort to oppose their introduction began when Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) requested to review the syllabi for the courses;57 shortly after, the boards of visitors announced its decisions to stop the new requirement from going into effect.58 These events have led student groups and nonprofit organizations to advocate for amending Virginia state laws to give students and faculty voting power on governing boards.59
Indiana: Post-tenure review with ideological requirements
Tenure is the practice of giving faculty indefinite positions of employment after a probationary period during which they have demonstrated their professional competence and long-term potential to contribute to their academic field.60 Tenure began in the early 20th century and is intended to protect scholars from political or ideological pressure, allowing them to research and publish ideas even if those in power find them threatening.61
Numerous states have passed laws that weaken tenure protections; those in Georgia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana, and other states62 include a “post-tenure review” that provides institutional leaders the opportunity to terminate tenured faculty members’ employment.63 Many post-tenure reviews allow a tenured faculty member to be terminated for their performance in research, teaching, and other roles, whereas the principles of tenure generally hold that faculty can only be terminated for “adequate cause”—defined by faculty associations as “demonstrated incompetence or dishonesty in teaching or research, to substantial and manifest neglect of duty, and to personal conduct which substantially impairs the individual’s fulfillment of his institutional responsibilities.”64 In short, these “productivity” standards offer opportunities for more selective and subjective terminations than the more established standards for “adequate cause.”
Outside the scope of tenure, protections for politically unpopular speech are further limited as a majority of faculty are in nontenure track, contract-limited positions that can be easily eliminated.65 That the strong academic and speech protections that tenure afford are limited to only about 3 in 10 faculty who are tenured or tenure-track threatens viewpoints across the political spectrum: There have also been instances where universities have been perceived as terminating faculty with conservative viewpoints due to their political perspectives.66 These examples highlight the need for collective bargaining rights and better employment protections across the higher education sector.
Indiana introduced a new ideological element to its post-tenure review process in 2024: In addition to an evaluation of their teaching and research productivity, tenured faculty must now meet an “intellectual diversity” requirement.67 Organizations representing faculty criticized this new policy as “mandat[ing] a system of surveillance and political scrutiny that will instead stifle the free flow of ideas.”68
North Carolina: Shuttering research centers and barring community service activities
In February 2015, the board of governors of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) voted to close the school’s Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity.69 Led by UNC law professor Gene Nichol, a vocal critic of North Carolina state economic policies, the center published prolifically on poverty, foreclosures, racial wealth disparities, food insecurity, and homelessness in the state.70 In a yearlong series of columns for the Raleigh News & Observer, Nichol chronicled how cuts to the social safety net in exchange for “colossal tax breaks” for the wealthiest in the state in recent years had led to deepening hardship for North Carolinians and amounted to “a war against poor people.”71 While the board member who led the recommendation to close the center argued that it did not fit the academic mission of the law school, many observers viewed the closure as an act of censorship and inappropriate political intrusion into academic research, as the members of the board of governors are selected by North Carolina state legislators.72 The dean of the UNC School of Law described the closure as “contraven[ing] the core principles of academic free speech and inquiry.”73 Nichol described the decision to close the center as “state-sponsored censorship” and as retaliation for his publication of “articles that displease the board and its political benefactors.”74
In this example, a politically appointed governing board restricted research that helped to illuminate an urgent problem. As a result, less may be known about the impacts, dynamics, and causes of poverty in North Carolina, which may result in fewer mitigating policies. For example, the center’s student-led research on concentrations of poverty in certain counties led a county commission to create a task force to study the problem.75 Fortunately, buoyed by private support, much of the center’s work has continued under new auspices such as the North Carolina Poverty Research Fund76—but students who might have contributed to its research projects have lost the opportunity for a hands-on educational opportunity through their school and might also gain fewer of the skills needed to enter fields that address poverty and other issues. And in other instances, closure may prevent future research from going forward.
In addition to teaching and research, service is a pillar of both university missions and the faculty role.77 Service can occur within or beyond the university, as it plays an interrelated role with education and research and fulfills the university’s mission to work for the public good. For example, university-affiliated hospitals serve as sites for medical education, ongoing clinical research, and health care services for those in the local community, often including free or reduced-cost services for low-income or uninsured residents.78 To the extent that these activities are educational or research in nature, they should be subject to academic freedom.79
One such service is free legal clinics, which many law schools offer to give law students hands-on experience with litigation and provide pro bono services to their communities.80 For example, the UNC Chapel Hill School of Law’s Center for Civil Rights was founded in 2001 by Julius Chambers, a pathbreaking civil rights lawyer who followed in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall as president of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund.81 The center fought discrimination in areas such as housing, voting rights, education, and employment.82 It also provided experiential learning opportunities to law school students, who gained litigation experience by working directly with the center’s attorneys.83
In 2017, however, the UNC system board of governors voted to bar the Center for Civil Rights from engaging in litigation. While the ban technically applied to all centers that were not solely clinical sites, the Center for Civil Rights was the only one that fit into this category. University leaders and faculty opposed the litigation ban, and 600 law school deans signed an open letter in protest.84
Florida and Ohio: Comprehensive takeovers of public university systems
While instances of governing boards overstepping their role to censor teaching and learning abound, two states have recently introduced new, sweeping laws that empower state university boards to remake curricula, directly control faculty hiring and dismissals, and reorganize campus life to advance political goals.
The state of Florida has emerged as an example of a systematic and extensive takeover of higher education by the legislature.85 With the passage of Florida House Bill 7, also known as the Stop WOKE Act, in 2022 and Senate Bill 266 in 2023, the state government of Florida began to exert new levels of control over state curricula at public K-12 schools and colleges and universities. Senate Bill 266 prohibits Florida colleges and universities from spending state or federal money “to promote, support or maintain programs or campus activities that … advocate for diversity, equity and inclusion”86 and gives the board of governors oversight over general education courses; these courses “may not distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics … or is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities.”87 The legislation also includes regular post-tenure review for all faculty members.88
Beginning in 2023, the New College of Florida became a case study in the political takeover of a college campus. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) appointed six new trustees to the board of the school, which made sweeping changes to the campus. The board began by denying tenure to five faculty members who had been recommended for tenure by their peers and quickly started dismantling academic programs such as gender studies and halting activities that fostered more equitable and inclusive environments on campus.89
In January 2025, the Florida Board of Governors approved an extensive overhaul of the general education curriculum at all 12 public colleges, which involved removing hundreds of classes—many of which touched upon issues such as race and gender.90 Classes such as “Black Women in America” and “LGBTQ History” no longer count for general education credits.91
These moves have been recognized as some of the “most sweeping attempts to regulate colleges’ curricula in recent memory.”92 The United Faculty of Florida strictly opposed this action, with the union’s president describing it as an “authoritarian approach to education.”93
In addition, two events in Florida sought to undermine accreditation, the system of accountability to ensure educational quality in U.S. postsecondary systems. In 2022, the state legislature passed a law requiring public colleges to switch accreditors each cycle in an effort to move state universities away from an accreditor that had previously raised concerns about political interference in Florida universities.94 Then in 2023, Gov. DeSantis filed a lawsuit arguing that accreditation agencies were unconstitutional; a federal judge dismissed this case in October 2024.95 These challenges echo Gov. DeSantis’ broader efforts to challenge perceived ideological bias in higher education oversight and seek to undermine accreditors, which require that universities operate independently, and many of which also set standards for academic freedom.96
In 2025, Ohio followed Florida’s lead in introducing legislation to endow governing boards with broad power over public university curricula and operations. Senate Bill 1 eliminates programs that advance diversity, equity, and inclusion; prohibits faculty strikes; introduces civic literacy requirements; requires “intellectual diversity” in curricula; and requires that faculty do not “seek to indoctrinate any social, political, or religious point of view.”97 It also gives the board of trustees new powers of oversight, approval, and implementation of these new policies.98
When politicians and legislators assume direct control over curriculum materials, they set a dangerous precedent that undermines the core principles of shared governance in higher education and erodes faculty’s essential authority to shape what is taught on campus, thereby weakening both academic freedom and institutional integrity.
Recommendations
Boards are necessary for upholding institutions’ missions, selecting and evaluating college presidents, providing legal and risk mitigation, and building long-term financial sustainability. A strong and effective governing board should balance the self-interest of various campus constituencies (such as faculty, students, and administrators) with the institution’s long-term goals. The effectiveness of a governing board is measured not just by its adherence to legal responsibility, but by its commitment to the institution’s mission, its support for shared governance, and its ability to lead with integrity in a rapidly changing higher education landscape.99 Effective boards can distinguish themselves through active engagement and responsible governance. Board culture plays a critical role in institutional success since engaged and informed boards can add strategic value, while overly passive, reactive, or ceremonial boards can expose institutions to compliance failures or other crises. Politicized boards, furthermore, can suppress free inquiry in academic spaces and weaken the quality of institutions’ teaching and research.
There are a wide variety of ways university governing boards can be structured. The recommendations below emphasize proactively developing shared governance models with mission-centric, transparent, and inclusive board structures while developing processes and relationships that balance campus interests. To do this, university boards, states, and the federal government should take the following steps.
1. Protect shared governance by establishing safeguards against overreach in board bylaws, board resolutions, and state law
With boards experiencing more political and ideological pressures and influences, reaffirming the principles of shared governance and institutional autonomy is urgently needed.100 Preserving the integrity and mission of public higher education thus demands renewed attention to the balance of roles: Trustees must honor their fiduciary responsibilities without overreaching; presidents must defend institutional autonomy while advancing strategic goals; and faculty must remain engaged stewards of the academic mission. Boards can conceptualize the protection of institutional autonomy and academic freedom as falling under the strategic “umbrella” of the board’s responsibility to act as stewards of the institution’s mission.101
While nuance and complexity will exist in many decisions, as some will touch multiple areas of university operations, governing boards should “[honor] faculty expertise,” rather than “override or marginalize faculty input” in matters that are academic in nature.102 Shared governance inheres respecting the differences in “weight” of the voices of campus stakeholders (that is, students, faculty, administrators, or the board) on each given issue.103 In order to uphold the mission of the institution by protecting academic freedom, faculty voices should be given the greatest weight in matters of teaching and research.
By upholding the principles of institutional autonomy, boards can ensure that students retain access to an education free from ideological interference and driven by scholarly expertise. Through the following recommendations, governing boards can act as buffers between political agendas and the academic mission of institutions:
- Limit board authority in matters of teaching and research and clarify the decision-making authority of faculty, the faculty senate, or academic departments on these issues. While governing boards, as fiduciaries, are the final institutional authority, they should operate in such a way that respects faculty decisions on matters of teaching and learning. State-level legislation or board bylaws should be adapted to clearly outline the role and limits of the board in decisions about teaching or research. For example, the syllabi for individual courses; the academic requirements for majors, minors, or degree attainment; and the publication and dissemination of academic research should remain under the oversight of faculty members, academic departments, and the professional bodies of academic peers. These procedures should recognize faculty senates’ final authority over curricula and affirm the provost’s role as chief academic officer for academic affairs.
- Eliminate post-tenure review processes that empower boards to remove faculty for political reasons. Tenured faculty members may be rightfully terminated for cause, such as professional misconduct (such as plagiarism or harassment), or in extraordinary circumstances such as institutional financial exigency or program discontinuance.104 Beyond these limited circumstances, however, tenured faculty appointments should not be subject to reevaluation by administrators or governing boards. Faculty may continue to have regular employee reviews, which evaluate their performance in teaching and research and may affect decisions around compensation and promotion, but any post-tenure review processes that allow for termination of tenured faculty for political reasons undercut academic free inquiry. New state legislation should affirm these practices, and boards should adopt them in their governing documents.
2. Promote board independence by depoliticizing the board member selection process and prioritizing relevant expertise
A vast majority of public university boards are selected by the state governor, legislature, or both.105 When governors and state legislators prioritize wealth, political connections, and ideology, the independence of colleges and universities is particularly threatened.106 Shifting away from political appointment processes can help to prevent ideological interference in university operations and preserve the independence of higher education teaching and research.
One 2021 survey of governing board members found that only 12 percent of board members of public universities had professional experience in higher education.107 The fields that were the most represented among board members’ professional backgrounds were business (53 percent) and professional services (23 percent). While board members with backgrounds in finance, law, and management undoubtedly bring useful skillsets to university boards, these perspectives should not supersede those more central to the educational mission.
- States can depoliticize the appointment process by forming external, independent bodies to oversee board appointments and removals. An independent commission responsible for appointing board members based on expertise and other qualifications would ensure the process is not dominated by any one political party and thereby insulate university governance from political interests. The independent commissioners could be selected by state higher education authorities, such as the state department of education. Shifting the responsibility to civil servants rather than elected leaders, such as the governor and legislature, along with other guardrails, can help depoliticize the governing bodies of universities.
- Prioritize relevant expertise in board selection processes. Ensure appointment of board members who have a proven understanding of higher education principles, academic freedom, and institutional missions. Candidates should be evaluated for their capacity to make informed, mission-driven decisions that support academic and institutional integrity. These independent commissions can develop clear and transparent board member selection criteria, as well as the appropriate balance of members with skillsets in education, finance, management, law, and other areas in consultation with university leaders, faculty bodies, and state higher education authorities. The use of merit-based criteria and independent advisory boards to select board members can help to prevent highly partisan appointments.108
- Establish term limits, staggered terms, and limit consecutive appointments. As of 2021, 92 percent of public institutions had term limits for board members, with the average term limit being 5 1/2 years.109 In addition, 52 percent of public university boards had limits on consecutive terms.110 Institutions without term limits should consider implementing them, while others may consider shortening them, limiting consecutive terms further, and implementing staggered term limits to reduce political influence while ensuring leadership continuity and the maintenance of institutional knowledge. This approach balances institutional stability with fresh perspectives while reducing the risk of entrenched governance. Appointing authorities should also be limited in their ability to remove board members, except for cause, to avoid removal for political reasons before the end of a trustee’s term.
- Embed faculty and student voices in governance. Mandate faculty representation on boards, with representatives elected or nominated by faculty senates to ensure authentic academic input. Because appointing current university employees to governing boards may create a conflict of interest, retired faculty members or those with previous experience in faculty roles should be strongly considered for representation. Board bylaws can also allow for faculty to serve on educational committees without being voting members of the board, which would be a valuable addition of the faculty perspective. Similarly, student representation on boards of trustees can help to ensure the perspectives and interests of the largest and most central constituencies on campus are fairly represented.
3. Increase transparency and accountability, and create clear metrics for success
Best practices for boards include maintaining transparent operations, seeking continuous financial and governance training, conducting regular self-assessments, and actively engaging with institutional leadership.111 This will foster better and more inclusive decision-making that better serves students, faculty, administration, and alumni.
- Increase transparency and accountability. Require publicly disclosed board member qualifications, performance evaluation criteria, and documented decision-making processes. Incorporate regular evaluations of board culture, inclusivity, equity practices, and adherence to shared governance principles.
- Define board effectiveness measures. Establish clear metrics for evaluating boards’ performance in safeguarding academic freedom, preventing political intrusion, and supporting inclusive decision-making. Assessment criteria should include the quality of engagement with faculty governance and responsiveness to student needs.
- Offer training and professional development opportunities for board members on key governance responsibilities, including operating within a framework of shared governance and understanding the role of academic freedom. Continuing education and training for board members about how their fiduciary roles help to support the institutional mission and why they should seek to uphold principles such as institutional autonomy and academic freedom will ensure that board members are adequately prepared for their role and responsibilities as trustees.
4. Strengthen federal guardrails by requiring academic freedom as a standard for the federal recognition of accreditors and prioritizing more robust enforcement
Accreditors already assess the key dimensions of educational quality: academic rigor, faculty qualifications and governance structures.112 Their existing frameworks often include expectations that protect faculty control over curriculum and academic decisions. Such protections, when applied consistently and with clear emphasis, can preserve institutional autonomy and prevent the politicization of academic content.
Accreditors should be using this authority to ensure that academic freedom and shared governance remain essential standards in the institutions they oversee. In fact, many accreditors already include standards and expectations to protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy, which require that faculty maintain control over curriculum decisions and academic matters.113 By enforcing these principles, accreditors can prioritize program quality, limit undue board or political interference in academic matters, and use their existing enforcement mechanisms to deter harmful external influences.
Strong accreditor standards drive quality by setting expectations for curriculum integrity, faculty oversight, complaint handling, and institutional stability. Because they have both the mandate and the capacity to shape these areas, accreditors are uniquely positioned to protect colleges and universities from pressures that threaten independent scholarship. Therefore, accreditors should fully exercise this authority to defend the academic mission of higher education, nurture innovation, and sustain America’s tradition of free inquiry. They can do so by:
- Assessing and enforcing that faculty have primary responsibility over curricula and academic appointments. Enforcement mechanisms could include regular institutional reviews, transparent reporting processes, whistleblower protections, and the threat of a loss of accreditation or federal funding in cases of noncompliance.
- Enforce standards through strong oversight and real consequences for violations. Through thorough reviews and transparent evaluations of institutional practices related to faculty governance, curriculum control, and protection from external influence, accrediting agencies should exercise their authority and implement real consequences, such as sanctions, probation, or loss of accreditation to institutions that adopt policies or take actions that undermine academic freedom.
The federal government should maintain high standards for the recognition of accreditors, including those that uphold academic freedom and institutional independence. While states may seek to push institutions toward new accreditors, or new accreditors with lower standards may seek to enter the field of accreditation, the Department of Education should ensure that high academic standards and those that protect academic freedom are a necessary condition for the receipt of federal student aid funding.
Conclusion
Across the country, state governance boards have begun to play an outsize role in the internal affairs of public universities. Decisions that were once guided by academic standards and institutional autonomy have become arenas for political influence and ideological control. The consequences have been profound. Faculty face professional uncertainty, students encounter a narrow and less inclusive learning experience and the broader public sees public universities being reshaped in the image of political ideology rather than academic mission.
These developments create critical governance and constitutional concerns. They challenge the principles of academic freedom while simultaneously weakening institutions’ abilities to recruit and retain top faculty, and they risk long-term harm to the quality and reputation of public higher education. For the broader public, the stakes are equally high. Students—the future of the workforce—are receiving a narrowed education. Communities lose access to independent research and expertise, and the democratic ideal of universities as a space of open inquiry and debate is being eroded.
Examples from across the globe demonstrate that when state actors are allowed to dictate what is considered acceptable knowledge or penalize faculty for discussing contested topics, students are no longer being educated in an autonomous environment. This not only weakens the role and purpose of higher education but also undermines the democratic goal of cultivating informed, independent-minded citizens.
The United States now stands at a crossroads where democratic principles and academic independence are under growing strain. The encroachment of political agendas into higher education threatens not only intellectual freedom but also the democratic values that sustain it. If left unchecked, this erosion of autonomy could mirror the authoritarian drift seen abroad, where universities have become tools of ideological control rather than centers of free inquiry. Protecting academic freedom is therefore not only vital to preserving the integrity of higher education but also essential to safeguarding the nation’s democratic future.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Devon Ombres, Robert Benson, Alexandra Cogan, Madeline Shepard, and Ben Olinsky of the Center for American Progress for their valuable contributions to this report. In addition, the authors would like to thank Dr. Raquel Rall and Dr. Demetri Morgan from the Center for Inclusive and Strategic Governance, and Merrill Schwartz and Kemal Atkins from the Association of Governing Boards and Universities and Colleges, for their review of and feedback on this report.
The authors would also like to thank Hailey Gibbs and Paige Shoemaker DeMio for their thorough fact-checking.