Public fears about the cost and value of higher education, along with political pressures, are driving a sharp rise in board activism. This is further compounded by the various positions of State and Federal governments on appropriations and funding.
From Florida, Ohio, and Indiana to Texas. We have seen the news stories. Most recently, Auburn University's board took control over curriculum, degree requirements, and academic credentials, eliminating shared governance.
Shifting Risks
In a response to legislative threats to withhold state funding, Auburn's board made a risk decision: accept certain operational risks (faculty trust, accreditation scrutiny, reputational exposure) to avoid a financial risk (loss of state appropriations).
And this reveals something important about how institutional risk management actually works in practice:
Risk is rarely eliminated. It's usually transferred or deferred.
Pre-emptive compliance is a risk strategy, one that accepts internal disruption to neutralize other threats.
The governance structure that is being dismantled IS a risk control. Shared governance may be perceived as slowing down decision-making, but it also creates accountability, minimizes blind spots, and protects accreditation.
Here's what makes Auburn's move interesting: they didn't just comply with Alabama HB 580; they went further than the law requires. The Faculty Senate has been replaced with a Presidential Academic Advisory Council that meets only at the president's request, cannot issue public statements, and operates confidentially.
This is a complete shift from faculty-led governance to administratively controlled decision-making. Trustees have already directed the provost to create a civics requirement for all students. This is an example of a board actively directing curriculum content in real time.
Accreditation Impacts
This matters when it comes to accreditation. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) standards require a faculty role in curriculum and academic policy. They also require institutions to demonstrate academic integrity and freedom from undue external influence. A board that reorganizes governance structures is one thing, but a board that directs curriculum content may be another risk. The risk profile hasn't stabilized — it has simply changed shape. Boards making near-term financial calculations may rationally conclude that accreditation risk is less likely to impact their operations. However, faculty recruitment, research partnerships, and grant competitiveness may be impacted before any formal notice arrives. And if SACSCOC accepts these decisions as is, it may weaken the deterrent effect on every other institution watching. The control loses its credibility. That's how a regional governance decision becomes a systemic risk to the entire accreditation framework.
Boards should take notice. What is happening in Alabama and Texas is not a regional story. It is a preview of the risk environment facing public higher education nationally, and boards that haven't reviewed their own exposures are already behind.
What can be done?
Before political pressure forces decisions, boards should proactively stress-test their governance structures against both legislative and accreditation scenarios. They will also need the understanding and support of faculty to address the realities their institutions face. And, that dialogue has to go both ways, boards owe faculty transparency about the pressures they are reckoning with, and faculty owe boards a willingness to engage with a higher education landscape that looks nothing like it did a decade ago.
Resources: