Shared Governance Eliminated?

HigherEdRisk Editorial

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. <h3>Shifting Risks </h3>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: <ol><li>Risk is rarely eliminated. It's usually transferred or deferred. </li><li>Pre-emptive compliance is a risk strategy, one that accepts internal disruption to neutralize other threats. </li><li>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.</li></ol>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.<h3>Accreditation Impacts</h3>This