When boards control college curriculum, what happens next?: op-ed from Auburn professor

This is a guest opinion column.

The conversation surrounding higher education often focuses on who holds the reins of power, but the more pressing issue is what happens once that power is centralized. Recent developments at Auburn University have brought this debate into sharp focus. Just weeks after sharing my perspective on tenure debates, HB580, and the faculty's role, it is clear that the Board of Trustees has moved in a direction that disregards the necessity of faculty-driven academic judgment.

A Structural Shift in Authority

The Board has adopted new policies that fundamentally reshape how curriculum decisions are reached. By stripping away procedural nuance, the university has effectively centralized total control over academic content within the Board itself. This is not a mere technical adjustment; it is a structural transformation with profound, lasting consequences.

As a professor, my professional identity is rooted in teaching and mentoring students. Despite popular caricatures of faculty as political activists, the reality is that we are focused on our core educational duties. This makes the Board’s power grab particularly alarming: a new, buried clause in the policy explicitly states that no professional norms or external standards can limit the Board’s curriculum authority. The issue here isn't the existence of power, but the removal of all remaining constraints on its use.

The Erosion of Expertise

The global reputation of U.S. universities is built on the foundation that subject-matter experts—not governing boards—direct the curriculum. Traditionally, trustees serve as a check for accountability, not as replacements for academic expertise. Alabama professors are already expressing concerns as Auburn pushes forward with this aggressive consolidation of authority.

Under this new model, faculty input may still exist, but it is no longer decisive. Even with well-intentioned trustees, this structure creates a dangerous precedent. Conservatively minded individuals should be particularly wary; the principles of limited government and respect for expertise are core conservative tenets that are currently being undermined by this centralized approach.

Looking Toward the Future

By removing traditional guardrails, the Board has opened the door for future interference. If a Board can dictate curriculum today based on current political preferences, that same power can eventually be wielded by those with vastly different ideologies. The precedent being set today will inevitably outlast the current political moment.

Consider a simple analogy: if you visit an oral surgeon, you expect them to operate within their specific field of expertise, governed by professional standards. If those boundaries are removed, the system breaks down. We accept limits on authority because they protect the integrity of the profession. My hope is that other universities across the state take note and avoid this path, as centralized control over curriculum is a slippery slope that leaves no room for the specialized knowledge that makes our institutions great.

Beth Davis-Sramek is the Gayle Parks Forehand Professor of Supply Chain Management at Auburn University and President of Auburn’s American Association of University Professors.