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

This is a guest opinion column.

The conversation surrounding college curriculum is often fixated on the wrong question. It is not about who holds the power, but what occurs once that power becomes centralized. At Auburn University, the gravity of that question is now a reality.

Just weeks after I authored an op-ed regarding tenure debates, HB580, and the essential role of faculty, the Auburn Board of Trustees has shifted the landscape. I advocated for a measured approach that respects the realities of academic work, but the Board took a different path.

Structural changes, real consequences

The Board has adopted new policies that effectively centralize control over curriculum. Strip away the bureaucratic language, and the result is clear: the Board now holds the authority over what is taught, bypassing traditional faculty roles. This is not a mere technical adjustment; it is a structural transformation with significant consequences.

My own perspective is rooted in my faith and a career spent on the right side of the political aisle. Most of my colleagues are not the activists often portrayed by critics; we are dedicated to teaching and mentoring. This is why the Board’s new direction is so alarming.

Buried within these policies is a clause stating that no professional norm or external standard can restrict the Board’s authority over the curriculum. While such power may have existed in theory, the move to exercise it so fully creates an entirely new reality. The issue isn't the presence of authority, but the removal of the constraints that once kept it in check.

The erosion of expertise

Alabama professors are reacting as Auburn moves to tighten its grip on faculty and curriculum. The success of American universities has historically been built on the principle that subject-matter experts—the faculty—design the courses, while trustees provide oversight rather than substituting their own judgment for academic expertise.

Auburn’s Board has disrupted that balance. Faculty input, while still technically allowed, no longer serves as a constraint on final decisions. This makes it dangerously easy for expertise to be sidelined.

A warning for the future

I recognize that the Auburn trustees are well-intentioned. However, good intentions do not compensate for a flawed structure. This shift should trouble my fellow conservatives; centralized power is a tool that, once established, can be wielded by those with vastly different agendas later on.

As a business professor, I teach the value of capitalism and argue against moral relativism in my seminars. Under these new policies, my ability to anchor those lessons in academic expertise is undermined. A future board could just as easily mandate the teaching of socialism or moral relativism. The risk is not just the current policy, but the precedent it sets.

Traditional governance provided necessary guardrails. Much like an oral surgeon would never be expected to perform open-heart surgery, faculty experts should not see their academic guidance replaced by those removed from the classroom. True authority respects boundaries, a concept I try to live by according to the principles of Romans 12:3.

This issue demands attention from parents and students across the political spectrum. My hope is that other institutions refrain from following this path. Once power is explicitly centralized, it is only a matter of time before it is used.

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.