Top Public Policy Issues Facing Governing Boards in 2025–2026:
Political Intrusion

Published March 28, 2025

Before the outbreak of the Gaza war and subsequent campus protests, as well as reports of increased incidents of anti-Semitism, some conservatives expressed concern that U.S. higher education institutions—particularly elite ones—were influenced by predominantly liberal faculty and administrators, creating environments they viewed as unwelcoming to conservative perspectives. Protesters accusing Israel of committing genocide have led to concerns among some Jewish students about feeling unsafe on campus and have drawn attention from lawmakers dissatisfied with the current state of higher education.

The presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University resigned after testifying at a congressional hearing focused on campus responses to anti-Semitism. The president of Columbia University stepped down months after House Speaker Mike Johnson visited the campus and called for her resignation if student protests were not addressed. During his remarks, he warned that campuses failing to manage such demonstrations could face potential cuts to federal funding.¹ Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), then-chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said it was “time for the executive branch to enforce the laws and ensure colleges and universities restore order and guarantee that all students have a safe learning environment.” Failing that, “a fundamental reassessment of federal support” for such institutions was in order, she said.² Those statements foreshadowed action taken by the new administration to suspend $400 million in grants and contracts for Columbia University, citing concerns that the institution had not adequately addressed reports of harassment involving Jewish students. The administration outlined specific conditions for Columbia to address before it would consider reinstating the $400 million in grants and contracts. Columbia agreed to most of them, including tightening disciplinary rules; clarifying time, place, and manner restrictions; and requiring masked demonstrators to present university identification upon request. In response to the administration’s call to place the Middle East Studies department into academic ‘receivership,’ Columbia opted instead to establish a new position of senior vice provost to review all regional studies programs, beginning with the Middle East.³ The funding suspension was the first action taken by the administration’s new Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, which indicated that additional cancellations may follow.⁴ The administration stated that Columbia violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to ensure equal learning opportunities for Jewish students—a claim it has also made in communications with approximately 60 other colleges and universities, warning that federal funding could be at risk.⁵

Jewish Americans, who represent 2 percent of the U.S. population, were the target of 16 percent of hate crimes in 2023,⁶ according to a National Public Radio analysis of national FBI crime statistics.

Governing boards, presidents, and chancellors face the challenge of upholding the right of free speech—even loud, contentious, and controversial speech—while not allowing protests to interfere with the essential education mission of their institutions. Recognizing the pivotal role trustees play in achieving this equilibrium, the Mellon Foundation recently awarded AGB a grant to fund an initiative aimed at supporting academic freedom and freedom of speech and fostering an environment in which differing perspectives can thrive.⁷

At the same time, a growing number of institutions have formally adopted policies of not speaking out on controversial social and political issues. At least 148 institutions had adopted institutional-neutrality positions, hewing to the stance first promulgated by the University of Chicago in its Kalven Report in 1967, according to the nonpartisan Heterodox Academy.⁸ For decades college and university leaders have faced pressure from protesters to take positions on major political and social issues—ranging from the Vietnam War to divestment from oil companies and businesses linked to apartheid South Africa, and more recently, Israel. Today, many leaders are becoming more resistant to responding to such demands.

While there was a time when lawmakers were more reluctant to intervene in how college and university presidents and boards oversaw their institutions, that dynamic has begun to shift. The American Association of University Professors said nearly 150 bills that could restrict academic freedom were introduced in 35 state legislatures in from 2021 through 2023, and 21 were signed into law.⁹ These included bills to bar teaching critical race theory and “divisive concepts” to students and, more broadly, instruction about racism and discrimination.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, which tracks anti-DEI legislation, reported that since 2023, 107 such bills were introduced in 29 states and Congress, including 15 that became law, 15 that have final legislative approval, and 72 others that were tabled, failed to pass, or vetoed.¹⁰ The status of the rest was not reported. Many of these state bills—some based on model legislation developed by policy organizations such as the Goldwater Institute and the Manhattan Institute—propose reducing or eliminating funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and staff, prohibiting mandatory DEI training, eliminating requirements for diversity statements in faculty hiring, restricting the use of identity-based preferences in admissions and hiring, and limiting mandatory coursework related to DEI or critical race theory.

PEN America, a free speech advocacy organization, reported in 2024 that a growing number of state-level policies and legislation have placed new restrictions on classroom instruction and educational materials. According to the report, since January 2021, 46 state legislatures have introduced 307 such measures, with 40 enacted into law across 22 states. The organization estimated that these policies have affected approximately 1.3 million public school teachers and 100,000 faculty members at public colleges and universities. Of the total, 100 measures targeted higher education, with nine enacted in eight states: Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee.¹¹

“[T]he overwhelming majority of the bills targeting higher education sought to restrict faculty speech directly, particularly with regard to discussions of race and racism,” the PEN America report said. As an example, it cited a new law in North Dakota¹² that prohibits “race or sex scapegoating” and stereotyping, such as teaching white students they bear responsibility for slavery or teaching that a meritocracy “is inherently racist or sexist” or that the United States “is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist.”¹³ The PEN America report also cited bans on DEI programs at public colleges and universities that it said “undermine free expression on campus by asserting direct ideological control over how universities operate.” It singled out a Texas law, SB17, that took effect on January 1, 2024, titled “Responsibility of Governing Boards Regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives,” which proscribed a wide range of DEI activities, including in training and hiring. Subsequently the University of Texas at Austin, the flagship of the UT System, said it had terminated 49 staff members in DEI-related positions and relieved eight faculty of associate or assistant dean duties for DEI. The PEN America report raised red flags about bills to loosen tenure rules and laws.

PEN America also denounced bills Indiana lawmakers are considering, including one that would ban DEI offices on public college campuses and any programming “designed or implemented with reference to race.” If taken literally, said PEN senior manager Amy Reid, that “could ban even considering individuals’ race when putting together a campus panel and its neutrality mandate could ban universities from expressing virtually any idea whatsoever.” The bill also would require notifying the state legislature “in advance of changes to academic standards in public and private health science programs.”¹⁴

In Iowa, the House Speaker gaveled in a new committee in January 2025 to commence a two-year, top-to-bottom review of higher education. A major focus will be on how the state’s three public universities address state workforce needs. But a committee charge to increase intellectual diversity “and not enforce ideological agendas” has some worried that the committee’s desire to review academic programs and core curricula will define diversity too narrowly, to the detriment of the universities and their students.¹⁵

In Ohio, the state senate has passed a bill that would “ban diversity and inclusion efforts, prevent faculty from striking, set rules around classroom discussion, put diversity scholarships at risk, and shorten university boards of trustees’ terms from nine years down to six years. Regarding classroom discussion, [the bill] would set rules around topics involving ‘controversial beliefs’ such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”¹⁶ A similar bill passed the Ohio House in March, which will have to be reviewed by the Senate before a final bill can be presented to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine.¹⁷

In Florida, some public universities and faculty are struggling to meet the requirements of a 2024 law that defines which courses are appropriate within a university’s general education curriculum. The statute states that courses must not “distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics” or be “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.” Six professors sued in federal court in January 2025, arguing that the legislation “restricts academic freedom and imposes the state’s favored viewpoints on public higher education.…”¹⁸ Inside Higher Education reported that Florida’s Board of Governors, the system board for the state’s 12 universities, removed “hundreds” of classes from the general education curriculum, while the State Board of Education, which oversees Florida’s 28 two-year colleges, removed 57 percent of their general education courses.¹⁹

Lynn Pasquarella, president of the American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), expressed concern about recent political efforts to address “a perceived liberal bias in the academy.” In response, she wrote, some are attempting to “impose an ideological agenda of their own, include book bans, limits on tenure and shared governance, and educational gag orders restricting courses and discussions on issues of race, racism, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and reproductive rights.” Writing in AAC&U’s Liberal Education magazine, she stated “in a society riven by division, each of us must do everything we can to safeguard academic freedom and institutional autonomy as we strive to educate for democracy and fulfill the social contract we have made with our students and the public.”²⁰

Even before the president’s inauguration, higher education leaders were considering how best to engage constructively with the incoming administration. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, in an open letter to the President-elect, urged him to work with colleges and universities to make America more secure and prosperous, which Mitchell said has been higher education’s purpose since the country’s inception. “Higher education builds America. This has been understood by American presidents since the nation’s founding. That conviction inspired landmark legislation such as the Land-Grant acts of the 19^th century and the GI Bills of the 20^th and 21^st centuries—measures that contributed to unprecedented economic and technological growth,” he wrote.²¹

The AGB Board of Directors’ Statement on Influences Impacting Governing Board Independence and Leadership emphasizes the importance of academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the necessary independence of governing boards to determine institutional policies. On political influences, it states: “Colleges and universities require academic freedom to fulfill their core purposes, including educating students to develop their independence of thought and to advance knowledge through research and creativity. Without academic freedom and autonomy, higher education institutions cannot fulfill the vital role they play in our democracy and economy.”²²