Morgan Lane, Unsplash The Trump administration’s flurry of action on education reform creates space for states to chart their own paths. Efforts to abolish the Department of Education aim to “return education to the states.”
Yet most conservative states have mostly been timid in embracing and building a better future for higher education. This is partly a fault of imagination, partly a lack of will.
Florida led the way in both imagination and will. Many acts of the DeSantis administration presaged those of the Trump administration. Florida banned DEI offices, while the Trump administration is using national civil-rights laws to root them out. Florida acted against antisemitism on campus in 2024; the Trump administration has taken the battle national. Florida has been taking on the accreditation cartel, requiring its state institutions of higher education to switch accreditors; the Trump folks aim to loosen up the cartel with national power.
Florida has used the sovereignty afforded under the federal system to chart its own course in higher education. Florida has used the sovereignty afforded under the federal system to chart its own course in higher education. It has regulated schools of education under its power to certify teachers, thus attempting to rid teacher-preparation programs of critical theories. Florida has three unique centers dedicated to bucking today’s academic consensus, including the Hamilton Center at the University of Florida, the flagship among new academic centers around the country. Gov. DeSantis has placed ideological allies on boards of trustees so that university and college leaders are more likely to support his agenda. More sympathetic presidents have emerged in some universities and colleges, though hardly all. The New College experience stands out as a singular example of conservative institutional takeover.
Under Florida law, administrators removed courses infused with identity politics from the list of gen-ed requirements. Florida has also reformed general education. Under Florida law, administrators in the State University System and the Florida College System removed courses infused with identity politics from the list of general-education requirements and also demanded that gen-ed courses provide foundational knowledge. As a result, hundreds of courses were dropped from general-education requirements at Florida universities and colleges. The new general education, starting next year, will be more dedicated to creating informed citizens who “will promote and preserve the constitutional republic through traditional, historically accurate” and “foundational” coursework, as the law stipulates.
Other states are reforming general education, as well. Utah governor Spencer Cox recently signed into law SB 334, inspired by the Martin Center’s model General Education Act, coauthored with the Ethics & Public Policy Center and the National Association of Scholars. Arkansas overwhelmingly passed HB 1696 in April. Arkansas’s bill shrinks the general-education core (from 35 credits to 15) to focus on achieving specific state goals. The goal of the legislation is to produce “informed, self-reliant, and civic-minded citizens” across the whole system. Courses will be fully transferable within the entire system.
Starting in 2027, Arkansas public colleges and universities must develop and offer five three-credit courses. Two courses must concern “communication skills” and be designed “to develop [students’] ability to organize ideas and to communicate with clarity, precision and syntactical maturity,” probably something akin to writing and rhetoric courses. Another course must promote the study of logic and “critical thinking.” The last two courses will treat (1) American history and (2) American government, with an emphasis on “the essentials of the United States Constitution” and “the study of American institutions and ideals.” Universities and colleges will have to hire toward these new goals—and perhaps away from other goals currently emphasized in the general-education core. As in Florida, where state-system administrators have substantial authority in implementing the law, the Arkansas Division of Higher Education will make judgments about compliance among universities.
Texas has proposed perhaps the most far-reaching general-education bill in the country. State Senator Brandon Creighton’s SB 37 has cleared the Texas Senate and awaits action in the Texas House, where it is currently stalled in committee. Generally, SB 37 bespeaks a suspicion that Texas public universities are closed shops, unwilling to consider outside input and unwilling to accept accountability. They decide what is and what is not general education, as well as who teaches, who gets promoted, and what future jobs are going to look like. As Sen. Creighton has said, SB 37 “strengthens university governance by enhancing oversight” through clarifying and expanding the powers of governing boards. Whether these checks would be as effective as they are needed remains to be seen.
The bill would further transfer power from faculty senates to governing boards to enhance their oversight power over the decisions of university administrators. On general education, SB 37 requires governing board at each university to appoint a “general education review committee” from industry leaders and faculty, as they deem appropriate. The review committee at each university or college would weigh whether current general-education courses are (1) “foundational and fundamental”; (2) necessary “to prepare students for civic and professional life”; (3) able to prepare students for “participation in the workforce or in the betterment of society”; and (4) designed in such a way that they “do not require … a student to adopt a belief that any race, sex, or ethnicity or social, political, or religious belief is inherently superior to any other.” The governing board could also overturn any decision the university makes on general education, at any time. The bill mandates that review be conducted every five years.
Texas boards are given the power to “overturn any decision made by the administration of a campus.” On hiring and promotion, governing bodies maintain control over hiring and evaluating university presidents and system chancellors. They get additional powers to approve the hiring of all university leadership down to the dean level. To ensure that the sun shines on all recommended hires, governing boards must have access to their vitae and other professional information 30 days before board meetings. Boards are given the power to “overturn any decision made by the administration of a campus,” including tenure decisions and hiring decisions. Governing boards are given power to approve job postings in fields not related to math, science, technology, and engineering, since so many job postings in the humanities and social sciences are infused with ideological politics.
Since universities habitually tolerate inefficient programs, Texas SB 37 mandates program reviews. Since universities habitually tolerate inefficient programs that offer students poor job prospects, SB 37 mandates program reviews. SB 37’s program reviews allow governing boards to determine proper cuts to low-enrollment programs and to cut programs with low workforce demands or poor returns on investment. Program reviews will be conducted every five years. Programs that do not rate highly enough will be cut. This process is the best in the country and should be emulated everywhere, especially in areas with declining population and lowering student enrollment.
Lastly, the proposal enhances board-level training and transparency. New duties come with new training, a concession to the reality that current governing boards may not be up to implementing the law. Board nominees will be told what their jobs entail and be equipped to do the jobs with front-end training. A new office within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board—the Office of Excellence in Higher Education, appointed by the governor—would be charged with investigating alleged violations of the law committed by institutions of higher education. The office would field complaints, conduct investigations, and submit and publicize findings, though the attorney general would have to bring legal action.
Boards or Administrators?
These three models of state higher-education reform raise a deep question of policy: Who is best equipped to regulate universities?
Judgments in Florida and Arkansas reflect confidence that administrators can deal with some of the important details. Higher-education administrators can specialize in curricula (and hiring). Florida administrators, for instance, ferret out courses and syllabi infused with identity politics or lacking foundational knowledge. They can require that those courses be dropped or adapted. Yet those administrators do not have to worry about other details of university life, such as financial reporting or audits or building plans. It is also easier for a state like Florida to find a few good administrators within their higher-education systems, who can do these jobs or grow into them. Having administrators in charge reflects the reality that conservative reformers are outnumbered in the higher-education space. A few good men can make a big difference. Even though Gov. DeSantis populates boards of trustees with allies, often the hiring of university presidents—the most crucial function of boards of trustees—yields head-scratching results. Swinging and missing on administrators is more easily fixed. Florida did the best under its circumstances.
In Texas, no central administrative body akin to the Florida State University System exists, so reform must go through system boards and governing boards. Texas is making the best of its structure by empowering and training governing boards to oversee curricula and hiring—and is assisting boards in doing the job. Governing boards oversee actions. They specialize in one institution. Perhaps they are up to the job or can be brought up to the job. There will also be ample opportunities for public input, as candidates will be brought to the governing boards for approval. Candidates with lots of past statements supporting DEI initiatives, or whose vitae are infused with identity politics, will have a hard time surviving public scrutiny. Texas will have a real path for reform with Sen. Creighton’s bill.
Achieving reform through boards will be a very heavy lift, but there is now a path. On the other hand, reformers worry that there are not enough horses to compete in this race. Will the Texas governor appoint people to the University of Texas or Texas A&M boards of regents, for example, who will defy their university presidents in the name of curricular reform? Will such appointees reject the job advertisements for sociology professors or reject a 100-level English course that lacks foundational knowledge? There is a path, but are there enough knowledgeable and trainable higher-education reformers to put on boards? Will legislatures acquiesce in the appointment of reforming boards of trustees? Recent experience at George Mason University and the University of West Florida—where higher-education reformers (such as I) were rejected by the state legislature—suggests that legislatures prefer boards to be sinecures for ideological compatriots or donors. Achieving reform through boards will be a very heavy lift, but there is now a path.
The Trump administration gives higher-education reformers space to reform. Let a thousand flowers of higher-education reform bloom! Let us honestly evaluate what has been accomplished and note where reform has failed and why. The Florida reforms are promising. So are the Texas reforms. But the bottom line is that Team Reform will not get too many bites at the apple (to mix metaphors) and must learn from its own mistakes.
Scott Yenor is senior director of state coalitions for the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life and a professor of political science at Boise State University.
Author
Scott Yenor
