Higher education’s system of shared governance—the decades-old arrangement under which faculty hold primary authority over curriculum, hiring, and academic standards while boards and administrators oversee finance and operations—is being tested from nearly every direction in 2026, and the outcome will shape how American colleges and universities make decisions for years to come.
The most recent flashpoint arrived on Aug. 3, when U.S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent a letter to every college president and governing board in the country, asking institutions to publicly post commitments to “reaffirm higher education’s foundational commitments to academic excellence, pathbreaking research, and national service” by Dec. 31. They are asked to address seven areas: admissions transparency, free speech, intellectual pluralism, affordability and student outcomes, academic rigor in the age of AI, research security, and national service.
Unlike the White House’s October 2025 “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which nine universities were invited to join and seven publicly rejected, McMahon’s letter carries no funding conditions, no legal mandates, and no stated penalties for institutions that decline to respond.
That distinction has shaped how higher education leaders are reacting. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, drew a contrast with the earlier approach, saying, “Unlike the compact, which was a gun-to-the-head ultimatum, this is an invitation to a conversation.”
The Association of American Universities (AAU) was consulted before the letter went out. AAU President Barbara Snyder said the organization had approached the opportunity in good faith and delivered a simple message to the administration: no carrots, no sticks.
What the Letter Asks
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s Aug. 3 letter calls on colleges to “reaffirm their commitment to serving the American people” by posting public statements addressing seven questions by Dec. 31:
Admissions. The letter states, “The opacity of university admissions has caused allegations of favoritism, unjust outcomes, and illegal discrimination. Every prospective student is legally entitled to equal treatment regardless of protected characteristics, and credible accusations of covert attempts to evade the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard will persist as long as admissions criteria remain shielded from public view.” Institutions are asked to explain how they will make admissions decisions transparent and based on merit and achievement.
Free speech. Detail how the campus will protect free speech, open debate, and ensure protests don’t harass students or disrupt classes, research, and campus operations.
Intellectual pluralism. Describe how faculty hiring and evaluation practices will account for a range of viewpoints rather than skewing “toward one side of the ideological spectrum,” and how the research enterprise will stay focused on advancing knowledge and understanding.
Affordability. Schools are asked how they will contain costs, improve pricing transparency, and ensure academic programs will enable graduates to repay their loans.
Academic rigor. Explain steps to combat grade inflation and preserve rigorous teaching and assessment as artificial intelligence changes classroom instruction.
Research security. Outline safeguards against foreign influence over research programs, personnel, and admissions.
National interest. Address how the institution’s research and programs will serve national security, workforce needs and U.S. economic priorities—”prioritizing American students and faculty, orienting the research enterprise to support the country’s economic and security needs, and putting American societal success ahead of global commitments.”
The letter carries no funding conditions and no stated penalties for institutions that don’t respond—though it doesn’t rule out that responses (or nonresponses) could factor into future federal decisions.
A Softer Letter, Still Carrying Risk
Not everyone finds the softer framing reassuring. Foley Hoag, a law firm that has provided legal counsel to hundreds of colleges and universities, has cautioned that institutions’ own public statements, once posted, could later be used as evidence in enforcement actions even without any explicit legal mandate attached to the letter itself.
“Institutions should recognize that the letter creates no immediate legal requirement,” the law firm stated in a policy brief. “It is not a regulation, guidance document, or condition of federal funding, and institutions are not legally required to respond. Still, the broader political context remains important. This administration has demonstrated a willingness to use funding freezes, grant rule changes, and other levers to pressure institutions that do not align with its priorities. The absence of explicit threats in this letter does not eliminate the broader regulatory environment in which it operates.”
Ross Mugler, president of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, welcomed the shared goals but said reforms should be shaped by fiduciary duty and institutions’ long-term interests, not political coercion.
Florida moved the fastest. More than 40 leaders of the state’s public colleges signed a joint statement in August praising the letter, and Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that all of Florida’s public colleges would commit to the administration’s vision for higher education. Florida Education Commissioner Henry Mack went further, warning private colleges in the state that voluntary cooperation was expected and lawmakers could impose new statutory requirements on institutions that offer only “empty rhetoric” once the legislature reconvenes in 2027.
Where Shared Governance Comes In
That is where shared governance enters directly. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) argues that McMahon addressed her letter to presidents and governing boards, but many of the questions it raises, such as faculty hiring, evaluation, curriculum, and grading standards, are matters that fall to faculty under shared governance, not to administrators acting alone.
“Shared governance is the institutional mechanism through which academic decisions remain grounded in knowledge rather than political preference,” the organization wrote.
AAUP also argued that the strongest legal objection to the letter would arise “if the department begins to use institutional responses—or refusals to respond—as criteria in grantmaking, contracting, investigations, regulatory treatment, or other exercises of federal authority.”
The letter lands atop a governance landscape already under strain. State legislatures including Ohio, Iowa, Texas and Florida have expanded trustee and state authority over curriculum, hiring, and program closures, in some cases cutting faculty out of decisions on academic reorganization entirely. Virginia went the opposite direction in July, when the governor signed legislation intended to strengthen and depoliticize public college governing boards.
A Push for Enforceable Standards
The AAUP, together with the American Federation of Teachers, has proposed its own answer to the moment. In a policy platform released this year, the two organizations call for “true shared governance,” with faculty and staff holding real decision-making authority over academic matters, budgets and institutional priorities—not merely advisory input.
The platform argues that shared governance should be treated as an enforceable standard rather than a courtesy, proposing that institutions receiving public funds be required to meet clear governance benchmarks, with transparency and remedies when those standards are violated. It ties that argument to a broader case that only 27% of faculty nationally have union representation, leaving most instructors without formal job protections and, the platform argues, more exposed to political pressure.
Whether governance bodies retain meaningful authority over responding to the questions McMahon’s letter raises—or whether presidents and boards answer them unilaterally—may become one of the clearer tests of how much power shared governance still holds heading into 2027.
