A quiet battle is being fought in the halls of universities that threatens the very foundation of public higher education in America. Since public education is completely reliant on an increasingly polarized government, how can we possibly protect the sanctity of higher education from becoming a tool of political influence? Public universities provide attainable higher education for the American people, but we cannot expect these universities to remain beacons of independent thought while partisan governments continually attack their integrity. Students who cannot afford to attend a private institution are still entitled to a nonpartisan education that values their academic freedom. In order to preserve the independence of higher education from partisan animosity, the government should grant well-functioning, large public university systems constitutional autonomy to oversee their own internal affairs. 

Constitutional autonomy sounds staggering and unprecedented, but it is actually a fairly innocuous status that has been awarded before. Public universities often form systems of multiple colleges with a shared governing board, such as the UC Regents and CSU Trustees. Constitutional autonomy involves the state legislature empowering university governing boards to conduct their own internal affairs, manage the budget, and allocate resources. While autonomous, the board is essentially free from legislative control, “entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence” [1]. Autonomous university systems hold exclusive rights to manage all internal affairs, including overseeing academics, planning campuses, and hiring faculty.

Polarized state governments are increasingly using their power over public higher education institutions to repress intellectual thought. The most prominent example comes from Florida, where a right-wing government has directly restricted academic freedom. Some of the many assaults have included banning diversity programs, firing targeted faculty [2], and banning certain academic subjects altogether [3]. Florida Senate Bill 266 forbade universities from spending any funds—regardless of source—on programs they describe as “discriminatory,” including Gender Studies, Intersectionality, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion [4]. Simultaneously, Florida’s governor personally targeted a small liberal arts school, packing the university’s board with a Republican majority and dissolving the university’s Office of Outreach and Inclusive Excellence, responsible for diversity programs. The newly instated board fired several of their critics within the university’s faculty [5] and denied five professors tenure [6]. Florida’s actions demonstrate how easy stifling academic freedom and making public colleges partisan can be without proper constitutional protections.

Additionally, Republican legislators are threatening nationwide academic freedom through a large movement against Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT may be the most politically contested academic topic at the moment; it is the subject of 777 bills, executive orders, statements, and other political actions meant to stop professors from teaching or researching it. [7]. CRT scholars focus on understanding how American racism has shaped public policy, discourse, and institutions [8]. Political figures should not be able to ban research into a theory just because they disagree with it. Regardless of whether you believe racism has affected the development of American institutions, scholars should have the right to study a possible connection and come to their own conclusions. CRT researchers deserve to determine themselves whether or not there is merit to the argument. While some party platforms use certain topics of research, such as CRT, for theoretical backing, the theory itself is not inherently partisan. All political parties rely on social, economic, and scientific theories to create their platform’s opinions—it is not the theories themselves that are partisan. To come to the most accurate conclusions, people of all political beliefs should be free to study any theory. In order to maintain academic freedom and the pursuit of all types of knowledge, politicians must not have the power to prohibit areas of study. The pursuit of knowledge is not political.

Beyond partisan attempts to intellectually suppress, politicians have the power to morph institutions of higher education into a political weapon meant to appease party elites at the expense of students. A less-discussed government-university conflict involved California's democratic governor attempting to control the internal affairs of a completely autonomous university system: the UC. After a public dispute between the governor and UCLA officials over UCLA’s withdrawal from the PAC-12 conference, the governor called out UCLA specifically in his budget proposal for 2023-2024. The budget hinged 20 million dollars of state funding for UCLA on the condition that the university create a guaranteed transfer pathway from any California community college to UCLA [9]. For decades, the autonomous UC and California state government have fiercely contested the issue of guaranteed transfer. California junior college students already enjoy a path of guaranteed transfer to any CSU and six of the nine UCs, not including UCLA. The California legislature passed a myriad of bills establishing and funding these transfer programs– all of which include “requests” to the UC system to abide by the legislature’s decisions [10]. Constitutional autonomy prevents the governor from directly forcing UCLA to comply in the way he is able to with the CSU system. If UCLA was not autonomous, then the governor’s order would have quickly rebuilt their admissions process. The impact of guaranteed admission to the nation’s #1 public university is unclear, and while there are compelling arguments in favor, it should not be decided by a high-profile political figure. Because UCLA is autonomous, it had the option to decide whether to comply in this instance. However, in every other similar case where a politician interfered with the admissions practices of a non-autonomous university, the institution had no choice. The internal practices of universities, including hiring and admissions, should not be a political tool available to politicians whose interests often misalign with the best interests of higher education institutions. Those whose sole obligation is to the university, students, and faculty should decide what is best for the university. While universities do have a certain duty to the general public to be equitable, fulfilling that duty should never conflict with prioritizing the well-being and autonomy of the university itself. Universities, by excelling at their core functions of educating students and conducting research, inherently contribute positively to society. By maintaining the academic integrity of their education, autonomous universities create a more comprehensive positive impact on society. 

Constitutional autonomy solves the problem of politicians interfering with academic freedom and integrity at public higher education institutions. While the level of autonomy for universities exists along a spectrum, three university systems have a fairly complete level of autonomy: the 10 campuses of the University of California system, the 3 campuses of the University of Michigan system [11], and the 5 campuses of the University of Minnesota system [12].  In practice, the governing boards of these systems become a “fourth branch of government,” acting independently and in coordination with the other three branches rather than being subordinate [13]. Although autonomous universities are still subject to judicial review and legislative appropriations power [14], these are the only two means by which political parties can interfere with the conducting of internal affairs. In each of the examples of academic freedom being restricted, the legislature passed a bill then the governor signed it into law—a process that is relatively quick and simple. For university systems with autonomy, the government has far more limited power to interfere with universities’ governance; they could pass a constitutional amendment through the legislature and the voters of that state, threaten to withhold funding for the university, or sue and influence the courts to rule against academic freedom. None of these options provide the same easy means for politicians to tyrannize public universities. By freeing public educational institutions from political influence, it is much more difficult for partisan politicians to attack academic freedom. 

Besides protecting universities’ academic freedom, autonomy is also associated with public universities that become more prestigious while remaining accessible for students who cannot afford to attend a private institution. Of about 1600 US public colleges, only 18 are completely constitutionally autonomous. However, of the top 10 public universities in the nation, 6 are constitutionally autonomous [15]. When the three university systems were granted autonomy in the mid-19th century, they were by no means already the best universities in the nation. Therefore, perhaps autonomous universities’ governing boards being able to devote all their time and attention to the needs of their students rather than the entire constituency in their states contributes to success. Legislators are unable to devote all their time to developing prosperous public universities, while Regents are. Public universities with protected academic freedom are generally the most prestigious and prosperous public universities in the nation.

However, granting universities’ autonomy also makes it easier for university governing boards to abuse their power. The governing boards of public institutions are not always elected by the people and therefore are not directly accountable to the people. The UC Regents consist of seven high-ranking elected officials, including the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, along with 18 Regents appointed by the governor to a 12-year term. UC Regents can only be removed by a vote of the other Regents, meaning the Californian people have no direct influence [16]. Legislators can and should change this system to prevent abuses of power before they occur. The other two autonomous university systems hold better practices for choosing members of their governing board. The Regents of the University of Michigan system include the President of the system and 8 Regents elected in statewide partisan elections to serve 8-year terms [17]. Meanwhile, the 12 Regents of the University of Minnesota system are elected by a joint convention of the Minnesota legislature to serve 6-year terms [18]. The people—and more importantly, the students—should have a direct mechanism to hold the powerful members of university boards accountable. 

Public universities provide an accessible gateway for students to advance their standing in society. These students are entitled to an education where they are free to pursue any form or topic of knowledge without partisan-imposed restrictions. Constitutional autonomy protects academic freedom without cutting financial ties with the government. Autonomy is by no means a cure-all, and governing boards require major reform to keep them accountable to the people. However, granting university systems constitutional autonomy is a long-term solution to the problem of partisan interference. By protecting the independent pursuit of knowledge from partisan politics, we safeguard the foundation of a democratic society where open discourse can thrive.