As the summer break neared its end, Emory University physics professor Ilya Nemenman grew increasingly frustrated. Months earlier, in April, a pro-Palestinian protest had escalated, prompting police to use chemical agents, which then led Emory’s president to modify campus protest guidelines. However, Dr. Nemenman’s discontent wasn’t directed at the policy changes themselves.

The root of his frustration was the president’s choice to bypass the University Senate’s input.

“We’re not just a corporation,” Dr. Nemenman told President Gregory L. Fenves during an August 28 meeting, based on notes and interviews. “We’re a community that can’t be governed top-down.”

Although Dr. Fenves assured faculty of collaborative intentions, skepticism remained among some professors.

Faculty influence has been a hallmark of university governance for over a century, with professors playing a significant role in decisions affecting academic and campus life, working alongside presidents and trustees to shape the culture—a type of authority seldom found in other fields. Yet this year, the fragile state of this model, known as shared governance, has come into stark focus at universities across both the public and private sectors.

In Arizona, legislators recently attempted to revoke the legal protections of faculty authority in public universities, but the effort was blocked by a gubernatorial veto. At the University of Kentucky, trustees downgraded the University Senate to an advisory role, sparking widespread protest among faculty. Columbia University’s former president similarly faced criticism for deploying police during campus protests, going against a University Senate committee’s recommendations.

While a nationwide removal of faculty influence is unlikely, recent events have highlighted faculty fears that their shrinking role could dilute university culture. Some see this as part of a larger trend to limit faculty engagement in public-facing issues, such as campus protests on topics like the Gaza conflict.

“There’s a place for governing boards and administrations,” said Noëlle McAfee, an Emory philosophy professor and the Senate’s president-elect, “but they lack the expertise and qualifications to handle educational matters.”

Dr. McAfee, who was one of the individuals arrested during the April protest, stressed the importance of collaboration. “If they take control, we lose the essence of a university.”

Critics of shared governance argue that the process, with its many committees, senates, and councils, while well-intentioned, can be overly slow in today’s fast-moving world.

Recently, Kentucky ended a shared governance tradition dating back to 1917. President Eli Capilouto acknowledged the faculty’s valuable perspective but suggested that the former model no longer suited the university’s modern needs.

Shared governance varies across universities, though a 1966 framework established by major educational associations emphasizes collaborative decision-making among all university stakeholders, with each “voice” weighted differently based on responsibility. Nevertheless, boards and presidents often retain final authority, and adherence to shared governance principles has been eroding. Since 1994, the American Association of University Professors has publicly sanctioned 19 institutions for governance-related issues, with nine censures occurring since 2021.

Faculty are not alone in facing governance changes. In Arizona, a Republican-led legislative proposal aimed to strip faculty of their shared authority, instead recommending that administrators “consult with” faculty. Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed the bill in June.

At the University of Kentucky, recent restructuring ended the Senate’s role, with Dr. Capilouto citing the need for greater flexibility and more inclusive student and staff involvement. In response, the Senate passed a no-confidence vote against him, though he expressed confidence that faculty would eventually adjust to the changes.

Emory’s recent experience underscores the tensions even minor changes can bring. After the April 25 protest, Dr. Fenves set out to restrict overnight demonstrations and encampments by revising the open expression policy. Dr. Nemenman and others had anticipated Senate involvement in these changes, but the process stalled. With the prospect of future protests, Dr. Fenves proceeded without Senate input.

“The Senate started the process to update the policy, and we were ready to collaborate, but nothing came from it,” Dr. Fenves explained, underscoring that “shared governance only works if both sides engage.”

Dr. McAfee disagreed with this assessment, but Dr. Fenves emphasized the value of shared governance, stating he didn’t intend to undermine the Senate. He argued that his actions were necessary for campus safety.

Nevertheless, professors like Dr. Nemenman felt the president’s actions lacked adequate consultation, potentially compromising Emory’s commitment to shared governance.

“This approach will drive people away,” Dr. Nemenman cautioned. “We’re skilled professionals who chose this work over higher-paying options because we value our independence from micromanagement.”