'Complete takeover': Lawmakers exert control over university policy in 11th hour
Over the course of 36 hours at the tail end of the three-month legislative session, Indiana lawmakers made significant policy changes that fundamentally alter how state universities conduct themselves.
These changes ― among them, giving Gov. Mike Braun sole appointing power over Indiana University's board of trustees, subjecting tenured faculty to "productivity" quotas that could lead to termination, dissolving the decision-making power of faculty governance organizations ― were never the subject of a filed bill or amendment and saw no opportunity for public testimony.
They appeared near the bottom of the 220-page budget bill the evening of April 23, and rose to the forefront of the heated debate that went into the early hours of April 25 when lawmakers approved the bill.
"It's hard to imagine anything that could possibly be more nontransparent, opaque," said Russ Skiba, professor emeritus at IU. "This is a complete takeover of universities by the governor and state legislature."
Republican Rep. Jeff Thompson of Lizton, the House's budget writer, repeatedly defended the measures as the state exercising its duty to ensure taxdollars are spent wisely and efficiently. Asked multiple times, he said he could not recall who brought forward the ideas.
IU Board of Trustees
The governor has previously appointed five of the nine trustees to IU's board, plus a student member. Three alumni board members have been elected by alumni. The new language gives the governor appointing and replacing power over all nine members.
Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, in whose district IU's flagship campus sits, questioned why the university itself hadn't made a public position known on this language. He pointed out that one alumni-elected board member recently questioned the pay raise and contract extension of the university president ― referring to Vivian Winston, who was the sole "no" vote on that measure.
House Speaker Todd Huston said there are so few who participate in the elections for the alumni board members, so the university is "better served" to have the highest state elected official appoint the board.
That doesn't mean alumni wouldn't be one of Braun's choices, Braun told reporters earlier in the day. But he said the "current process" has perhaps not "yielded the proper results" in terms of curruculum, cost and the operation of the university.
"So I want to get a board there that is going to be maybe a little more rounded, that's going to produce better results," he said.
Faculty tenure and power
Colleges will be required to adopt a post-tenure review policy that includes certain productivity based quotas: the faculty member's class load, the number of students who they graduate, their time spent instructing and the amount of research they put out.
It's reminiscent of the additions to the tenure review process that lawmakers added last year, in Senate Enrolled Act 202, which dictated that a condition of tenure includes fostering intellectual diversity. Huston said Thursday night's debate reminded him of that bill.
"I think, frankly, Indiana universities from what I can understand are thriving after that passage," he said.
Thompson again said this is about ensuring the efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Rep. Ed Delaney, D-Indianapolis, posited that this could lead to "diploma creep" ― an inflated number of students attaining diplomas who perhaps aren't ready simply because their professors are incentivized to increase their numbers or meet a quota.
"You can't use Stalinist techniques to run an educational system," he said. "It will lead to distortion."
Skiba said if he were still working as a professor, he would leave the state rather than be subjected to these standards. While these metrics are quantitative, the measure of a professor's success is often more about the quality of the students they graduate, he said.
"Essentially there will be no such thing as tenure anymore," he said. "The review is kind of disturbing, really. ... Any professor could be summarily put on probation and fired for failing to meet some standard."
Another insertion into the budget designates faculty governance organizations as "advisory" only in nature ― contrary to the "shared governance" tradition that many institutions have. Faculty will now also have to post all their syllabi online.
All told, the process behind the policy became just as criticized as the policies themselves.
"Why did members of this body not have the courage to admit to members of this public what they planned to do?" Pierce said. "It is beneath this institution to do such a thing."
Both Huston and Senate President Pro Tempore Rod Bray acknowledged that the legislative process wasn't ideal, and they try to limit how often policies get added to legislation in the final hours of session.
"There a few things that land in a budget that maybe haven't seen much light of today before," Bray said. "We still have the opportunity, of course, to debate them, and we did that this evening. So, certainly not perfect, but you'll have some of those things almost every session."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump approval holds at 40%, lowest of his term, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, Aug 18 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's approval rating held at 40% in recent weeks, matching the lowest level of his current term, amid weak ratings from Hispanic voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday. The six-day poll was conducted as economic data showed signs the U.S. labor market is weakening and as Trump oversees a sweeping immigration crackdown, while at the same time the Republican has been engaged in intense diplomacy to end a war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump's approval rating was unchanged from a late July Reuters/Ipsos poll, but has dropped seven percentage points since his first days back in the White House in January, when 47% of Americans gave him a thumbs-up. The latest poll showed Hispanics, a group that swung toward Trump in last year's election, have also soured on the president. Some 32% approved of his performance in the White House, matching their lowest level of approval for Trump this year. More: Trump approval rating round-up: Where does president stand in recent polls? More than half of respondents -- 54%, including one in five Republicans -- said they thought Trump was too closely aligned with Russia, even as he ramped up a push to broker peace between Moscow and Kyiv. Trump has appeared to embrace Russia's claim that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia in order for the war to stop. Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, and the poll closed just ahead of the president's meeting on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Just 42% of respondents approved of Trump's performance on crime and 43% thought he was doing a good job on immigration policy. On all policies, Trump's support came overwhelmingly from Republicans. After returning to the White House in January, Trump ordered a sweeping crackdown on people living in the country illegally, deploying masked agents to arrest and deport migrants across the country. The policy has triggered mass protests in cities including Los Angeles, where about half the population identifies as Latino and many people have family members who are recent immigrants. More: What is Trump's approval rating? See states where he is most, least popular More recently, Trump ordered federal agents and National Guard troops to aid in law enforcement in Washington, D.C., arguing that crime was rampant there. Statistics show that violent crime shot up in 2023 but has been rapidly declining since. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and online and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points. (Reporting by Jason Lange; editing by Scott Malone and Deepa Babington)


Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants NASA to burn a crucial satellite to cinders, killing research into climate change
By any reasonable metric, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been a spectacular success. Originally designed to support a two-year pilot project, it has been operating continuously in space for more than 10 years and could continue doing so for three decades more. The data it produces 'are of exceptionally high quality,' NASA stated in a 2023 review, when it labeled the project 'the flagship mission for space-borne measurements' of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So perhaps it isn't surprising that the Trump administration plans to shut the program down. It gets worse: The White House has given NASA instructions to destroy the spacecraft by plunging it to a fiery demise in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists and engineers say that Trump could choose to temporarily mothball the orbiting observatory, leaving a skeleton staff in place at NASA to monitor its hibernation until cooler heads prevail at the White House. Destroying the spacecraft, however, will hamstring climate research for decades. The zeroing out of climate research budgets by the Trump White House, of which the cancellation of the OCO program is a part, is taking place just as the value of space-borne climate research has been rising sharply. 'The bottom line is that the societal and scientific benefit of this research increases almost exponentially with sustained and long-lasting measurements,' says Ben Poulter, an expert in greenhouse gas measurements formerly at NASA and now a senior scientist at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. 'We're starting to see the positive impact of OCO-2 at helping to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in natural ecosystems as the Earth undergoes the impacts of climate change.' Under the most recent Republican administrations, NASA's involvement in Earth science — that is, research into global warming and other climate change — has consistently come under fire. As I reported recently, these programs were specifically targeted by Russell Vought, currently Trump's budget director and an architect of Project 2025, in a 2023 unofficial budget proposal. There, Vought groused about NASA's 'misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs.' He called for a 50% reduction in the budget for NASA Earth science research — a cut that made it into Trump's current proposed budget. The vastly reduced Earth science budget for NASA was passed by the House earlier this year, but it isn't part of the Senate version, which hasn't been passed. What isn't understood by Vought, Trump or the current acting director of NASA, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, is that Earth science was specifically made part of NASA's portfolio in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. Among the agency's directives, the act stated, would be 'the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere.' That's where climate change occurs. The effort to zero out Earth science alarmed more than 60 Democratic House members, who wrote Duffy on July 18 to warn that 'the scale of reductions to NASA Earth science would ... severely impair the use of Earth science data and research to improve our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires, leaving the nation less prepared for the challenges of the future and impacting local communities' abilities to adapt and respond to severe weather and natural disaster events.' Trump's budgetary cheeseparing at NASA means the waste of billions of dollars already spent by taxpayers. As I reported before, the bulk of the cost of space missions is in the development of spacecraft and their launch; once that's done, the cost of maintaining a satellite in orbit is nominal. According to David Crisp, who led the OCO development team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena from the outset and is now a private consultant, the OCO program development and launch cost was about $750 million, but since the launch it costs only about $15 million a year to operate. That doesn't count the value of the lost data. Crisp reckons that Duffy and the administration 'decided that NASA should not do Earth science, and the fact that we have billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars invested in that enterprise right now and really valuable hardware in place, providing critical information to organizations across the world is irrelevant. I think what's going on here is that they've made a strategic move without taking into account tactical realities.' The average layperson — and that includes some White House officials making policy decisions about scientific endeavors — has no idea about the effort required to put a satellite into space and keep it there. The OCO project was typical. As described by Crisp, the process began in the mid-1990s as an inquiry into how carbon dioxide produced on Earth got absorbed by natural 'sinks' such as forests. The project won approval in 2001 from the George W. Bush administration. Environmental science wasn't the partisan football it later became. 'You could be a good Republican and still think this was a good thing to do,' Crisp told me. The first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was readied for launch in February 2009. 'It was a tremendous challenge, an instrument designed to make a measurement three or four times more difficult than anything ever attempted at JPL,' Crisp says. The launch was successful — for just over three minutes, at which point it failed, plunging rocket and satellite to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean. 'We'd spent eight years and $270 million and engaged more than 1,000 work-years of heroic effort,' Crisp recalls. NASA wanted to keep the project alive. For 10 months, Crisp and others beat down the doors of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and commercial enterprise to find the money to preserve it, but this was in the teeth of the Great Recession, and no one signed on. But ultimately the Obama administration appropriated $50 million in December 2009 to restart the mission. Crisp's team built a carbon copy of the original satellite, and it was launched successfully on July 2, 2014. The original vision was to operate OCO-2 for two years as a proof-of-concept, showing that carbon dioxide could be accurately measured from space. Because of the peculiarities of the launch, however, it carried enough fuel to last 40 years. The reconstruction left enough spare parts in hand to build a twin instrument dubbed OCO-3, which was launched in May 2019 and installed on the International Space Station, where it is still operating. When I asked NASA for a response to widespread criticism of its actions by the scientific community, I got the same standardized reponse that others have received. It labeled OCO-2 and -3 'two climate missions beyond their prime mission,' and added that as the proposed budget has 'not yet been enacted, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.' What NASA believes the OCO 'prime mission' is, if not studying atmospheric conditions on Earth, is a mystery. Within weeks of its own launch, OCO-2 began producing data that would revolutionize climate science. Its applications went well beyond measuring carbon dioxide. OCO-2 was able to detect 'solar-induced fluorescence' in plants, an artifact of photosynthesis, which could be used as a 'reliable early warning indicator of flash drought with enough lead time to take action,' JPL reported last year. Those measurements, Crisp says, 'have been a bigger hit with the science community than the CO2 measurements.' And they're the product not of planning, but serendipity, a crucial feature of scientific progress. At this moment, OCO-2 seems destined for oblivion. Crisp says NASA staffers have been instructed to make a plan to move the spacecraft into a 'disposal orbit' that would incinerate it in the Earth's atmosphere within a few months. But that's expensive, requiring a detailed plan to ensure that its deteriorating orbit doesn't threaten other orbiting craft. The quick and dirty alternative would be to 'point the thing down and fire the thruster, which would basically produce an instantaneous reentry.' Which option will be chosen isn't clear. A third alternative is to place the craft in a sort of suspended sleep, so it could be started up again after Trump and his minions leave office. But that would require 24-hour monitoring to adjust the OCO orbit to avoid space junk — not an infrequent occurrence. (With OCO-3 attached to the International Space Station, it will remain in place, though nonfunctional, as long as the ISS stays aloft.) The plan to destroy OCO-2 is beyond shameful. Crisp says of the OCO hardware, 'these are national assets.... They are what made this country great. Tearing things down doesn't make it great again. It just tears things down.'


The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump adds firepower to National Guard presence in DC
The number of National Guard troops patrolling Washington, D.C., will more than double in the coming days after Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia in the past several days committed troops to President Trump's federal takeover of the city. Coupled with indications that the guard members may soon be carrying weapons — a reversal of their initial orders — the new deployments mark a major escalation of Trump's efforts to take over law enforcement in Washington, D.C. The roughly 800 D.C. National Guard troops already deployed in the capital will be joined by about 200 personnel from Mississippi, between 300 and 400 from West Virginia, 150 from Ohio and 200 from South Carolina, beefing up a presence that has largely stood idle around typically low-crime, tourist-heavy areas in the city. 'Crime is out of control there, and it's clear something must be done to combat it,' Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said in a statement Monday, becoming the latest Republican governor to answer to a Trump administration request to send guard members to Washington. West Virginia, Ohio and South Carolina, meanwhile, pledged their state troops over the weekend, bolstering Trump's federal crackdown on crime and homelessness in the Democratic-led city. Still, some GOP governors are keeping their troops home, including Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R), who 'politely declined' Trump's request to deploy Vermont National Guard soldiers to Washington, D.C. 'While public safety is a legitimate concern in cities across the country and certainly in the nation's capital, in the absence of an immediate emergency or disaster that local and regional first responders are unable to handle, the governor just does not support utilizing the guard for this purpose, and does not view the enforcement of domestic law as a proper use of the National Guard,' Scott's chief of staff, Jason Gibbs, said in a statement Friday, as reported by Vermont Public. Gibbs said Scott might have sent a few dozen guard members if it was D.C. officials who were seeking federal assistance with an emergency situation instead. 'But in this case, because it is being hyperpoliticized, the governor doesn't feel like — and I believe the vast majority of Vermonters don't feel like — it would be an acceptable and appropriate use of the National Guard,' Gibbs said. Trump launched the federal takeover of D.C. via an executive order that declared a 'crime emergency' in the city, grabbing control of the city's police department and sending federal agents — including some from the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI and Secret Service — to the streets despite a sharp drop in crime since 2023. Critics say the effort is merely a photo op and a gross militarization of Washington, with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser on Monday pushing back on Trump's characterization of the city. 'We don't have any authority over the D.C. guard or any other guards, but I think it makes the point that this is not about D.C. crime,' Bowser said of the administration and states deploying National Guard troops to the capital. 'The focus should be on violent crime,' she added. 'Nobody is against focusing on driving down any level of violence. And so if this is really about immigration enforcement the administration should make that plain.' So far, the guard members in Washington have assisted law enforcement with crowd control and patrolling typically low-crime areas such as landmarks, including the National Mall, Lincoln Memorial and Union Station. It is unclear why additional troops have been requested by Trump as the National Guard's role has been limited and many have been seen around the city standing idly next to their vehicles. But even with their seemingly uneventful patrols, guard members may soon be armed while out and about. Initial deployment orders stipulated that the troops would wear body armor but they would not be armed or even have their weapons in their vehicles, according to an Army statement released Thursday. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson also told reporters Thursday that the guard members will not be conducting law enforcement activities while in D.C., but they could temporarily detain someone until law enforcement could make an arrest. The White House said in a statement Saturday, however, that the National Guard troops 'may be armed, consistent with their mission and training, to protect federal assets, provide a safe environment for law enforcement officers to make arrests, and deter violent crime with a visible law enforcement presence.'