OPINION: Killing collective bargaining in higher ed will hurt students and shatter morale

Summary

The Nevada Board of Regents has quietly placed proposals on its Sept 11–12 agenda that would fundamentally alter how collective bargaining and tenure function in the state’s higher education system. One change would require legislative fiscal preapproval for collective bargaining agreements, effectively blocking normal negotiation processes. The other expands post-tenure review around vague notions of “professional conduct” and “respectful interaction,” which risks politicising academic evaluation.

These moves mirror actions in Florida, Texas and Ohio that contributed to faculty departures and weakened institutions. The author argues that, in Nevada — already near the bottom for educational attainment — these proposals would damage faculty morale, drive talent away, and ultimately harm students.

Key Points

The proposed Title 4 change would demand legislative fiscal preapproval of collective bargaining agreements before they are negotiated, undermining normal bargaining procedures.
Rewriting post-tenure review to hinge on undefined terms such as “professional conduct” risks politicised enforcement and chills academic freedom and rigorous inquiry.
Other states that followed similar playbooks (Florida, Texas, Ohio) have seen faculty exoduses; Nevada could suffer disproportionately because of its smaller size and existing low rankings in educational attainment.
Collective bargaining often provides stable governance, grievance processes and budget predictability — it does not create budgetary surprises; it helps prevent sudden financial shocks.
Tenure protects sustained scholarship and teaching; it does not eliminate accountability — faculty are already reviewed annually under NSHE rules.

Context and relevance

This is part of a wider national trend where state-level interventions reshape campus governance, bargaining rights and tenure. For Nevada, which ranks low on higher education attainment, adopting these policies would likely accelerate faculty departures, weaken research and teaching quality, and limit students’ opportunities. The article is particularly relevant to educators, students, policymakers and anyone concerned about the future of public higher education in Nevada.

Why should I read this?

Because if you care about the quality of teaching and the futures of students in Nevada, this could matter a lot — and fast. The piece explains, in plain terms, how what looks like procedural tinkering would actually gut bargaining power, sap morale and make campuses less stable places to learn. We read it so you don’t have to — but you should know what your regents are considering.