Proposed changes to two foundational features of a healthy higher education system have quietly been added to the Board of Regents’ agenda for its upcoming meetings on Sept. 11 and 12: collective bargaining and tenure. These changes would shatter educators’ morale and set back higher education in Nevada for years to come. 

Unlike Nevada’s state unions, higher education collective bargaining rights are narrowly defined in Title 4 of Nevada System of Higher Education code. The proposed language change for Title 4 would require legislative fiscal preapproval of collective bargaining agreements before state higher education institutions can ratify them. This would put the cart miles before the horse. Unlike other state employees, whose bargained provisions are subsequently included in the governor’s budget recommendation after they’ve been negotiated, the Nevada System of Higher Education would have to request prepaid allocations for contract provisions that they haven’t even been allowed to negotiate yet. These changes would render faculty contracts unenforceable and effectively shut down collective bargaining.

The other proposal is a pointed examination of post-tenure review that emphasizes “professional conduct” and “respectful interaction” without definition, inviting politicized and ideological enforcement that would have a chilling effect on academic rigor and free inquiry.

At their best, our regents work to protect the financial well-being of Nevada’s higher education system and assure that students are getting excellent educations. What’s missing in this latest effort is their engagement with the actual educators who are doing this work on the ground. This disconnect severely limits their understanding of how these changes would impact educators’ ability to do their jobs and serve students well. 

Our regents bring a diversity of knowledge and experience to their work. But the overwhelming majority of them have never taught in a higher ed classroom — let alone taught in a classroom since the pandemic brought tectonic shifts to the spaces of education. One would hope that the first thing a manager would do if they don’t have direct experience in the field of their employees is to spend time listening in order to understand what they need to do their jobs well. 

This is worrisome in and of itself. But what’s so alarming about these changes to collective bargaining and faculty tenure is how they mirror the public higher ed playbooks of Florida, Texas and Ohio. These states have seen an exodus of talented experts, educators and researchers. In a smaller state such as Nevada, we will feel this exodus even more drastically. Our state already ranks near the bottom for educational attainment across the nation. Enacting policies from this playbook would severely cripple Nevada’s ability to improve the prospects of our students.

If regents spoke to educators and faculty about collective bargaining and post-tenure review, they would learn a lot. One thing they would learn is that collective bargaining is not inherently about demanding more money. Far more often, it’s the means of establishing sustainable and consistent structures of governance, assuring fair grievance processes and workplace safety, and negotiating how an institution decides where its existing funds are distributed.

Does collective bargaining cause budgetary surprises? No. On the contrary: Collective bargaining prevents institutions from having to make massive, sudden financial commitments and keeps any budget changes far more sustainable. In December 2023, student leaders from across Nevada historically agreed to a fee increase to help cover a cost of living adjustment so their educators can enjoy a living wage. But faculty should not have to beg the Board of Regents — and student leaders — for this. A robust and good-faith collective bargaining agreement protects students and constituents from needing to spend time on such drastic action.

Nevada’s Legislature is always two full fiscal years behind current budgeting realities. Furthermore, just this past session, they rejected the findings and recommendations of their own $2 million and nine-month study on how to best allocate funds to its higher ed institutions. If these proposed changes to Title 4 and collective bargaining are enacted, this guarantees that the regents will kill our ability as public workers to create these agreements with our employers. 

Another misconception regents seem to have is around post-tenure review. If they spoke to educators (and read NSHE code), they would learn that all faculty — including tenured faculty — are already reviewed annually by their supervisors.

Tenure is not a magical stamp that protects professors from being held accountable or allows them to disappear and do what they like without consequence. It’s a labor structure that accounts for the long investment required to build one’s craft as an educator and develop cutting-edge research. It protects faculty and students from being yanked around by the vicissitudes of any given political moment. It allows students to trust that what they are learning has been vetted and guided by people with deep expertise not only in the material they’re studying but in how people best learn. 

I ask our regents: When was the last time you engaged directly with a faculty member about their experiences educating students? When is the next time you will do so before making a decision that could make or break their livelihood and their students' futures? 

It’s only when these conversations happen — and decisions are made based on those conversations — that students get to thrive. Because faculty working conditions are student learning conditions. 

Molly Appel is an associate professor of English at Nevada State University and a member of the Nevada Faculty Alliance. She served as the Nevada State University Faculty Senate chair from 2023-2024.