Legislative Mandates Impacting Higher Education and Sustainable Development Goals

A recent trend in state-level legislation is forcing public colleges and universities to eliminate academic degree programs with low graduation numbers. This approach, notably implemented in states such as Indiana, Ohio, and Utah, marks a significant shift in governance, directly impacting the scope and quality of higher education. These actions have profound implications for the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), which emphasizes inclusive, equitable, and comprehensive learning opportunities for all.

State-Level Actions and Program Reductions

Legislative bodies in at least three states have enacted laws that mandate the review and termination of low-enrollment degree programs, moving beyond traditional methods of funding adjustments to direct intervention in academic curricula.

• Ohio: Senate Bill 1 requires the elimination of any undergraduate degree program that confers an average of fewer than five degrees annually over a three-year period. In response, institutions have begun cutting programs essential to SDG 4.7 (promoting global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality), including bachelor’s degrees in Africana, Asian, Middle East, religious, disability, and women’s and gender studies.
• Indiana: House Bill 1001 establishes minimum graduation thresholds across degree levels, leading universities to schedule the elimination or consolidation of over 400 programs. These cuts affect fields crucial for SDG 4, such as K-12 teacher training, as well as programs in foreign languages and cultural studies that support SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Utah: House Bill 265 implemented a 10% budget cut to state-funded instruction, with an opportunity for institutions to regain funds by reinvesting in programs aligned with “statewide workforce demands.” This has resulted in the termination of 94 programs at the University of Utah, including master’s degrees in Middle East studies and educational psychology, while redirecting funds to fields like engineering and “responsible AI.” This policy prioritizes a narrow interpretation of SDG 4.4 (skills for employment) over the broader educational aims of SDG 4.
• Texas: Senate Bill 37 requires a five-year review of academic minors and certificate programs with low enrollment, signaling a similar focus on consolidating or eliminating offerings based on enrollment metrics.

Rationale and Implications for Sustainable Development

Proponents of these laws argue they are necessary to direct scarce resources toward high-demand programs that meet state workforce needs, aligning with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). The stated goal is to apply “business principles” of supply and demand to higher education. However, this approach creates significant conflicts with the holistic vision of the SDGs.

1. Erosion of Quality and Comprehensive Education (SDG 4): The legislative mandates utilize blunt metrics that fail to capture the full value of academic programs. Many courses within low-major programs serve a large number of students fulfilling general education requirements or pursuing minors, contributing to the development of critical thinking and analytical skills essential to Target 4.7. Reducing the diversity of academic offerings results in a diminished version of higher education, limiting students’ access to a comprehensive knowledge base.
2. Undermining Social Progress Goals (SDG 5 & SDG 10): The targeted elimination of programs such as women’s and gender studies, Africana studies, and disability studies directly obstructs progress on SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). These academic fields are vital for researching, understanding, and developing solutions to systemic social inequalities. Their removal from curricula weakens the capacity of the next generation to promote a culture of peace, non-violence, and respect for diversity.
3. Weakening of Institutional Autonomy and Partnerships (SDG 16 & SDG 17): The laws represent a significant legislative intrusion into academic affairs, circumventing established principles of shared governance. This trend undermines the autonomy and integrity of universities as “strong institutions” under SDG 16. Furthermore, it replaces the collaborative spirit of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) with a top-down, adversarial relationship between state governments and the academic institutions they oversee.

Expert Analysis and Future Outlook

Academic leaders and higher education experts express concern that these legislative actions are based on a narrow understanding of an institution’s mission. The focus on graduate numbers as the primary metric for program viability is widely seen as a flawed and potentially damaging approach.

Critiques of Program Viability Metrics

Analysts note that the financial and educational health of a university is more closely tied to full class sections than to the number of declared majors in a specific program. Programs with few majors often play a crucial role in the broader academic ecosystem by providing essential coursework for students across various disciplines. Eliminating them without faculty consultation is likened to removing plants from a garden based solely on their height, ignoring their importance to the overall health of the environment.

Historical Context and Projected Trends

While program cuts driven by financial pressures are not new, the current wave of direct legislative mandates represents a significant escalation. This trend is occurring amid renewed financial pressures on institutions, leading to predictions that such cuts will increase in the coming years. The voluntary elimination of nearly 20% of degree offerings by Indiana universities illustrates a willingness to comply without seeking exemptions. This trajectory poses a continuing threat to the provision of broad, inclusive, and high-quality tertiary education as envisioned by the Sustainable Development Goals, potentially leaving future students with a reduced and less diverse academic landscape.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The article’s central theme is the quality and accessibility of tertiary education. It discusses legislative actions in several states that mandate the elimination of university degree programs based on low graduation numbers. This directly impacts the diversity of educational offerings and what constitutes a “quality” degree, as critics argue students will be “getting a reduced version of what a degree should be.” The discussion revolves around ensuring education is relevant, but the methods challenge the traditional scope of a comprehensive university education.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• The justification for the program cuts is explicitly linked to economic and workforce considerations. The article states that these laws are “driven in part by the need to direct scarce resources to higher-demand programs in order to meet state workforce needs.” Utah’s law allows universities to win back funds for “strategic reinvestment” in programs based on “localized and statewide workforce demands.” This connects educational policy directly to the goal of aligning graduates’ skills with the job market to foster economic growth.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article highlights that many of the programs being cut are in fields like Africana, women’s and gender, Middle East, and disability studies. These academic areas are crucial for studying and addressing systemic inequalities. Eliminating them can reduce the academic focus on these issues and potentially limit opportunities for students from or interested in these communities, thereby impacting efforts to promote inclusion and reduce inequalities.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• A significant issue raised is the legislative overreach into university governance, undermining the autonomy and established processes of these institutions. The article notes a “growing trend among state legislatures to insert themselves in university governance” and that the laws circumvent “shared governance and faculty unions.” This relates to the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions, as the decision-making process is being moved away from internal, participatory mechanisms (like faculty input) to external legislative mandates.

Identified SDG Targets

Targets for SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article discusses how legislative mandates are altering the landscape of available university programs, which can affect equal access to certain fields of study. The elimination of entire degree programs like foreign languages, philosophy, and various area studies reduces the quality and breadth of education available to students in public universities.
2. Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship. This target is directly addressed by the rationale behind the laws. The push to cut “low-demand” programs and reinvest in “‘high impact’ and ‘workforce-aligned’ areas” like biotechnology, engineering, and nursing is a clear attempt to align higher education with perceived workforce needs and equip students with skills for employment.

Target for SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

1. Target 8.6: By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training. Although the target date has passed, the principle remains relevant. The state laws are designed to produce graduates who can meet “state workforce needs,” a strategy aimed at ensuring higher rates of employment for graduates and reducing the number of young people who are not in employment after completing their education.

Target for SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all… The article mentions the specific elimination of degrees in “Africana, Asian, Middle East, religious, disability and women’s and gender studies.” These programs are instrumental in studying, understanding, and promoting the inclusion of diverse and often marginalized groups. Their removal can be seen as a setback to this target.

Target for SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article details how the new laws bypass traditional university governance structures. An official is quoted saying that circumventing “shared governance and faculty unions is part of the law’s point.” This directly conflicts with the principle of participatory and inclusive decision-making within the university as an institution.

Implied or Mentioned Indicators

Indicators for SDG 4 (Targets 4.3 & 4.4)

• Number of degrees conferred per program: Ohio’s law explicitly uses this as a metric, mandating the elimination of any undergraduate program that “confers an average of fewer than five degrees in that program annually over any three-year period.”
• Number of graduates per program: Indiana’s law sets specific graduation thresholds: “15 students for bachelor’s degree programs, seven for master’s degree programs.”
• Program enrollment numbers: The Texas law requires a review of minors and certificate offerings with “low enrollment,” and Utah’s reinvestment model is based in part on “enrollment.”
• Number of degree programs eliminated or consolidated: The article states that Indiana universities plan to eliminate or consolidate “more than 400 programs,” and the University of Utah announced plans to cut 94 programs.

Indicators for SDG 8 (Target 8.6)

• Alignment of programs with workforce demands: This is a qualitative indicator used by lawmakers. Utah’s law requires reinvestment in programs based on “localized and statewide workforce demands.” The article mentions reinvestment in “workforce-aligned” areas like engineering, nursing, and biotechnology.

Indicators for SDG 10 (Target 10.2)

• Number of eliminated programs focused on specific social/cultural groups: The article provides a direct measure by listing the cuts of degrees in “Africana…disability and women’s and gender studies” at the University of Toledo and similar programs in Indiana.

Indicators for SDG 16 (Target 16.7)

• Level of faculty involvement in program-cutting decisions: The article implies a negative indicator here, noting that the laws push cuts “without requiring faculty input” and are designed to “circumventing shared governance,” thereby measuring a lack of participatory decision-making.

Summary of Findings

Source: insidehighered.com