Editor's note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
Like every first day of class, my professor introduced herself and summarized the course goals and expectations. However, after reading the course's syllabus, she paused.
“For the first time, this syllabus will be posted publicly due to the recent changes,” she said.
Some students murmured. Others paid no attention at all, oblivious to what she was referencing. Immediately, I knew what she meant, but was struck by her hesitation to name House Bill 1001. Her silence spoke volumes. In a classroom that should be designed to promote freedom of speech, my instructor felt it was in her best interest not to name the bill that will structurally overhaul IU. That same instinct that silenced my instructor from sharing her true feelings was symbolic of what the bill also does at an institutional level: Remove the voice of IU’s alumni in selecting members to the Board of Trustees.
Signed by Braun on May 6, HB 1001 changes more than just public availability of the syllabi. The most transformative and controversial change was to a 170-year-old democratic practice. Unlike other public universities in Indiana, IU’s Board of Trustees reserved three seats that alumni directly elected. This has been a long-standing practice since IU’s governing board was established in 1852, It begs the question: why have these changes come now, after almost 200 years of collaboration between the state and IU alumni?
Braun referenced low voter turnout in alumni elections as justification for eliminating their vote.
“It wasn’t representative,” Braun said. “It enabled a clique of a few people actually to three board members. And I do not think that is real representation. If it were more broadly ascribed to, it would be different.”
Braun argues by eliminating the alumni vote, he will be dismantling a hollow excuse for representation in favor of a more efficient system that “works.”
Braun is correct in stating that turnout was low relative to all alumni, as 1.7% of the alumni voted in the past cycle. However, his framing here is misleading because although 1.7% is low by democratic standards, it still means that over 20,000 alumni voted in the past election. The small “clique” that the governor is worried about controlling who is elected to the board is a not-so-small group of 20,000 people. Ironically, by eliminating the alumni voice, Braun has created a clique of just one who will control the appointment process: himself.
That aside, the core of the governor’s argument is that the alumni voice was underrepresented due to low turnout. If this was truly his issue with the alumni vote, why not work for a solution that increases representation rather than eliminating it? The alumni voice, however fractional, was still a voice of 20,000 people. Eliminating their vote ensures that representation is not only further diminished but completely eliminated. Braun’s “reformation” is not working to solve disengagement; it removes engagement entirely.
When we begin to examine the governor’s secondary reasoning for eliminating the vote, his true intentions come to light. Braun wants the board to be more “efficient,” a term that has become increasingly popular with the governor and other Republicans across the nation in the past year. By eliminating the election, choosing board members will be quicker and more streamlined. Braun has mentioned the current process at IU has not “yielded the proper results.”
“I want to get a board there that is going to be maybe a little more rounded, that's going to produce better results,” Braun said.
He frames IU’s unique tradition of electoral process in choosing our board members as an unnecessary quirk that weakens decisive action that he himself could be taking.
Braun again does not make an illogical argument, but a calculated one that exploits people's attraction to an efficient government. However, as satisfying as an efficiently run government is, efficiency is not always synonymous with democracy or fairness. Braun wants to “yield the proper results" as quickly as possible, but the proper results for whom? It is no secret that shared governance is slower, but wasn't that the point?
Alumni trustees slowed down the state’s ability to have complete control over the board to ensure voices other than those chosen by the governor could be represented. Framing this process as inefficient is to categorize a diversity of opinion as disorderly and the consolidation of power as order. Streamlining the appointment process does not create more accountability; it makes the board accountable to only Braun himself, not the people.
HB 1001 directly reflects other national Republican ideas of efficient government that allows for decisive action with little to no contest from the general population. Braun had decided to replace the democratic process with centralized decision-making, so the board yields the results that he wants. With every justification, the governor exposes himself not as a champion of reform but as a proponent of uniform control.
Let us be clear: the democratic process is not meaninglessly inefficient. The alumni vote was not hollow, nor did a small clique of individuals control it; it was an essential voice of 20,000 former students who care for our university and represented the will of those who go to IU.
Braun is not special in his disregard for proper representation; statehouses across the country have begun to take similar steps as Indiana in the name of “becoming more efficient." The state's dismantling of the alumni voice belongs to this same lineage. It is indisputable that this change will have lasting consequences not only on the board itself, but the precedent that centuries of democratic tradition can be destroyed so that one person can achieve their agenda, further normalizing the erosion of shared governance.
Max Moore (he/him) is a junior studying political science and journalism.
