Florida International University’s Board of Trustees recently voted to eliminate 22 courses from its core curriculum, including Anthropology of Race & Ethnicity, Introduction to LGBTQ+ Studies, and Sociology of Gender. This decision follows the passage of SB 266, a sweeping higher education bill that restricts the scope of general education courses permitted at public universities in the state.
Despite concerns from faculty members and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) about the administration overstepping its bounds in curricular matters—traditionally the domain of faculty—only two trustees opposed the move. Critics of SB 266 have raised alarms about its impact, which includes cutting funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, introducing post-tenure review for faculty, and weakening collective bargaining rights. However, the bill’s provision to reshape general education has gone largely unnoticed, unfolding quietly on campuses over the summer and fall and leaving some faculty feeling betrayed by shared governance norms.
The state has already removed Principles of Sociology from general education offerings, citing the discipline as inherently liberal. With the new changes, students across Florida’s 40 public institutions will face a significantly reduced selection of general education courses, particularly in the areas of race, gender, sexuality, and diversity.
This initiative stems from a Florida statute included in SB 266, which mandates that core courses “may not distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics … or is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States.”
Tensions at FIU
At the recent FIU Board of Trustees meeting, Faculty Senate chair Noël Barengo expressed concerns that the revisions exceeded what was required by state law. He argued that the process appeared to be driven by the Florida Board of Governors (BOG) without adequate transparency. “This appears to be … an arbitrary opinion of the [Board of Governors] staff unsupported by anything in writing. If the BOG wishes to establish such a regulation, they can do so,” he stated, suggesting that the forced changes to the core curriculum be delayed until clear guidelines are established.
Barengo also contested the notion that any of the canceled courses distorted historical events or were based on speculative content, as suggested by state law.
Katie Rainwater, a professor in the Global and Sociocultural Studies Department, expressed concern about the implications of removing courses such as Introduction to Sociology and Sociology of Gender from general education. “Learning about race, gender, LGBTQ+ issues, and low-wage worker issues is relevant and important to our students,” she emphasized. “We’re a majority-minority university. Most of our students come from working-class families. I think this kind of content helps them make sense of the social world and understand systems of oppression.”
In response to faculty concerns, FIU officials defended their processes. Provost Elizabeth Béjar stated that the university made efforts to include faculty in the decision-making process. “We have done our level best to keep the faculty informed,” she claimed, while assistant vice president for academic planning and accountability, Jennifer L. Doherty-Restrepo, reiterated that the Office of the Provost and Faculty Senate convened subject-matter faculty workgroups to review general education courses for alignment with state standards.
State Outlook
FIU is not the only institution in Florida undergoing significant changes to its general education curriculum. All public universities in the state are required to implement similar revisions, but few have provided detailed information about how they are complying with SB 266. Most of Florida’s State University System institutions did not respond to requests for comment, and the Florida Board of Governors has also been silent on the matter.
Outside of FIU, only the University of North Florida and Florida A&M University commented on the changes. UNF spokesperson Amanda Ennis noted that the university began reviewing its general education offerings prior to the legislation’s passage, with faculty-led task forces helping to ensure compliance with the new guidelines.
Despite limited media coverage on these developments, the American Association of University Professors has taken notice. Isaac Kamola, director of the AAUP’s Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, spoke at the FIU Board of Trustees meeting, raising concerns that the Faculty Senate was bypassed and that curriculum revisions were being driven by BOG staff.
Kamola views SB 266 as a legislative attack on higher education, citing its implications for academic freedom and the autonomy of faculty in curricular matters. He described the legislation as empowering political appointees to make decisions over university operations, including curriculum.
FIU geography professor Kevin Grove echoed this sentiment, asserting that the revisions are part of a broader effort to dismantle higher education and impose ideological agendas. He cautioned that the removal of key courses from the general education curriculum could threaten the existence of departments such as sociology, anthropology, and women and gender studies, as declining enrollment may lead to reduced state funding.
As general education options dwindle, Grove warned of a manufactured “enrollment crater” that could jeopardize the viability of entire academic programs. The long-term implications of these changes are becoming increasingly concerning for many within the academic community as Florida navigates a contentious landscape in higher education.
