A border-surveillance scholar, Iván Chaar López, was denied tenure at the University of Texas at Austin despite a tenure recommendation from more than 30 scholars. Chaar López said he believes the decision was driven by the controversial nature of his research linking border-surveillance technologies to history and race. The case underscores how scholarly work can collide with institutional risk calculations when political attention intensifies. UT Austin spokespersons said tenure review is conducted “thoughtfully, fairly, and professionally,” and that tenure is a “privilege, not a right.” Chaar López now must restart the tenure process at another institution. In parallel, faculty at University of Nebraska–Lincoln used a no-confidence vote to challenge Chancellor Rodney Bennett’s program-cut strategy in a rare governance escalation. The board approved the cuts before Bennett resigned unexpectedly shortly afterward. Together, the incidents show faculty governance entering a more conflict-driven phase, where tenure decisions, program elimination choices, and board responses can quickly become public and adversarial—and where scholars and faculty may increasingly test internal mechanisms rather than rely solely on traditional appeals.