The Manhattan Institute released model legislation last week that would shift authority over general-education requirements from faculty to state governing boards and make state funding contingent on compliance. Authors John Sailer and Tal Fortgang argued boards should certify that core courses reflect ‘‘foundational’’ content and professional needs. The proposal also downgrades faculty bodies to advisory roles, directly challenging long-standing shared-governance norms. The Manhattan Institute framed the change as a corrective to what it called ‘‘ideological capture’’ in academe; analysts and advocacy groups such as PEN America note the think tank has previously influenced anti‑DEI bills in multiple states. If adopted, the model would speed state-level oversight of curricula, require annual board reviews of core courses, and place political appointees in a decisive role over academic content. For college leaders, the plan signals a potential acceleration of legislative intervention into curriculum design and tenure processes. Institutions could face new compliance burdens tied to funding, and faculty governance structures nationwide may be forced to renegotiate authority over course content and assessment.