This page offers an overview of who makes decisions at Texas Tech, how authority flows, and how shared governance is supposed to work at a public research university.
Texas Tech University (TTU) is the flagship, R1, Lubbock-based campus with an enrollment of more than 40,000 students. The Texas Tech University System is the umbrella organization that governs TTU and multiple other public institutions. Some decisions are made on campus and others are made at the System level.
A useful rule of thumb:
System-level leadership and the Board of Regents set top-level policy, approve major rules, and control senior leadership.
Campus-level leadership implements policy, runs daily operations, and makes many academic and administrative decisions—often within limits set by the System.
The TTU System is made up of five component institutions:
Texas Tech University (TTU): Lubbock (flagship campus)
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC): health professions education and clinical enterprise with multiple Texas locations
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso (TTUHSC El Paso): separate health sciences institution based in El Paso
Angelo State University (ASU): San Angelo
Midwestern State University (MSU Texas): Wichita Falls
In 2025, TTU launched TTU Online+. While not technically a separate institution from TTU, all remote/distance students will be separated from their peers who take classes in Lubbock and moved into this standardized, platform-based "campus." TTU Online+ significantly restricts academic freedom and students' access to educational experiences.
Board of Regents (TTU System)
The Board of Regents is the governing board of the TTU System. Regents are appointed by the Governor of Texas and confirmed by the Texas Senate. The Board sets rules, approves major policies, and hires/fires the System’s top executive (its chancellor).
Chancellor (TTU System)
The Chancellor is the chief executive of the TTU System and is appointed by the Board of Regents. The Chancellor has broad administrative authority and can issue system-wide directives that affect all component institutions.
President (Texas Tech University)
The President is the chief executive of Texas Tech University (distinct from the System). The President oversees campus administration and is the top campus authority beneath the System.
Provost (Texas Tech University)
The Provost is the chief academic officer. The provost’s office oversees curriculum administration, academic policy implementation, and the daily governance of academic life.
Deans → Department Chairs/Directors → Faculty/Staff
Deans oversee colleges (e.g., Arts & Sciences), chairs/directors oversee departments, and faculty/staff carry out teaching, advising, research, and service.
In higher education, shared governance is the principle that major academic decisions—especially those related to curriculum, academic standards, and the conditions of teaching and research—should be shaped by faculty expertise through elected bodies (faculty senate/council) and through department and college-level processes.
In practice, shared governance typically means:
Faculty have an organized role in curricular standards, academic policy, and academic integrity.
Administrators have authority over implementation, operations, and institutional compliance.
Governing boards have authority over high-level policy, budgets, and executive leadership, and should respect academic expertise when policy touches the curriculum.
At public universities, governance is political at the top. Regents are appointed through state politics, and they appoint the chancellor, who sets system-wide direction. This structure can create a self-reinforcing loop: political appointees select executives, executives implement policy under political pressure, and academic authority can drift upward away from faculty expertise and shared governance norms.
A well-known example of this dynamic happened at Purdue University, when the Board of Trustees selected then–Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who had appointed many of those trustees, as university president—an illustration of how political appointment pipelines can shape university leadership.
Even in a public system with political appointees at the top, there is a long-standing governance norm in higher education: boards and system executives oversee the institution at a high level, but they do not micromanage academic life. The reason is that curricula and academic standards depend on disciplinary expertise and peer review, not political discretion.
In a healthy shared governance model, the Board sets broad policy and ensures legal compliance, while the faculty—through departments, colleges, and elected governance bodies (like faculty senates)—retain primary authority over curricula, course content, and academic standards. When boards and system executives move from oversight into content regulation, they cross the shared-governance boundary and invite censorship.
Hiring and promotion are good examples of shared governance in practice. By tradition, professional norms, and often by policy, departments lead hiring because they are best positioned to evaluate scholarly expertise, teaching needs, and disciplinary fit. Searches are conducted by faculty committees, candidates are evaluated by peers, and departments make decisions based on field-specific standards.
Higher levels of administration (deans, provosts, presidents, boards of regents) typically review and approve these decisions to ensure consistency with institutional policy, budget realities, and procedural fairness. Governing boards may have formal approval authority for senior appointments or final personnel actions, but—again by tradition—they do not substitute political preferences for peer evaluation. When upper level administrators override or intimidate academic decision-making for political reasons, the result is a chilling effect on scholarship and a direct threat to the integrity of the university.
Faculty governance bodies are a key part of shared governance, but their authority is often advisory rather than final. This advisory governance is important, though: it is how academic expertise enters decision-making and how policies are vetted for disciplinary and educational impact.
When policies affect the curriculum, teaching, or academic freedom, faculty governance bodies should be consulted early, given clear documentation, and allowed meaningful input—not merely informed after the fact.
Academic freedom is protected not only by formal rights, but by structures, tradition, and norms: transparent rules, clear lines of accountability, and systems of governance that keep curricula grounded in expertise. When decision-making circumvents faculty, becomes opaque, or shifts curricular authority upward into political appointees’ oversight, the result is uncertainty, self-censorship, and a narrower education for students.