Even in a higher education environment characterized by a shift in student interest and funding sources towards STEM programs, some religious studies programs are able to expand at state universities. Prior research on curriculum, the development of the humanities, and organization decisions more broadly points to a complex array of factors influencing curriculum decisions today. With a conceptual model derived from several organizational theories, and through a multi-case study design, this research explores the contemporary challenges and opportunities experienced by humanities faculty at public institutions in the United States. This study explores the motivations for pursuing new programs in the current climate and offers an assessment of which aspects of the new proposals contributed to their favorable review. Participants were motivated by a desire to expand their discipline on their campuses and to expand their particular approach within their academic discipline. They were also motivated to pursue and design programs they felt would be beneficial to students and their careers and that would support the health and security of their academic units. Programs successfully navigated review through the work of key actors who helped to negotiate differing or competing priorities, work that I termed institutional literacy. Successful programs had literate actors who engaged with and negotiated notions of institutional mission and identity, cultivated relationships with current and former students, and presented compelling data that projected future student interest. Proposals also benefited from careful consideration of resources and capitalizing on relative advantages in that regard. Finally, key actors were able to incorporate and directly address vocational pressures for current and future students while staying true to their own disciplinary and academic values. These findings illustrate the utility of organizational theories for curricular research and point to the need for more research on contemporary curricular decisions. They also illustrate a need for continued reflection on the criteria deployed by institutions and systems in curricular decisions. Finally, these findings provide a detailed roadmap for faculty and advocates to advance new programs in the humanities and liberal arts, or any program that finds itself excluded from or embattled in curricular fads or funding priorities. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]