http://baptistandreflector.org/tbmb-rec ... on-newman/The article is sketchy, but it looks like the conventions Partner Ministries Committee had received some concerns about the university and that the adoption of the BFM 2000, and implementation of policy related to it was a means of at least partial resolution of the issues.
I haven't read much about issues at Carson Newman. I know there was quite a battle over Belmont, eventually winding up in court, and that the financial value of the investment of the Tennessee Baptist Convention's investment in the university was the price they paid for ending their relationship with the convention, $50 million over a five year period, I believe. It looks like something may have raised that kind of concern about Carson-Newman, and the Partner Missions Committee of the convention met with the trustees to prevent something like that happening again.
My understanding of the way Baptist polity works when it comes to relating to institutions like colleges and universities depends on how the trustee board is set up. Carson Newman's board is elected by the Tennessee Baptist Convention. The convention relates to the trustees through its Partner Ministries Committee, and the trustees apparently decided that adopting the BFM 2000, and putting it in their policy, would be part of the resolution of the problems that have been addressed. The trustees employ and supervise the administration, and according to the article, the President has agreed to communicate their wishes to the faculty and staff, and ensure their compliance. That's how it works. Apparently the school's administration agreed to this.