📰 Latest News: UNCG in the press 📰

What, precisely, is the vision of the future being enacted here?

What will UNCG be when the dust settles?

But then she took a moment to chastise the faculty, claiming that some took the Academic Portfolio Review (APR) as an opportunity to “stage rage, attack leadership, question integrity, and critique change when confronted with a decision not to their liking.” I have rarely seen a clearer example of mismatched perceptions.

Provost Storrs appears to have interpreted the no-confidence vote in her leadership as a personal attack. But most of us saw it as a chance to express our disapproval not of her, but of her actions. I saw no attack on leadership but a lot of dismay at what was going on. I saw faculty not questioning integrity but questioning the process. And frankly, it seems quite natural to critique change when a clear and compelling rationale for the changes, a strong sense of how decisions are being made, and a road map for the future don’t seem to exist. In an early meeting on the APR process, Chancellor Gilliam said, and Provost Storrs later repeated: “It’s not personal. It’s just business.”

However, clearly it becomes rather personal when you are directly targeted. One could reply that the no-confidence vote wasn’t personal. It was just business.

As a scholar trained to observe people in action, what I saw during the last two years was a faculty deeply concerned about the future of UNCG asking a lot of questions — many of which have gone unanswered — as we stood on the brink of historic decisions being made, largely without our input. I saw shared governance circumvented. I saw a rush to the finish line. I saw curricular decisions removed from the purview of the faculty (their traditional home). I saw tenure trampled on. I saw friends and colleagues losing their livelihood. I saw no rage, though I did see hurt. After all, some among us were being told directly that their contributions to UNCG were no longer valued. Nobody should be surprised that people are upset over losing their jobs; nor should anyone be outraged when they ask the simple question: Why us?

In all of the meetings I’ve attended, I heard no one arguing that these are not difficult times for higher education. “Headwinds” indeed. I also heard no one arguing that we should not examine our institution, and no one saying that we had to stick to the status quo. What I heard was people expressing real concern about the way the process was unfolding. We still do not know how these particular decisions were made, or why. And nobody I know at UNCG — students, faculty or staff — feels a basic sense of security. Scholars across many disciplines have demonstrated that, in order to be well, humans need a sense of security, a feeling of belonging, the esteem of their community, and opportunities to reach their full potential. They also need hope. Sure, humans can survive without hope, but they cannot thrive.

The saddest part of all this is that it did not have to be this way. On our campus, we have a large group of smart people who were largely left out of the decisions about our own future. We could have collaborated to construct innovative solutions to very real problems. It did not have to be done by a “divide and conquer,” top-down management style. While chancellors and provosts may believe that they have “ultimate decision-making authority,” there is no requirement to make decisions that way.

Most of us do not doubt that change is needed. What we disagree with is what is being changed, and how. Since most of the cuts came to the College of Arts & Sciences, it’s not really a stretch to assume that the liberal arts are under fire. There seems to be a broad questioning of the value of a liberal arts education, despite considerable evidence that such an education is just as valuable as any specific professional preparation program. In fact, when you meet one of our graduates, it’s not hard to discern that they are very good at critical thinking, creative problem solving, and clear communication. And employers have repeatedly stated that these are the qualities they look for in prospective employees.

Mostly, I believe that the faculty want to know, in much more detail, where we are heading as an institution. The purpose and the process—and the intended outcomes — have always seemed murky at best. And surely, as I have pointed out in many open forums on the subject, leaders should be prepared to answer our questions. After all, it should come as no surprise that we ask questions. It is what we are trained to do. It is what we teach our students to do. And when we ask questions, we expect our students and our leaders to answer with clear evidence and specific information. Many questions remain:

What, precisely, is the vision of the future being enacted here? What will UNCG be when the dust settles?

What specific strategic objectives are being met by the closure of these particular departments and programs (and the firing of faculty)?

How, precisely, were these particular decisions reached?

What principles and values governed the decision-making process? And how will decisions be made in the future?

If money is the issue, and transparency is the goal, when will we get a full accounting of how much money was saved by these cuts—and where will these funds be reinvested?

Like it or not, if you’re going to claim to run UNCG like a business, you’ll need to report to your stakeholders the process, intent, the value and the outcomes of your decisions.

Meanwhile, we have to ask, what is the timing of this announcement meant to draw attention away from?

We can't forget that every move of this administration is being guided by a PR firm, and their specialty is dominating narratives through platform and timing. So what are we supposed to be distracted from by this bombshell news?

Earlier this month, the College of Arts & Sciences committee on Curriculum and Teaching saw and voted on program discontinuation and teach out plan forms (that were prepared by administration on behalf of, and submitted without the knowledge of, programs up for closure). At first, they voted to reject the forms, requesting additional information. By weeks' end, they were strong-armed and intimidated into voting to pass the forms through to the university-level curriculum committee. They were told the discontinuation forms were not their purview, and, effectively, that the closures would go through regardless the outcome of their vote.

This week, STG has learned that the university-level committee has pushed back on administration's narrative and voted against approval of any of the teach out and discontinuation forms. The Provost's spiteful narrative about obstruction from a minority of faculty falls in the face of standard procedures of shared governance rejecting this process time and time again.

STG update: faculty are reporting that the forms were advanced despite the curriculum committee's objections, and now we have the answer to our question above!

Professor assembles stunning list of 110 institutions (and growing!) nationwide that have implemented program cuts and/or portfolio reviews since August 2023

4/8 Event: Total eclipse of the (liberal) arts! Thank you to all who stopped by Petty building on Monday and said hi to our Astronomers before UNCG cans them/forces them out!

Science everywhere but here! And, You be You, but just ... not that you, if you're going to be you here

It'd be funny if it weren't so ridiculous

Forming an advisory committee after the fact is not a plan. And a plan is distinct from a solid sense of who this University is for, what we do here and why.

STG response, talking point by talking point

(We know, the rapid release of this statement was psychological warfare meant to crush the hopes of those opposed to how the process was conducted. And, an attempt to maintain control of a narrative that is starting to get away from administration as opposition shows no sign of giving up. We're taking the bait, anyway.)

UNCG receives 85% of its athletic funding from the $405.50 per semester athletic fee that all students pay regardless of whether or not they attend games, use the gym, or participate in sports programs. YES! Weekly asked Kimberly Osborne, UNCG vice chancellor for strategic communications, if the new revenue from sports betting could decrease that fee. 

“The UNC System provided a range of $300,000 to $1 million for each of the schools,” wrote Osborne on Feb. 29. “We, and the other institutions, will not know what funds sports wagering will generate until it is in place for a significant amount of time. Thus, at this time UNCG has no plans to reduce fees.”

Text of the Faculty Senate resolution of no confidence in the Provost has been shared with STG, to be voted on next week:

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Faculty Senate Resolution #03132024.1 Alice Haddy, Faculty Member 

Preamble: The past two years have been characterized by a devaluation of professional track faculty, a breakdown in shared governance, and low faculty and staff morale. The APR process, as managed by the Provost, has provided no clear plan for the university’s financial security or vision for the university’s future. While we applaud the goals of transparency and collaboration with faculty, the APR process did not deliver on those promises. The Provost did not reveal her own justifications for cuts or allow to be made public and transparent her part in pushing for certain programs to be eliminated. Her lack of transparency can be seen in the concentration of cuts at CAS, which was the result of the Provost targeting the college, a move that should concern all faculty as we now consider the future of regular APRs. 

Whereas, Professional Track Faculty were moved to one year contracts through a unilateral decision of the Provost, thus contributing to an atmosphere of insecurity on campus; 

Whereas, The Provost has shown a clear disregard for the faculty senate as a legitimate partner in shared governance, as outlined in Senate Resolution 01312024.2; 

Whereas, The cuts demonstrate favoritism by the Provost for certain programs and units in the university. Other departments and programs throughout the university scored lower than the programs (such as Anthropology, which “met expectations”) that were eventually cut, and as former Associate Dean of CAS Charles Bolton’s resignation letter points out, this discrepancy is not the result of CAS’s internal process but rather the result of the Provost’s pressure on the Dean of CAS; 

Whereas, the Faculty Senate's recommendations regarding the APR process, as articulated in resolutions #11012023.2 and #01.24.2024.1, have been denied and ignored; 

Whereas, Many of the tenured and tenure track faculty whose programs have been cut have not been offered the opportunity to be rehoused, undermining the meaning of tenure at UNCG; 

Whereas, In the face of real, long-term budget issues, the elimination of small academic programs contributes little to our fiscal health and bears the serious risk of leading to further enrollment declines and difficulty in recruiting top-tier faculty; 

Whereas, The Chancellor and Provost disregarded the Senate’s censure by arguing, in a response, that the vote to censure came from “some members of the Faculty Senate (not a vote of the General Faculty)”; 

Be it Resolved: The faculty of UNCG no longer have confidence in the leadership of the Provost.

NEW, 3/8: STG has obtained a copy of the Chancellor's response to the votes of no confidence held by the College of Arts and Sciences last week.

You can read for yourself, but our tl;dr for each paragraph is: 

(praise salad)

Requesting actual numbers, well-reasoned argument, and a careful process collectively done by the entire university community is "personal attack" on the Provost. Also, the Chancellor claims responsibility for decisions that, to date, no one in administration has actually been able to explain or justify when asked, including him. The invitation to collaborate with him is an interesting one, when overall his language indicates there will be no further discussion: "The University must move forward," after all.

(procedural notes indicating this will be the only official response)

UNCG is watching you...

A tale of two headlines, and a "correction" that contains numerous dubious assertions. Original headline was incorrect, until today: STG has received word that the first faculty member has heard today they will be non-renewed for the Fall. The word "may" is doing a lot of work in Osborne's statement, considering faculty already have been told they will not be allowed to teach gen ed courses in the Fall (see our announcement archive for updates on that). The remaining "choices" in Osborne's list are all ways of making changes to personnel, which administration had previously claimed would take "years."

Letter in News & Record in response to "time... to move forward," below:

UNCG: Answers lacking

Today’s opinion column “Now’s the time for UNCG to move forward” (Ideas, Feb. 11) glosses over a few important details. Faculty and students at UNCG have questioned this process, not because we question the premise that we need to adapt, but because of the way the process was executed.

Chancellor Frank Gilliam and Provost Debbie Storrs have offered vague responses to serious questions along the way. Concerns raised by faculty, staff and students (at least in part) have to do with clarity of purpose, as well as, later in the process, clarity about how particular decisions were made.

Along the way, our reputation in the community and in the eyes of students, alumni, parents and donors has suffered. All of this could have been avoided with much clearer communication, more direct consultation with faculty, a vivid and complete explanation of the problems being solved and the goals being met; a clear and purposeful statement of a vision for the future; and consistent fidelity to the process as it was laid out.

While we now understand what “solutions” were chosen, the logic of those choices has yet to be explained. Further, while moving forward sounds enticing, we are still left wondering: What is the plan for moving forward? What’s the vision for UNCG? Where are we heading? What specifically did we gain from this exercise? What is the clear and executable plan for salvaging/healing our reputation in the community and morale on campus?

We have many questions. Perhaps we should receive some clear answers.

Christopher Poulos, Greensboro

Save the G, founded 2024 

Copyright and whatever rights unreservedly reserved and all that.

No; unfortunately for us, none of this is satire.