Well, that was an embarrassing read. One year later, we still don't know what is to be gained from the epic self-own that was the entire APR process. And the administration doesn't even care.

At least for us steamrolled by it, we spent a year in a microcosm preview of when authoritarianism comes to town: leadership stacked with loyal pals who are rewarded for strongarming an agenda through, mass chaos and confusion, rushed timelines, steadfast refusal to answer simple questions, and taking to media outlets to spin a dominant narrative that paints any opposition at all as uninformed and/or slinging personal attacks.

Thanks for that, we guess. The struggle continues.

STG has received a draft of the following request that was made by a UNCG Math and Stats faculty member.  It looks like it may have been on the chancellor's mind during his speech today.  

Chancellor Gilliam, Ms. Murphy, and the UNC Board of Governors, 

I ask that you consider a pause in admissions instead of discontinuation for select/all programs that are currently recommended for discontinuation to be decided by the BOG tomorrow.  The pause would not incur additional costs, and it would allow the teach-out plans to continue while providing a chance to determine which trends in the data were short-term artifacts caused by the pandemic versus long-term changes that need to be structurally addressed.  The pause would allow for candidates in the various searches at UNCG (provost and deans) to express a vision for and help shape the future of UNCG before certain doors are more permanently closed.  It would be a good-faith action that would allow the campus to work together more closely to address challenges.  

I am writing as a concerned faculty member in the department of mathematics and statistics at UNCG.  Provost Storrs said she recommended the discontinuation of our doctoral program without approval from the deans, and she did not provide data to support her recommendation.  The program discontinuation forms also did not provide data to support the decision.  Our data analysis shows the discontinuation would incur additional costs while negatively impacting our service mission and undergraduate program (both of which have had recent significant improvements in student success that were not reflected in the APR data as we continue to adapt to the new student culture while addressing lingering challenges caused by the pandemic).  The UNC System data reports that our graduate programs have an ROI of $790,014, and the programs align with current workforce demands in STEM.  The doctoral program meets all metrics for a successful program and, according to UNC System policy, would almost surely be approved as a new program if it were requested today. All of this is consistent with the APR data itself that ranked the PhD program in the top 20% of all doctoral programs at UNCG.  

The computational mathematics PhD program is unique in the state of North Carolina at a time when the impact of computational mathematics is exploding thanks to artificial intelligence, machine learning, and digital twins.  I would like to discuss numbers and strategy with the UNCG administration before the closure is more permanent so that we can ensure we are best serving UNCG, the UNC System, and the citizens of North Carolina.    

Respectfully, 

(STG Footnote:  Be sure to check out https://sites.google.com/view/math-uncg/ for more information about the math graduate programs and their financial analysis.)

Coincidence or Not?  

July 5:  Chancellor Gilliam writes Peter Hans requesting the program closures be added to the July meeting of the BOG.  

July 13:  Various members on campus were updated that SACSCOC had approved several program closures and that the Board of Governors was slated to review the program closures at their meeting in September. 

July 24:  The BOG meeting includes the program closures with no updates sent to impacted departments to announce (or correct) the timeline.  

"The unprecedented program closures initiated in February by UNC Greensboro Chancellor Frank Gilliam are said to be a done deal. However, many decisions associated with how programs are closed are completely in the hands of the administration and go far beyond the trimming of low-producing programs. Closures in science and math, in particular, are leading to decisions that will constitute a serious blow to the ability of UNCG to be competent in the STEM areas. One of the best examples of this is the far-reaching impact of the elimination of the entire Department of Physics and Astronomy. On the surface, it appears that UNCG is removing a degree program with few students. In reality, there is much more at stake for the future of STEM education at UNCG.

Starting this fall, there will be no courses in physics or astronomy for nonscience majors at UNCG by decision of the administration. Last year, 739 students took highly popular courses in astronomy and 60 more took conceptual physics. Those are now gone — at a university that is the most ethnically diverse in the UNC system.

Someone will still need to teach introductory physics courses for science majors, which were taken by 539 students last year. The administration has made it clear that it has no intention of keeping the professors currently in the department, even those with tenure. So, how will those courses be taught? Apparently, in another department by professional track faculty. It is very difficult to find qualified candidates to teach courses in physics and even harder to hire them, given the very low pay and minimal one-year contracts. Yet the administration is casually waving goodbye to the excellent faculty they now have.

There has been silence about what will become of the Three-College Observatory, which is managed by the department. The observatory has a high-quality telescope that is available to researchers at nearby institutions and is used by the three UNCG astronomers and their students. The department regularly holds public observatory nights that are attended by children and young people through school and club events. In addition, the department hosts shows at its planetarium on campus. These public events will no longer take place once the department closes.

To further understand the severity of the loss of the department, consider that UNCG is a “Doctoral University with high research activity” or R2 university. There are 92 public R2 institutions that serve undergraduates, of which only three offer no physics program. Of those, two are small (SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore) and one is medium-sized (University of Texas at Tyler). This means that, with the loss of the physics program, UNCG will be the only large public R2 university in the U.S. with no physics program.

In 2011, when Texas made the decision to remove physics majors at several universities, the major became available through a consortium. Physics departments were retained, lower-level courses were kept, and schools cooperated to provide upper-level courses. Texas universities recognized that eliminating physics departments was a truly bad idea, a fact that seems to be beyond the comprehension of UNCG leadership.

The loss of the Department of Physics and Astronomy is in fact a devastating blow to the university’s ability to offer a STEM curriculum worthy of respect. Coupled with the elimination of graduate programs in mathematics, these decisions have negative reverberations across all STEM departments. UNCG will eventually recover from its budget problems, but it will not recover from such shortsighted and damaging actions of the administration."

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.