Texas A&M Faculty Senate Calls for Transparency Amid Proposed Program Cuts

Texas A&M Faculty Senate Advocates for Reconsideration of Program Cuts

In College Station, Texas, a growing concern is coming to light regarding the recent initiatives proposed by the Office of the Provost at Texas A&M University to eliminate 52 minors and certificates due to low enrollment. This decision has caused a stir among faculty and members of the academic community, leading to discussions and requests for a more transparent process.

Advocacy for Dialogue

On October 2, Speaker of the Faculty Senate Angie Price took matters into her own hands by sending an email to President Mark A. Welsh III and Provost Alan Sams, expressing her concerns about the methods being used to inactivate these programs. She emphasized that the process felt “deeply flawed” and lacked adequate input from faculty, administrators, and students alike.

In her email, Price thanked Welsh and Sams for their earlier discussions and then made a bold appeal: she requested that the current thresholds for program inactivation be “completely abandoned.” Price argued that programs impacted by these metrics should be allowed to continue and actively enroll students, thus ensuring their survival in the academic landscape.

Understanding the Criteria

For context, the Office of the Provost set strict guidelines for keeping minors and undergraduate certificates alive. Programs that have graduated fewer than ten students in the past two years, or that do not currently enroll at least five students at a time, are targeted for elimination. Graduate certificates face similar thresholds, where six graduates or minimum enrollment of three students is required to remain active.

Calls for Transparency

Price made it clear that her goal is to foster a more open and transparent process. She believes that by working together with the university administration, the Faculty Senate could help establish more reasonable timelines and metrics that align with both state and federal requirements. This collaboration would ensure that any potential program inactivations are approached forward, rather than retroactively, creating a clearer understanding of the motivations behind such actions.

“We need a system that allows all stakeholders to understand the goals of any potential inactivation process,” Price explained. She reiterated that faculty were largely left in the dark regarding the sudden implementation of these thresholds, discovering the need to close programs only when asked directly to take action.

Community Concerns

The backlash from faculty has been significant. Many feel that these moves violate the concept of shared governance, which ensures that faculty have a voice in institutional decisions. According to various faculty members who prefer to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the discussions, this initiative marks an unprecedented shift in how program closures have traditionally been handled.

The unanticipated announcement of such metrics caught many off guard, as few faculty, aside from some deans, were aware of the new thresholds before it was time to take action. As the Faculty Senate prepares to vote on the proposals following necessary committees and regulatory approvals, the situation remains tense.

Upcoming Discussions

Though Price’s proposals for change are still under consideration, they mark an important step towards greater involvement and communication between faculty and administration. Provost Sams is expected to address the Faculty Senate during their upcoming meeting on October 14. Although the impacted programs are not currently on the agenda, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee recently approved five certificates and four minors for inactivation, which may add fuel to the ongoing discussions.

With the future of 52 programs in question, the academic community at Texas A&M stands at a crossroads, eager for clarity and collaboration. The hope is that through open dialogue and cooperative efforts, decisions affecting the academic programs can be made in a way that reflects the voices of all stakeholders involved.