Faculty at Texas A&M Raise Alarm Over Proposed Program Inactivations Amid Enrollment Concerns

Faculty Voices Concerns Over Program Inactivations at Texas A&M

COLLEGE STATION — In a lively and sometimes tense meeting on October 14, Executive Vice President and Provost Alan Sams faced a critical Faculty Senate regarding his controversial initiative to inactivate dozens of academic minors and certificates at Texas A&M University. This proposal, stemming from concerns about low enrollment, targets 52 out of the university’s 320 minors and certificates.

Sams attended the meeting amid a flurry of faculty criticism that has swirled for weeks. His claim is that maintaining minors and certificates with very few students diverts the university’s finite resources. He stated, “I have a responsibility to ensure programs justify their existence,” referring to conversations with elected officials that have informed his approach.

One of the starting points for this review highlighted was the LGBTQ minor, which had only a few students enrolled. This minor’s situation triggered the university to evaluate all of its minors and certificates. “We found many of them were showing low numbers,” Sams said, emphasizing it was a wake-up call to look at programs needing administrative attention.

However, many faculty members voiced concern over how the inactivations were proposed. Angie Price, the speaker of the senate, expressed doubts about the process, which was reportedly directed by Sams and crafted by a select group of deans without broader faculty input. Most faculty found out about the inactivation only when they were told to start the operational processes in late summer.

When Price asked Sams if there would be a pause or a reevaluation of the process, he remained vague, indicating he was there to gather feedback before further discussions with President Mark Welsh about the proposal’s future.

Criteria for Avoiding Inactivation

The provost laid out clear criteria that minors and certificates must meet to avoid being inactivated, which will be reviewed every two years beginning in fall 2024. The metrics will rely on enrollment data taken from the 20th class day of the fall semester. If programs do not meet the thresholds, the involved departments must begin to deactivate.

Throughout the meeting, questions from the faculty were directed towards the fairness of this process. Faculty members expressed concerns about the apparent lack of consultation and transparency. For instance, Raymundo Arroyave, a faculty member in Materials Science and Engineering, highlighted that students rely on some certificates for professional certifications and removing them could lead to significant costs for students after graduation.

Confusion Over Financial Implications

Several professors probed Sams for quantifiable numbers on the expected savings from this initiative, but he admitted that his office did not have an accurate figure. “It’s one thing to look at instructional time,” Sams noted, yet he explained the complexity of including all related costs involving advisors and registrars.

Some senators, like Dale Rice, called out the efforts as flawed, stating they further weakened shared governance and transparency. “We’ve had issues with transparency for years,” he commented. Price reminded Sams of her previous communications expressing her concerns about the implementation of this process, calling it deeply flawed.

Concerns About New Programs

Many faculty raised concerns specifically about recently established programs, suggesting that they should be exempt from immediate inactivation due to their nascent stage. Heather Klein argued that programs less than five years old should not be in danger, particularly pointing out that it was unrealistic to expect immediate enrollment for the LGBTQ minor, as it was just beginning to establish its presence.

This sentiment was echoed across the board, with faculty emphasizing a collaborative approach. Several senators pointed out that the process felt rushed and exhibited a lack of traditional faculty engagement. Andrew Tag criticized existing restrictions that prevented students from enrolling in programs, an act he viewed as breaking the status quo.

A Call for Respecting Faculty Governance

Towards the end of the session, several faculty members asked whether Sams would respect the decisions made by the Faculty Senate in response to this proposal. Sams assured them that he was there for their feedback and that decisions would be made after he had discussed them with the president. “I’m here to learn, but I’m not here to make final decisions today,” he clarified.

Despite Sams’ attempts to reassure, many left the meeting with lingering concerns about the potential impacts on students and the loss of shared governance. With the next Faculty Senate meeting scheduled for November 11, it remains to be seen how these discussions will evolve and if faculty concerns will lead to any significant changes in the proposal.