Texas A&M Board of Regents Cuts 14 Minors and 38 Certificates Amid Faculty Outcry

Texas A&M Board of Regents Takes Bold Step, Eliminates 14 Minors and 38 Certificates

COLLEGE STATION, Texas — In a surprising turn of events that has left many faculty members in disbelief, the Texas A&M System Board of Regents recently passed a resolution directing President Mark Welsh III to “take actions necessary to eliminate” 14 minors and 38 certificates. This unprecedented decision, made during a meeting on Thursday, has sparked a wave of controversy and criticism among faculty at the university.

What Sparked the Change?

The resolution comes after weeks of debate concerning low enrollment programs. The root of the matter traces back to a June inquiry into the LGBTQ studies minor that led to a broader investigation of programs with low student participation. Executive Vice President and Provost Alan Sams, who has been at the forefront of this initiative, has proposed eliminating 52 programs that do not meet specific enrollment benchmarks outlined by the Office of the Provost.

This decision breaks the traditional mold, as curriculum changes typically originate at the faculty level. Instead, faculty members were somewhat blindsided, as many only learned about the new enrollment thresholds when they received orders to shut down minors and certificates.

The Inactivation Process Explained

Under the new directive, if a program fails to meet enrollment thresholds by the 20th class day of the fall semester, departments will receive a directive from the Office of the Provost to initiate the inactivation process. This process includes multiple reviews, requiring approval from the Faculty Senate.

Out of the 26 minors reviewed, faculty did not appeal 10 proposals for inactivation. While Sams accepted 12 appeals, he denied four, including LGBTQ studies and three others. The discussion around inactivating certificates showed a similar trend, with 21 appeals rejected out of 44 initial requests.

Faculty Unrest and Concerns

The changes have not come without resistance. Faculty members have criticized the new enrollment thresholds, arguing that the lack of consultation breaches established norms regarding shared governance. At a recent Faculty Senate meeting, Senators grilled Sams for two hours, expressing their deep concern regarding the process that led to these mass inactivations. As Angie Hill Price, the Speaker of the Faculty Senate, pointed out, the whole process lacks meaningful input from stakeholders.

Moreover, it was revealed that university officials sought to block an open records request regarding the group that set these thresholds, leading to further frustration among faculty members looking for transparency. Price stated, “The Provost’s approach ignored significant data on numerous programs,” noting particularly that students typically declare minors shortly before graduation.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Inactivation

Provost Sams plans to repeat this inactivation evaluation every two years, preventing any program from slipping between the cracks. It’s not just the current faculty who should be concerned; students, alumni, and even prospective attendees may feel the impact of these changes in the long run.

The Faculty Senate Emergency Committee has also taken action, rejecting the inactivation of minors and certificates on behalf of the Senate ahead of their scheduled meeting on November 11. Many faculty members expressed fears about how these changes might impact the university’s accreditation and its standing as a leading educational institution.

The Emotional Public Testimonies

During a public testimony segment, emotions ran high. Various faculty members voiced their concerns about the implications of eliminating these programs. Theresa Morris, director of the Women’s and Gender Studies program, emphasized that the curriculum for the LGBTQ minor is already integrated into existing programs and incurs no additional costs. Price, too, raised alarms, warning that passing this resolution could jeopardize Texas A&M’s accreditation.

Not all were convinced that the resolution was solely focused on low enrollment. Faculty members suggested that outside political influences could be at play. “This is not how a great educational institution should operate,” said Leonard Bright as he criticized the manner in which the resolution was handled.

The Bottom Line

The Texas A&M Board of Regents’ bold move to eliminate numerous programs reflects a shifting landscape in academic governance that has left many questioning the methods employed and the true motivations behind the decision-making process. With passionate pushback from faculty and a promise for further review in the future, this is only the beginning of what promises to be an ongoing debate about academic priorities at Texas A&M.