Latest news with #FacultySenate
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump administration escalates action against George Mason University over faculty-backed diversity hiring goals
The US Justice Department has escalated its scrutiny of diversity policies in higher education, launching a formal review of George Mason University (GMU) over a Faculty Senate resolution that praised President Gregory Washington for advancing the university's diversity goals. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now According to a report by The Washington Post , the resolution referenced an earlier institutional aim to ensure that faculty and staff demographics reflect the diversity of the student body — a goal that federal officials now suggest may signal race- or sex-based hiring, which would violate civil rights law. In a letter obtained by The Washington Post , Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon informed GMU's Board of Visitors that the Department viewed the resolution's language as potentially endorsing discriminatory hiring practices. The letter warns of the possibility of extensive penalties and instructs the university to preserve all communications between the Faculty Senate and President Washington's office, indicating an unusually deep level of federal scrutiny into internal university governance. Part of a broader campaign against DEI The GMU investigation is one of four federal inquiries recently launched into the university, all in rapid succession and tied to its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts and its handling of antisemitism allegations. These inquiries come as the Trump administration intensifies its efforts to reshape higher education institutions and curb DEI programs through legal and regulatory pressure. President Gregory Washington, the first Black leader of GMU, has been under increased federal focus following his implementation of several DEI initiatives, including an anti-racism task force established in 2020. His administration has defended these policies as compliant with federal mandates. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now However, critics within and outside the university view the latest investigations as politically motivated efforts to remove him from leadership — a concern amplified after the recent resignation of University of Virginia President James E. Ryan under similar federal pressure. The Faculty Senate resolution and its implications As reported by The Washington Post , the Faculty Senate passed a resolution affirming the university's 2013 diversity plan and expressing support for President Washington's leadership. The resolution stated that Washington had successfully fulfilled the diversity-related goals he was hired to achieve and called the federal investigations 'politically motivated.' The resolution also urged the GMU Board of Visitors to strongly support Washington during his scheduled annual review and to uphold fairness and transparency in the evaluation process. The Justice Department, however, focused on one particular line in the resolution referring to the 2022 goal of aligning faculty and staff demographics with those of the student population. This was interpreted by the Department as potential evidence of hiring decisions based on race or sex. The letter did not indicate whether any specific hiring incidents were under review but signalled a broader intent to examine the university's practices and internal decision-making structures. Mounting pressure ahead The timing of the DOJ's letter, just before the board's scheduled review of Washington, has intensified speculation about federal intentions and the possible use of these investigations to influence leadership decisions. GMU's faculty union, part of the American Association of University Professors, has expressed concern that the board, composed entirely of appointees of Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, could cite the investigations as justification for penalising or removing Washington. According to The Washington Post , the university's Board of Visitors has pledged full cooperation with the Department of Justice and the Department of Education. Meanwhile, the university community is preparing for what could become a high-stakes board meeting, with faculty groups encouraging turnout in support of Washington. A politicised educational landscape GMU, once a commuter college and now one of Virginia's largest public universities with over 40,000 students, is well known for housing ideologically conservative academic hubs such as the Antonin Scalia Law School and its economics program. Several board members have ties to the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank closely associated with Project 2025, a policy roadmap for a potential second Trump term. The controversy at GMU follows a growing trend in which the federal government is intervening in university policies and governance through investigations, warnings, and threats of funding withdrawal. Just last week, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle discrimination claims, including allegations related to antisemitism, under pressure from the same administration. As The Washington Post highlights, this is a rare instance where the Justice Department has weighed in not on a university policy, but on a faculty resolution, raising alarms about federal overreach into campus speech and shared governance. What this means for universities The GMU case underscores a rapidly shifting dynamic between the federal government and public higher education institutions. Faculty members and academic observers are increasingly concerned that symbolic statements, long considered protected expressions of opinion in the university setting, are now being used as triggers for punitive federal action. This episode is being watched closely by administrators, faculty, and legal experts across the US, as it may set a precedent for how the federal government engages with, or challenges, campus DEI efforts and faculty governance in the years ahead. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us .
Washington Post
a day ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
DOJ to review staff texts, emails after faculty praise of GMU president
In a move critics say shows a new and deeper level of scrutiny into a college's operations, the Justice Department sent a letter to George Mason University saying it planned to review a Faculty Senate resolution that praised the school's president, Gregory Washington, who has come under scrutiny from the Trump administration over his diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The Justice Department letter singled out a line from the resolution — which was stated as a fact, not as a policy supported by the faculty — that referred to a 2022 university goal to achieve 'faculty and staff demographics that mirror student demographics.' 'This statement is concerning as it indicates the GMU Faculty Senate is praising President Washington for engaging in race- or sex-motivated hiring decisions to achieve specific demographic outcomes among faculty and staff,' read the Friday letter, obtained by The Washington Post, from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon to the head of the board and the board's lawyer. She warned the school's board in the letter that those alleged hiring practices are unlawful and could result in 'extensive' fines for the university. She asked the head of George Mason's Board of Visitors to take steps to preserve 'all written communications (including emails, texts, voice mails and other forms of electronic communications) between any Faculty Senate members or between Faculty Senate members and President Washington or any members of his Office's staff.' The letter comes as the Trump administration is conducting four investigations, which were announced in the span of four weeks, into Virginia's largest public university over its DEI practices and its alleged failure to combat antisemitism on campus, including into its alleged consideration of race in the hiring and promotion of some faculty members. Some at GMU see the growing number of investigations as an effort to oust Washington, the school's first Black president, following the resignation of University of Virginia President James E. Ryan, who left his post last month amid mounting pressure from the Justice Department. Faculty senates — representative bodies of a university's faculty that meet to discuss and opine on a college's operations — often pass resolutions supporting or criticizing policies of university leaders. But it is rare for a presidential administration to weigh in on faculty senate operations in this way. The letter landed as the Trump administration continues efforts to reshape higher education by launching investigations and threatening federal funding cuts to achieve its policy goals. Last week, Columbia University agreed to a resolution with the administration, paying more than $200 million to settle discrimination claims, including over alleged antisemitism. 'This is a piece of a larger pattern from the administration essentially looking for provocations on campus,' said Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. 'Instead of seeking a way to defuse it and seek common ground, it looks like the GMU Faculty Senate opted to double down, and DOJ is firing back.' Hess said that, while he could not recall a similar letter being sent elsewhere, it's possible the Trump administration could have done so without public knowledge. The Justice Department declined to comment beyond the letter. Torridon Law, the firm representing the GMU board, referred questions to a July 25 Board of Visitors statement in which the body said it would comply fully with the Departments of Education and Justice. The Northern Virginia university, which began as a commuter school and now boasts some 40,000 students, has an acceptance rate of about 90 percent. Its Antonin Scalia Law School and its economics program are known as some of the most conservative in their respective fields, and a number of its current and former board members have worked at or have connections with the Heritage Foundation, the organization behind Project 2025. As president, Washington created an anti-racism task force in 2020 and has praised some DEI programs. He has since defended his policies and said the school was meeting requirements of federal mandates. Some supporters of Washington, including George Mason faculty members, denounced the Justice Department's letter, saying the department took the resolution out of context and was attacking free speech. The resolution was passed a day before department officials sent the letter. Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax) said in a statement that, while 'conservatives have been demanding academic freedom for years,' it now appears that they are acting as 'thought police' and trying to 'flex control over our Virginia educational crown jewels.' Faculty Senate President Solon Simmons said in an interview with The Post that he hoped the letter was not an attempt to silence faculty members — a worry he said he has heard from some professors — and was merely the result of a misunderstanding of the faculty's role in setting policies. 'We have no institutional force in the university beyond our moral suasion,' he said. 'They are letting us know they are paying attention, and we are taking it very seriously. I think it's important that faculty maintain their voice and don't feel intimidated by this process.' The Faculty Senate resolution had two sections. In the 'whereas' section, the faculty noted a 2013 university plan that said 'Diversity is our strength' and committed the college to 'invest in recruiting, retaining and developing talented and diverse faculty and academic and professional staff.' It said Washington successfully achieved the goals he was hired to pursue; called the Trump administration's investigations into GMU a 'politically motivated attack, similar to those we have seen elsewhere'; and said 'evidence, truth, and due process should be the foundation for all decisions, not allegations that have not been fully investigated.' In the second part, the Faculty Senate 'resolved' that it affirmed the 2013 plan's provisions regarding diversity, declared confidence in Washington's leadership, and called on the board to provide the 'strongest defense possible' of Washington and to commit to a fair and transparent annual review, which is scheduled to occur Friday at the board's meetings. The George Mason chapter of the American Association of University Professors is calling on its supporters to pack that meeting. In an unsigned statement, the group said it is worried the board, which is made up solely of members appointed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R), could point to the investigations and inquiries from the Trump administration as justification to give Washington a poor performance evaluation at best — and fire him at worst. 'We believe these investigations are nothing more than a thin pretext to attack and remove current GMU President Gregory Washington,' the group wrote.
New York Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Faculty Support of George Mason's President Draws Federal Investigation
When the Department of Justice recently opened an investigation into George Mason University over accusations that the university's diversity programs were discriminatory, many members of the faculty were outraged. Professors quickly published a resolution supporting their president and the university's efforts around diversity. Now, Justice Department officials say they will investigate the faculty, too. In a letter sent on Friday, the Trump administration said it would seek drafts of the faculty resolution, all written communications among the Faculty Senate members who drafted the resolution, and all communications between those faculty members and the office of the university's president, Gregory Washington. The university referred requests for comment to an outside attorney, who did not immediately respond. Free speech advocates quickly denounced the move as an attack on academic freedom. The faculty resolution affirmed the university's previous stance that 'diversity is our strength.' It also defended Dr. Washington, the university's first Black president, who has been a target of the Trump administration. Faculty senate resolutions are positions taken by a university's elected faculty body, like the one at George Mason. They typically carry no force and normally attract little notice beyond the campus newspaper. But these are not normal times for higher education. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
03-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
University Of Denver Faculty Cast No-Confidence Vote In Chancellor
Faculty at the University of Denver have cast a vote of no-confidence in Chancellor Jeremy Haefner. Faculty members at the University of Denver have voted that they have no confidence in Chancellor Jeremy Haefner, according to The Denver Post, which first reported the results of the vote on Wednesday. A total of 822 full-time faculty were eligible to vote anonymously on the no-confidence question in an online poll conducted between June 12 and 26, according to the Post, citing former DU Faculty Senate President Dean Saitta. Saitta had previously stepped down from that position out of his concerns about the wisdom of a no-confidnce vote. Seventy percent of eligible faculty participated, with 56% voting in favor of the no-confidence resolution, while 37% voted against it, and 7% abstained. Over the course of the year, several department chairs and faculty in some of DU's individual colleges had also passed no-confidence votes against the chancellor. And on June 4, the DU Faculty Senate voted to support a motion of no confidence in Haefner, citing misguided financial priorities, lack of a shared vision, and top-down decision making as justifications. Of the 83 senators submitting votes at the June meeting, 58% voted yes, 35% voted no and 7% abstained, according to The Denver Clarion, DU's student newspaper. That senate motion set the stage for conducting the online vote on whether the full faculty had confidence in the chancellor. The University of Denver has faced a recent financial deficit, due, in part, to declining enrollment, forcing it to make budget cuts and lay off staff; and the faculty vote sounds a familiar refrain heard in many no-confidence votes against college presidents. In our forthcoming book No-Confidence: When College Faculty Turn Against Their Presidents, Chuck Ambrose and I found that while the reasons for no-confidence votes vary from institution to institution, one of the most common scenarios is faculty displeasure with academic restructuring and budget reductions directed by campus heads. Throughout the process, the DU Board of Trustees has voiced its strong support for Haefner. For example, it presented a statement at the June 5 meeting of the Faculty Senate, offering several examples of 'why Chancellor Haefner has earned the full support of the Board of Trustees, and it unanimously passed a resolution affirming its "full, unwavering, and public confidence in Jeremy Haefner as chancellor, recognizing his integrity, strategic acumen, and dedication to the University's mission and values." Citing the challenging times that higher education is facing, the Board said that DU needed 'strategic, passionate leaders capable and willing to make difficult decisions that best benefit the University, its students, faculty, and staff, and empower the institution to achieve its mission. This is precisely what we've seen, and continue to see, from Chancellor Haefner. We remain highly confident he is the exact right leader to usher DU through the challenges we face and guide our University forward.' The Board also voiced its concerns to the faculty senate about the harm to the university that a no-confidence vote could cause. "Such a vote can disrupt our campus community, distract us from our primary mission of serving our students, and wreak havoc on our public reputation. At a time when we are already struggling with enrollment challenges given the headwinds facing higher education, this is not a benign influence." The Board also said it was committed to "shared governance, and to even greater transparency and collaboration with you, our faculty leaders, and all in the DU community. As a case in point, the Board is moving to formalize the faculty-trustee liaison committee recently proposed by Faculty Senate Chair Dean Saitta." Despite those appeals, the trustees failed to dissuade the majority of faculty who took part in the poll from voting no confidence in Haefner's leadership. DU spokesperson Jon Stone told the Post that the Board of Trustees 'maintains its unanimous support of and trust in Chancellor Jeremy Haefner.' 'The recent vote by members of the faculty signifies how deeply they care about the university's future during one of the most challenging times in the history of higher education,' Stone said in a statement. '…The chancellor and board are committed to working with all faculty, staff and students to ensure a strong and enduring future for the university. ' Haefner, a mathematician by training, was named DU's 19th chancellor in 2019. He had previously served as the univeersity's provost and executive vice chancellor. Prior to that, he had been provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Rochester Institute of Technology and dean of engineering and applied science, associate vice chancellor for research and dean of the graduate school at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. According to the Post, Haefner sent a message to the campus following the vote, expressing his commitment to 'engage with the community, to listen and to work collaboratively and constructively to make the university stronger, especially given the many challenges that institutions across the country are currently facing.'
Forbes
28-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Stanford University To Lay Off Staff, Cut $140 Million From Its Budget
Stanford University joins the growing list of universities forced to make major budget cuts, ... More announcing reductions of $140 million for the upcoming year. Stanford University announced this week that it would be laying off employees and cutting $140 million in general operating funds from its budget for the upcoming 2025-26 academic year. The news came in a June 26 letter to the campus from Stanford President Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez. Acknowledging that the news was difficult to share, the administrators wrote that the university faces 'significant budget consequences from federal policy changes. These changes include reductions in federal research support and an increase in the endowment tax.' '(W)e need to be realistic about the current landscape and its consequences. There is significant uncertainty about how federal support for universities will evolve, but it is clear that the status quo has changed,' they warned. The Stanford campus has been bracing for bad budget news for months. On February 26, Levin and Martinez announced that Stanford had placed a freeze on staff hiring, writing that uncertainty about NSF and NIH funding and the possibility of an increased federal tax on university endowments would likely affect its bottom line. In April, Stanford deans were instructed to prepare various budget reduction models, and about three weeks ago, Martinez informed the Faculty Senate that the university "could experience policy changes that would reduce our operating budget by hundreds of millions of dollars a year.' This week that prophecy was fulfilled, and it's likely to get worse. The $140 million reduction does not include the School of Medicine, which will identify its own budget cuts in the coming weeks. Levin and Martinez instructed unit heads to formulate their budget plans, which should become final in the next several weeks, according to four principles: They also wrote that they expect schools and units to handle the reductions in different ways, and that the university will increase its endowment payout by 2.9%, which will provide departments some needed support. The administrators admitted that the budget cuts 'will require some reduction in staff positions, not all of which can be accomplished by eliminating open positions," before adding that the university will make benefits and other compensation available 'to support transitions in cases where layoffs are necessary.' Stanford's current budget plan includes several other elements. In 2024–25, Stanford operating budget was $9.7 billion, $1.8 billion, or about 20%, of which was covered by the annual payout of its more than $37 billion endowment. 'Though the budget reductions in the period ahead will be painful, we are confident that by acting now to put Stanford on stronger and more resilient financial footing, we will be better positioned to pursue excellence and new opportunities going forward,' Levin and Martinez concluded.
