FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, January 1, 2021

Contact(s): Daniel Byrne, Secretary-Treasurer UEAAUP, ueaaup@gmail.com, 8122055889

UE President: “Proposed academic alignment plan is not an educational policy

decision”

Evansville— 1/1/21 — The President of the University of Evansville, Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz,

today sent an e-mail to the Chair of the Faculty Senate, who subsequently released it to the faculty as a
whole, in which he argued that his “proposed academic alignment plan is not an educational policy
decision” and so does not fall within the responsibilities of the faculty.

The President’s e-mail was a response to the December 17th Faculty Senate resolution by which the
Senate voted no confidence in the President’s draft academic alignment plan. That resolution argues
that the President’s draft academic alignment plan neither recognizes the faculty’s primary
responsibility over educational policy nor accords with the university’s policies on curricular change as
defined in the Faculty Manual. This resolution was endorsed by the Senate by a margin of 14 to 1 with 1
abstention. The faculty then supported the resolution by a margin of 106 to 19 with 3 abstentions.

In the President’s e-mail to the Senate Chair, he responded to that resolution as follows:

The Faculty Handbook provides that “[t]he responsibility of the faculty is in educational policy
rather than administrative decisions.” The proposed academic alignment plan is not an
educational policy decision, but an administrative decision motivated by financial considerations
of the University and based on the program evaluation criteria. The process described in the
Faculty Resolution was designed for ordinary operations and provides for the Curriculum
Committee’s (and Faculty Senate’s) review of routine proposals for changes. It does not apply to
the current proposed academic alignment plan. Nevertheless, Dr. Austin and I sought and
continue to seek input, comments, recommendations, and proposals regarding the draft
academic alignment plan from all faculty members that includes but is not limited to the Faculty
Senate and/or the Curriculum Committee.

In considering this comment it is worth noting how the Faculty Manual continues after the quoted
sentence:

The responsibility of the faculty is in educational policy rather than administrative decisions.
Faculty, acting with the President, determine all matters of educational policy with respect to
 academic programs including degree requirements, honorary degrees, curriculum changes,
[and] academic standards.

As can be seen the second sentence speaks of “academic programs” and “curriculum changes.” It is
difficult to understand how the President’s plan does not constitute an “educational policy decision”
when its implementation would eliminate 3 entire departments and 18 majors and so enact massive
“curriculum changes” that would fundamentally alter the makeup of the university’s “academic
programs.” In looking at the above quote, one can also see that the President’s call for “input,
comments, recommendations, and proposals” from faculty members regarding his draft academic
alignment plan in no way reflects the faculty’s designated relationship to educational policy. Rather than
being given any opportunity for determination, the faculty is simply being asked to offer ideas to those
who are truly making the decisions, the President and his senior administrative team.

The President’s comment also asserts that “the process described in the Faculty Resolution was
designed for ordinary operations and provides for the Curriculum Committee’s (and Faculty Senate’s)
review of routine proposals for changes.” According to the President, that process therefore “does not
apply to the current proposed academic alignment plan.” It should here be noted that the process to
which the President is referring is the university’s process for curricular change. Within that process,
proposals for substantial curricular changes, such as proposals for the “additions or deletions of degrees
and majors,” should pass through the Senate’s Curriculum Committee, the Senate, the President, and
the Board of Trustees. This process is outlined in the Faculty Manual’s definition of the Curriculum
Committee. It can also be seen the Manual’s “Program Closure Policy,” which was approved by current
EVPAA Dr. Michael Austin. The Faculty Manual nowhere states that the outlined process only applies to
“ordinary operations” and “routine proposals.” It also offers no alternative process for extraordinary
operations and irregular proposals. This is because the Faculty Manual only contains one process for
curricular change.

The President’s approach constitutes a de facto suspension of the Faculty Manual because it gives him
primary responsibility over educational policy and so invalidates all the many sections of the Manual
that reflect the faculty’s mandated relationship to educational policy. This approach is also a violation of
the university’s charter, which states that the university’s “courses shall be arranged and determined by
the trustees in conjunction with the faculty and the university senate.” Even after everything that has
happened, the UE AAUP chapter was still shocked and saddened by this morning’s message from the
President. What a truly awful way to begin the year!

To learn more: • Visit our website at saveue.com • Follow us on Facebook at Save UE

• Follow us on Twitter at @Save_UE • Follow us on Instagram at save.ue
• E-mail us at ueaaup@gmail.com