Christopher M.

Pietruszkiewicz, Esq
President
University of Evansville

January 8, 2021

Dear President Pietruszkiewicz,

I write on behalf of the Governance Committee as authorized by the Executive Committee of the
Indiana Conference of the American Association of University Professors (ICAAUP). The University of
Evansville chapter of the AAUP has asked the state conference and its Governance Committee for
advice and assistance. The UE chapter has provided us with extensive details about the current
academic realignment process that you have initiated. We are pleased that administration
representatives assured the faculty at its December 10 virtual gathering that they intended to strictly
follow AAUP-supported procedures in the realignment process. Unfortunately, however, the
information we have received suggests that the process to date violates AAUP principles of shared
governance.

The Indiana Conference of the AAUP is extremely interested in these reports because of our
Association’s longstanding commitment to principles and standards of academic freedom, tenure, and
shared governance, as enunciated in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and
Tenure and in the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (both attached). As you
are doubtless aware, the 1940 Statement was jointly formulated by the AAUP and the Association of
American Colleges and Universities and has gained the endorsement of more than 250 scholarly
societies and higher-education organizations. The Statement on Government, from which higher
education derives the notion of “shared governance,” was jointly produced by the AAUP, the American
Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. The
Association’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure (also attached)
provide model procedures for universities and colleges concerning many areas pertaining to academic
freedom and tenure, including the termination of faculty appointments.

1
 We are pleased to note that the University of Evansville’s Faculty Manual stipulates that in “all
matters pertaining to academic freedom, tenure, and professional ethics, and to assure academic due
process, the University adheres to the AAUP guidelines,” including the 1940 Statement and the
Recommended Institutional Regulations. Since these guidelines are incorporated into the Faculty
Manual, we believe that the University is bound by them. We further believe that these guidelines
cover the current situation.
After stating directly to the Faculty Senate on December 1 that the University was not in a state
of financial exigency, you sent a message to the chair of the Faculty Senate on or about January 1,
2021, claiming that “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.” Other than dismissal for cause, AAUP guidelines provide only two
circumstances in which terminations of faculty appointments are legitimate. Terminations must be
either for bona fide financial exigency (Regulation 4c) or program discontinuance for essentially
educational reasons. There is no third option that complies with AAUP standards.

AAUP Recommended Institutional Regulation 4c(1) defines financial exigency as “a severe

financial crisis that fundamentally compromises the academic integrity of the institution as a whole
and that cannot be alleviated by less drastic means.” The AAUP does not recognize financial
considerations besides a bona fide state of financial exigency as a legitimate reason to terminate an
appointment with tenure. In any case, a bona fide financial exigency should include an elected faculty
governance body in the decision that a condition of financial exigency exists, and that all feasible
alternatives to termination of appointments have been pursued.
Since you have presented no evidence that a state of financial exigency exists, and in fact have
denied it, we will judge the draft realignment plan in the context of an educational decision.

Under Recommended Institutional Regulation 4d(1), termination of an appointment with

continuous tenure may occur because of bona fide formal discontinuance of a program or department,
but only if the decision to discontinue is based on educational reasons “as determined primarily by the
faculty as a whole or an appropriate committee thereof.” The UE Faculty Manual Program Closure
Policy provides that the Faculty Senate and its Curriculum Committee is the body that “considers
proposals for deletions of degrees and majors and recommends actions on such proposals to the
Faculty Senate. This mechanism follows from the general Faculty Manual stipulation that the faculty,
acting with the President, shall determine all matters of educational policy.”
UE faculty have repeatedly and for months requested substantive and meaningful involvement
in the program evaluation and draft realignment planning, but you refused this until very late in the
process. In your email to the faculty on October 5, you explicitly refused to follow the shared
governance procedures that the faculty requested and that had been used at the University of
Evansville in the past. In your January 1 reply to the faculty vote of no confidence in the draft
realignment plan, you claim that the ordinary shared governance procedures of the Faculty Senate and
its Curriculum Committee do not apply to the proposed realignment, although there is no provision in

2
the Faculty Manual of bylaws for suspending normal shared governance. The AAUP's standards for
shared governance articulated in the (attached) Statement on Government make it clear that the
faculty have primary responsibility for making decisions that directly concern the curriculum and
faculty status, even when those decisions follow in the wake of typically "administrative" decisions.
The faculty must have an initial and decisive role in any deliberations over program closure.
We note here that the UE Faculty Employment Contract states that “specific University
policy…as contained in the Faculty Manual, as from time to time amended, will guide the University in
the administration of this contact.” The process you have followed thus far also appears to violate the
University’s charter, which provides that “courses shall be arranged and determined by the trustees in
conjunction with the faculty and the university senate."

In lieu of the well-established shared governance procedures at UE, you have adopted a
mechanism to solicit faculty input that is wholly inadequate and does not constitute a bona fide
program discontinuance process. As presented to the faculty, the draft realignment plan is sketchy and
lacks detailed rationales or criteria. The underlying data were not made available to faculty until
December 11, although the Faculty Senate had been asking for it since early September. While the
administration claims it is sharing plans and data, sharing appears to have been done in such a rushed,
confusing, and fragmented way that the process cannot be called transparent. Meanwhile, the process
has precluded meaningful or substantive faculty involvement. It has completely bypassed the elected
faculty representative body, the Senate. The late rollout and rushed timetable have contributed to a
process that is both confusing and demoralizing. The approximately 30 days given for faculty input in
no way substitutes for proper shared governance and does not comply with AAUP principles.
Besides its flawed genesis, the draft realignment plan includes provisions that do not yet
comply with AAUP principles. Regulation 4d(3) requires that before the administration gives notice to a
faculty member that it intends to terminate an appointment because of program discontinuance, it
must make every effort to place them in another suitable position. The UE Faculty Manual similarly
provides that “a tenured faculty member terminated because a subject has been dropped or a
curriculum reorganized will be continued in some other capacity if possible.” It does not appear to us
thus far that any such effort has been made or will be made for UE faculty.
Regulations 4c and 4d both stipulate that faculty members whose positions are terminated for
either financial exigency or program discontinuance have the right to a full adjudicative hearing before
a faculty committee. In the hearing, a faculty determination that a program or department is to be
discontinued will be considered presumptively valid, but the burden of proof on other issues rests on
the administration. The UE Faculty Manual similarly provides that when a faculty member’s
appointment is discontinued, either for educational or financial reasons, they are entitled to follow
Faculty Appeals Committee procedures. Nothing in the draft realignment plan announcement or
notices sent to individual affected faculty contains this provision.
We find it very significant that the Faculty Senate and an overwhelming majority of the full
faculty have voted “no confidence” in the draft realignment plan and process. We are concerned that

3
the process undertaken to date has done considerable harm to relations between the Board and
administration of the University of Evansville and its faculty, damage that will impede the effective
functioning of the University going forward. However, we are confident that a return to true shared
governance, as described in AAUP guidelines, will avoid permanent damage to the University’s
functioning and reputation.
We appreciate that all our information comes from the Evansville faculty, and that your
administration might have further information that would help us better understand the situation at
your institution. We would therefore welcome your reply. If, however, our understanding of the
realignment program is substantially correct, the Indiana Conference of the AAUP urges you to
reconsider your current course of action and create a program realignment process in keeping with the
UE Faculty Manual and AAUP shared governance principles. The Indiana Conference is prepared to
work with you and the Board in revising the realignment process so that it complies with AAUP-
supported standards. The national office of the AAUP would almost certainly open a case concerning
the University of Evansville if the process continues without revision and results in terminations of
tenured faculty. Should the realignment process go forward on its current trajectory, the Indiana
Conference will request that the national office authorize an investigation, which could result in AAUP
censure or sanction.

Sincerely,

David Nalbone
President, Indiana Conference of the American Association of University Professors

Cc: Linda E. White, Chairman, University of Evansville Board of Trustees

Bishop Julius C. Trimble, Indiana Conference of The United Methodist Church
Mark Criley, Program Officer, AAUP Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and
Governance
Moira Marsh, Chair, Indiana Conference AAUP Committee on Governance
Davies Bellamy, President, AAUP Chapter, University of Evansville
Alanna Keenan, Chair, University of Evansville Faculty Senate
Danielle Williams, Chair, University of Evansville Senate Curriculum Committee