This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Last year, faculty at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln loudly voiced their concerns about program cuts proposed by then-Chancellor Rodney Bennett to manage a budget deficit.
Faculty spoke at board meetings, held press conferences through their chapter of the American Association of University Professors, and shared their alternatives to cuts with an academic advisory committee.
In a first for UNL, faculty held and passed a no-confidence measure against Bennett when their efforts failed to stall final decisions on the program eliminations. Less than two months later, Bennett resigned unexpectedly, shortly after the governing board approved his cuts.
googletag.display(‘dfp-hybrid1-mobile’)); googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function (event) { var adUnitPath = ‘/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid1’; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) { var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + ‘-mobile’; var selector = ‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper #dfp-hybrid1-mobile’; if (!$(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).hasClass(‘borders’)) { $(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).addClass(‘borders’) } } }); } }); }); ]]>
googletag.display(‘dfp-hybrid2-desktop’)); googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function (event) { var adUnitPath = ‘/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid2’; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) { var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + ‘-desktop’; var selector = ‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper #dfp-hybrid2-desktop’; if (!$(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).hasClass(‘borders’)) { $(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).addClass(‘borders’) } } }); } }); }); ]]>
The story at UNL is not unusual and reflects financial challenges, social turmoil, and the erosion of shared governance being felt across higher education. Roughly two years earlier, for example, West Virginia University’s faculty voted no confidence in their president to protest a large suite of program cuts.
Two former college presidents, Michael Nietzel and Charles Ambrose, took a deep dive into such votes in their book “No Confidence: When College Faculty Turn Against Their Presidents.”
Nietzel is president emeritus of Missouri State University and served as provost at University of Kentucky. Ambrose, today a senior education consultant at law firm Husch Blackwell, previously served as president of the University of Central Missouri and chancellor of Henderson State University.
In their book, Nietzel and Ambrose detail some of the factors driving an increase in no-confidence votes and how the outcomes can lead to leadership exits and lasting tensions. They also have lessons for both college leaders and faculty in a time of ongoing financial, political and social challenges for higher education.
Higher Ed Dive spoke with Nietzel and Ambrose about their findings and what advice they have for college boards and presidents.
Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
HIGHER ED DIVE: What was the impetus for this book? Why write about no-confidence votes?
Michael Nietzel, president emeritus of Missouri State University
Permission granted by Michael Nietzel
MICHAEL NIETZEL: We were noticing there was, in the last three or four years, a clear uptick in the number of no-confidence votes that colleges and universities were taking toward their presidents. I had written several posts for Forbes about those individual cases. In the course of doing that, we also began to look into research that suggested that while it was common to describe these as symbolic gestures, they were actually much more meaningful than that in the majority of cases.
googletag.display(‘dfp-hybrid2-mobile’)); googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function (event) { var adUnitPath = ‘/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid2’; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) { var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + ‘-mobile’; var selector = ‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper #dfp-hybrid2-mobile’; if (!$(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).hasClass(‘borders’)) { $(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).addClass(‘borders’) } } }); } }); }); ]]>
A book-length treatment had not been done on the topic, and we thought it was timely to look at it, particularly exploring the various reasons why these votes were happening, and perhaps why they were increasing. Both of us, being past college residents, wanted to offer some recommendations about how to make no-confidence votes less likely as an outcome, because they do take a toll on everybody who is involved.
We looked at about 75 no-confidence votes that stretched back for decades. We also interviewed presidents who had been the target, we interviewed faculty members who had been instrumental in leading those no-confidence votes, we talked to other university leaders who had somehow been involved in a no-confidence movement.
What did you learn that surprised you?
Charles Ambrose, senior education consultant at Husch Blackwell and former president of the University of Central Missouri
Permission granted by Charles Ambrose
CHARLES AMBROSE: One thing we tried to do very intentionally was remove some of the initial bias or considerations that college presidents bring to the topic. For some, it can be a badge of honor — “If I’m not getting a no-confidence vote, I’m not leading.” Those kinds of comments can come out of self-preservation. I really became incredibly sensitive and empathetic to faculty leadership — not only the emotional toll it takes when considering no-confidence votes, but the time, the effort. I kiddingly said, “You know, if I had another presidency in me, our recommendations, and some of that broadening of perspective, would change the way I would lead.”
NIETZEL: Some votes of no confidence are completely justified. They reflect either some extraordinary bad judgment or misconduct, or an indifference to the importance of shared governance. While we looked for ways to make them less likely, we also tried to acknowledge that in some cases they’re justified. That was a significant lesson. The other one was how often people who are the targets of a no-confidence vote leave office.
And how often is that?
NIETZEL: The literature on it suggests over half. When we looked at our 75 cases, it probably stands up to that number.
AMBROSE: That’s within a 12-to-15 month time frame. While there may be a trigger, there are events that preceded that trigger that made the faculty more willing to act aggressively and express their disapproval.
NIETZEL: While we’ve stressed the fact that we reviewed several of these votes as not just understandable but perhaps necessary, there were also those that we felt reflected perhaps a little bit too much of an impulsive decision. An example would be those that arose when a president was sharply criticized for how he or she handled the COVID crisis. That usually required some pretty quick decisions, and the normal timing for shared governance input was often difficult in those periods. So we urge caution about those fast-moving kinds of crises. Another example would be how presidents handled protests on campus.
I got the sense from the book there are often underlying themes around shared governance and tenure playing out in no-confidence votes, even when the vote isn’t necessarily about those issues directly.
NIETZEL: Faculty do feel increasingly that their backs are against the wall. The erosion of tenure is one of those forces, as is a tendency to marginalize them in institutional decision-making. That’s even reached a point where legislators are writing bills — and governors are signing those into law — that strip faculty senates of a lot of their influence.
In some cases, universities have done it on their own. My institution that I was affiliated with for years, University of Kentucky, did away with the power of the university senate, and the president got a no-confidence vote as a result of that.
AMBROSE: We actually call for more shared governance, not less. It cuts across all the challenges that we identified that can trip up leadership, and senior teams and boards.
googletag.display(‘dfp-hybrid4-desktop’)); googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function (event) { var adUnitPath = ‘/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid4’; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) { var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + ‘-desktop’; var selector = ‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper #dfp-hybrid4-desktop’; if (!$(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).hasClass(‘borders’)) { $(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).addClass(‘borders’) } } }); } }); }); ]]>
You’re going to have to really turn your governance into a learning model, so that when hard decisions are made, those people who can affect enrollment or spending or policy have some input from that wealth of knowledge that faculty can represent.
One of the things I run into when I talk to faculty is that they are often not asked for their ideas about revenue or costs, before or even during a financial crisis.
NIETZEL: We make the recommendation that, one, faculty should serve on governing boards, which they don’t at many institutions. And, two, they need to be involved in an official way in the budgeting process.
I have a personal anecdote about this faculty member that I knew very well. He was well known as an antagonist to administrators, constantly making open records requests and second-guessing what we did. And he was feared by administrators. He got on a board of trustees — and he was an outstanding board member. Many presidents really resist the idea of having faculty on their governing boards, thinking that they’ll be too much a captive of self-interest.
AMBROSE: When you go into small colleges, under-resourced, kind of driven by a culture of scarcity, the common theme I hear from faculty is, “We didn’t know how bad it was.” This wouldn’t surprise you in a culture where you’re using data-informed decision-making.
What does functional collaboration on finance and budget between faculty and administrators look like in daily practice?
NIETZEL: Some institutions have a budget committee that’s made of student representatives, administrators, the CFO, the president and faculty representatives. That budget committee is charged with regularly looking at revenue and expenses and being involved in the budgetary planning process.
Or the president makes regular presentations about the budget to the university senate, so that the faculty is better informed about the status of the institution’s financial position. Ultimately, the board has the fiduciary responsibility to make budget decisions, based on the administration’s recommendation, but a wise administrator takes those faculty inputs to heart and listens to them carefully.
AMBROSE: I tell presidents quite frequently that transparency is a choice. You’ve got to be very deliberate. And this is not just with faculty — it’s faculty, staff, community, contract vendors, anybody who’s engaged in the operation of the institution. The more transparency you have, the more knowledge you have, then ultimately the more power you have to effect change.
Chuck, did I see your name come up in the list of presidents who faced a no-confidence vote over financial issues?
AMBROSE: It did, through Henderson State University. The no-confidence vote that I faced was of the faculty executive committee the week of major program reductions, where 13 of the 15 members on that executive committee had lost their jobs. In the book, we categorized more of a structured definition, looking at whole governing bodies or faculty that took votes. That was not the case at Henderson, but at the same time I experienced the fullness of what that meant, just by virtue of the human toll that eliminating 45 faculty members represented. I understood the consequences of making the hard decisions in ways that people weren’t happy about.
We are seeing so many cuts right now in higher ed. Is there a way for presidents to approach this without faculty animosity and trauma? Or is it just going to be painful no matter what?
AMBROSE: Some of the decisions are inevitable. And presidents, boards and senior leaders just need to try to do the best they can to engage the community. In an institution that’s really in the struggle — and certainly in my case, Henderson State was truly broken — there was a deep appreciation from the entire community for the willingness to come in and try to fix it. But that appreciation turned to fear and anxiety and angst when people had to decide, “What does that really mean to me?” When you displace people out of livelihood and work, and in many ways careers, it’s really almost impossible to avoid the human trauma.
Something I took away from the Henderson experience. I called all those faculty members. The majority of them still expressed appreciation for trying to save the place, which was emotional. One thing Mike and I would say out of this book, it’s the total human experience. It’s connecting with people, it’s having a common mission, it’s working towards that. But when things aren’t going well, it’s hard for everybody.
You expect these votes to continue at roughly apace, or maybe increase over time?
NIETZEL: I’m not sure. You have factors that could accelerate them. For example, athletics spending at institutions is likely to be a lightning rod for faculty. But you are seeing some faculty perhaps become a bit more cautious as they see higher ed in general be targeted by the Trump administration in a variety of ways. So I’m not sure which way this will cut, whether it’s going to make them more aggressive in taking no-confidence votes or a little more hesitant because they don’t want to pile on at a time when the institution is already facing funding and policy issues, particularly with the federal government.
AMBROSE: There’s a chance that we may see more no-confidence votes considered against boards. Faculty may just not have confidence that their boards can carry the water for making good decisions.