The UNCG Faculty voted no confidence in the Provost: How did the chancellor respond?

The UNCG Faculty voted 53% to 47% to support a resolution of no confidence in the provost. This comes after a vote of no confidence from the College of Arts and Sciences Faculty that passed by a larger margin. There was also a censure of the chancellor and provost, and a resolution by the senate citing violations of the faculty constitution that passed with overwhelming support, as did additional resolutions regarding failures of the APR process. See https://www.savetheg.com/unshared-governance. 

The general faculty vote was close, but it doesn't alter the significance. There has never been a faculty vote of no confidence in the provost or the chancellor at UNCG. That does not mean things were always sunny between faculty and administration. In one case, my colleagues who know the history of UNCG informed me that Faculty Senate issued a critical report of Chancellor Moran in the 1990s in lieu of a vote of no confidence. And that there were significant issues with Chancellor Graham that led to the board doing an investigation in 1950s. But the fact that no formal votes of no confidence have ever been passed in UNCG's history supports the significance of what happened yesterday. Also, the vote was the largest number of faculty to vote in general faculty meeting that anyone I know can remember. And, The vote was held in the midst of classes on Weds afternoon and faculty had to remain in the entire meeting to vote.

After each of the faculty votes, neither the chancellor nor the provost have exercised self-reflection. They have responded mostly by blaming faculty for obstructing change. The chancellor also vigorously supports the results of the APR process but has yet to answer any key questions that have been asked repeatedly (and in my blog posts since January 2023). The most important question to me is what the plan will be beyond cutting programs that will generate net revenue leading to survival and thriving of the university. If a chancellor can't explain the plan, and the provost can't explain the plan, and the chief financial officer can't explain the plan, then there is a serious flaw in leadership.

In his response he mentioned that the program cuts are just on the margins. That has to be true. Not necessarily because deeper and deeper cuts have to made (if they are, with no consideration of revenue, the university will eventually die)  but because there has to be a change in focus on generating revenue, which will probably involve empowering, harnessing and incentivizing the entrepreneurial spirt and creativity of deans and faculty.

We all understand the "headwinds" facing higher education and UNCG.  But that word has been so overused here it has become a square on buzzword bingo card. Nonetheless, even in strong "headwinds,” mission driven non-profit businesses, don't succeed by cutting alone, or by selling the most efficient credit hours. Universities don't make widgets. Although the UNCG revenue model is selling credit hours, that is not what students and parents are buying. They are investing in their future. Faculty don't just deliver curriculum, like pilots flying a plane to get someone from point A to Point B, they design and build the curriculum, assess it, continually improve it, and based on surveys like the Purdue-Gallup poll, are the most prevalent factor that alumni correlate to their post-graduation success. 

When the AAUP leadership met with the chancellor and provost to express concerns and provide suggestions several months ago, they were asked to go through faculty senate. When faculty senate passed their resolutions by overwhelming margins, the chancellor responded indicating he wanted to hear from the general faculty. Now that the general faculty have voted no confidence, the chancellor claims that that votes from just under 340 faculty was not enough to be meaningful. He does not mention that it was one of the largest number of voters in any UNCG general faculty meeting, ever. And that had there been more faculty, and less fear among non-tenured and professional track faculty, the vote margin might have been bigger. Or that although he indicated only 25% of the voting faculty voted no confidence, about 20% voted against a vote of no confidence. 

This all sounds familiar in current presidential politics. The election wasn't lost, even though it was. Those that didn't vote support are simply enemies of the state. The vote was not fair because not enough of the right people's votes were counted. The leader doesn't need to change a thing.  People need to bend to the leader's will or be punished or alienated. And a plan for the future? Who needs a plan? Constituents want things broken and the swamp to be drained. So, that is what the leader will do.

Given the response to the passing of the resolution, it wouldn't be that surprising if the Faculty Senate Chair and Secretary were called and asked to find some more votes.

Joe Killian in this article compares and contrasts NC State's Chancellor's response to faculty concerns vs the UNCG Chancellor- "That [Chancellor Gilliam's] response stood in stark contrast to N.C. State Chancellor Randy Woodson’s response to his faculty’s “no confidence” vote, wherein he accepted that the faculty did not feel heard and vowed greater communication"

The stark difference between Randy Woodson's response and Frank Gilliam's response says all that needs to said.  Defiance and "shaming" are usually not the foundations of leadership in successful organizations. Especially when the motives of those who are concerned are shared with the chancellor:  a bright future for UNCG.

​For university's to be successful, I think a majority of the faculty need to feel inspired and valued. Developing or redesigning programs to generate new revenue will be done by the faculty. Viewing a sizeable proportion of faculty as enemies of the university is counter productive. 

Finally, the chancellor suggests the vote will diminish the courage of faculty who are preparing for UNCG's next chapter, as if those of us who worry just as much about UNCG's future don't have courage and will to fight for UNCG's future. It is frustrating that he refuses to recognize the courage of many of my colleagues who have risked careers in a current culture of fear because they love UNCG and see the current actions leading the university into a death spiral (the chancellor, provost and our chief financial officer have not presented any sort of a clear plan that it won't happen).  Those faculty are not risking their careers for their self-interest (as they were first accused) or because they personally dislike anybody.

The chancellor has invested eight years in UNCG and has been well compensated. The provost has invested three years and been well compensated.  The Chief Financial Office is approaching four well compensated years. Many of the faculty who voted no confidence have invested 2-3 times as much of their life  to UNCG's mission as the chancellor and some greater than 10 times longer than the provost. Those faculty are financially compensated 3-6 times lower than the provost, chancellor and chief financial officer.  For me, I often work 70-80 works at 1/3 of the salary I had as provost here, because of how important I think the mission of the university and how many personal rewards there are from mentoring students whose life trajectories are transformed at UNCG.  Other faculty who voted "no confidence"  have given everything of themselves to UNCG and UNCG's students for much longer, with almost no external rewards for the positive effects they have on the lives of students. One might think that people, with such perspectives and dedication, and who have a role in the design and building of programs and curriculum at UNCG,  would be worth being listened to. My colleagues are likely to be here many times longer than either of our three leaders. They're the ones that will have to live with leadership's bad decisions. So, they should be taken more seriously. And, it should be recognized that almost all of us would much rater be in the classroom, with students, or with our research, then going to faculty meetings aimed at trying to be heard by our leadership. And, I would rather blog about funny things.

The biggest failure of leadership right now is the inability to even outline how the current tactics will not lead UNCG into a death spiral and are part of clear strategy that will allow UNCG to ultimately thrive. At some point, leaders have to move beyond vacuous, defensive, and dismissive statements.

I have a heard that some leaders respond to a vote of no confidence from faculty by saying the vote causes them to lose any confidence they had in faculty. Although that may be an effective way to protect one's ego, it is a sad way to react to the people one needs to lead.

I am glad that I am not a chancellor or a provost in a public institution right now. The place between a rock and a hard place is microscopic. But in an organization that is fueled by the creativity and energy of faculty, at least a reflection like Randy Woodson's might have been part of the Chancellor's response. 

On a final personal note, the chancellor stated this in his remarks at the General Faculty Meeting relating to a vote of no confidence. "I believe this action is excessive, pointless, counterproductive, and downright cruel."  with respect to the vote of no confidence, I have personal experience with "excessive and cruel" from the chancellor's and provost's office (and one faculty member) that purposefully destroyed my career, as do other people such as a previous athletic director and a previous graduate dean and others. The Chancellor, Provost and Chief of Staff, in my opinion, have set the cultural norm of the campus to celebrate "excessive and cruel." They need to own that is the culture they created.  if they want to move back to a culture of care and respect, they have the power to change that with their actions, not their words. One simple change would be to invite faculty who have been critical to a meeting, where they come only prepared with questions whose answers they really want to listen to rather than to dismiss and defend.

Here is quote from the message the Chancellor sent to the campus, the day after. 

"There are over 800 eligible people to vote. Today, out of 339 votes cast, 53% voted for the resolution of no confidence, and 47% voted against. Those who voted in favor represent less than a quarter of the eligible voters. As I expressed in my remarks to the faculty today, the Provost understands that strategic change and reinvestment will power the University’s long-term ability to fulfill its mission. The vote today will not only cost time – a precious commodity given the increasingly urgent headwinds facing higher education – it will also diminish the courage and invaluable contributions of the many people who are preparing for the University’s next chapter." Chancellor Gilliam, letter to faculty 3/14/2024