Faculty at the University of Utah are raising alarm over allegations that a new state law has empowered university administrators to suppress dissent among academic staff, leading to blocked resolutions, overturned tenure cases, and an atmosphere of fear.
This unrest has intensified following President Taylor Randall’s invocation of SB192 in February to stop an Academic Senate discussion critically examining the actions of Provost and Senior Vice President of Faculty Affairs, Mitzi Montoya.
While lawmakers have presented the 2024 enactment of SB192 as a technical update designed to formalize the integration of technical colleges into Utah’s higher education framework, it has sparked a contentious debate regarding faculty autonomy at the University of Utah.
The tensions came to light when The Salt Lake Tribune reported on Randall’s abrupt halt to an Academic Senate discussion, which sought to address a resolution accusing Montoya of misconduct in handling tenure decisions and inappropriate treatment of faculty.
Randall justified his interference, stating, “It is very difficult for me to see a body bring claims into a public meeting without allowing someone the right to take a look at these claims and discuss them.”
However, faculty leaders contend that SB192 undermines the principle of shared governance—an established process that encourages collaboration between faculty and administrators—through two critical provisions.
The law stipulates that a university president may, at their sole discretion, seek input from faculty, staff, or students. Additionally, the concept of faculty jurisdiction is limited primarily to academic requirements for admission, degrees, and certificates, with further authority requiring explicit permission from the Legislature, trustees, or the president.
Critics argue that these clauses effectively confer unilateral authority on the president concerning faculty input, prompting concerns regarding the erosion of faculty governance.
Academic Senate President Harriet Hopf acknowledged that discussions in January were precluded under SB192 due to the mention of confidential information—yet she emphasized that university policy also played a significant role in the matter.
Hopf remarked, “I don’t know that we needed to invoke 192 to do that, right? Like, that’s against all kinds of university policy, right?”
In light of the controversy surrounding Montoya, the University stated that Utah’s legislature has restricted the effects of faculty votes and emphasized that university leaders do support the Academic Senate’s right to discuss issues.
In a statement, they claimed, “Free speech and academic freedom are the foundations of academic inquiry and essential to shared governance here at the U. Senators’ freedom of speech includes the right to ask questions, debate and vote on anything they choose to take up. However, state law (SB192) limits the effect of those votes. Utah’s elected leaders, not university leaders, have reduced the impact of faculty actions.”
The university further clarified that while faculty may weigh in on various topics, decisions remain subject to the president’s approval, thereby narrowing the faculty’s jurisdiction.
Amid these governance concerns, a tenure denial case involving Dr. Michael Vershinin drew significant scrutiny.
During a February Academic Senate meeting, physics and astronomy professor Dr. Wayne Springer voiced concerns over Vershinin’s tenure denial, although he did not mention him by name.
Despite a promising initial recommendation from former College of Science Dean Peter Trapa and considerable departmental backing, Vershinin’s tenure case was abruptly overturned when Montoya returned it for further review, a move that raised suspicions of undue influence.
Vershinin expressed frustration, stating, “It looked like yielding to pressure from above” and described the initial denial as “nonsensical.”
Academically supported by various faculty committees, he pursued an appeal, invoking claims of violations of academic freedom.
Randall ultimately signed off on the final denial shortly before Vershinin’s contract was set to expire, leaving him no time to respond.
Vershinin noted, “They stretched it until the last second, probably to give me no time to respond. Again, it just feels like somehow I had a target on my back. I don’t know exactly why.”
Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, Sarah Projansky, defended the tenure procedure in a response, stating that denials are never determined solely by top administration levels.
However, Vershinin criticized the justification provided, emphasizing that it undermined academic freedom and disregarded the Academic Senate’s backing.
In his words, “It was railroading.”
Projansky maintained that both the provost and president have only opposed tenure in cases where earlier review stages raised concerns as well, asserting, “I am not aware of a time that the provost has ever recommended against, or the president has ever denied, tenure in a case where all previous levels of review have recommended tenure.”
As accusations against Montoya persist, faculty accuse her of fostering a punitive and retributive atmosphere.
An anonymous professor—referred to as Professor A—highlighted a pervasive mentality within the university, describing Montoya’s leadership style as one that rewards compliant behavior while punishing dissent.
Faculty members previously raised concerns in January 2024, submitting a letter outlining allegations of discrimination and unprofessional behavior by Montoya.
However, faculty familiar with the matter reported that university leadership dismissed the claims.
These allegations included instances of psychologically abusive conduct and discriminatory remarks concerning members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In response to these allegations, the university stated they were “not corroborated,” with Randall notably affirming that he would not hire anyone biased against any individual or group.
The growing disconnect between university leadership and the faculty community has only intensified, with many faculty members pointing to recent budget cuts and resource reallocations as further illustrations of this divide.
One faculty member, Professor B, characterized these actions as indicative of a “power grab.”
In light of these challenges, faculty have expressed sentiments of diminished input in shaping university policies, viewing their roles as mere formalities rather than meaningful contributions to institutional governance.
Coles, another faculty member, expressed frustration at the administration’s handling of concerns, stating, “The only concrete result was an electronic suggestion box on the Senate webpage. Our concerns went in and vanished. Permanently.”
Long-serving faculty members reflected on how this shift signifies not merely administrative changes but a profound cultural shift at the university.
Dr. Anne Jamison, a professor of English, reminisced about a time when collaborations between faculty and administrators flourished, highlighting the collegial atmosphere of past interactions.
“I’ve had friendly relationships with the administration my entire time here,” Jamison noted, contrasting it with the current climate.
As a faculty member, Jamison remarked, “This is Utah. This is frankly not a hotbed of radicalism. It is a quiet faculty who generally has always liked the institution. We send our kids here.”
While recognizing some constraints imposed by federal and state regulations, Jamison lamented that the university has historically acted as an advocate for faculty members.
She cited the university’s legal challenge in 2006 regarding its campus gun ban as an instance where the institution stood firm in support of its faculty.
In contrast, under the current administration, faculty members have described a culture where accountability and traceability are critically lacking, leading to an atmosphere of intimidation.
Jamison expressed concerns that faculty now feel discouraged from speaking out due to fears regarding their careers.
“We were afraid to speak because we were afraid it would affect the tenure cases of our junior faculty,” she said, adding that faculty also refrained from discussing issues that could impact their leaves or academic programs.
In his statement, Randall expressed confidence in Provost Montoya’s leadership, affirming that she has been entrusted with important initiatives aimed at enhancing student success and institutional excellence.
Randall stated, “I selected Dr. Montoya to be the university’s provost because I trust her intelligence, insights and instincts,” reiterating that she is focused on improving critical academic metrics.
As the situation continues to develop, faculty members at the University of Utah remain vigilant and engaged in discussions surrounding institutional governance, academic freedom, and the impact of state legislation on their roles within the university.
If you possess any information regarding these ongoing developments, the University encourages you to communicate with the reporting team.
image source from：https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2025/04/23/utah-faculty-say-new-law-and-leadership-have-jeopardized-academic-freedom/
