As Earth Month 2025 commenced, students at Seattle University received an email from Academic Affairs highlighting the late Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Si’.
Pope Francis called for humanity to care for the environment, advocating for sustainable development and urging a reconsideration of our relationship with nature.
However, this Earth Month brought troubling news for those interested in environmental issues, as the university announced the termination of the Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science program.
This decision came in conjunction with the closure of six other academic programs, including BA Interdisciplinary Liberal Studies and several graduate degrees in engineering and education.
The Seattle U Board of Trustees voted to implement these cuts in a meeting held from March 13-14, 2025, leaving students and faculty questioning the university’s commitment to environmental education amid a robust effort to promote sustainability.
Despite the abrupt changes, current students enrolled in these programs will have the opportunity to graduate with their degrees.
The decision to eliminate the seven programs was made by the university’s provost and Chief Financial Officer, who presented their findings during a March 10 meeting of the Academic Assembly (AcA), which serves as the primary governance body for faculty members.
The process for program termination, as detailed in the Faculty Handbook, mandates reviews by Deans and appropriate faculty governance bodies.
Section XII of the handbook outlines the necessary protocols for programs to be cut, stating that any decisions regarding academic program reductions or eliminations should involve recommendations from faculty governance.
The university administration, however, interpreted this section differently and asserted that these cuts were part of an initiative not requiring adherence to the handbook’s stipulations concerning faculty involvement.
This interpretation has raised concerns among faculty and students about potential precedents set for future program evaluations and cuts without faculty consultation.
Chris Malins, the CFO of Seattle University, noted that the university is grappling with a projected financial deficit exceeding $7.5 million for the current year.
The administration’s decision to trim programs appears to be part of a broader strategy to stabilize the university’s financial standing, consistent with feedback from previous discussions about potential reductions in programming.
Historically, these types of cuts and changes have prompted significant discussions about faculty involvement and data transparency, as expressed by members of the faculty council.
Many faculty members have voiced their concerns regarding the unique contributions of the Environmental Science program.
Wes Lauer, the chair of the civil and environmental engineering department and former director of the environmental science program, expressed disappointment at the decision, emphasizing the program’s importance in educating and preparing students to engage with crucial environmental challenges.
Students within the Interdisciplinary Liberal Studies major have also responded with shock and concern about the lack of communication regarding their program’s termination.
Caitlin Tips, a fourth-year student, noted her disbelief when she received notification of her major’s closure, questioning the transparency of the administration’s decision-making process.
Students have actively voiced their frustration over the apparent exclusion from discussions about program cuts through the Student Government of Seattle U (SGSU).
SGSU President Sophia Cofinas raised concerns that student perspectives were not considered in the decision-making process and advocated for increased representation in future conversations about curriculum changes.
Another significant point of contention involves the perceived lack of clearly defined metrics or data justifying the program terminations.
Phillip Thompson, a professor in the civil and environmental engineering department, shared concerns that no supporting data was provided to faculty that would help explain the rationale behind closing the Environmental Science program.
These recent cuts echo a prior initiative established in 2020 during financial uncertainties stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
At that time, the Academic Portfolio Program Review (APPR) committee was created to evaluate the academic portfolio and recommend potential cuts.
However, dissatisfaction over the lack of faculty engagement and clarity led to the APPR being postponed due to significant backlash from faculty groups.
As part of the ongoing financial challenge, the new plan dubbed Reigniting Our Strategic Directions was introduced by President Eduardo Peñalver, which called for further assessment of academic programs in alignment with goals to enhance financial sustainability.
Goal 5 of this strategic direction specifically references the importance of making cuts in a transparent and equitable way and outlines processes for program evaluation.
The similarities between the recent program terminations and the previous attempts to restructure the academic landscape have sparked concern about the future of shared governance at Seattle University.
Faculty members worry that the current approach to program evaluation may undermine the collective decision-making processes outlined in the Faculty Handbook, potentially reducing opportunities for vital dialogue among faculty and administration.
One key aspect of the Environmental Science program was its capstone project, which distinguished it from similar offerings.
This year’s graduating seniors had been working diligently on year-long capstone projects in collaboration with professional organizations, reflecting real-world applications of their academic training.
One team was engaged in an interdisciplinary project utilizing drone technology to aid a forest management consulting firm.
This type of project aligns with the university’s stated goals of interdisciplinary education and Ignatian pedagogy, further highlighting the contradictions inherent in the administration’s closure decisions.
Amid these changes, the university continues to grapple with community sentiments, as students and faculty alike advocate for more robust mechanisms to include their voices in future discussions about academic programs and the educational direction of Seattle University.
image source from：https://seattlespectator.com/2025/04/23/handbook-does-not-apply-to-academic-program-cuts-provosts-office-says/
