Faculty at the University of Utah say a new state law has emboldened administrators to suppress dissent, pointing to blocked resolutions, overturned tenure cases and a growing climate of fear.
Their allegations follow U President Taylor Randall’s February invocation of SB192 to halt an Academic Senate debate about Provost and Senior Vice President of Faculty Affairs Mitzi Montoya’s conduct.
SB192 and the Erosion of Faculty Governance
Lawmakers have framed the 2024 passage of SB192 as a technical update to formalize the merger of technical colleges with the state’s higher education system. However, it has ignited a debate over faculty autonomy at the U.
Tensions arose in February when The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Randall abruptly halted an Academic Senate discussion about a resolution criticizing Montoya, citing SB192 as justification. The resolution, introduced by English professor Katharine Coles and backed by 23 senators, accused Montoya of misconduct in tenure decisions and inappropriate treatment of faculty.
Randall defended his intervention in the meeting.
“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,” he said.
Faculty leaders argue the law undermines shared governance, the tradition of collaborative decision-making between faculty and administrators, through two key provisions:
- “A president may, in the president’s sole discretion, seek input from the institution’s faculty, staff or students.”
- “The faculty may only have jurisdiction over academic requirements for admission, degrees and certificates” and may be authorized to have jurisdiction over other matters “only if [the Legislature, trustees or president] expressly authorize or delegate such power.”
Critics say these clauses grant the president unilateral authority over faculty input. At the U, Academic Senate President Harriet Hopf acknowledged that January’s discussion was prohibited under the realm of SB192 due to the discussion of confidential information. However, she noted that existing university policy, not just the law, also played a role.
“We got to a point where confidential things were being spoken in a public meeting, and that was really when it went too far,” Hopf told The Chronicle. “I don’t know that we needed to invoke 192 to do that, right? Like, that’s against all kinds of university policy, right?”
The U said the Utah Legislature has limited the “effects” of faculty votes.
University administration sent The Chronicle a statement in regards to the complaints against Montoya and the restrictions placed on the Academic Senate by SB192.
“University leaders strongly support the Academic Senate’s right to discuss any issues they would like to. Free speech and academic freedom are the foundations of academic inquiry and essential to shared governance here at the U,” the statement said. “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 statement also clarified that “the president may expand that jurisdiction, but only after a thoughtful and deliberate process. University leaders are working through policies one by one.”
Legal observers and faculty governance advocates worry that SB192, despite its procedural framing, weakens traditional faculty roles. David Frakt, a Florida-based lawyer with a specialization in higher education law, said the bill’s usage of the word “jurisdiction” refers to the ability of faculty to make decisions and establish rules and policies. It does “not specifically delineate or limit the powers of an academic senate to consider other matters.”
“The president seems to be suggesting that anything outside the faculty’s jurisdiction — that is, specifically delegated rule-making authority, is somehow completely beyond the faculty senate’s purview and can’t even be discussed by the faculty senate,” Frakt said in an email statement.
“But the faculty senate still has the right to debate and discuss whatever it wants, and can make proclamations and recommendations on any subject matter that it chooses.”
Supporters of the bill maintain it clarifies administrative authority, but faculty argue it creates ambiguity in shared governance.
Hopf said the language of the bill does invite uncertainty surrounding when faculty members could provide input to Randall.
“What are the situations when the president, in the president’s sole discretion, is seeking input?” she said.
The U’s statement to The Chronicle explained faculty rights in the Academic Senate.
“University leaders may ask the faculty to weigh in on various topics, including strategic planning, allocation of resources and physical planning,” the statement said. “When important issues emerge, the president and provost may actively seek the faculty, and senate’s, input.”
A university memo summarizing SB192 said it “expressly narrows the faculty’s jurisdiction,” leaving further involvement subject to presidential approval.
Tenure Denial Sparks Outcry Over Academic Freedom Violations
During February’s Academic Senate meeting, physics and astronomy professor Dr. Wayne Springer raised concerns about the tenure denial of his former colleague, Dr. Michael Vershinin, though he did not name Vershinin in the meeting.
Despite receiving initial recommendation from former College of Science Dean Peter Trapa and strong departmental support, Vershinin’s tenure case was “overturned” after Montoya returned it for further review.
“The provost sent it back, and suddenly the dean reversed his support,” Vershinin told The Chronicle. “It looked like yielding to pressure from above.”
Vershinin, who called the initial rejection “nonsensical,” pursued an appeal with backing from the Academic Senate’s faculty committees.
“Every faculty committee that looked at my case noted the concerns were financially punitive and nonsensical … it’s a violation of academic freedom,” he said.
Despite this support, Randall signed off on the final denial just days before Vershinin’s contract expired, according to Vershinin.
“They stretched it until the last second, probably to give me no time to respond,” Vershinin said. “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 responded to The Chronicle with a statement detailing standard tenure procedures.
The university official clarified that tenure denials are never made solely at the top levels of administration. According to Projansky, both the provost and the president have only opposed tenure in cases where earlier stages of review — by faculty committees, department chairs or deans — also raised concerns.
But Vershinin criticized the decision. He said they chose a justification that tramples academic freedom, and when the Senate backed the faculty, they ignored it.
“It was railroading,” he said.
Projansky said the provost followed standard procedure for the Vershinin case.
“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,” Projansky said. “And finally, the provost does not have the authority to dismiss professors, ever. Only the president does, following appropriate due process for the faculty member.”
In an interview with The Chronicle, a professor who opted to stay anonymous — Professor A — described Montoya’s mistreatment of faculty as a “mentality” that extended to the entire university.
“She’s punitive,” Professor A said. “She is known to be very retributive, and so she scratches the backs of people who are good to her and the people that she has problems with, she makes their lives hell, and that’s the problem.”
Faculty have raised these concerns before. In January of 2024, a group of professors sent a letter to several administrative leaders, including Randall, outlining alleged discrimination and unprofessional behavior by Montoya. The letter was dismissed by university leadership, according to faculty familiar with the exchange.
These allegations included:
- “[Montoya used] language [that] is unprofessional and constitutes psychologically abusive conduct.”
- “Montoya has made discriminatory remarks regarding members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stating affiliation as a disqualifying factor in hiring new personnel at the university.”
The U said these claims were “not corroborated.”
“I would not hire anyone who is explicitly biased against any individual or group, particularly Utah’s dominant faith and my own religion,” Randall added in the statement to The Chronicle.
Faculty described a growing disconnect between university leadership and academic staff. In an interview with The Chronicle, a science professor — Professor B — who requested anonymity due to fear of retribution, referenced the recent budget cuts and reallocation of resources as an example of the disconnect, alleging that these actions were a “power grab.”
Faculty Say the U’s Culture Has Turned Top-Down
Faculty say the administration under Randall and Montoya has significantly deviated from the university’s standard practices, shifting from shared governance and open dialogue to a more “corporate” model.
“This is the problem, when you have business people running academic institutions; they treat it like a corporation,” Professor A said. “There’s something fundamentally different about a public institution of higher education.”
This sentiment has become increasingly common among faculty, who describe a growing frustration with a centralized structure that feels disconnected from academic life.
Montoya released a statement to The Chronicle defending the shifting structure of university operations, saying the Legislature has given them “no choice” but to cut and reallocate nearly $20 million to improve efficiency.
“University leaders understand that change is difficult,” Montoya said. “The university is facing pressures from both state and federal government leaders and the public to make the case for the value of higher education, the impact of research on people’s everyday lives and how the University of Utah acts in the public good.”
Montoya added the university wants to “respond in a way that preserves our commitment to academic freedom, shared governance and the mission of the university.” The statement calls on faculty to join them in the process of “reinventing” the university.
Professor B discussed the administration’s new system of governance.
“They want to consolidate power to manage us,” Professor B said. “But they treat us like workers who don’t want to be here, when most of us work 60 hours a week and do everything we can for our community.”
Some faculty feel that their role in shaping university policy has been reduced to a formality.
“I think we all thought that we had the ability to comment on our own working conditions and to talk about these things,” Professor B added.
That shock was compounded by the administration’s alleged dismissal of formal channels for feedback.
“The only concrete result was an electronic suggestion box on the Senate webpage,” Coles said during the February Academic Senate meeting. “Our concerns went in and vanished. Permanently.”
Faculty with decades of service at the university describe the shift as not just administrative, but cultural.
“I used to be in the Senate. We talked about everything. I don’t even know what to say. It’s so different,” Dr. Anne Jamison, professor of English, said.
She recalled a time when relationships between faculty and administrators were more collegial, even during periods of disagreement.
“I’ve had friendly relationships with the administration my entire time here,” Jamison said. “[Former university president] Ruth [Watkins] knew all of our names, and she knew what we did … even to the point that I was organizing protests. She would never have scolded us for speaking our mind.”
For Jamison, the recent changes stand in contrast to the historically collaborative spirit of the U.
“This is Utah. This is frankly not a hotbed of radicalism,” Jamison said. “It is a quiet faculty who generally has always liked the institution. We send our kids here.”
Jamison acknowledged that in some scenarios, Randall’s “hands are tied” by federal and state law.
“I understand that there were some legislative constraints put on official speech,” she said. “But in the past, the university had been an advocate for us.”
Jamison pointed to the university’s 2006 legal challenge at the Utah Supreme Court, a case in which the U sought to maintain its campus gun ban despite state law, as an example of past institutional advocacy. The university ultimately lost the case.
“That was a time when the university was willing to speak up for us,” she said.
Faculty members also expressed concern over how Montoya handles conflict and discipline, often describing her actions as “verbally expressed in ways that aren’t recorded,” Professor B said.
Some faculty members explained Montoya’s tendency to leave little trace in official records, creating an atmosphere of intimidation.
“Everyone now is afraid to speak their mind,” Jamison said. “We were afraid to speak because we were afraid it would affect the tenure cases of our junior faculty. We were afraid to speak because we were afraid it would affect our leaves. We were afraid to speak because it might lead to our program being cut … It’s not even comparable [to other years] how afraid people are.”
Randall has ‘full faith in Provost Montoya’
Randall defended Montoya in a statement to The Chronicle on Tuesday, expressing “full faith” in her leadership amid allegations.
“I have full faith in Provost Mitzi Montoya. I selected Dr. Montoya to be the university’s provost because I trust her intelligence, insights and instincts. She has implemented essential initiatives to boost student success, increase efficiencies and set the university’s academic enterprise on a course for continued and growing excellence,” Randall said. “She is single-mindedly focused on improving our 6-year graduation rate and advancing research — the critical measures of any top 10 public institution of higher education.”
This reporting is ongoing. If you have any information, please contact Emerson Hagy and Addy Cowley via email.
The post Utah Faculty Say New Law and Leadership Have Jeopardized Academic Freedom first appeared on The Daily Utah Chronicle.