We, the leadership of AAUP Purdue (Purdue chapter of the American Association of University Professors) welcome the opportunity presented by the two open leadership positions at the helm of the University and our College of Engineering. While we understand the desire for an efficient leadership transition, we urge you as President and Dean, together with the Board of Trustees and other stakeholders you’ve brought into the process, to invest adequate time and consideration in listening and evaluating all relevant viewpoints to ensure the best possible outcomes. 

Dear President Daniels and Dean Lundstrom,

We, the leadership of AAUP Purdue (Purdue chapter of the American Association of University Professors) welcome the opportunity presented by the two open leadership positions at the helm of the University and our College of Engineering. While we understand the desire for an efficient leadership transition, we urge you as President and Dean, together with the Board of Trustees and other stakeholders you’ve brought into the process, to invest adequate time and consideration to listening to and evaluating all relevant viewpoints to ensure the best possible outcomes. 

Over the past few years, leadership decisions have been hastily made behind closed doors, but these selections have ultimately disrupted student learning and negatively impacted the ability of faculty and staff to do their jobs. Purdue made national news as setting “a new precedent for opacity.” The processes ignored the Purdue community’s recommendations, and the leaders appointed through this process were more focused on elevating Purdue’s brand rather than supporting the college or university’s actual success. We saw that this kind of process doesn’t serve Purdue long-term, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in retention packages. Moreover, the rapid turnover and overly long interim appointments, after newly appointed leaders move on to positions outside the university, distracts the campus community from our land-grant mission.

We strongly recommend there be faculty representation on the presidential and engineering dean search committees and in decisionmaking as Purdue selects its next leaders. This representation should be publicly communicated and broad in terms of college or school, rank, and both contingent and non-contingent faculty. This representation should be broader than the limited “distinguished faculty members, student bodies … all the deans …” who the Board of Trustees has already selectively talked to. We recommend a return to the productive, collaborative relationship between Purdue leadership and AAUP (e.g., a reality throughout the 1980s). 

Our next Purdue President and Dean of Engineering should be selected by search committees that include representatives with obligations to Purdue’s students. We as Purdue need to think differently if we want a different outcome.

Our AAUP principles of shared governance and academic freedom, simply put, mean we want search committees consisting of a wide range of Purdue community members – not just including us faculty – who are responsible and accountable to the public. Dissenting voices must be heard when such an important decision is made so that any major concerns can be vetted before new leaders are selected, and critical dialogue is necessary for the strength of the university. AAUP represents anyone in a teaching role, including graduate student teaching assistants, lecturers, and others who interact with Purdue students most often. 

The Board of Trustees shared a survey that allowed anyone in the community to weigh in on this transition. While we welcome this move towards greater inclusion in leadership selection, concerns we raised back in May remain. The implementation of this survey has been neither transparent nor systematic, nor is it clear how the survey responses will factor into decision-making. Both the survey itself and its distribution were rushed; it was sent during the summer when the majority of campus is away, occupied with other priorities, and not being paid. 

What limited data that are available (from external reporting) showing initial results to the survey indicate desires for leadership to meet basic criteria, ones which we would consider at most minimal standards for such high-level positions, such as financial fluency, AI literacy, and athletics acumen. We note that just 2,000 responses have been registered from our combined campus populations of over 100,000 students and 10,000 faculty, not to mention the countless alumni and community members, on a survey that is anonymous, subject to misuse, and devoid of relevant indicators to ensure adequate representation from all key groups at Purdue.

As experienced faculty, researchers, educators, and members of the Purdue community and citizens of the state of Indiana, we know that Purdue deserves better.

There is no reference to affordable campus housing, course enrollments, frequently changing teaching requirements, state legislation, and other issues we know our students and teachers are concerned about. Survey data have been hastily outsourced to AI to analyze. We’ve been promised presidential search updates throughout the process on the main search site, although no updates have been posted since the initial announcement the week after the 4th of July holiday.

As the people fulfilling the land-grant mission of the university by teaching Purdue’s students, we are fundamentally concerned with the QUALITY of our students’ education. It’s our job to know the nuances of what students need and how to ensure faculty can foster their success. It is not clear whether search committees are even working with you and your Board/Cabinets right now, which is concerning since you may not have the data you need. See for example Professors Hummels and Akridge’s article in the Chronicle of Education, where they point out that folks not in the trenches of teaching don’t know the vital behind-the-scenes issues that make or break student learning. 

President Daniels and Dean Lundstrom, you’ve both been at Purdue a while. You hired many of us, charging us to be the ones directly teaching Purdue students every day and trusting us to be most suited to know what Purdue students need. We’d like to honor that commitment and help find your successors. 

As AAUP, we’ve been willing to point out publicly what the vast majority of our colleagues say privately, including where our own leadership is falling short, even if it’s uncomfortable. At the same time, we stand up for Purdue against external forces (e.g., working hand in hand with the faculty senate and other Purdue bodies, as well as Big10 colleagues the previous year), working to make sure Purdue stays true to its land-grant mission, productive, and competitive. 

Looking at the recent COACHE results, the biggest flashing red light is instructors’ perception of Senior Leadership, which has plummeted in the last three years and now sits in the bottom bucket compared to other universities who took this same survey. Addressing those results is one of AAUP Purdue’s top priorities for this year. 

As we see strong grassroots pushback in other areas of our community, whether overwhelming opposition to data centers or Flock camera surveillance, so also our university leadership in crisis needs to hear what the whole community is actually thinking. President Daniels and Dean Lundstrom, you have an opportunity for an immediate win on this front, showing your faculty that you are eager to roll up your sleeves and tackle this challenge.

We look forward to working together to select the right next leaders deserving of the progress you have made. We can build back one brick higher!

AAUP Executive Committee

We strongly recommend there be faculty representation on the presidential and engineering dean search committees and in decisionmaking as Purdue selects its next leaders. This representation should be publicly communicated and broad in terms of college or school, rank, and both contingent and non-contingent faculty. This representation should be broader than the limited “distinguished faculty members, student bodies … all the deans …” who the Board of Trustees has already selectively talked to. We recommend a return to the productive, collaborative relationship between Purdue leadership and AAUP (e.g., a reality throughout the 1980s). 

Our next Purdue President and Dean of Engineering should be selected by search committees that include representatives with obligations to Purdue’s students. We as Purdue need to think differently if we want a different outcome.

Our AAUP principles of shared governance and academic freedom, simply put, mean we want search committees consisting of a wide range of Purdue community members – not just including us faculty – who are responsible and accountable to the public. Dissenting voices must be heard when such an important decision is made so that any major concerns can be vetted before new leaders are selected, and critical dialogue is necessary for the strength of the university. AAUP represents anyone in a teaching role, including graduate student teaching assistants, lecturers, and others who interact with Purdue students most often. 

The Board of Trustees shared a survey that allowed anyone in the community to weigh in on this transition. While we welcome this move towards greater inclusion in leadership selection, concerns we raised back in May remain. The implementation of this survey has been neither transparent nor systematic, nor is it clear how the survey responses will factor into decision-making. Both the survey itself and its distribution were rushed; it was sent during the summer when the majority of campus is away, occupied with other priorities, and not being paid. 

What limited data that are available (from external reporting) showing initial results to the survey indicate desires for leadership to meet basic criteria, ones which we would consider at most minimal standards for such high-level positions, such as financial fluency, AI literacy, and athletics acumen. We note that just 2,000 responses have been registered from our combined campus populations of over 100,000 students and 10,000 faculty, not to mention the countless alumni and community members, on a survey that is anonymous, subject to misuse, and devoid of relevant indicators to ensure adequate representation from all key groups at Purdue.

As experienced faculty, researchers, educators, and members of the Purdue community and citizens of the state of Indiana, we know that Purdue deserves better.

There is no reference to affordable campus housing, course enrollments, frequently changing teaching requirements, state legislation, and other issues we know our students and teachers are concerned about. Survey data have been hastily outsourced to AI to analyze. We’ve been promised presidential search updates throughout the process on the main search site, although no updates have been posted since the initial announcement the week after the 4th of July holiday.

As the people fulfilling the land-grant mission of the university by teaching Purdue’s students, we are fundamentally concerned with the QUALITY of our students’ education. It’s our job to know the nuances of what students need and how to ensure faculty can foster their success. It is not clear whether search committees are even working with you and your Board/Cabinets right now, which is concerning since you may not have the data you need. See for example Professors Hummels and Akridge’s article in the Chronicle of Education, where they point out that folks not in the trenches of teaching don’t know the vital behind-the-scenes issues that make or break student learning. 

President Daniels and Dean Lundstrom, you’ve both been at Purdue a while. You hired many of us, charging us to be the ones directly teaching Purdue students every day and trusting us to be most suited to know what Purdue students need. We’d like to honor that commitment and help find your successors. 

As AAUP, we’ve been willing to point out publicly what the vast majority of our colleagues say privately, including where our own leadership is falling short, even if it’s uncomfortable. At the same time, we stand up for Purdue against external forces (e.g., working hand in hand with the faculty senate and other Purdue bodies, as well as Big10 colleagues the previous year), working to make sure Purdue stays true to its land-grant mission, productive, and competitive. 

Looking at the recent COACHE results, the biggest flashing red light is instructors’ perception of Senior Leadership, which has plummeted in the last three years and now sits in the bottom bucket compared to other universities who took this same survey. Addressing those results is one of AAUP Purdue’s top priorities for this year. 

As we see strong grassroots pushback in other areas of our community, whether overwhelming opposition to data centers or Flock camera surveillance, so also our university leadership in crisis needs to hear what the whole community is actually thinking. President Daniels and Dean Lundstrom, you have an opportunity for an immediate win on this front, showing your faculty that you are eager to roll up your sleeves and tackle this challenge.

We look forward to working together to select the right next leaders deserving of the progress you have made. We can build back one brick higher!

AAUP Executive Committee

President: Stephanie Masta

Vice president: Position Open

Secretary: Temi Adeoye Olenloa

Treasurer: Jennifer DeBoer

Member-at-large: Reed Kurtz

Immediate past president: Erin Moodie 

Dissatisfaction over University Leadership

For the past several years, faculty, staff and students have expressed dissatisfaction with Purdue University leadership, as evident in the recently released COACHE Survey data. We will continue to push for University administration to address the campus’ growing concerns about Purdue’s leaders’ ability to lead us into the future of education.

COACHE Survey Data  https://www.purdue.edu/academics/faculty-affairs/initiatives/coache-results-institutional.html

Hiring and Searches

Leadership transitions are among the most consequential decisions a university makes, and the faculty’s voice in those decisions is a cornerstone of shared governance. Our chapter is committed to working with the University Senate and the Board of Trustees to ensure meaningful faculty participation in the upcoming presidential search. We will likewise support colleagues in colleges conducting dean searches this year. We also renew our call for an increase in tenure-track positions, which remain essential to institutional stability, academic freedom, and the long-term quality of instruction and research at Purdue.

Displaced Faculty

We continue to stand with Honors College faculty displaced by the reduction in force initiated by Provost Wolfe. Our chapter will press University leaders and administrators to meet its obligations with these colleagues, including support for internal job placement and sustained assistance from Human Resources for those seeking positions elsewhere.

Surveillance and Faculty Monitoring

We will continue to monitor administrative initiatives that expand oversight of faculty work, including programs such as Elements, Simple Syllabus, and the Course Demand Dashboard. Our concern is not with data collection as such, but with the absence of clear limits on how these systems are used, who has access to the information they generate, the quality of these tools in terms of user interface and accuracy,  and whether they may be applied in evaluation or personnel decisions. We will seek transparency from the administration on each of these points.

Artificial Intelligence

Purdue’s expanding relationship with AI vendors and platforms raises questions about pedagogical autonomy, student data, and intellectual property. We are particularly attentive to expectations that faculty incorporate AI tools into their classrooms, and the expectations that students must comply with AI initiatives. Decisions about instructional methods belong to the faculty who teach the courses, and we will advocate for that principle as university policy develops.

Getting Involved

This work depends on member participation, and we welcome colleagues who wish to join a working group, share information relevant to any of the priorities above, or simply learn more about the chapter. Membership information is available here: https://aauppurdue.org/

In solidarity,

President: Stephanie Masta

Vice president: Position Open

Secretary: Temi Adeoye Olenloa

Treasurer: Jennifer DeBoer

Member-at-large: Reed Kurtz

Immediate past president: Erin Moodie 

The most recent appointments of Presidents of Purdue University have been secretive and politically driven, with a distinct absence of transparency and shared governance. The Board of Trustees exercised unilateral authority and dismissed faculty input to appoint Chiang. Now is the time for the faculty to push for, and the Board of Trustees to offer, authentic faculty participation in the interviewing of presidential candidates and the inclusion of a faculty-appointed member in the presidential search committee.

Chiang’s presidency saw a marked decline in dialogue between the administration and the faculty, with most communications from the President and Provost reading as dictates rather than invitations to discussion. The University Senate even passed a vote of no confidence in the Provost and his leadership, after which Chiang doubled down on his support for the Provost. Now is the time to return to robust involvement of the faculty in determining the direction of the academic enterprise at Purdue University.

Academic freedom, free speech, and tenure protections were also eroded during Chiang’s presidency. When the administration was given opportunities to defend academic freedom, free speech, and tenure, they declined to fulfill their responsibilities to do so. Now is the time for the faculty to demand that our new President promote and defend those principles.

The Purdue administration also failed to fight against funding cuts inflicted upon many of its faculty and instead intensified its ties with military and computing industries. Now is the time to insist that Purdue University recommit towards education as a goal in and of itself and towards research for the public good.

Finally, the faculty were promised by President Chiang that we would be getting back an hour a week from administrative paperwork. Not only did that not happen, but the burden is, in fact, greater than ever. Now is the time for the Board of Trustees to reaffirm that the role of the administration is to facilitate the ability of the faculty to perform its teaching, scholarship, and outreach activities. 

We call for authentic faculty involvement in the presidential search process and a return to first principles of shared governance, academic freedom, trust in faculty expertise, and a commitment to a wide range of education and research for the common good.

To start, what is the AAUP? Quite simply, the AAUP is the national organization representing faculty in higher education, with chapters at over 500 accredited colleges and universities across the country, including every Big Ten university and every Ivy League institution. Founded in 1915, the AAUP was the primary force in defining faculty tenure and developing principles of shared governance for American universities. Both of these principles are increasingly at risk across the United States.

At Purdue, the AAUP is one of the primary independent voices advocating for faculty rights. We understand ‘faculty’ to mean anyone who teaches or does research at the university, including graduate students, non-tenure-track faculty and lecturers, and research scientists.

Given our position as advocates, people from across campus regularly reach out to us with their concerns. And the vast majority of the communications we have received in the past two years revolve around our Provost. We encourage everyone to read the entire statement, which contains sixteen individual concerns, including issues related to hiring, due process, fairness, and transparency. (Although the search for the Dean of Purdue Libraries was finally completed earlier this month, we stand by our reporting of the other concerns listed in that statement.) 

As our letter highlights, Provost Wolfe has consistently made decisions by fiat, without consulting faculty. Moreover, he has steadfastly refused to explain or justify these decisions, leaving faculty both disenfranchised and confused. Among our concerns, the letter highlights Provost Wolfe’s “[u]nilateral decisions to block faculty hires and refusal to sign offer letters.” On numerous occasions, after departments had vetted potential candidates and after the relevant College had signed off, Provost Wolfe simply refused to finalize the contract, leaving candidates’ futures in limbo and departments in confusion. The faculty has long had a central role in hiring, but overhauls of hiring processes have taken much of this power away and centralized it within the Provost’s office. And, as with other decisions, faculty were neither consulted in this process nor given adequate explanation.

Provost Wolfe’s actions, moreover, undercut the upward trajectory of the Honors College, ranked most recently in the top 8 in the nation. In April 2025, all seventeen faculty in the Honors College were told that they would undergo a realignment process and should pursue new homes in relevant disciplinary colleges. The reasons for this change were never discussed with the faculty. The process for the realignment was kept vague until several months later. Only after repeated requests for a transparent and ethical process did it become clear that the financial burden of their absorption into new disciplinary homes would need to be carried by the individual departments and would impact the departments’ prospects for future lines. At the same time, the Provost allegedly attempted to disincentivize such realignments in off-record conversations with department heads and deans. Despite these barriers, nine of the seventeen managed to secure job offers from departments outside the Honors College. Then, without explanation and in contradiction to previous reassurances offered to the University Senate, the Provost refused to approve the contracts for seven of them. This decision dismantles the academic infrastructure that supports dedicated faculty mentorship and program continuity, leaving students in an academically uncertain environment.

Faculty have sought answers from the administration about these issues through questions submitted to the University Senate, the official governing body of the faculty and the official point of contact between faculty and administration, but the responses have been consistently vague and ambiguous. Understandably, few individual faculty members feel they are in a position to speak up against the Provost’s decision-making. As Lisa Bosman, chair of the Senate’s Steering Committee, reported at the last Senate meeting, “[o]ver the past week, several Senators have also shared with me that they support the AAUP letter but are hesitant to express that support publicly out of concern about potential repercussions.” This situation highlights the need for the AAUP, an independent voice for faculty rights.

The Provost told Based in Lafayette that “[o]ur declared aspiration to become a Top 5 public university in the United States requires considered choices and trade-offs, and understandably such are bound to be uncomfortable for some.” This is a false dichotomy. Top universities excel across the curriculum and retain top faculty by honoring their expertise. Top universities value transparency and official processes, and they communicate decisions clearly. Top universities treat their faculty and staff with dignity. If you agree, then contact your senator and let them know they should support a vote of no confidence. And if you want to fight for a better Purdue, join the AAUP to help support shared governance and protect faculty rights.

Since Provost Wolfe’s promotion to Provost in January 2023, Purdue University and its undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty have suffered from the effects of his unilateral decision-making. 

Boilermakers across campus have lost confidence in Provost Wolfe’s leadership and have been unable to get Provost Wolfe to course-correct through internal channels. Our ethical and professional obligations to Purdue and to the state of Indiana require us to speak up in order to protect the community we hold dear.

The following details a pattern of short-sighted decision-making that has negatively impacted nearly all parts of Purdue:

1. Unilateral decisions to block faculty hires and refusal to sign offer letters for candidates who had accepted a verbal offer after successful department-level searches, demonstrating an unwillingness or inability to carry out critical yet routine employment processes. The Provost’s unwillingness to sign official offer letters to sought-after candidates whose positions he had already authorized has diminished the institutional reputation of Purdue and harmed faculty recruitment efforts.

2. Unilateral and non-transparent restructuring of the John Martinson Honors College, resulting in job losses for 15 of 17 faculty members without any concrete plan to preserve its excellence. This restructuring devalues the interdisciplinary expertise, mentorship, research and co-curricular experiences, and curriculum offered by faculty with one of the highest proportion of teaching awards on campus. The Provost did not sign realignment offers for 7 JMHC faculty despite months-long vetting processes with Dean and department-level support, and after reassurances were given to the University Senate. Incoming students have been recruited under incorrect presumptions about what resources will be available to them.

3. Significant teaching shortages in several departments due to faculty turnover and hiring delays, which undermines departments’ ability to serve students and protect faculty research time. 

4. Insisting upon a non-transparent Movable Dream Hires program, while failing to respect departmental assessments of strategic priorities. This program has simultaneously served as an excuse for not hiring faculty in a broad range of areas.

5. Failure to complete a search process for a new Dean of Education. While a committee of three deans and several other associate deans and senior faculty was formed to conduct a search, Provost Wolfe did not follow the committee’s recommendation after months of effort. This failure has left the College of Education without permanent leadership for over 3 years.

6. Failure to initiate a search process for a new Dean of Libraries for over 8 months, keeping their faculty and staff in a state of limbo. 

7. Broad overreach during tenure & promotion processes, including unilaterally increasing the number of reference letters required while limiting acceptable writers to those at universities affiliated with the American Association of Universities. Such requirements are difficult or impossible to meet in many research areas and do not bolster Purdue’s academic reputation. 

8. Failure to follow appropriate procedure for tenure and promotion cases. Several candidates whose cases had successfully passed through all committee stages were pressured–without any reason explicitly cited–to remove their tenure cases from consideration the day before the Board of Trustees was scheduled to meet to review them. This interference in the standard tenure and promotion process undermined transparency, fairness, and shared governance on campus. 

9. Failure to explain changes in direction to colleges, such as when the College of Education was asked to develop a proposal for a STEM Teacher Certification Pathway and then after months of dedicated labor was prevented from submitting said proposal. This incident undermined morale in a College that plays a crucial role in preparing teachers to serve communities across the state.

10. Expansion of HEA 1001 post-tenure review requirements to clinical faculty beyond the stated ambit of the law (which only lists “tenured faculty”), imposing a range of reporting requirements that create additional and unwarranted bureaucratic hurdles for precarious faculty.

11. Repeated cuts to book-producing disciplines in the humanities and reduction of tenured faculty who have the research time to write books, while promoting the use of Generative AI to turn faculty lecture notes into books in order to boost Association of American Universities metrics. This undermines the credibility of Purdue’s commitment to excellence.

12. Failure to appeal the U.S. Department of Education’s discontinuing of a $34.9 million education grant for the Indiana Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR Up), which included a scholarship program aimed at supporting low-income students’ participation in college or training after high school, even though Purdue was given seven business days to appeal. This grant, housed in Purdue’s College of Education, was the 6th largest federal grant in Purdue’s history.

13. Firing staff involved in DEI and associated work across the campus, who had been explicitly told to continue “business as usual.” The Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging; the Center for Intercultural Learning, Mentorship, Assessment and Research; and the Polytechnic Recruitment and Diversity Department were dismantled, which involved firing 60 student ambassadors and full-time staff members, some of whom had no DEI-related responsibilities. Provost Wolfe did not adequately justify these firings, which were made over the summer in an apparent attempt to evade notice. These actions, which have sent shockwaves across campus, are at odds with Purdue’s “people first” mantra. 

14. Fostering a climate of self-censorship. DEI staff firings, the JMHC restructuring, undue influence during tenure & promotion processes, off-record communications, and the Provost Office’s general failure to address state and federal-level laws impacting the rights of campus workers have compelled faculty to self-censor for fear of being fired for researching or teaching material within their areas of expertise. This undermines the mission of the University, academic freedom, and the educational rights of students, ultimately hampering Purdue’s ability to recruit and retain the best faculty and students. 

15. Discrimination against prospective graduate students based on nationality. Graduate heads were reportedly told, without explanation, that the Provost’s Office will not support the granting of admission letters to applicants from China and several other countries. The Purdue administration attempted to do this quietly through in-person meetings, private conversations, and pressure on graduate admissions committees following a March inquiry from the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 establishes country of origin as a protected class.

16. A lack of leadership on social and political issues that directly impact Purdue’s ability to meet its teaching, research, and service mission. Policies of institutional neutrality allow for action on such issues, and the Chicago Principles that Purdue holds dear explicitly state that the university “has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.” The Provost Office’s silence is thus neither neutral nor legally mandated, but tacitly acquiesces to current attacks on higher education.

Provost Wolfe’s conduct has negatively impacted the careers of faculty and staff who are here to serve the student population, with devastating consequences for student learning and campus governance. His resignation is urgently needed in order to restore faith that the Purdue administration will treat its community with appropriate fairness and transparency and demonstrate a sense of duty to its alumni, faculty, staff, and students.

West Lafayette, IN – The Purdue University (West Lafayette) chapter of the American Association of University Professors stands firm in its rejection of Senate Bill 202 which passed a House and Senate vote in the Indiana legislature last week. The Bill seeks to enable the state legislature and university administrations to monitor and restrict classroom teaching, faculty expression, and the student right to learn; it does so using the vague and misleading rhetoric of “intellectual diversity,” a term with no definition in Indiana law. 

AAUP Purdue has consistently rejected the bill as invasive, censorious political overreach by conservative legislators, and most importantly a threat to the quality of higher education at Purdue and in Indiana. Such a system normalizes punitive, politically-motivated surveillance over faculty working conditions and speech while undermining crucial protections to academic freedom.

AAUP Purdue also stands firm in its criticisms of the Purdue administration, which, prior to the House vote, made no public comment against the bill or in support of its faculty, unlike many of the other administrations at  state institutions in Indiana. This silence persisted despite repeated appeals for administrators to respect and prioritize the rights of teachers to teach, and students to learn, made in the University Senate (which passed a statement opposing SB202 by over 94%) and in other public forums. Furthermore, the Purdue administration’s response to the AAUP was the first time they openly disclosed that they had been working to “quietly and effectively” improve this fundamentally flawed legislation. This lack of transparency deeply undermines principles of shared governance. 

Since the House vote, the Purdue administration has released a statement which both underestimates the potential impact of SB202 and misunderstands the nature of academic freedom and tenure. The Administration statement vows that the University will continue to defend academic freedom, which AAUP welcomes. AAUP notes that there is still time for the administration to demonstrate its commitment to academic freedom by publicly speaking out against the bill, which still can be vetoed by the Governor.  A strong public statement against SB202 by the University administration would be the best way for Purdue to “walk the walk” in defense of academic freedom and tenure. AAUP also affirms the Faculty Senate vote overwhelmingly rejecting SB202 and encourages the Senate to recommit itself to academic freedom.

Purdue’s current statement in response to SB202 also fails to acknowledge that academic freedom is a principle created and enshrined by university faculty themselves; it is faculty, not the Board of Trustees or academic deans, who guarantee academic freedom. In 1915, more than 100 years ago, the American Association of University Professors Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure formulated its “Declaration of Principles,” enshrining academic freedom and tenure as principles for all in higher education. These principles are crucial for ensuring that university research and learning are free from undue political influence and suppression.

SB202 is meant to undermine more than 100 years of higher education’s commitment to these principles. It is meant to give the right to determine what is taught, thought and said in a University classroom to interfering political elites. It gives the power to hire and fire University employees to ideologically driven non-experts. It also attempts to shift responsibility over the teaching of engineering, biology, literature, chemistry and mathematics from trained experts who are passionate about their subject matter and who are already subject to tried and true mechanisms for accountability by qualified experts in their fields and academic communities, towards invasive political figures at the state capitol who only care about being elected to office.

In the wake of SB202 developments, it is crucial for Purdue’s current administration to communicate what they have concretely done to protect and defend academic freedom, and particularly, the freedom to research, develop, and implement best practices for creating diverse, equitable, and inclusive academic communities.  

If Purdue’s administration is really committed to its students, it will publicly support those who care most about them — their faculty — and publicly reject SB202. It is not too late to show a real commitment to academic freedom and tenure. Failing this, Purdue’s AAUP chapter and faculty will continue to monitor the administration leadership in order evaluate whether it remains confident in the administration’s ability to protect both academic freedom and shared governance. Purdue faculty can also build our collective strength by joining the AAUP so that together, we can protect the conditions that allow us to work, think, and speak from the standpoint of our expertise, not what politicians prefer to hear.

AAUP Purdue asks citizens of Indiana to please call or write Governor Eric Holcomb and ask him to veto SB202.

Passed by the AAUP Purdue executive committee 3/7/24

Update: Gov. Holcomb signed SEA 202 (formerly SB 202) on March 15, 2024. SEA 202 is now Public Law (PL) 113. For more on the status of AAUP’s opposition, please visit the state conference website.

The House voted to pass SB202 by a vote of 67-30, with 2 Republicans voting with the Democrats, and 2 Democrats absent.

The Senate has already concurred with the House version of SB202, and the president pro tempore has signed SB 202. We just have the Lt Governor, and Governor yet to sign.

Call Governor Holcomb during business hours (8am -5 pm ET). There is no way to leave a voicemail message outside of business hours. You can select 1 to leave a message, or 2 to speak to a polite human staffer. In either case, please give your name and address and say something like, “I am a constituent in Indiana. I ask the governor to veto SB202. This bill will hurt higher education in Indiana – I don’t want that to be the governor’s legacy. Thank you!”

The link below dials the Governor directly if you are on your cell phone. 

[number removed]

Tuesday February 27, 2024

Indianapolis IN: Faculty, students, and staff held numerous events across the state on Monday to discuss Senate Bill 202 and its threat to Indiana’s economy, to the reputation of its world class universities and colleagues, and to students’ learning and experience.

Constituents at Purdue in West Lafayette, at Purdue-Fort Wayne, Purdue-Northwest, Indiana University-Indianapolis, Indiana University-East, Indiana State, and Ball State gathered in town halls, public educational events, work sessions, and more casual gatherings to talk about the threat SB202 poses, including its unfunded mandate in a non-budget General Assembly year, its positioning of government between teachers and their students at Indiana’s renowned universities and colleges, and its risk to students’ learning, particularly in professional programs that risk their accreditation to comply with the law as written.

Constituents and employees of Indiana State University, Purdue-Fort Wayne, Purdue-Northwest,  Indiana University-East, and Indiana University-Indianapolis met in town halls or informational sessions on their respective campuses to discuss SB 202. Members of Ball State University gathered to educate passersby about the dangers of SB202 on campus, and members of Purdue University-West Lafayette posted flyers around campus and directed students to send letters to President Chiang asking for him to release a public statement regarding SB 202. Members of the Indiana University-Bloomington campus will hold a teach-in on Tuesday morning, and participate in a joint rally with other organizations in the afternoon. Events were coordinated through the Indiana AAUP State Conference effort to Stop SB202. 

Dr. Jennifer Erickson (professor of Anthropology, and co-president of the AAUP-Ball State chapter), said, “Our goal today was to educate students and faculty at Ball State about SB202 and how it could threaten their learning experiences. We stood at “the scramble light,” the busiest intersection of campus, on a beautiful sunny day in February, which meant we got lots of foot traffic. We had conversations with students from across the political spectrum and we felt energized after all our conversations. We handed out flyers with QR codes linking to their state representatives and FAQs about the bill.”

Dr. Alisa Clapp-Itnyre (professor of English, Indiana University-East), who coordinated the event at Indiana University-East said, “IU East faculty gathered for conversation and solidarity on Monday.  We were grateful for petitions to sign, calls to make, and the camaraderie we felt from fellow faculty’s op-ed’s and national organizations’ statements against SB 202.”

INAAUP members also dropped off information packets at the Indiana Statehouse, each containing over 670 pages of testimony, statements in opposition and other documentation from 7 faculty senates at state institutions, 4 state AAUP chapters, 4 professional organizations, a student government, the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, commentary writers in the press, and letters from constituents sent to the House Education Committee in the last 2 weeks.

Dr. Alice Pawley (professor of engineering education at Purdue University), who helped drop off information packets said “State universities like Purdue are economic engines of the state, providing a stable tax base for their communities, and contributing to strong K-12 school districts. Purdue is a top 5 university producer of patents in the country, and Purdue faculty are the ones that do the research that are awarded these patents.  Patents become royalties, new products, start-up companies, and more investment in jobs in our community. IU too provides over $3.5B in income to the state economy every year, and supports over 60,000 jobs. I don’t know why the state legislature would want to risk such economic success with an unproven and expensive government-driven process?”

Dr. Moira Marsh, librarian at Indiana University-Bloomington and president of the Indiana AAUP State Conference (INAAUP), said “This bill is a classic unfunded mandate. IU estimates it would cost more than $3.4M per year to implement the bill. That’s just one school. What is the cost for all 7 public universities in the state? $10 million? $20 million? Even the IGA fiscal note found the bill would be very expensive. But the Republican-led legislature won’t send it to Ways and Means to figure out how to pay for it.”

The author of SB 202, Senator Spencer Deery, has repeatedly argued (including in House Education Committee meetings) that criticism about the risks of the bill are invalid, and represent a misunderstanding of the bill.  Dr. Stephanie Masta (Associate Professor in Purdue University (West Lafayette)’s College of Education, and President of AAUP Purdue) said, “Senator Deery repeatedly claims that faculty do not understand the bill which is the cause of our opposition. This is patently false. We are opposed because this bill threatens academic freedom, threatens the economic development of Indiana, and threatens the student experience. Higher education experts and professional organizations have weighed in on the harms of the bill – Senator Deery ignores this in favor of his own perspectives, which are not rooted in data and evidence.”

Prof. Masta went on, “We’ve all had students like Senator Deery in class.  The issue isn’t about intellectual diversity. It’s Senator Deery’s belief that students should be allowed to proffer any opinion without pushback. That’s not how academic discourse or expertise function.”

Prof. David Nalbone (professor of psychology at Purdue-Northwest and chair of the Purdue-Northwest Faculty Senate) said, “This bill isn’t about protecting viewpoint diversity or it would have been written better, and the Republican Caucus would have listened to the concerns of their colleagues across the aisle, not trying to have the government solve a problem that does not really exist. Instead, this is government inserting itself where it isn’t needed.”

In addition to faculty senates, AAUP chapters and members, professional organizations, and individuals opposing SB202, sixty-two Indiana civil rights, faith-based and child-serving groups have signed a statement by the University Alliance for Racial Justice, identifying their concerns with the discriminatory impact of SB 202 on teaching about discrimination and racism. Signatories include the State NAACP as well as chapters in Indianapolis, the Gary, Terry Haute, and IU;  the Indiana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics; the Indianapolis Urban League; the Indiana Poor People’s Campaign; the Indiana Public Health Association; the Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies; and Bethel AME Church.  Over 900 Hoosier citizens from all walks of life and all parts of the state also endorsed the statement.  

Said UARJ co-founder Dr. Russ Skiba (professor emeritus of school psychology, Indiana University Bloomington), “The legislature does not seem to comprehend the absolutely discriminatory nature of SB 202, but the citizens of Indiana clearly do.  The penalties this bill seeks to impose on university faculty are part of a national campaign by radical conservatives to limit or prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education.  This bill will drive faculty and students of color away from the state, and turn back the clock to a time when higher education in Indiana was designed by, for and about the white majority.”

The Indiana House of Representatives will vote on SB 202 at 1:30 pm on February 27, 2024.

The Indiana Conference of the American Association of University Professors (INAAUP) promotes cooperation among AAUP chapters at Indiana institutions of higher education. It works for the betterment of higher education in the state through promoting academic freedom, shared governance, and the rights of faculty.  

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), with over 50,000 members and 500 local chapters, champions academic freedom; advances shared governance; and organizes to promote economic security for all academic professionals. Since 1915, the AAUP has shaped American higher education by developing standards and procedures that uphold quality education.

For more information, please contact:

Alice Pawley, Stop SB202 Campaign Director, alicepawley@gmail.com, 765-427-0923

Moira Marsh, President of Indiana State Conference, inaaup@gmail.com

Stephanie Masta, president of AAUP-Purdue, stephanie.masta@gmail.com, ‭641- 821-0017‬
Photos from the statehouse packet drop are available here.

-END-

February 21, 2024

Dozens of university teachers and students gathered today at the Indiana Legislature House Education hearing on Senate Bill 202. their message was clear to committee members: “Keep big government out of university classrooms.”

Advocating for over 150,000 Indiana students and 9000 faculty, faculty senates at Ball State, Indiana State, Indiana University at Bloomington and South Bend, and Purdue University West Lafayette, Fort Wayne, and Northwest have passed statements opposing Senate Bill 202. AAUP chapters at Ball State, Indiana State, Purdue-West Lafayette, Purdue-Fort Wayne, Purdue-Northwest, and Indiana University-Bloomington have all passed statements opposing S.B. 202. 

Concerned citizens sent over 7,500 letters opposing the bill to the House Education Committee members in the last week. Faculty, students, and administrators statewide see S.B. 202 as government interference in education, and include concerns regarding legislative appointments to governing boards; politically-motivated penalties in teaching evaluations including for tenured faculty; budget regulations which threaten diversity programs at all state universities; and a provision encouraging student complaints against course material they find “offensive and disagreeable.”  Letter-writers expressed concerns for the accreditation of professional programs, for researchers’ abilities to compete for federal grants, and about how the best and brightest faculty will choose to bring their ideas, passion and skill for teaching, and patent and startup ideas to others states than Indiana.

The House Education Committee voted (6 yes, 4 no, 3 excused) to adopt S. B. 202, which will now move to the full House for hearing and then a vote.  The committee passed several amendments , making the House version of SB 202 different than the bill the Senate passed; if it passes the House, it will go to conference committee to resolve the differences.

Dr. Moira Marsh, (Indiana University-Bloomington librarian and President of the Indiana AAUP State Conference), added, “S.B. 202 is bad for students, bad for higher education, and bad for Indiana. It will create an atmosphere of suspicion in the classroom and on campus, subject faculty to discipline by inexpert people, and create a brain drain from our state. Indiana’s public universities are world-famous, and the AAUP is determined to keep them that way. We will keep fighting to keep this costly and damaging bill from becoming law.”

Dr. Stephanie Masta (Associate Professor in Purdue University (West Lafayette)’s College of Education, and President of AAUP Purdue) said, “We are very disappointed with the outcome of the House Education Committee vote. S.B. 202 will have long lasting, harmful effects on Indiana’s public colleges and universities and will not accomplish the goals and tasks the author purports it to accomplish. We will continue to work with our business, education, and community allies across the state to defeat S.B. 202.”

Dr. Ben Robinson, (Associate Professor of Germanic studies and immediate past president of AAUP Indiana University-Bloomington), also noted that S. B. 202 “repudiation of academic freedom is a debacle for Indiana.”

The Indiana Conference of the American Association of University Professors (INAAUP) promotes cooperation among AAUP chapters at Indiana institutions of higher education. It works for the betterment of higher education in the state through promoting academic freedom, shared governance, and the rights of faculty.  

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), with over 50,000 members and 500 local chapters, champions academic freedom; advances shared governance; and organizes to promote economic security for all academic professionals. Since 1915, the AAUP has shaped American higher education by developing standards and procedures that uphold quality education.

CONTACTS:

• Stephanie Masta, stephanie.masta@gmail.com, (641) 821-0017
• Moira Marsh, moismith@indiana.edu, (812) 320-0536
• Ben Robinson, bbrobins@indiana.edu, (812) 360-1506
• Kelly Benjamin, kbenjamin@aaup.org, (414) 943-1255

Download as PDF.

AAUP Purdue Stands in Support with Purdue University Senate
West-Lafayette IN — The Purdue (West Lafayette) chapter of the American Association of University Professors applauds the decisive vote of the Purdue University Senate in passing Senate Document 23-23 opposing Indiana Senate Bill 202 on Monday, February 19, 2024. After an hour of unanimous testimony about the dangers of passing SB 202, Senators voted to suspend their normal rules to vote on the document in the same meeting it was introduced, and then overwhelmingly adopted (81 in favor, 5 in opposition, 4 formal abstentions) SD 23-23.

The University Senate therefore adopts the following statement:
“The Purdue University Senate rejects the provisions in SB 202 which grant the Board of Trustees oversight of intellectual diversity on campus. The Board of Trustees as a body is not equipped to judge matters of intellectual diversity in instruction or research. As a body
appointed by the government of the State of Indiana, its actions on matters of intellectual activity in the university would represent an improper extension of state control over matters of academic freedom. We, therefore, urge all members of the Indiana General Assembly to reject this measure. We also call on all our constituents, members of the university community and supporters of academic freedom in Indiana to actively lobby their representatives to oppose this measure.”

Prof. Anish Vanaik, co-chair of the University Senate Faculty Affairs Committee, describes Senate Bill 202 as intending to:

1. Replace alumni council appointments to university and college Boards of Trustees with legislative political appointments;
2. Impose a 5-year tenure review process with penalties undermining existing tenure policies;
3. Encourage students to file complaints against faculty and courses “they find offensive and disagreeable,” which constrains freedom of speech in educational settings; and,
4. Establish political budget regulations that threaten diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at all state universities and colleges.

Prof. Stephanie Masta, AAUP Purdue chapter president, noted the importance of strong opposition to SB202. She said, “SB202 threatens the national reputation of Purdue University and today our faculty stood against massive legislative overreach into university governance.”

Prof. Anish Vanaik underlined, “the range of disciplines and schools that spoke out today is telling. Faculty across the university are concerned about being able to research and think freely.
They’re also concerned that this law will prevent us being able to prepare students to become top tier professionals and researchers in their own right.”

AAUP Purdue stands in solidarity with the University Senate in its opposition of SB 202. On Monday February 12, the chapter released a joint statement against SB 202 with the AAUP chapter at Indiana University-Bloomington, a statement which was endorsed by the Indiana University-Bloomington Faculty Council on Tuesday February 13.

Senate Document 23-23
AAUP Purdue/IU joint statement

###

AAUP-Purdue, a chapter of the American Association of University Professors at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, is dedicated to improving classroom and research conditions for faculty and their students.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), with over 50,000 members and 500 local chapters, champions academic freedom; advances shared governance; and organizes to promote economic security for all academic professionals. Since 1915, the AAUP has shaped American higher education by developing standards and procedures that uphold quality education.

PDF of this press release.