University of Utah faculty members are accusing President Taylor Randall of being “draconian” and “authoritarian” after he issued a memo last month calling for a review of all campus policies to make sure they adequately limit the authority of professors.
The memo is the latest volley in ongoing tensions that have erupted between faculty and the president at the state’s flagship school over who has power at a public university — and attempts from the state to rein that in.
In his memo, Randall said he must take action to examine and edit the university’s rules in accordance with state law under the controversial SB192, passed during the 2024 legislative session, which narrowed the scope of what faculty have official jurisdiction over. Professors assert his interpretation is the “farthest extreme” and goes beyond what is required.
“This is just a way of reminding us that authority is being removed from us,” said Katharine Coles, a distinguished professor of English and former Utah poet laureate, during an U. Academic Senate meeting Monday where faculty openly questioned Randall’s motives. The body is made up of about 100 faculty members who represent their roughly 5,000 colleagues and weigh in on campus issues.
Randall typically speaks at the monthly online meetings, but he was notably missing Monday due to other obligations, the president of the Academic Senate said. When later asked for comment on the meeting, a spokesperson for the school directed The Salt Lake Tribune back to the text of Randall’s memo.
“I’m a little bit disappointed that the president isn’t here,” Coles added.
His absence, though, didn’t stop faculty members from criticizing his directive to look at more than 300 rules across campus and remove any that Randall says “currently purport to grant faculty jurisdiction over the administration of university matters outside the faculty’s purview set by SB192.”
Randall also wrote in the three-page memo: “The Legislature has made it clear that if the board of trustees or I wish to expand the jurisdiction of the faculty, this must be done by express authorization or delegation.”
His message comes about a month after a dramatic confrontation where Randall shut down a previous conversation in the Academic Senate in February as professors tried to raise continued concerns about his top academic administrator. At the time, Randall first cited SB192 and said faculty were acting beyond the scope of their authority and “in contradiction of the law” in accusing U. Provost Mitzi Montoya of deceit.
The faculty had alleged that Montoya, who is also the senior vice president for academic affairs and who reports directly to Randall, threatens employees who disagree with her and repeatedly overrides retention, promotion and tenure decisions made by departments — unilaterally deciding to dismiss professors who had been recommended for a permanent position.
After that meeting, Randall defended Montoya in a written statement and said he intended to work with the leadership of the Academic Senate to review “whether our senate is appropriately implementing” the new law limiting their scope.
The memo, sent to the Academic Senate on March 24, appears to be his answer to that.
He wrote: “I know and acknowledge that this understandably causes angst for many of the faculty regarding both SB192 and the process outlined in this memorandum.”
Opposing interpretations of the law
SB192 says faculty “may only have jurisdiction over academic requirements for admission, degrees and certificates; and course curriculum and instructions.”
In his reading of the law — which is supported by attorneys at the U.’s Office of General Counsel — Randall says that means those topics are all the Academic Senate may discuss. So complaints about him or his administration, for instance, are off the table — unless he grants specific additional jurisdiction, or the U.’s trustees, the state Legislature of the Utah Board of Higher Education does.
U. President Taylor Randall memo by Courtney on Scribd
Troy D’Ambrosio, who is chief of staff for Randall, stood in for him during the meeting Monday and said Randall expects that to have a “fairly extensive impact on policies and rules at the university.”
Robert Payne, deputy general counsel at the U, echoed that “there’s an expectation from the Legislature that everything be looked at afresh.”
But many faculty and at least one outside lawyer disagreed with the limited interpretation coming from the top.
The U.’s Academic Senate — and other similar bodies at the other seven public colleges and universities across the state — has long had wide latitude to discuss any campus issue that the faculty have wanted to or that concerns them. A lot of the members believe that remains the same under the law.
They say the jurisdiction part only limits what they have an official say in, as part of the university’s set processes. For instance, they formally vote on approving new majors, which falls under curriculum.
They don’t think the law limits them, though, in voicing issues with administrators, making recommendations, holding debates or taking votes of no-confidence.
David Frakt, an attorney specializing in academic cases, says the word “jurisdiction” in the law means that the Academic Senate may only have rule-making authority over the topics listed, but it doesn’t actually block them in discussing other issues.
“This law does not specifically delineate or limit the powers of an academic senate to consider other matters,” he said. “… For example, if the president gave a speech to the Ku Klux Klan praising Adolf Hitler, the Academic Senate could surely meet to discuss this and issue a proclamation condemning the president and calling upon him to resign.”
Their action on something like that would not trigger any official movement or process, but, he suggests, they have the academic and personal freedom to voice it.
He said the body has long had an advisory role and has authority, too, under university policy to set its own rules, adding: “It is very important that the Senate has the power to make its own rules regarding procedure. This means that the president cannot dictate the procedural rules of the Academic Senate, as he appears to be trying to do.”
Several members of the Academic Senate made similar arguments Monday.
“I take one of the roles of the Senate to be a faculty-representing body that can, say, pass resolutions in protest of actions by an administration,” wrote C. Thi Nguyen, a philosophy professor at the U.
Nguyen added in the comments during the online meeting that the memo seems like a concerning attempt to prohibit that: “The new policy makes it extremely easy for some administration to prevent any such discussion.”
Several said they are worried about the consequences of stifling those discussions.
Coles, who has been an outspoken advocate for shared governance at the U. — which is how most universities operate, seeking input from faculty and stakeholders — said she is concerned by what she sees as “a disjunction between what the law says and how it’s being represented to us.”
(Steve Griffin | The Salt Lake Tribune) Katharine Coles, U. English professor and former Utah poet laureate, in her Salt Lake City home on Monday April 2, 2018.
Randall said in the memo that he is committed to getting professors’ opinions, but Coles said there is a disconnect between “his stated support for continued shared governance and the way he always takes — including with the DEI law — the most draconian possible interpretation and goes to the farthest extreme in what’s beginning to look like an authoritarian position.”
With her mention of the law prohibiting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in higher education, which also passed in 2024, the U. responded by disbanding all of its cultural centers under Randall’s direction. The state’s commissioner over higher education has said that was technically beyond what was required.
Sydney Cheek-O’Donnell, an associate professor of theater, said if Randall really supported the faculty and their rights, “why wouldn’t [he] take the most liberal reading of the policy and the law possible?”
Consolidating presidential power
The two lawmakers who sponsored SB192, Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton, and Sen. Ann Millner, R-Ogden, have focused their legislative efforts on higher education administration in recent years. Millner is also a former president of Weber State University.
In a joint statement clarifying their intent behind the law, Peterson and Millner said the measure was meant to give “clear direction regarding authority and responsibility” for school presidents and emphasize the importance of their duties. By doing so, they added, it enables state leaders to better hold presidents accountable.
As for the delineation of what professors can act on, the lawmakers provided a strict reading: “Without specific delegation by a president, the faculty senate may only provide academic recommendations.”
They added, “I appreciate universities working to ensure compliance with the statute.”
Over the past few years, faculty at the U. have been increasingly vocal. That includes writing petitions against the school for punishing members of a student club who rallied at an anti-LGBTQ event, standing with pro-Palestine protesters who were arrested on campus, and voicing opposition to the school closing its cultural centers.
At the same time, Utah legislative leaders have tried to reel in faculty power, viewing their actions as too progressive. The Academic Senate at the U., specifically, has been one of the most historically antagonistic bodies on campus.
SB192 gives wide authority to university presidents to conducts reductions in force, if necessary, to merge or eliminate departments and to make most personnel decisions. Another bill run last year, HB438, also gave presidents final say in all retention, promotion and tenure processes.
That preceded massive budget cuts approved by the Legislature this year for higher education, with presidents able to take unilateral action on those.
Randall said in his memo that, even with the current environment, he is “committed to the concept of shared governance and will continue to seek input from faculty through the Academic Senate in matters that are important to the institution.”
He said the policy review will start with three main rules on campus outlining the authority of the president, the freedom of the faculty and the scope of the Academic Senate. He will work with staff on revising anything that falls outside of what he sees as the parameters of SB192.
Richard Preiss, the president-elect of the Academic Senate, said he believes the process is above-board and intended to preserve as much of the faculty’s voice as possible “without actually running afoul of the legislation.” Just one other professor joined in sharing that perspective.
Note to readers • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.