Aidan Van Nynatten 

News Writer 

UNCG Faculty Senate meeting. Photo credit: Sayaka Matsuoka  

The Academic Portfolio Review (APR) process at UNC Greensboro has disrupted the university’s status quo. Perhaps most unexpectedly, on March 13, UNCG faculty took an unprecedented vote of no confidence against Provost Debbie Storrs, passing 181 to 158.  

To gain further insight into the procedure, I spoke with Dr. Mark Elliott, head of the UNCG chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and associate head of the history department. The most pressing issue for Elliott surrounding the APR process was the obscurity of the provost’s rationale rather than the review itself. He cited a lack of open communication as the primary concern of the voting faculty.  

The provost and chancellor agreed to eliminate several programs that the APR did not recommend for elimination, including doctoral programs in the math and communications departments. Other cut programs, like the Korean, Chinese, and Russian languages, were not explicitly listed on the APR rubrics. According to Elliott, the administration must address the lack of confidence in decision-making because the faculty expects more cuts to come soon. 

In a speech before the no-confidence vote, Chancellor Gilliam stated, “There’s been a rumor of another APR focus on our graduate programs coming. Let me say this: In the near term, we must continue to assess and evaluate all university functions, both administrative and academic, and we’ll be looking for ways to become more efficient and effective.” Many faculty, including Elliot, found this comment puzzling, as the list of terminated programs from this year’s APR process already consisted of mostly graduate programs, which comprised 15 of the 20 programs identified in the official list announced in February.  

Although there are routine general faculty meetings once or twice every academic year, this year’s sessions were far more serious and impactful than the typical procedures. According to Chair of the General Faculty Tami Draves, neither of this year’s two scheduled meetings (Nov. 15, 2023, and April 17, 2024) was intended for discussing the APR process, which required adding the extra session on March 13 to vote on the no-confidence measures. While it is standard practice for the chancellor to convene the body, a petition by 35 faculty members (10 more than the 25 required to file a resolution) called this special session.  

The resolution shows the faculty’s rationale for taking such drastic action. The resolution, primarily authored by chemistry professor Alice Haddy, indicates “a devaluation of professional track faculty” and “a breakdown in shared governance.” The resolution also alleges that Provost Storrs held “disregard for the faculty senate as a legitimate partner in shared governance.”  

Elliott was adamant about the significance of this event, citing it as the largest general faculty turnout in recent memory despite many obstacles to total attendance, such as scheduling the vote for a Wednesday at 3 p.m. That time has been the standard practice for such meetings since 2014, according to Draves. However, many faculty had 3:30 classes or other unmovable obligations. Since attendance was required to cast a vote, many faculty believed the scheduling was prohibitive.  

Anonymity was also an issue. Because the meeting was virtual, some non-tenure-track faculty were concerned for their job safety if names from the vote would be released. “When you cast paper ballots, you can be sure that the votes are anonymous,” Elliott elaborated. Even though the votes were ultimately kept anonymous, it was still a significant hurdle in encouraging involvement from the entire body. Nevertheless, while many eligible faculty did not vote, the total of 339 votes was still unusually large, suggesting a strong interest in the outcome.  

Despite the chancellor’s brief response, which reaffirmed his trust in Provost Storrs, Elliott remains confident that this vote has contributed significantly to the APR dynamic. “I don’t think they were fully aware of how much resistance they were facing,” he said, further emphasizing that the vote showed broad faculty disapproval of the APR process. He said that the vote of no confidence would not only affect how the administration would handle the situation in the future but also how the faculty would handle it. It was also an opportunity for faculty to recognize that many of their colleagues were equally dissatisfied with Chancellor Gilliam and Provost Storrs’ approach to the APR process.