Rule 31003: Elimination of Faculty Positions or Academic Programs

1.  Title

Elimination of Faculty Positions or Academic Programs

2.  Rule and Regulation

Sec. 1  Applicability of Rules and Policies.

This Rule provides the processes for an institution to follow when it is considering whether to abandon an Academic Program and when a faculty member’s employment may be terminated due to an institution’s decision to eliminate occupied academic positions or abandon Academic Programs.

Appointment, reappointment, nonrenewal, notice, and other requirements for non-tenured faculty, regardless of tenure track status, and term-tenure faculty are addressed in Regents’ Rule 31002, Nontenured, Tenure-track, and Term-Tenure Faculty Members: Appointment, Reappointment, and Nonrenewal. This Rule does not apply to faculty members whose appointments expire due to termination or loss of external funding as described in Regents’ Rule 31002.

Termination for good cause and summary dismissal of a faculty member are addressed in Regents’ Rule 31008, Termination of a Faculty Member, and the corresponding UTS Policy 198, Termination of a Faculty Member (UTS 198).

Sec. 2  President’s Responsibility.   The president of an institution of The University of Texas System is responsible for determining when to eliminate occupied academic positions, the titles of which are given in the Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Rule 31001, or abandon Academic Programs or both. The decision of the president shall fulfill the requirements under Texas law for appropriate management of the institution, including its degree programs and curriculum.

Sec. 3  Elimination for Academic Reasons.   An Academic Program under consideration for abandonment or an academic position that is under consideration for elimination for Bona Fide Academic Reasons should be reviewed in depth through a procedure determined by the president that includes the elements specified below and in the institution’s Handbook of Operating Procedures. Other rule provisions regarding termination procedures and notice requirements shall not apply in circumstances where this Rule applies.

3.1  Assessment of Academic Program and Positions.   At the president’s direction, the institution’s chief academic officer will conduct a review of the programs and positions under consideration for abandonment or elimination. The president will direct the scope of the review and its considerations. The review may consider, among other things: cost; the appropriate prioritization of degree and supporting degree programs; student demand for programs and enrollment; completion rates; identification of academic positions essential to the institution’s mission and those that may be eliminated with minimum effect upon degree programs; and distinguishing positions delivering other critical components of the institution’s mission.

3.2  Notification and Faculty Input.

3.2.1  Faculty in a program that is under consideration for abandonment or in an academic position that is under consideration for elimination will be notified, and faculty with a protected property interest in continued employment beyond the anticipated date of possible abandonment or elimination will be afforded a meaningful opportunity to submit information regarding the potential closure of the program and the potential elimination of their position for consideration before a final decision is made. 

3.2.2  Information provided regarding the elimination of the program and any positions will be considered by a review panel, the majority of which must be faculty members, to make recommendations to the chief academic officer. This ensures procedural due process is provided before the institution reaches a decision.

3.3  Supporting Rationale.  Upon completion of the review process, the chief academic officer will provide a recommendation with supporting rationale, whether orally or in writing, to the president for consideration and decision.

3.4  Executive Vice Chancellor Approval.  If the president determines that an Academic Program should be abandoned or academic positions be eliminated, such decision must be approved by the appropriate Executive Vice Chancellor.

3.5  Establishment of Date.  The date for abandoning or phasing out an Academic Program should take into consideration the time required for anticipated completion by students currently enrolled or for facilitation of their placement in acceptable alternative programs.

3.6  Reassignment Consideration.  The administration will notify tenured faculty in a program to be abandoned if reassignment to another Academic Program may be possible due to an institutional need in such programs. Interested tenured faculty may submit details of their qualifications for appointment to such Academic Programs for the administration’s consideration.

3.6.1  Employment Alternatives.  When the administration determines the faculty member may be a good candidate for reassignment based on institutional needs, the president or designee will meet individually with tenured faculty to discuss the available possible employment alternatives to termination and the faculty member’s qualifications for the position(s).

3.6.2  Displacement.  If retention of a tenured faculty member results in displacement of a faculty member in another program with a protected property interest in continued employment, the displaced faculty member is entitled to the procedures set forth in Sections 3.6-3.11.

3.7  Termination Notice.  If the decision is to terminate the faculty member’s appointment, the president or designee will send a written notice conveying that decision.

3.8  Appealable Determination.  A president’s decision to abandon an academic program and the positions within that program is not subject to appeal. A president’s decision to eliminate one or more, but not all, academic positions within an academic program that will continue is subject to limited appeal by an individual faculty member whose position is eliminated, but only when that faculty member had a protected property interest in continued employment in the position beyond the date the position will be eliminated. The sole issue for appeal is whether the decision to terminate the faculty member rather than another individual in the same discipline or teaching specialty was arbitrary and unreasonable.

3.9  Appeal Procedures.  The president of an institution shall appoint a review panel, the majority of which must be faculty members, to consider any appeals for reconsideration of termination decisions. Within 15 days after the date of notice of termination, a faculty member shall have the right to request an appeal for reconsideration of the decision. The appeal for reconsideration shall be in writing, addressed to the president of the institution, and indicate whether the faculty member requests a review panel meeting or requests a review by submission.

The institution shall provide the appealing faculty member a written statement and supporting information of the basis for the elimination of the faculty member’s academic position. The review panel shall consider the faculty member’s request for reconsideration in accordance with the following conditions and procedures:

3.9.1  The review panel will provide a reasonable deadline for the faculty member to prepare and submit written materials to the panel for their consideration and recommendation. The review panel will share these materials with the chief academic officer to facilitate the institution’s response to that submission. If the faculty member requested review by submission, no meeting between the faculty member and the review panel is necessary. Regardless of whether the faculty member requested review by submission or requested a meeting, the faculty member may provide a written submission as described here.

3.9.2  If the faculty member requests a meeting as part of the reconsideration, the review panel will promptly offer the appealing faculty member available meeting options and indicate whether the meeting will be in-person or via an electronic platform. If possible, this meeting should be held no later than 30 days from the faculty member’s written request for appeal. An appealing faculty member’s failure to make themselves available for the meeting may result in their forfeiture of the right to the meeting.

3.9.3  The review meeting will be closed to the public, but the faculty member may have an advisor or representative accompany them.

3.9.4  The institution may be represented by an administrator, an attorney from the institution, and/or an attorney from U.T. System’s Office of General Counsel.

3.9.5  During the meeting, the faculty member and the institution will each be provided the opportunity to make oral submissions material to the issue. The panel should set reasonable time limits for the oral submissions.

3.9.6  The burden of proof shall be upon the faculty member to establish by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the decision to terminate the faculty member as compared to another individual in the same discipline or teaching specialty was arbitrary and unreasonable based upon the evidence presented.

3.9.7  After consideration of the submissions on the relevant issues, and in a prompt manner, the review panel will provide its recommendation to the president. The president will make the final determination on the recommendation. This decision is final and unappealable and concludes the review process.

3.10  Benefit Information.  Any faculty member whose employment is terminated pursuant to this Subsection shall be informed of applicable benefits available upon termination, such as retirement, accrued leave, and opportunity to continue insurance coverage.

3.11  Employment Assistance.  U.T. System institutions shall provide appropriate assistance to affected faculty members concerning available alternative employment opportunities.

Sec. 4  Elimination Due to an Institutional Financial Exigency.   An Academic Program or academic position under consideration for abandonment or elimination due to a demonstrably bona fide financial crisis that adversely affects an institution as a whole and that, after considering other cost-reducing measures, including ways to cut faculty costs, requires consideration of terminating faculty appointments, should be reviewed in depth through a procedure determined by the president that includes the elements specified below and in the institution’s Handbook of Operating Procedures. Other rule provisions regarding termination procedures and notice requirements shall not apply in circumstances where this Rule applies.

4.1  Assessment of Academic Program and Positions.  At the president’s direction, the institution’s chief academic officer will conduct a review of the programs and positions under consideration for abandonment or elimination. The president will direct the scope of the review and its considerations. The review may consider, among other things: an examination of the course offerings, degree programs, supporting degree programs, teaching specialties, and semester credit hour production; an evaluation of the quality, centrality, and funding of research activities; and/or an assessment of the productivity, community service, and quality of clinical services (in relation to teaching, health care delivery, and scholarly activity).

4.2  Notification and Faculty Input.

4.2.1  Faculty in a program that is under consideration for abandonment or in an academic position that is under consideration for elimination will be notified, and faculty with a protected property interest in continued employment beyond the anticipated date of possible abandonment or elimination will be afforded a meaningful opportunity to submit information regarding the potential closure of the program and the potential elimination of their position for consideration before a final decision is made.

4.2.2  Information provided regarding the elimination of the program and any positions will be considered by a review panel, the majority of which must be faculty members, to make recommendations to the chief academic officer. This ensures procedural due process is provided before the institution reaches a decision.

4.3  Supporting Rationale.  Upon completion of the review process, the chief academic officer will provide a recommendation with supporting rationale, whether orally or in writing, to the president for consideration and decision.

4.4  Executive Vice Chancellor Approval.  If the president determines that an Academic Program should be abandoned or academic positions be eliminated, such decision must be approved by the appropriate Executive Vice Chancellor of Academic or Health Affairs and the Executive Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs.

4.5  Appealable Determination.  A president’s decision to abandon an academic program and the positions within that program is not subject to appeal. A president’s decision to eliminate one or more, but not all, academic positions within an academic program that will continue is subject to limited appeal by an individual faculty member whose position is eliminated, but only when that faculty member had a protected property interest in continued employment in the position beyond the date the position will be eliminated. The sole issue for appeal is whether the decision to terminate the faculty member rather than another individual in the same discipline or teaching specialty was arbitrary and unreasonable.

4.6  Appeal Procedures.  The president of an institution shall appoint a review panel, the majority of which must be faculty members, to consider any appeals for reconsideration of termination decisions. Within 15 days after the date of notice of termination, a faculty member shall have the right to request an appeal for reconsideration of the decision. The appeal for reconsideration shall be in writing, addressed to the president of the institution, and indicate whether the faculty member requests a review panel meeting or requests a review by submission. The institution shall provide the appealing faculty member a written statement and supporting information of the basis for the elimination of the faculty member’s academic position. The review panel shall consider the faculty member’s request for reconsideration in accordance with the following conditions and procedures:

4.6.1  The review panel will provide a reasonable deadline for the faculty member to prepare and submit written materials to the panel for their consideration and recommendation. The review panel will share these materials with the chief academic officer to facilitate the institution’s response to that submission. If the faculty member requested review by submission, no meeting between the faculty member and the review panel is necessary. Regardless of whether the faculty member requested review by submission or requested a meeting, the faculty member may provide a written submission as described here.

4.6.2  If the faculty member requests a meeting as part of the reconsideration, the review panel will promptly offer the appealing faculty member available meeting options and indicate whether the meeting will be in-person or via an electronic platform. If possible, this meeting should be held no later than 30 days from the faculty member’s written request for appeal. An appealing faculty member’s failure to make themselves available for the meeting may result in their forfeiture of the right to the meeting.

4.6.3  The review meeting will be closed to the public, but the faculty member may have an advisor or representative accompany them.

4.6.4  The institution may be represented by an administrator, an attorney from the institution, and/or an attorney from U.T. System’s Office of General Counsel.

4.6.5  During the meeting, the faculty member and the institution will each be provided the opportunity to make oral submissions material to the issue. The panel should set reasonable time limits for the oral submissions.

4.6.6  The burden of proof shall be upon the faculty member to establish by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the decision to terminate the faculty member as compared to another individual in the same discipline or teaching specialty was arbitrary and unreasonable based upon the evidence presented.

4.6.7  After consideration of the submissions on the relevant issues, and in a prompt manner, the review panel will provide its recommendation to the president. The president will make the final determination on the recommendation. This decision is final and unappealable and concludes the review process.

Sec. 5  Extraordinary Circumstances – Accelerated Program Closure Due to Regulatory Requirements.   Upon advance approval by the appropriate Executive Vice Chancellor, a president may initiate an accelerated program closure in rare, extraordinary, and time-sensitive circumstances when standard review procedures are not viable – such as the implementation of federal or state regulatory requirements that pose a material risk to institutional compliance with such regulations or student eligibility for federal aid for students enrolled in the program.

5.1  Use of this process must be exceptional, not routine, and documented in writing, demonstrating why the standard timeline is either not feasible or contrary to students’ best interests.

5.2   At a minimum, the accelerated process must include required teach-out and communication plans for affected students and faculty and procedural due process for faculty whose positions are being eliminated and who have a protected property interest in continued employment beyond the date the position will be eliminated.

5.3  Financial pressures or enrollment declines alone do not justify this exception without a documented regulatory or compliance deadline.

Sec. 6  Institutional policies and procedures implementing this Rule shall be approved in accordance with applicable Regents’ Rules (including Rule 20201, Sec. 4.9) and placed in each institution’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.

3.  Definitions

Academic Program – an instructional program leading toward a bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, or professional degree.

Bona Fide Academic Reasons – These are reasons related to the long-term educational mission and strategy of the institution. The reasons may include poor program quality or effectiveness, misalignment with the institution’s mission, failure to meet student or societal needs, low enrollment and demand, and redundancy with other existing more effective programs. This list of examples is not exhaustive.