Program closure requires more than counting majors: a defensible review weighs enrollment trends, avoidable costs, academic interdependence, governance, and institutional mission.
Universities face legitimate and growing institutional responsibilities. Meeting those obligations calls for skilled professional staff and efficient systems, not automatically more layers of administration.
In recent years, several universities have reported that administrative salaries now account for a larger share of their budgets than faculty salaries. This reversal of priorities is not an accounting oddity. It is a reflection of how deeply higher education has shifted from an academic to a managerial culture. The university, once organized around teaching and scholarship, now exists primarily to sustain its own administrative machinery. For PUIs, which exist to provide personalized, teaching-focused education, this trend is especially disheartening. When managerial costs begin to outweigh faculty investment in such settings, the institution loses its defining character as a place where students learn directly from engaged teachers rather than through layers of administrative programs.
The principle of tenure has long been central to higher education. It is designed not to guarantee lifelong employment but to protect academic freedom — the right of faculty to teach, research, and publish without fear of reprisal, even when their work challenges dominant views. Yet in recent years, tenure has been tested not by the production of controversial scholarship but by faculty engaging in overt political activism on campus. A growing number of cases show that tenure cannot, and should not, serve as a shield for political stances or protest activity undertaken outside one’s area of academic expertise.
A senior university administrator’s decision to forgo his performance-based bonus and instead direct it toward campus programs deserves recognition. As the voice of PUIs, we at the Connect appreciate this gesture for the personal act of generosity, and an exemplary demonstration of leadership at a time when higher education finds itself under financial strain.
There was a time when U.S. universities, especially predominantly undergraduate institutions (PUIs), existed primarily for one purpose: teaching students. Faculty were the central figures in this mission. Their intellectual autonomy, mentorship, and scholarship shaped the university’s identity. The last decade, however, a very different picture is emerging; US universities are becoming increasingly “top heavy”, run like corporate entities where the central role of faculty is being eroded by the expanding influence of administrators.
As I was reading about the recent Nebraska legislative hearing regarding LB 1064 proposed by a state lawmaker in 2024 for making modifications to how tenure is governed in public postsecondary institutions, a particular comment drew attention: "While tenure initially was good policy, some professors now delegate much of their work to graduate students and teaching assistants." This line of reasoning, offered in defense of rolling back tenure protections, is increasingly common across the country. Yet it rests on a misleading and oversimplified view of the academic workforce, especially within the context of PUIs where the faculty work more closely with students as mentors and educators in addition to their research pursuits.
PUI Connect
