October 11, 2024

President Jay Hartzell
Office of the President
University of Texas at Austin

Dear President Hartzell:

On behalf of the University of Texas chapter of the American Association of University Professors, we write to express our surprise and disappointment at your decision to refuse to review Ann Stevens for a possible second term as Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. For over 100 years, the AAUP has stood for the values of academic freedom, shared governance, and due process—all fundamental to the greatness of American research universities. We believe that your action with respect to Dean Stevens is a serious violation of due process and damaging to the reputation of UT Austin.

Dean Stevens was selected in 2019 from a national pool of applicants, following a rigorous review process overseen by then-Provost Maurie McInnis. Faculty, staff, students, and deans all participated in reviewing Dean Stevens’ qualifications and vision for the College of Liberal Arts. We believe that a review of her accomplishments as Dean would demonstrate the strong support she has among faculty, staff, students, and fellow deans, and we are certain that she deserves such a review. The Regents Rules, the Handbook of Operating Procedures, and AAUP principles all support this view.   

Regents Rule 20102 on the Appointment of Institutional Administrative Officers states in Section 3, Consultation: “The Board of Regents endorses the principle of reasonable consultation in the selection of administrative officers of the institutions and the primary operating units and expects the president, as he or she deems appropriate, to consult in the selection process with the representatives of the faculty, staff, and student body.” We understand that the President is not bound by the recommendations of a consultative body, but we maintain that the President is obligated to engage in a meaningful process of consultation—as has been customary at the University of Texas at Austin. 

Moreover, the Handbook of Operating Procedures 2-2130 on the Evaluation of Deans of Colleges and Schools states the following under B. Periodic Evaluation, 1. Timing:
“At a time not later than the conclusion of a six-year appointment as dean, an evaluation committee shall be constituted in the same manner as a consultative committee for deans of established schools and colleges (see HOP 2-2110).” Looking at HOP-2-2110, we find under 4. Committee Composition for Selecting Deans of Established Schools and Colleges: “Five voting members of the faculty of the school or college for which a dean is being sought, elected by that faculty by the Hare-Clark Preferential Voting System, and two voting members of the General Faculty, not including administrative officials, appointed by the President; three students appointed by the President from a panel of not fewer than five nor more than ten names selected by the student council for that school or college; and such other persons as the President may deem appropriate.”

The Regents Rules and the HOP are consistent with the AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which states in section 2.c.: “The selection of academic deans and other chief academic officers should be the responsibility of the president with the advice of, and in consultation with, the appropriate faculty. Determinations of faculty status, normally based on the recommendations of the faculty groups involved, are discussed in Part 5 of this statement; but it should here be noted that the building of a strong faculty requires careful joint effort in such actions as staff selection  and promotion and the granting of tenure. Joint action should also govern dismissals; the applicable principles and procedures in these matters are well established.” As to Faculty Evaluation of Administrators, the AAUP states: “Fellow administrators, faculty, students, and others should participate in the review according to their legitimate interest in the result, with faculty of the unit accorded the primary voice in the case of academic administrators.” The full statement gives a strong rationale for the involvement of faculty, staff, and students in decisions regarding administrators.

Clearly the faculty, staff, and students of the College of Liberal Arts have a “legitimate interest” in the evaluation of Dean Stevens for retention or replacement. As the AAUP rightly states, just as the selection of an administrator requires careful joint action, the evaluation of administrators must also involve faculty, staff, and students of the unit concerned. Anything short of this is unfair to Dean Stevens and disrespects the joint efforts that faculty, staff, and students have made, and continue to make, under her leadership.

We urge you to reconsider your decision to refrain from evaluating Ann Stevens for retention as Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Based on UT System and UT Austin rules, as well as AAUP standards, the Dean should be allowed to present her accomplishments just as CoLA faculty, staff, and students should be allowed to share in the evaluation of her tenure as Dean. The course that you have embarked on will destabilize the largest college in the university; harm relations with faculty, staff, and donors; negatively affect recruitment efforts; and cast doubt on UT Austin’s commitment to established principles of governance. For the good of the University, we ask that you restore a fair and thorough review process in this case as well as in future cases.

Sincerely yours,

Executive Committee, UT Austin Chapter, American Association of University Professors (Pauline Strong, Brian Evans, Andrea Gore, Lauren Gutterman, Steven Seegel, Karma Chavez)

Cc:
Rachel Davis Mersey, Interim Executive Vice President and Provost
Amanda Cochran-McCall, Vice President for Legal Affairs
Stella Flores, Chair, Faculty Council
Ann Huff Stevens, Dean, College of Liberal Arts