By SUSAN JONES
The leaders of more than 600 universities, colleges, community colleges and higher education professional organizations have signed a letter, first published on April 22, decrying “the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.”
Pitt’s Chancellor Joan Gabel did not sign the letter, although the president of the Association of American Universities (AAU) — of which Gabel is a board member — did sign it. The Association of American Law Schools, of which Pitt is a charter member, and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, to which Pitt belongs, also were signatories.
The letter was organized by the American Association of Colleges & University (AAC&U), which Pitt also belongs to.
At a town hall webinar on April 30 organized by the chancellor’s office and provost’s office, Gabel stressed that, “The AAC&U letter is fine. I have absolutely no objection to the content, on the contrary. And by the way, there was no pressure for me not to sign by anyone.
“My personal philosophy on this kind of advocacy in intense moments like this is to sign on to statements that reflect the action that we intend to undertake. The AAC&U statement was great, but it was a statement of position rather than action. This was my thinking in how we are preparing our advocacy, both for Pitt and all of us as the people who make up Pitt, and also Pitt as part of higher ed.”
Some at Pitt have expressed frustration about the lack of communication from University leadership about all the challenges facing higher education. Gabel acknowledged this in an email to the Pitt community last week, where she announced the town hall.
“Much of our work has been behind the scenes, and we know that can make it hard for our community to see the depth of our engagement,” she said.
She noted that she’d already signed the AAU’s board statement from March 31. That statement said, in part, “The research conducted at American universities has made our country secure and more prosperous than at any other era in its history. Endangering this incredibly successful partnership endangers the American greatness that it helped create. …
“The withdrawal of research funding for reasons unrelated to research sets a dangerous and counterproductive precedent. We urge the administration and Congress, in accordance with principles of due process, to work through the established Department of Education and Department of Justice procedures for investigating allegations of discrimination (including antisemitism, gender, or other forms of discrimination) on any campus. Following these established procedures is the best way to ensure accountability by universities and to preserve our nation’s place as the global leader in science and innovation.”
At the town hall, Gabel said, “The idea that we weren’t out there or standing with the other institutions that are experiencing headwinds, or standing for institutional autonomy and academic freedom, we are publicly, overtly, also in our face-to-face consultation. (The AAC&U) letter is important, but it is not the only indicator of advocacy, and we’re trying to pick the right indicators for us.”
A Call of Constructive Engagement
The letter on the American Association of Colleges & University website stresses that: “We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.”
While the list of schools that signed the letter is quite varied, it says, “Yet, American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom.”
It goes on to say, “American institutions of higher learning are essential to American prosperity and serve as productive partners with government in promoting the common good.”
The list is dominated by private institutions, but at least 125 public schools signed on, including several in the state university systems in New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California. At least 30 are public R1 universities, including the University of California–San Francisco and the University of Michigan — second and third on the list of top-funded institutions from the NIH for 2024. (Pitt ranked sixth on that list.) Other public schools in the NIH Top 25 that signed the letter are the University of Washington, University of California–San Diego and University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Temple University is the only public school from Pennsylvania to sign the letter, but it did include the leaders of the several private institutions in the state — Bryn Mawr College, Haverford College, Villanova University, Swarthmore College, Widener University and the University of Pennsylvania in the Philadelphia area, along with Cedar Crest College in Allentown, Dickinson College in Carlisle, Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Juniata College in Huntingdon, Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania College of Art and Design in Lancaster, Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, the University of Scranton, and Ursinus College in Collegeville.
Schools represented from Western Pennsylvania include Carnegie Mellon University, Chatham College, Duquesne University, La Roche University and Allegheny College in Meadville.
The leaders of all the Ivy League schools, except Dartmouth, have signed the letter.
Frustration evident
The fact that Pitt’s chancellor has not signed the AAC&U letter prompted one Senate Council committee to propose a resolution calling for Gabel to add her signature to the growing list.
At a special meeting of the Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Discrimination Advocacy committee on April 28, the frustration and uncertainty over the Trump administration’s impact on higher education were on plain view as committee members and others debated the proposed resolution.
Many expressed disappointment in Pitt leadership’s lack of communication about what the University is doing to preserve federal funding and academic freedom.
“The executive order about DEI came out on January 20, and we are finally getting a town hall with our administration more than three months later,” said a very emotional Ally Bove, an assistant professor of physical therapy in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. “To me, personally, that’s not enough, and there are a lot of us who’ve been asking for answers, asking for support, asking for solidarity from our administration, and aren’t receiving it, and that’s really hard for a University that we do trust.”
Bove said her research, which includes work on race, gender, geographic and socioeconomic disparities related to knee and hip osteoarthritis, total joint replacement and low back pain, has been “very much affected by this. … It’s been a hard couple of months for my career.”
Senate President Robin Kear said she’s had “many conversations with senior leadership since mid-January about the external pressures on higher education, and I have been frustrated at the uncertainty, and I have dutifully expressed faculty and staff concerns and frustrations and your desire for more communication, and that is starting to happen.”
But she continued, “I would love to scream from rooftops and shout at proxies for my frustration and my anxiety, but I have not, and I will not, and I cannot. I have a very broad responsibility to faculty and the University. And the senior leadership even more so — they’re responsible for the University’s survival and its continuation and success. I have listened openly to the ways that our administration is handling the uncertainty and their interactions with various individuals and groups, and I believe that they are working appropriately and diligently.”
Kris Kanthak, Senate vice president and incoming president, noted that the committee must have started working on the resolution, which also asks for more openness from Pitt’s administration, before the April 30 town hall was announced. But, she said, if the committee had consulted with Senate leadership, they would have known that the town hall was coming.
“We had been having these discussions with administration, and they were hearing you,” Kanthak said. “They were hearing that we wanted more openness, we wanted more communication, and the town hall was a response to that. … I can assure you, we share all of the worry and upset and the nervousness. And I am 100% in agreement with you that I was not happy with the level of communication that we were getting from the administration.”
She said if Kear had known about the resolution, she “would have been in a position to say to the chancellor, ‘Look, a unit of the Senate is going to do something about this if we don’t see some better communication, and that makes it easier for us to to manage that relationship.”
In the end, the committee voted to table the resolution, at least until after chancellor’s town hall.
Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu or 724-244-4042.
Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.