Hundreds urge CSU trustees to reverse Sonoma State cuts, call for hold on athletics elimination

Hundreds of students, alumni, coaches, faculty and parents addressed the California State University Board of Trustees on Jan. 23, 2025, urging the board to reverse Sonoma State University’s recent announcement to eliminate intercollegiate athletics and discontinue multiple academic programs.

Many public speakers described the decision — announced to campus by email on Jan. 22, 2025 — as abrupt and lacking transparency, and said it would cause immediate harm to current student‑athletes, tenured faculty and the surrounding North Bay community. Parent Maribel Garcia said, "Removing the athletic program will impact the students significantly academically, physically, and mentally. The sport is not only something they do, the sport is who they are."

The outpouring included alumni and coaches who said the athletics programs supply community ties, recruitment pathways and career outcomes. Marcus Zimmer, a longtime Sonoma State coach, said he learned of his own termination by a player’s text and described the announcement as a shock: "I'm the guy that got, fired. Found out I got fired by 1 of my players who texted me and said, coach, is this true? Are we done?" Speakers pressed the trustees for an immediate moratorium on the cuts and for transparent, stakeholder‑driven planning.

Why it matters: Sonoma State’s planned eliminations affect programs that many speakers said serve rural Northern California students, support local employers and generate community engagement. Several speakers argued cuts would accelerate enrollment declines the university is already facing and bleat long‑term reputational damage.

Speakers cited campus financial numbers and the board’s role. Rick Crosby, a La Verne city council member and parent of a student‑athlete, noted the university’s stated operating gap and said the campus acted without customary stakeholder engagement: "I empathize with the $24,000,000 deficit that SSU faces after a 38% reduction of students over the past decade. However, I've never made cuts or eliminations in a vacuum." Faculty and department leaders described program‑level impacts: professors in physics and the liberal arts warned that eliminating degree programs would remove pipelines to well‑paid technical jobs and to public service careers in the North Bay.

Many speakers asked the trustees to use reserve funds or to delay the action pending outside review. Mary Gomes, a Sonoma State professor, told trustees the CSU system has substantial uncommitted core reserves and questioned why the campus was being dismantled instead of supported: "The CSU has $766,000,000 in uncommitted core reserves, up from under $500,000,000 5 years ago. I ask you, if these funds can't be used to keep valued and beloved campuses afloat through a downturn, what are they?"

Trustee hearing and next steps: The public comment period lasted more than two hours and included requests for an emergency vote to put the decision on hold. The board did not take any formal vote during the session. At the end of public comment, Chancellor Joseph I. Garcia acknowledged the speakers and said the system was listening; he also reassured the audience that Sonoma State "is not closing. We are going to position Sonoma State to be prepared for now and for the future and for the rest of the time that we are all on this earth." He encouraged the public to watch presentations scheduled for the following day, which he said would include more information about the campus.

The trustees did not announce any immediate reversal or emergency hold during the open session. Public speakers urged the board to reconvene with campus stakeholders, release detailed financial models, and consider third‑party reviews or alternative cost‑saving measures before proceeding with program eliminations.

Votes at a glance: No motions or votes on Sonoma State program eliminations were recorded during the public comment portion of this meeting; speakers repeatedly requested that the board place the actions on hold and that the campus engage stakeholders in a transparent process.

Community context and reactions: Comments came from current students, coaches and alumni who described athletic programs as pathways to higher education and job opportunities, from faculty who said program closures would erode the campus’s liberal arts mission, and from local business and civic leaders who warned of economic losses for the North Bay. Multiple speakers pledged fundraising support and asked for time to present alternatives to the administration’s plan.

What the trustees said: Beyond Chung Garcia's assurance that Sonoma State is not closing and that further information would be presented, the board did not announce a specific plan of action in response to the public comments during the session. The trustees said they were behind schedule and took a 10‑minute break before proceeding with other reports on the agenda.