Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unl Program Cuts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Faculty, staff and students urge Regents to pause UNL program cuts, cite flawed metrics and lack of shared governance
Summary
Dozens of public commenters — including UNL faculty and department chairs — urged the Board of Regents to halt or reconsider proposed program eliminations at UNL, alleging faulty data, lack of transparency and damage to the university’s land‑grant mission; speakers called for external review and meaningful faculty involvement.
Multiple UNL faculty, staff and students used the board's public comment period on Oct. 3 to press the Board of Regents to pause proposed program eliminations and to question the data and process used to recommend cuts.
Sarah Zuckerman, an associate professor and UNL AAUP chapter president, said faculty have "not had meaningful involvement" in decisions about program eliminations and urged the board to respect shared governance. Robert Zott and other speakers from the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences warned that cutting specialized units would degrade tornado and severe‑weather research that supports state forecasting and public safety.
Several statisticians and data scientists, including Kent Eskridge and Heike Hoffman, told the board the metrics used for UNL's budget review contain systematic errors: undercounting performance measures, overcounting staff, and using out‑of‑date periods. Eskridge said "Some 70 faculty positions will be eliminated" under the current proposals and asked the board to pause the process and require external statistical oversight.
Faculty from Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design, Educational Administration, Statistics and other programs detailed service and workforce connections to Nebraska communities, warned of "brain drain," and said the metrics undervalue extension, outreach and program impact.
Several speakers urged a slower, more transparent process, wider faculty involvement and access to the underlying data the administration used. Commenters repeatedly asked the board to give affected units time to verify or correct the records before further action.
The board received these comments during a lengthy public‑comment period that included many speakers; the transcript records multiple calls for pausing or reconsidering the proposed eliminations and numerous requests that independent experts review the methodology.
