September 19, 2026
The Alabama AAUP Chapter is disappointed by Faculty Senate’s non-unanimous vote to approve post-tenure review on Tuesday, September 15. Our members have significant concerns about the lack of transparency from university leadership throughout the creation of this process, including during the vote itself.
We believe the final post-tenure review policy does not reflect the wishes of the faculty and certainly does not represent the AAUP’s commitments to academic freedom, faculty governance, and education as a public good. We also recognize that Faculty Senate was put in an impossible position with this policy and the process provided.
Below we highlight our concerns regarding the rushed, unnecessary implementation of a redundant, politically-motivated post-tenure review policy.
- This policy is a solution in search of a problem. Administration should be honest about where it comes from.
Despite being asked, no one from the Board of Trustees or UA administration has directly given a transparent rationale for this post-tenure review policy. Faculty noted in both of the Provost’s so-called “listening sessions” that it is difficult—if not impossible—to implement a policy equitably without understanding what that policy is for. In the absence of factual evidence necessitating post-tenure review policies in addition to what already existed in the faculty handbook, our members are left to assume that the rationale is politically motivated. We demand the Board of Trustees and UA Administration each issue a formal, public explanation with concrete evidence for why this policy was necessary. In the absence of formal, specific data, we expect a transparent rationale about where the idea for the policy came from.
An appeal to HB 580 is not an acceptable rationale for this policy for two reasons. First, Representative Troy Stubbs admitted to presenting a copy/paste bill (HB 580) that did not have any actual, stated problems that it was trying to solve. No evidence of faculty refusing to work was provided. No evidence was provided to indicate that the current faculty senate handbook didn’t address concerns about faculty performance. The bill was voted non-unanimously by state politicians even though voting members expressed grave concerns about politicians wielding their influence (e.g., laws and funding) in higher education.
Second, the University of Alabama was not required to make any changes aligned with HB580; the legislature explicitly exempted the constitutionally protected state institutions (UA system and Auburn) in their law. Post-tenure review at UA was not inevitable. Yet, faculty were informed that in May 2026, University leaders began meeting about how to craft our own version of what they falsely said was “required” by HB580. No change to UA was required by HB 580. In the absence of legislative compulsion, we expect our leadership to provide clear evidence justifying their decision.
We expect this evidence and/or rationale to also include justification for the rushed approach the Board of Trustees forced on UA administration in implementing this policy—so rushed, in fact, that standard procedures for faculty governance on such issues was abandoned completely. Policy development went on throughout the summer without surveying faculty, informing the Faculty Senate, or holding listening sessions. Instead, the Board of Trustees voted in an executive session to approve language requiring the system to adopt a post tenure review, change how deans are hired, and add language to causes for termination. These decisions happened prior to Faculty Senate’s first meeting of the 2026-2027 academic year. By the time the Faculty Senate was able to advocate for faculty input, what leadership called listening sessions were at best a question and answer session on a policy that was already set in stone in most meaningful ways.
- The UA System and Board of Trustees usurped true faculty governance through their deadlines and process requirements.
As we have been reminded numerous times, Faculty Senate is advisory only and that the University and Chancellor of the system were going to implement this policy no matter the Senate vote. While faculty senate has always been advisory in the sense that it can be overridden, prior decisions have engaged with faculty governance via the senate in good faith. This process did not, and as a chapter, we are deeply concerned at the shift this post-tenure review policy development process represents regarding the relationship between Faculty Senate and UA campus and system leadership.
The Senate exists to communicate the voice of faculty members to the administration. The way the PTR policy development process was handled diminished this important work. The Senate was given a draft policy and told to gain an understanding of the representative concerns from their college colleagues by the Sept. 17 meeting. However, many department and college-wide September meetings had not yet happened by that date, meaning Senators were not given a meaningful opportunity to fulfill their core obligation to their colleagues. Rushing the process removed Faculty Senate’s ability to have a representative vote in the meeting on September 17. Faculty Senators are elected by their college colleagues to represent the voice and preferences of their colleagues. But in order to do so, Senators must have the time and resources needed to meet with their colleagues, explain the proposed policy, and allow faculty to give senators feedback. UA admin, following the timeline set by the Board of Trustees, ignored this core function of the Senate and thus overrode meaningful faculty governance.
- UA Administrators and Faculty Senate leadership have not been transparent about faculty feedback and have not released it, as promised.
In addition to superseding faculty governance by rushing the policy approval process, UA administration created a separate chain for feedback by sending out an online survey asking each faculty member to submit their own opinions and edits in the online survey. Faculty have been told more than 200 people completed the survey. Faculty were promised during the “listening session” on Friday, August 28 that the results of these surveys would be made public, including documentation of how many faculty members expressed dissent. That has not happened.
It is impossible to turn back the clock and create transparency during the PTR development process. The least university and senate leadership can do, at this point, is fulfill their promise to make faculty feedback public.
Conclusion
To review, faculty were told the Chancellor wanted a PTR policy approved by October 1st, in order to comply with a law that UA did not have to comply with. The Alabama AAUP chapter is gravely concerned about the process, lack of transparency, and lack of full faculty representation in the un-unanimous vote in Faculty Senate. We are continually concerned about the Board and the Administration’s delegitimizing of Faculty Senate, which has become something more to outmaneuver than a collaborative, transparent voice of the full faculty. We look forward to continuing the difficult work of advocating for all faculty on behalf of academic freedom, faculty governance, and the public good of higher education.
If you are a faculty member who is also concerned about the process and subsequent outcomes, we urge you to join our chapter. Learn more at alabamaaaup.com.
Leave a comment