Utah’s legislative auditor general has released a new performance audit recommending that the state Legislature consider streamlining the process for firing tenured faculty members at public colleges and universities. The report also suggests that lawmakers evaluate whether to ban public higher education institutions from providing tenure protections that exceed those established under state law.
The findings and recommendations are contained in a report titled “A Performance Audit of Tenured Faculty in Higher Education: A Case for Improved Accountability.” The audit was launched following a push by the Republican-dominated Utah Legislature in 2024 to mandate rigorous post-tenure reviews across the state’s 16 public higher education institutions through House Bill 438.
According to the auditor general’s office, the primary goal of the new proposals is to eliminate red tape that currently makes it difficult to discipline or terminate chronically underperforming professors or those who violate university policies.
“We recommend that the Legislature consider whether the minimum due process for removing tenured faculty as specified in Utah Code is excessive,” the report states.
The audit further recommends that the Legislature and the Utah Board of Higher Education—which oversees the state’s public college and university system—consider requiring that individual institutions’ due process standards do not exceed those specified in the Utah Code. By capping institutional protections at the baseline set by state law, the auditor general’s office argues that universities would find it much easier to hold staff accountable.
Nick Varney, senior audit and operations supervisor at the auditor general’s office, emphasized that the challenges facing universities are real and well-documented. He pointed to instances where administrators found themselves gridlocked by complex internal procedures when trying to address problematic behavior.
“It’s become clear that institutions sometimes struggle to hold faculty accountable who are persistently low-performing or who violate university policy,” Varney said during a discussion of the report’s findings.
To illustrate this administrative hurdle, the audit highlights a case involving Weber State University. Instead of initiating formal disciplinary proceedings against an unnamed faculty member who accumulated thousands of dollars in personal expenses using a university purchasing card, the institution opted to negotiate a costly separation agreement. Under the terms of the deal, the university agreed to pay the professor $175,000, provide a favorable reference letter signed by the provost, and enter into a nondisclosure agreement that effectively silenced the institution regarding the details of the misconduct.
Despite these criticisms, Varney took care to clarify that the recommendations target only terminations “for cause.” He stressed that the audit’s push for a streamlined firing process is entirely unrelated to academic freedom or a professor’s ideological perspectives.
“This isn’t because they engaged in particular research that someone found didn’t align with their particular perspective,” Varney said, adding that the state’s broader higher education system remains “fantastic” and features numerous examples of exceptional teaching and dedication.
The comprehensive audit evaluated how well the state’s higher education institutions have implemented the 2024 post-tenure review law, House Bill 438. As part of their research, staff from the auditor general’s office conducted interviews with more than 120 campus administrators, deans, and department chairs. They also reviewed a sample of 666 performance reviews for tenured professors across the system.
The review of these evaluations uncovered significant gaps in how institutions monitor teaching quality. The report notes that, with the exception of Utah State University—which was cited for non-compliance with HB 438—only eight reviews across the remaining institutions concluded that a professor’s teaching performance required improvement.
However, the audit revealed a striking disconnect during quality checks. In at least 40 cases examined by the auditors, teaching was rated as satisfactory despite clear documentation and evidence of poor teaching standards. The report concluded that these systemic oversights indicate performance reviews either completely ignored or failed to detect numerous instances of substandard instruction.
Addressing compliance issues highlighted in the audit, Utah State University President Brad L. Mortensen noted in a formal letter to the auditor general that the institution took corrective action. He stated that the university officially updated its faculty code to establish a post-tenure review process fully consistent with the requirements of the Utah Code.
Beyond tenure reviews and termination procedures, the audit also recommends changes to university leadership structures. Specifically, it suggests that department chairs should be appointed directly by university leadership and remain strictly accountable to administrators for the overall performance of their respective departments.
The release of the audit has drawn swift pushback from faculty advocates who argue that the proposed changes would erode institutional independence and faculty governance.
In an email to Inside Higher Ed, Kendall Gerdes, president of the University of Utah chapter of the American Association of University Professors and a member of the United Campus Workers of Utah Faculty Organizing Committee, criticized the overarching direction of the report’s recommendations. Gerdes argued that the proposals are designed to expand top-down administration at the expense of traditional academic structures.
“All of the report’s major recommendations seek to expand administrative hierarchies at the expense of the democratic process of shared governance,” Gerdes wrote.
Gerdes warned that implementing these changes would create an unnecessary new tier of bureaucratic management. Furthermore, the faculty representative argued that the shift would place undue burdens on experienced educators, forcing them to abandon their scholarly research to take on policing roles, which would ultimately discourage highly qualified academics from seeking employment or leadership positions in Utah.
State education leaders offered a more nuanced view of the recommendations while acknowledging the delicate balance between accountability and academic freedom.
Geoffrey Landward, commissioner of the Utah System of Higher Education, pointed out that both existing state law and Board of Higher Education policies already incorporate vital due process safeguards that are essential for maintaining a healthy tenure system. While Landward said he would not necessarily oppose legislation or board rules capping institutional protections at the state statutory level, he emphasized that any such move would require careful consultation with lawmakers to examine the specific legal language.
Landward also highlighted that the audit explicitly recognizes the fundamental role that tenure plays in protecting academic freedom and attracting talent to Utah institutions.
“We want to protect due process so we don’t have arbitrary and capricious decisions around tenure and retaining our faculty,” Landward said.
