UTD Chapter of the AAUP Letter to UTD Leadership
- Mar 2
- 3 min read
Dear President Moghe, Provost Musselman, Deans of Schools, and Members of the President’s Cabinet,
On behalf of UTD’s advocacy chapter of the American Association of University Professors (UTD-AAUP), we are writing to urge you to reconsider the proposed structure of the UTD “Faculty Presidential Advisory Council” (UTD-FPAC), which Provost Musselman described in a message to faculty on February 5, 2026. We are concerned to see that the proposed council would restrict shared governance far more than is required under SB 37, the legislation that prompted UT Regents’ Rule 40101. Although we recognize that the UTD-FPAC framework as proposed adheres to the guidelines established by Rule 40101, which stipulates that faculty bodies be formed at the “discretion” of university presidents, we urge President Moghe to use this discretionary authority to develop a framework that meaningfully sustains shared governance. We also request that university leadership provide a public statement explaining the rationale behind the structure and composition of UTD-FPAC.
We observe three specific ways in which the proposed UTD-FPAC unduly limits faculty voice:
You have proposed that all UTD-FPAC representatives be appointed by university administrators, whereas SB 37 allows faculty to elect members to their shared governance bodies. We acknowledge that Regents’ Rule 40101 gives university presidents sole discretionary authority in composing such bodies; however, we propose that President Moghe use this authority to establish a process whereby faculty can nominate and elect representatives for the council. In accordance with Rule 40101, President Moghe could provide final, discretionary ratification of the membership of UTD-FPAC following a faculty vote.
Whereas both Rule 40101 and SB 37 allow university governance bodies to be as large as 60 members, you have proposed that the UTD-FPAC be composed of only 15 representatives of the non-administrative community. We propose expanding the size of the Council to accommodate a broader range of perspectives and expertise.
Whereas SB 37 requires meetings of these governance bodies to be open to the full community, and Rule 40101 neither requires nor prohibits such openness, Provost Musselman’s announcement makes no mention of plans to ensure transparent functioning of this council. We propose establishing protocols for openness and transparency.
Like you, we are dedicated to the long-term success of our University. We write from this commitment and a conviction that shared governance is key to a strong, successful university. Faculty are best positioned to understand the research, teaching, and intellectual conditions they need to do their best work–and to foster the success of our students and the university’s fulfillment of its essential public mission. Faculty morale also depends on the sense of a shared mission.
For these reasons, restricting faculty voice and governance will erode the institution on multiple fronts:
University administrators and other leaders will lack crucial information about the everyday work and functioning of the University.
UTD-FPAC will lack the full available range of faculty insight and expertise.
The institution—and, crucially, the success of our students—will suffer from faculty disengagement and cynicism, if we and our colleagues believe that the institution does not care about our perspectives, needs, and knowledge.
We therefore reiterate our two requests: First, we urge you to use your discretion to re-envision the structure and membership of UTD-FPAC in accordance with meaningful shared governance. Second, we request that you provide a public statement explaining the rationale behind the structure and composition of UTD-FPAC.
We would love to collaborate with you. Shared governance is the foundation for President Moghe’s “three pillars” and we look forward to thinking through the best way to ensure that we can all take the “Roadmap 3030” together.
Sincerely,
Members of the UTD-AAUP
Comments