Utah lawmakers are considering a review of how public universities in the state hold tenured professors accountable, following a legislative audit that uncovered significant challenges. The audit found that institutions often struggle to correct instances where faculty members are “persistently poor teachers” and sometimes resort to expensive separation agreements instead of established termination processes for misconduct.
Auditors presented their findings to legislators this week, revealing that out of 666 performance reviews conducted in 2024 and 2025 for tenured faculty, only eight resulted in a teaching improvement plan. This occurred despite many faculty members receiving satisfactory scores even with overwhelmingly low evaluations from students, according to the review.
The consequences of unaddressed underperformance can be severe for students. Auditors reported that deans and department chairs described “how much damage a single poor performer can inflict on a department.” Poor instruction, the audit stated, can lead students to abandon majors and academic programs, including those in high-demand fields vital to Utah's economy. Even when students complete courses with poor instruction, they reported feeling unprepared for their careers.
In cases involving misconduct or policy violations, universities sometimes bypassed standard discipline protocols by negotiating separation agreements. Auditors explained that beyond Utah law, universities have their own complex policies for termination, making the process lengthy and expensive. These agreements, however, have also proved costly. For example, one tenured faculty member, found to have spent thousands of dollars on personal expenses using a university purchasing card, was offered a separation agreement. This involved a $175,000 payment, a reference letter from the provost, and a nondisclosure agreement, allowing the professor to leave without facing the established disciplinary process.
This particular case raised questions from House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, regarding the difficulty of terminating professors in Utah. Schultz suggested that part of the problem lies with the Legislature itself, which has allowed universities to add policies on top of state statutes, making it hard to remove individuals even in clear cases of law and policy violations and “taking advantage of the taxpayer.” Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, also voiced strong concerns, calling the practice “criminal” and irresponsible for institutions.
To address these issues, Nick Varney, senior audit and operations supervisor, recommended that the Legislature consider whether the minimum due process for removing tenured faculty specified in Utah code is excessive. Auditors also advised the Utah Board of Higher Education to consider requiring universities not to establish dismissal processes that go beyond what state law mandates. Varney noted that auditors found no examples of academic freedom being harmed in their review of tenure.
For less egregious cases of underperformance, auditors identified the traditional leadership model of academic departments as a root cause for lack of accountability. Joe Hadfield, the supervisor of the audit, told lawmakers that many department chairs described structural barriers, such as a lack of time, training, and authority, limiting their ability to lead effectively. A deeper issue, Hadfield explained, is that incentives for performance for these leaders are often misaligned. Department chairs, who rotate back into regular faculty ranks, may have an “incentive to keep the peace” rather than making difficult decisions to hold professors accountable. This can be exacerbated when a junior faculty member serves as department chair over a higher-ranked professor.
The audit recommends that the Board of Higher Education redefine department chair roles across institutions, positioning them primarily as academic leaders rather than faculty members with secondary leadership responsibilities. Furthermore, institutions should ensure chairs have the necessary time and support to fulfill their supervisory duties, which auditors believe would enable stronger leadership and oversight within departments.
