Following the 2023-2024 academic year, the Faculty Senate met to discuss concerns with the recent leadership and actions of President Ronald Liebowitz. This May 30 meeting was a special faculty meeting, meaning that it was not scheduled at the beginning of the year through the Office of the Provost. According to the meeting transcript, Provost Carol Fierke responded to questions regarding administration attendance by stating that “[no] one in the administration was consulted about the timing of the meeting nor explicitly invited to this meeting” and that “President Liebowitz was not available at [that] time.”

At the meeting, a motion titled “The motion for vote of no confidence” was proposed. The motion reads as follows:

“The Faculty note with grave concern a consistent pattern of damaging errors of judgment and poor leadership by President Liebowitz. The results this year include badly handled budget shortfalls, failures of fundraising, excessive responses to student protests, indifference to faculty motions, and the recent damaging staff layoffs. The faculty have no confidence in the President’s leadership and we call upon the Board of Trustees to act.”

If the Faculty Senate passes the motion with the majority vote, the motion will be brought to the Board of Trustees for their review. As stated on the Brandeis University website, the board “is responsible for and is the final authority on all aspects of the university’s operations,” including the selection of the University president. 

The Board of Trustees is composed of 50 elected members, many of whom are Brandeis University alumni. As of press time, the Board of Trustees member contacted by The Justice declined the request to comment on this matter. In terms of student representation in the face of the board, two undergraduate students and one graduate student have been elected to attend Board of Trustees meetings. The Justice was able to sit down with Quentin Cox, the graduate student representative, to get his take on the matter.

One of the points touched on in the interview was that while the students are elected as representatives to the board, they don’t have to be given time to express their opinions, nor does the board have to take their statements into account during the decision making process. According to Cox, “Most likely if this goes to the board, it will be handled in a closed door executive session,” highlighting the lack of transparency. “Student representatives are not always provided an opportunity in [meetings] to share their concerns or topics of interest.” 

This idea was echoed in an email exchange between The Justice and Student Union President Rani Balakrishna ’25, who stated that “two years ago the Board of Trustees did not cooperate with our representatives, but to the best of my knowledge they are now working closely with our undergraduate student representatives.”

The Justice then asked Cox if it was possible to predict an outcome if the faculty did take this vote of no confidence to the board. He explained that it is hard to know, as “in the past there has been tension between the board and the president.… His contract was in jeopardy a couple of years ago. I also know that last year the board took out a full page ad in the Boston Globe to express their support of President Liebowitz and his handling of matters on the campus after Oct. 7.” 

The special faculty meeting on May 30 concluded without a resolution, and a second special faculty meeting was scheduled to take place over Zoom at 4 p.m. on June 5. Prior to this meeting, faculty members were given the opportunity to add further information that they had regarding the motion to a shared Google Drive. One of the documents shared was a petition to postpone the discussion of the vote of no confidence signed by over 80 current and emeritus professors as of Sept. 9. The primary demographic of the names on the petition is Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics based departments, with some additional members from the International Business School and Hebrew program through the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies. There is a clear lack of humanities and social science based signatures.

The petition calls for postponement of the discussion “until there is sufficient time to review and research the data underlying the arguments presented by the proponents of the motion, and for the administration to respond to these arguments thoroughly.” They asked that the vote would not take place until August 2024 at the earliest. The signing faculty acknowledged that no matter the outcome of the vote and the potential outcome of the discussion with the Board of Trustees, “Any one of these outcomes may shake the confidence of many of our current students, faculty and staff in the viability and future of our institution, may cause many prospective students to choose other options for their education, and may cause the majority of alumni and donors to turn their backs on us, rather than supporting us in our time of need.” 

Those that signed the petition supported the statement that “this motion will distract from our actual urgent task, which is to ensure that faculty understand the budget, organizational and layoff issues and have a more informed voice in decisions being made about the FY25 budget,” and proposed their own motion to postpone the vote. The postponement motion highlighted the need of other topics important to be discussed and reiterated the need to wait until at least August 2024.

In contradiction to the petition, a document was created on June 3 by Prof. John Plotz (ENG), Prof. Sarah Mayorga (SOC) and Prof. Elizabeth Ferry (ANTH). This document was written to be shared with faculty in order to provide clarification regarding points brought up in the May 30 meeting. In the introduction, the professors explain why this document was necessary, stating that “faculty have sought further clarification on many of the issues below from the administration; the administration has consistently failed to open channels of communication, to provide additional information to faculty concerns, and even to answer the most basic questions about everything from the budget to the handling of student protests on campus.” The introduction also expressed concern for the future of the University, stating, “The information available regarding enrollments, undergraduate matriculation, PhD slots, and the recent mass layoffs of staff seemingly indicate that our situation at Brandeis is becoming increasingly dire and requires swift and decisive action from faculty.”

The first section of the document was titled “Badly Handled Budget Shortfalls,” reviewing Brandeis’ financial state and explaining that while comparable institutions are also facing financial challenges, Brandeis is further at risk due to lack of strategic and advanced planning. They explained that “Brandeis is facing lower enrollments, heavy debt to finance failing infrastructure, and an increased draw from the endowment (7%) for FY ‘25. There is a pattern of limited fiscal transparency as well as a lack of consistent and clear strategic planning.” 

The second document section was titled “Failures of Fundraising” and discussed the absence of a capital campaign, which is believed to be vital. “We are in a particularly challenging position with a new residence hall to build, a new science building announced (and paused), and now a significant shortfall on enrollments for the fall,” the document stated. “While all of these issues are not solely the responsibility of President Liebowitz, fundraising is perhaps his most important job.” They called for further transparency regarding fundraising efforts and called out fundraising deficits, saying “Fundraising totals were in fact down last year (FY’23, $75.5 million) in comparison to FY’22 ($94 million).” 

This section also detailed the potential detrimental effects that this continued decrease in funding could result in, explaining that in order for Brandeis to remain an R1 ranked institution, 70 PhDs need to be received per year — and if Brandeis loses its R1 ranking, our funding will decrease even further. The document went on to address the consequences of decreasing PhD slots, stating that this would impact “faculty ability to conduct research in labs, support the teaching of large classes, and mentor/supervise undergraduate researchers.” When speaking to Cox about the stability of graduate programs and funding at the University, he stated, “I think overall this administration has failed to take into consideration the well-being of students as these decisions are being made. There has been a lack of transparency and a lack of communication and students have been left in the dark.”

“Excessive Responses to Student Protests” was the title of the third section of the document, detailing what resulted in the Nov. 10 rally and how it was handled. The section starts by explaining how “in 2020 the University hired consultants to undertake a comprehensive review of campus policing and safety. The final report, issued in April 2021, identified an ‘overreliance’ on campus police, which constituted a drain of resources, particularly troubling at a moment in which Brandeis faces budgetary strain.” It went on to detail how recommendations were given to University administration regarding potential courses of action and how these recommendations were not followed. The section then described the recommendations given by the faculty following the Nov. 10 rally and how those were also ignored.

The same idea was again brought up in the fourth section of the document, titled “Indifference to Faculty Motions,” which discussed how the faculty senate overwhelmingly voted in support of many motions, including pieces of advice regarding how to better both the lives of students and the University itself, that were also ignored. 

The final section of the document was titled “Staff Layoffs and Turnover,” detailing how the administration “has moved to eliminate 60 staff positions amidst widespread complaints of overwork from staff across units.” According to the writers, “Staff are absolutely essential to the mission and daily functioning of the university and are not dispensable. These layoffs will create unmanageable workloads for remaining staff, which will likely lead to increased turnover and department dysfunction.” The document goes on to call out the lack of transparency from administration through this process, stating that secrets have been kept.

The document concluded by acknowledging that while many are afraid that this vote could send Brandeis into a state of crisis, the writers believe that the University is already in one. They review Liebowitz’s presidency at Middlebury College, detailing his unpopular ventures and stating that they “eventually requir[ed] messy and costly legal action by the subsequent President to undo. Nine years after his departure, Middlebury is still dealing with the fallout of some of President Liebowitz’s financial decisions.” 

The Justice spoke with Prof. Carol Osler (IBS) over email on Aug. 30 regarding the potential concerns that could arise as a result of this vote. Osler shared a document with The Justice detailing these concerns, the first being that the previously mentioned necessary capital campaign would become even more delayed. Osler’s document also noted that this potential vote would take away the trust that donors have in the University due to their personal relationships with Liebowitz, leading to less secured fundraising. Osler also shared that many of the financial deficits that began prior to Liebowitz’s presidency, and doesn’t believe that switching presidents will solve the changes needing to be made to repair the structural deficit.

One more document that was provided prior to the June 5 meeting aimed to correct claims made during the May 30 meeting. This document was put together by Prof. Sacha Nelson (BIOL) and Prof. Michael Rosbash (BIOL). It clarified that while many faculty have been concerned with the lack of a capital campaign, the campaign is just in its “quiet phase” and is on track according to letters from Liebowitz that were received by students, faculty and staff in 2022 and 2024. The document also addressed claims of poor fundraising, stating, “Although it is correct that there was a drop in new gifts and pledges as measured by the first two-year sum during the beginning of Ron's term, this is expected during presidential transitions. The last completed two-year sum (2022-2023) was $169M, double the first two-year sum of Ron's term and the highest since 2007-08.”

The final point argued by Nelson and Rosbash was that the Shapiro Science 2A project has not negatively impacted the current financial crisis of the University. Instead, they explained that “[there] was no bond issued and a major reason listed for postponing the project was to avoid the debt service at this time. This was shared in a letter from Carol, Ron and Stew Uretsky to the Science 2A Stakeholder Representative Group on March 1, 2024. This plan was shared with and approved by the Board.” The conclusion of the document was that more time should have been spent when crafting the motion for the vote of no confidence to ensure that all facts were correct, and they encouraged everyone to attend the June 5 meeting.

Faculty gathered on Zoom for the second special faculty meeting on June 5, resuming the previous conversation regarding the proposed motion. At this meeting, the chat function was heavily utilized in addition to speaking aloud as members of faculty debated different sides of the argument. 

It was pointed out by Prof. Plotz that Liebowitz was not present at this meeting either. Faculty discussed the difficulty that they have been having regarding receiving information requested from administration, with Prof. Amy Singer (HIST/NEJS/IMES) stating: “Ron’s latest distribution of material gives us no new data, despite the claims. Our experience has been that every request for additional and more granular information has yielded pretty much the same result.” This statement was also echoed by Madeline Leonardos, who is a data analyst for the Institute for Child, Youth, and Family Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management. Leonardos stated, “If this university was functioning properly, it would not be so difficult to find the evidence needed to make an informed decision here.” The sentiment of lack of transparent information was mirrored by Prof. Mayorga, as she expressed, “In this moment, when Pres. Liebowitz’s approach to campus decision-making is in question (e.g. lack of a strategic plan, transparency, and accountability) we have gotten more of the same “Background” document. That to me signals that we have not misunderstood Pres. Liebowitz’s leadership, but characterized it accurately. This is why we must act now and call the question.”

During this meeting, faculty also expressed unhappiness with the recent layoffs, and explained how they have harmed the community in multiple ways. Prof. ChaeRan Freeze (NEJS/WGS) explained that “the loss of our precious staff means the loss of institutional knowledge. The departure of people like Kate Stutz who was the director of pre health advising has left many pre-med students in the lurch. I have heard from so many students about the challenges they are facing because of this one departure. Imagine what it will be like with the loss of so many staff members.” The recent layoffs were also cited as a reason for the vote of no confidence to continue moving forward, as Heller School Senior Research Associate Robert Ressler stated, “this faculty body has already moved too slow to save our lost staff colleagues.”

After much discussion, the meeting concluded with a vote regarding potentially postponing this motion until the fall. The votes came in as 52% yes, 45% no and 3% abstain. The next faculty meeting is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 13 at 2 p.m. in the Rapaporte Treasure Hall, and this conversation is set to resume then. 

In an email exchange with The Justice on Sept. 5, Prof. Mayorga continued to share her support for the motion. Mayorga stated that “in comparison to the growth that Brandeis’s peers have experienced across multiple areas during his presidency, Brandeis has fallen behind.” She also shared her plans to discuss the data that she has collected at this upcoming faculty meeting. Mayorga expressed her understanding regarding the caution many think is necessary when it comes to the vote, but explained that she now feels that doing nothing is reckless and “for [herself] and those in favor of this vote of no confidence, [their] support comes from a place of care for students and faculty and staff colleagues, as well as a commitment to Brandeis’s long-term success.” She expressed hope in the vote after further discussion regarding state of affairs and future conversations regarding what kind of leadership is truly needed.

When requested from Brandeis communications, Prof. Gannit Ankori (FA/WGS) received the statement “Ron is taking a 10 percent pay cut, and members of the President's Management

Council will not get raises this year.” Professors across campus are all prepping their arguments ahead of this Friday’s faculty meeting, where the motion for the vote of no confidence will be brought up once again.

This sentiment regarding conversations surrounding a good leader was echoed by graduate student representative Cox as he detailed some qualities that a new president would benefit from. When asked to speak on this topic, Cox stated, “I think one would be someone that has a track record of raising funds, two I think someone that’s collaborative, who is proactive in coming forward and creating conversations, and including everyone in the community in the critical conversations about the future of this university.” Cox also stressed the importance of having a leader “who is empathetic and is concerned about the wellbeing of everyone in the environment,” which to him includes all staff, faculty vendors and contractors that work on campus. Lastly, Cox said that “with the nature of all that’s happening in the world today, we need a leader who is able to bring people together, who is able to facilitate an environment where different viewpoints and concerns, issues and perspectives can exist together in harmony.”

Over an email exchange on Sept. 6, Assistant Vice President of Communications Julie Jette shared with The Justice that “it will be up to the faculty to determine the future of the motion that was put forward last spring. Over the summer, the administration has provided a great deal of information at the request of the faculty. We also provided opportunities for faculty and staff to meet with University leaders in order to share information and answer questions. Our faculty and staff hold a wide range of viewpoints and positions regarding Brandeis, and President Liebowitz will continue to engage in dialogue with our entire community over the many issues that are currently facing us and higher education overall.”