Joint Committee on Retrenchment:
Advisory Recommendations to the President

Executive Summary

The Joint Committee on Retrenchment (JCR) was formed in December 2024, following the procedures in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and subsequent Memorandum of Understanding.  In this report, the JCR details its proposal that reduces academic expenditures through voluntary separations, eliminates faculty positions, programs and departments, and identifies novel, viable, and sustainable sources of academic revenue.  In taking these actions, The University of Akron can address its financial issues while purposefully and explicitly avoiding retrenchment and its harmful effects on the community. Through voluntary separations in units not identified for retrenchment, UA will save $817,261 (includes replacement costs). Further voluntary separations in affected units (2025-2027), generate projected savings of $4,297,218 (see Table 1). Together this represents 116% of the savings projected in the original retrenchment proposal ($4,405,251=Proposal #1, JCR= Proposal #2, President Nemer=Proposal #3).  We also identified new and sustainable revenue sources that will conservatively generate $2,000,000 by 2026, achieving 162% of the financial impact of the original proposal.

The JCR extends its gratitude to the faculty that voluntarily separated for their considerable sacrifice in service of the long-term health of their programs and the university. We understand that these are life-changing decisions and sincerely thank them. 

Proposal #1 identified faculty reduction targets across seven departments.  Three of those departments (Myers School of Art, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and History) met their targets through voluntary separations and are no longer subject to retrenchment. For the remaining units, the JCR proposes a set of solutions that together can avoid retrenchment of faculty. For all remaining units, the JCR recommends working with the Akron-AAUP to identify individuals interested in a deferred separation.

Specifically, Proposal #1 recommended dissolution of the Physics department and retrenchment of its six faculty. JCR recommends the Physics department to be eliminated, three faculty retained (moved to either Math or Chemistry to support Physics education essential to engineering and pre-med), and three faculty lines reduced through deferred retirement or other separation agreements. Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering needs an additional 1.7 faculty positions to meet the target in Proposal #1, after accounting for voluntary separations. They proposed programs to improve enrollment that are promising, and the JCR is confident that these revenues will offset the unmet 1.7 positions. If increased SCH generation and/or voluntary separations do not achieve the needed savings after 2 years, the JCR recommends eliminating 1.7 positions.  The School of Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering was recommended for retrenchment of 10 positions in Proposal #1, which was reduced by four voluntary separations. Given the value of PSPE to the UA brand, the JCR recommends pursuit of deferred retirements and a movement toward R1 workload and graduate assistant policies and practices to allow retention of remaining faculty who can maintain the research output of this unit. Anthropology was recommended for program suspension, department elimination, and retrenchment of its six faculty in Proposal #1. Recognizing the contribution of Anthropology to General Education credits, and the necessity of 'teaching out' current majors, the JCR recommends dissolution of the Anthropology degree and department, moving four faculty to other departments and reducing two positions via deferred separations. As of the writing of this recommendation, most but not all of the recommended deferred separations are in process and the JCR assumes that these agreements will be finalized prior to the President’s final recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

The JCR solicited "Big Idea" proposals from the entire campus community.  Several were forwarded to units for direct evaluation (including a review of Athletics expenditures). Six were chosen to develop full proposals.  From these, two have been implemented (expansion of summer course offerings, civil engineering graduate courses across Ohio institutions), and the remainder have implementation plans. Together these proposals are projected to increase revenues by $2-3 million in the next two years. 

Preamble

On November 19, 2024, the president of The University of Akron formally initiated the retrenchment process, as outlined in Article 15 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the University and Akron-AAUP. In compliance with the provisions of the CBA, the provost subsequently notified the deans of the affected units or programs, informing them of the proposed reductions in specific units. These proposed reductions were based on relevant data and the circumstances permitted under the CBA.

In adherence to the process outlined in the CBA, the Joint Committee on Retrenchment (JCR) was formed to develop an independent proposal to be presented for consideration to the president and the Board of Trustees. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the JCR process, detail the actions taken, and present the resulting recommendations for the president’s and Board's review and consideration.

Given that Article 15 has never been invoked prior to this occasion and recognizing that all subsequent actions could set a precedent, the JCR deemed it necessary to outline in this preamble the steps taken and actions followed in developing the recommendations presented herein. Having now been through the process, all members agree that it was positive and productive and should serve as a model.

Overview of the Joint Committee on Retrenchment (JCR)

Article 15, Section 4 of the CBA defines the role and structure of the JCR. The process was facilitated by the provost, who served as an ex officio member of the committee. The provost, in collaboration with the Akron-AAUP president, selected the committee members, ensuring that both administrative and faculty perspectives were represented. Specifically, the provost selected three individuals from the administration, while the Akron-AAUP president selected three bargaining unit faculty (BUF) members. Committee members were chosen for their relevant expertise, experience, and willingness to engage in the process with a collaborative, open-minded, and UA-centered approach.

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)

To ensure the smooth functioning of the JCR and to address specific challenges that arose during the process, two Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) were developed. Although Article 15 did not specifically address the inclusion of stakeholders in the process, the first MOU allowed the JCR to invite any relevant stakeholders, including the president of The University of Akron and the president of Akron-AAUP, to engage in discussions. Both individuals were invited early in the process, and their involvement led to the creation of the second MOU.

The second MOU recognized the challenges posed by the timing of the retrenchment process, particularly due to the holiday season and the fact that faculty were not on contract during a significant portion of the timeline. In response to these challenges, the timeline for the JCR process was extended to ensure adequate time for thorough discussions and for a more inclusive process that would solicit input from stakeholders across the campus community. As a result, the due date for the JCR proposal to the president was revised from February 21, 2025, to April 4, 2025. Corresponding adjustments were made to all other deadlines, including the notice date to faculty, which is now scheduled for April 25, 2025.

Alternative Proposal Development Process

Upon finalizing the timeline, the Joint Committee on Retrenchment (JCR) outlined a structured process for developing an alternative proposal. It became clear early in the process that while the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) stipulated the need for recommendations from affected units, it did not explicitly address how to solicit input from other stakeholders across the University. To ensure a more comprehensive and inclusive process, the committee introduced the “Big Idea” pre-proposal framework, which was designed to gather ideas from all areas of the University, regardless of division or unit. The process was implemented as follows:

1. Campus-wide Call for Ideas: A notice was distributed across campus, inviting submissions of “Big Ideas” that could potentially lead to increased enrollment and/or revenue, as well as decreased expenditures at The University of Akron.
2. Pre-Proposal Submission Requirements: These ideas were required to be submitted as a one-page executive summary. Each submission was to outline the activities, units, and resources involved, along with the anticipated impact and timeline for realizing the benefits.
3. Review and Discussion of Pre-Proposals: Upon receipt, the pre-proposals were carefully reviewed and discussed in detail by the JCR. This allowed the committee to assess each idea’s potential and feasibility.
4. Selection of Viable Ideas for Further Development: Pre-proposals identified as having significant, positive, and timely impact—while also being realistic in terms of resource investment—were selected for further development.
   1. Proposals identified as "good ideas," but with less immediate impact or longer implementation timelines, were returned to the authors with encouragement to continue developing them. In certain cases, the JCR facilitated connections between the authors and the relevant campus divisions capable of supporting the advancement of these initiatives. Please see Appendix 2 for a summary sheet of all ideas that were advanced for further consideration.
   2. Additionally, a proposal was submitted addressing perceived issues within Athletics at the University. The JCR acknowledged the value of the pre-proposal and the analysis it contained; however, it was determined that the proposal fell outside the JCR's scope of responsibility. A discussion was held with the president, during which the pre-proposal was presented. At the president's request, the "big idea" was forwarded directly to him for further consideration.
5. Assignment of Champions: Each selected pre-proposal was assigned a “champion” to support the development of a full proposal. Recognizing that not all stakeholders had access to the same data or insights (such as cost/savings analyses, enrollment trends, or University policies), one of the three administrative members of the JCR was designated to act as a liaison for each proposal. The champion’s role was to facilitate discussions, answer questions, and ensure that each proposal remained grounded in the proper context.
6. Unit Recommendation Review: While the full proposals were being developed, the recommendations from the affected units were received, reviewed, and discussed by the JCR.
7. Final Recommendations of the JCR: The JCR ultimately reached independent conclusions regarding the necessary reductions within the affected units. The alternative proposal was formulated, encompassing both recommendations for reductions and strategies for revenue generation, including the incorporation of ideas from the “Big Idea” proposals.

It is important to emphasize that throughout this process, discussions remained grounded in realism, collegiality, and a commitment to the long-term sustainability of the University. The JCR was open to differing perspectives and disagreements, with a shared understanding that the committee's recommendations should reflect a balance between the faculty’s perspective and the institution’s needs.  The committee operated with the belief that the proposal represented the most pragmatic path forward as seen through a faculty lens, with the administrators acting as contextual “sounding boards.” Nevertheless, it was purposefully designed to be a sensible and realistic solution to the University’s enrollment and expenditure challenges.

The resulting proposal, therefore, reflects an effort to provide an alternative that is aligned with the values and priorities of the faculty, while addressing the broader financial and operational challenges facing the University. The committee, especially those representing the faculty, should be commended for their willingness to participate, deliberate, and advocate for their colleagues as well as the health of the University.

Retrenchment Recommendations

Each of the seven units recommended for retrenchment submitted to the JCR their unit recommendations to the proposed retrenchments. Full responses for each unit proposed for retrenchment are attached in the appendices. The JCR reviewed these responses and considered each in terms of the eight extenuating circumstances noted in Article 15, Section 4.B.

The final recommendations of the JCR are as follows.

Units Attaining Proposed Retrenchments via Voluntary Separations

Myers School of Art

The School of Art was originally recommended for a retrenchment of five faculty because of “significant reduction in enrollment of a college, department, or program continuing over five (5) or more academic semesters (not including summer) and which is expected to persist.” The school had one faculty separate in an unrelated action between July 1, 2023 and July 1, 2025, which was counted towards this target total. There were an additional four voluntary separations since the announcement of anticipated retrenchment, and thus the target of five retrenched faculty was met in this school. The total savings (salaries + fringe benefits) from the proposed retrenchment of five faculty would have been $466,390.  The actual savings from the five voluntary separations is $548,736. Thus, there was a net gain of $82,346 over the originally proposed retrenchment for this unit.

The committee wishes to commend the school for proactively revising its curriculum to accommodate the loss of faculty members. In doing so, the school has identified further efficiencies which are unaccounted for in any financial analyses herein, but, if realized, will inevitably aid in reaching our goals.

Electrical and Computer Engineering

The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering was originally recommended for a retrenchment of three faculty because of “significant reduction in enrollment of a college, department, or program continuing over five or more academic semesters (not including summer) and which is expected to persist.” The department had two faculty separate in unrelated actions between July 1, 2023 and July 1, 2025, which are counted towards this target total. There were an additional two voluntary separations since the announcement of anticipated retrenchment, and thus the target of three retrenched faculty was exceeded. The total savings (salaries + fringe benefits) from the proposed retrenchment of three faculty would have been $305,640.  The actual savings from the four voluntary separations is $818,716. Thus, there was a net gain of $513,076 over the originally proposed retrenchment in this unit.

History

The Department of History was originally recommended for a retrenchment of two faculty because of “significant reduction in enrollment of a college, department, or program continuing over five or more academic semesters (not including summer) and which is expected to persist.” The department had two voluntary separations since the announcement of anticipated retrenchment, one separating at the end of this year and the other at the end of academic year 25/26.  Thus, History’s target is considered to be met. The total savings (salaries + fringe benefits) from the proposed retrenchment of two faculty would have been $205,735.  The actual savings from the two voluntary separations is $301,874. Thus, there was a net gain of $96,139 over the originally proposed retrenchment in this unit.

JCR Retrenchment Recommendations for Additional Identified Units

Physics

The Department of Physics was originally recommended for a retrenchment of five faculty because of “modification, elimination, or suspension leading to elimination of an academic program(s) that requires the reduction or replacement of bargaining unit faculty.” The department had one voluntary separation since the announcement of anticipated retrenchment, for total savings of $136,178. The total savings (salaries + fringe benefits) from the proposed retrenchment of all five faculty would have been $944,368. Thus, the voluntary separation is $808,190 below the originally proposed retrenchment.

The retrenchment response from the Department of Physics made a persuasive argument that physics courses are foundational to both engineering and pre-medical students and thus retaining high-quality physics teachers on UA’s main campus is important to maintaining strong majors in those areas and for UA’s brand. A strong letter of support from the dean of the College of Engineering and Polymer Science underscores the importance of quality physics instruction to engineering majors. Physics’ response also noted that due to low enrollment, physics courses may not need to be offered at the Wayne campus.  They noted that if enrollment at Wayne increases in the future, the courses will not need to be taught by tenure-track instructors.

The JCR concluded that the lack of any major degrees offered by the Department of Physics warrants the dissolution of the department.  However, the Committee also recognizes that the current physics instructors are providing excellent physics instruction to our students (see supporting letters in Physics’ response).  Thus, we recommend moving the physics faculty into either the Departments of Chemistry or Math and transitioning down from the current six faculty (five BUF + one Chair) to three BUF over a 2–3-year period via deferred retirement over that time frame. Such a transition would eliminate half the current faculty but retain the high-quality instruction of physics courses needed in both engineering and pre-med degrees. If the three faculty who have the potential to retire do so by 7/1/2027, a total savings of $476,127 would be realized at that time.  A fourth faculty has agreed to relinquish tenure by 7/1/2026 and then be re-hired as a professor of practice on a terminal three-year contract, which is projected to save ~$150,000/yr. If implemented, these changes would bring physics within ~$182,000 of the provost’s original target.

Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering

The Corrosion Engineering Program was originally recommended for a retrenchment of three faculty because of “modification, elimination, or suspension leading to elimination of an academic program(s) that requires the reduction or replacement of bargaining unit faculty.” An additional two Department of Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering faculty were recommended for a retrenchment due to “reorganization of departments, schools, or colleges that reduces the need for bargaining unit faculty by improving efficiency.”  The latter was part of the provost’s recommendation of a merger of the Department of Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering with the Department of Chemistry and the School of Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering into an unnamed new unit. A revision of the provost’s original recommendation for the Department of Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering was to retrench 4.7 total faculty. The department had one faculty separate in an unrelated action between July 1, 2023 and July 1, 2025, which is counted towards this target total. There were an additional two voluntary separations since the announcement of anticipated retrenchment. Thus, as of March 2025, three of the recommended 4.7 faculty have been eliminated from the Department’s faculty lines. The total savings (salaries + fringe benefits) from the proposed retrenchment of five faculty would have been $645,197. The actual savings from the two voluntary separations is $304,741. The salary of the one additional separation between 2023 and 2025 is $150,441, for a total reduction of $455,182. Thus, the voluntary separation is $190,015 below the originally proposed retrenchment.

The JCR was impressed by the department’s outreach to regional high schools and the proposed 3+2 program to recruit international students into their MS program. The JCR agrees with the department that these combined efforts have a high probability of increasing student credit hour (SCH) production in the next 3-5 years.

The departmental response also noted that they do not favor the proposed merger of Chemistry, Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering and the School of Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering into an unnamed new unit.  As the departmental response noted, all three existing units have their own unique identities, with corresponding reputations, and it was not at all clear how merging these units would be beneficial to UA.  Additionally, it is not at all clear what efficiencies would be created that would reduce the need for faculty in the merged unit.  Given that all named units in the proposed merger oppose it (see below), and that cost savings are not obvious, the JCR recommends against the merger.

The JCR recommends a combination of program development, targeted recruitment efforts, workload assignments in related departments to cover unfilled load, and deferred retirements over a two-year period to allow the Department of Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering Department to realize its projected SCH increases while also reducing its faculty.  If after that two-year period, the increased SCH generation combined with the retirements do not achieve the cost savings achieved by 1.7 additional recommended reductions, the JCR recommends retrenching the remaining line(s).  In the latter case, the retrenched faculty would be separated on an accelerated schedule using an MOU with the AAUP to allow such an accelerated retrenchment.

Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering

The School of Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering (SPSPE) was originally recommended for a retrenchment of 10 faculty because of “reorganization of departments, schools, or colleges that reduces the need for bargaining unit faculty by improving efficiency” from the above noted recommendation to merge the SPSPE with the Departments of Chemistry and Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering the into an unnamed unit. The school had two faculty separate in unrelated actions between July 1, 2023 and July 1, 2025, which are counted towards this target total. Thus, the new target is eight total faculty lines. The total savings (salaries + fringe benefits) from the proposed retrenchment of 10 faculty would have been $1,567,229. The actual savings from the two voluntary separations is $489,190. Two additional retirements are scheduled for the end of the 25/26 academic year, which would yield an additional $529,413 savings. Thus, the voluntary separation is $548,626 below the originally proposed retrenchment.

The JCR agrees with the response by the SPSPE that the proposed merger would damage the reputation that the school has built over the years, both on a regional basis and internationally. The school has excellent industry connections, in Ohio and more broadly, which could be diminished by such a proposed merger.  Generally, it is difficult for the JCR to determine the exact nature of the proposed merger, since it was broadly described. The determination of the effects of a merger, as well as efficiencies gained by merging with the two other proposed units, are exceptionally difficult to parse. The JCR was convinced by both the responses of the SPSPE, the Department of Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering, and a letter from the Department of Chemistry that the proposed merger does not appear to benefit the affected units and may, in fact, have negative effects on all three units.  The negative effect on the SPSPE could well be the most dramatic because of their current excellent reputation.

The response of the SPSPE suggested that their “faculty members generate a research expenditure of $280,000/FTE, which is comparable to research productivity of R1 programs.” The JCR discussed this claim and noted that the remaining units at the University of Akron are considered as R2 programs. The JCR recommends that if the SPSPE should maintain the current staffing level, that it be transitioned over a 2-3 -year period to follow the R1 norm of fully funding its graduate students on grants (i.e., paying for both stipend and tuition) as well as buying out of teaching to attain teaching loads lower than the standard 2+2 loads for programs that offer a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. (as per 3359-20-03.2).

Anthropology

The Department of Anthropology was originally recommended for a retrenchment of six faculty because of “modification, elimination, or suspension leading to elimination of an academic program(s) that requires the reduction or replacement of bargaining unit faculty.” The total savings (salaries + fringe benefits) from the proposed retrenchment of six faculty would have been $576,333.

The JCR recognizes that the suspension of the Anthropology program was abrupt and notes that the department has filed a grievance that will need to be resolved that could negate the recommendations discussed below.

The response of the Department of Anthropology well-articulated their important contributions to the teaching of various General Education (GE) courses, and a supportive letter from the GEAC suggests that UA does not have enough GE courses in other units to absorb the loss of the GE classes taught by Anthropology.  The department noted that there would need to be a teach-out period for existing Anthropology students which would necessitate the offering of various important Anthropology courses over a 3–4-year timeframe, given the recency of the program suspension. Additionally, the JCR thought that existing coursework in medical anthropology might attract a variety of students interested in healthcare, including pre-medical majors, and thus should be retained. Moreover, medical anthropology coursework (packaged as a certificate) may be an attractive 'off-ramp' for pre-medical students to stay at UA even after they realize that medical school is not realistic.

Overall, if the suspension of the Anthropology program is not overturned via the pending grievance, the JCR recommends that the Department of Anthropology be dissolved but that four of the six faculty be retained to continue to teach the high-quality GE classes as well as to be able to offer medical anthropology coursework.  The JCR thinks that the four faculty could be distributed to the College of Health and Human Sciences (2), the Department of Biology (1) and the Department of Sociology (1). The remaining two faculty could be phased out via deferred retirements over a 2–3-year period, which would also allow for the teach-out needed for current Anthropology students.  One Anthropology faculty has agreed to take deferred retirement, at a savings of $101,199 (Table 1). One additional Anthropology faculty will need to either voluntarily retire or an accelerated retrenchment will be implemented to reduce the faculty by one additional person. We project that this additional separation will save ~$80,000/yr (Table 1). As noted for Chemical, Biomolecular, and Corrosion Engineering, if two Anthropology faculty do not voluntarily retire, then an MOU with the AAUP to allow an accelerated retrenchment will need to be developed. These projected separations will bring Anthropology within ~$395,000 of the provost’s original target.

Savings Generated via the JCR Recommendations

Using the rules outlined in Article 15 of the CBA for how faculty are retrenched (e.g., by rank, years served, etc.), we estimate that the savings (salary + benefits) to UA generated using the provost’s original plan would be $4,405,251.  The confirmed savings that have already accrued via voluntary separations is $2,749,876 (Table 1).  The above plan would add additional projected savings of $1,547,341 by July of 2027 (Table 1). Thus, the total savings using the above plan would be $4,297,217, which is 98% of the savings outlined in the provost’s original plan.  The JCR feels that the added revenue generated by the four Big Idea plans would more than make up for the ~$108,000 difference.

We believe the above plan allows the retention of high-quality teaching and research while also avoiding the exceptionally negative press of another round of faculty layoffs. UA can reach 98% of the provost’s original goal while also increasing revenue to make up that 2% difference. In fact, we could potentially turn public sentiment around by noting that UA underwent a collaborative process on campus between administrators and faculty to generate cost savings (i.e., voluntary separations) and increased revenue (i.e., Big Ideas) that more than made up for the need to retrench faculty. That would certainly inject some good news into our region, which could help to maintain our current optimistic enrollment numbers this year.

Big Idea Recommendations

The JCR’s evaluation found each Big Idea to have merit.  Proposals were categorized as “Ideas Implemented”, “Recommended for Implementation”, or “Have Potential”. The key aspects of each recommendation are briefly listed below. Please see Appendix 2 for the executive summary of each of the Big Idea full proposals for additional details. 

Ideas implemented

The “Expanded Course Offerings in Summer” was implemented to increase revenue starting summer 2025 by offering more revenue positive classes estimated to generate $450,000 in additional revenue. The proposed idea moving forward for summer 2026 is to grow incentives to increase new revenue to over $2 million by offering more revenue positive courses with an optimized summer schedule.

The “Shared Graduate Courses with Local Universities” is recommended to be started under the existing 2011 MOU, where a pilot for civil engineering courses would be offered across UA, Cleveland State University and Youngstown State. We recommend that the Office of Academic Affairs renegotiate the MOU to include University of Toledo. The pilot could then be used to optimize the process before building it out to include other departments across campus. The approach is in line with Ohio legislators’ desire for public universities to share resources. Participation from 10 UA graduate students would yield $4,180 SSI course completion and another $1,672 per student for degree completion if the student graduates in that semester.

Ideas Recommended for Implementation

The JCR found “Akron IS Health” proposal to contain very favorable, growth minded aspects such as creating an intercollege health committee and formation of an alumni advisory board, and we therefore recommend its implementation. The JCR agrees with the proposers that providing a potential earlier alternative for pre-med students would have substantial potential impact on retention and graduation rates. The proposers did not ask for resources in year 1, which the JCR found to be very practical. Additionally, the proposal outlined modest requests in year two, after verification that the approach worked, which the JCR also found to be reasonable. 

“Create a School Focusing on Public Affairs” was thought to have high potential and thus was recommended for implementation by the JCR. A school that involves faculty from the Departments of Anthropology, Criminal Justice Studies, Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology encompasses cost savings, assists with teaching loads and cross-disciplinary research.  The committee recommends that as this moves forward, there should be efficiencies across curriculum as described in the John Glen Ohio State University example.

Idea with Potential that JCR recommends for Future Development

The “UA Sustainability Institute” proposal outlined several good ideas for how to leverage UA’s strengths in the School of Polymer Science and Polymer Engineering (SPSPE) by creating a Sustainability Institute to attract students to UA. The proposers outline that sustainability is a growing area in industry and could be the best way for the SPSPE to develop a robust undergraduate program. However, due to current financial limitations, as well as the extended timeframe by which increased revenue would be generated, the JCR considered the proposal too costly to forward as a big idea at this time. We recommend that the proposers use next year to establish the proposed committee to begin the proposed coalition across campus and implement as many key aspects as possible without a large resource allocation.

Closing Statement

In conclusion, the Joint Committee on Retrenchment has diligently worked to address the challenging issue of faculty retrenchment with the utmost consideration for the well-being of both the faculty members and the institution as a whole. Throughout our extensive deliberations, we have sought to balance fiscal responsibility with academic integrity, striving to ensure that any decisions made would be in the best interest of the university’s long-term goals, the students, and the faculty. The committee spent significant time carefully reviewing the proposals, recommendations, letters of support, data, ideas, and responses. The committee would like to thank everyone involved in compiling and submitting this information and those faculty who volunteered to separate from the University early – it is clear that every person at the University of Akron cares about the future success of the institution and its students.

We acknowledge the complexities and emotional weight associated with the retrenchment process and recognize the profound impact it has on the individuals involved. Therefore, it is our hope that the recommendations outlined in this report will provide a fair, transparent, and equitable approach to handling faculty retrenchment, while ensuring that all due process and support systems are in place for those affected.  We assert that our deliberative and inclusive procedure can serve as a model for future structural change at the University of Akron.

We encourage the president and Board of Trustees to carefully consider our findings and recommendations, as we believe they will guide the institution toward a sustainable and thoughtful resolution. Ultimately, it is our collective goal to maintain the university's academic excellence while addressing the financial challenges that have led to this difficult decision.

Thank you to all committee members, university administrators, Akron-AAUP, and faculty representatives for your time, effort, and commitment to this important matter.

Coming soon: The appendices to the Joint Committee on Retrenchment report will be available after review for adherence to FERPA and other administrative policies.