Utah lawmakers may soon evaluate how public universities hold tenured professors accountable after a legislative audit found institutions struggle to correct instances in which faculty members are persistently poor teachers. According to a report published October 22, auditors analyzed 666 performance reviews conducted in 2024 and 2025, which are required by law for all tenured faculty, and found that only eight were issued a teaching improvement plan.
The audit revealed that many faculty members received satisfactory scores despite having overwhelmingly low evaluations from students. Auditors stated in a presentation to legislators this week that some students paid the price, noting that poor instruction can contribute to students abandoning majors and academic programs, including in high-demand fields Utah needs. Deans and department chairs described how much damage a single poor performer can inflict on a department when persistent underperformance is not corrected.
In some cases of misconduct or violation of policy, universities avoided the established termination process and instead negotiated separation agreements because university policies are often more complex and expensive than the standards established in Utah law. For example, a tenured faculty member who used a university purchasing card for personal expenses was offered a $175,000 payment, a reference letter from the provost, and a nondisclosure agreement in exchange for leaving their post and not suing the university. House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, questioned why it is so difficult to fire professors in the state, stating that the Legislature has allowed universities to add policies on top of statutes that make it very difficult to remove individuals even when they violate the law.
Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, described the practice of using separation agreements as irresponsible. Auditors identified the root cause of accountability issues as the traditional leadership model of academic departments, where a rotating system can undermine authority. Department chairs often face structural barriers such as a lack of time, training, and authority, and may have an incentive to keep the peace because they are set to rotate back into regular faculty ranks after their leadership tenure.
The audit recommends that the Legislature consider whether the minimum due process for removing tenured faculty specified in Utah code is excessive. Auditors also recommend that the Utah Board of Higher Education consider requiring universities not to establish dismissal processes that go beyond what the law requires. Additionally, the audit suggests redefining department chair roles to position them primarily as academic leaders rather than faculty members with secondary leadership responsibilities.
