Future of Division III

[y_jack_lok]

^^^ Thanks for those insights/explanations.

[Kuiper]

Here is an article from the Muhlenberg student newspaper that has some updated info about the faculty and staff cuts discussed ealier

Muhlenberg Cuts Faculty and Staff to Combat $10 million Deficit

On May 19, 13 faculty received letters of non-reappointment following the 2026-2027 academic year, and nine staff members were laid off. Additionally, the administration announced that 16 vacant staff positions were eliminated.

These layoffs were made in an effort to address Muhlenberg's $10 million deficit. In a community message sent out to faculty and staff on May 19, President Kathleen Harring noted that the personnel changes will contribute $6 million to closing the deficit over the next two years, and that an additional $4 million will be contributed from the Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) operating budget savings, renegotiation of vendor contracts and other efforts. Harring emphasized in the message, "While the current budget deficit does not threaten the College's survival, it is very serious." Interim Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Larry Bomback noted that these strategic budget reductions "will account for about 40% of the savings under the current plan," including efforts like the closing of Martin Luther Hall.

According to Mules For Transparency, a student-led organization that hosts an archive from their Instagram page, five departments emailed students to communicate the loss of faculty in art, dance, public health, education and Italian. Harring stated in an updated FAQ on June 5 that a list of terminated faculty and staff has not been shared in order to protect privacy.

A previous FAQ shared with the campus community on May 27 by Harring and Provost Laura Furge stated that faculty and staff were first informed in December 2025 that one of the ways the College was attempting to balance its budget was by eliminating faculty and staff positions. However, faculty and staff have expressed confusion and frustration over how the decisions were made regarding which positions to eliminate.

Jane Carney '24 served as the Writing Center's assistant director for two years before her position was cut. "My previous position as assistant director of the Writing Center is unique in that it supports multiple legs of the institution. Most importantly, the position acts as a constant presence to ensure the Writing Program runs smoothly, from administrative duties to the daily mentoring of tutors. Writing can be challenging and vulnerable for college students, and there is an enormous stigma around asking for help. There needs to be institutional support in place for tutors and writers alike as they collaborate in these vulnerable spaces. Eliminating the full time assistant director position isn't simply 'trimming off the fat' of a costly program, it's a display of blatant indifference by administration."

An anonymous faculty member who received a letter of non-reappointment shared, "The FAQ [from May 27] makes it seem like there has been ongoing dialogue between the board [of trustees], administration and faculty about these layoffs, which I find to be misleading. Throughout the semester, faculty have been urging the administration to provide us with clarity on how these cuts would be made and which departments would be impacted. That simply did not happen. I'm also not sure how the administration can say layoffs were discussed meaningfully in faculty meetings when two meetings this semester ended due to a lack of quorum from a faculty walkout and boycott."

The same faculty member also noted concerns over the future of departments and programs with the loss of these employees. "The FAQ also claims that programs will not be eliminated. I am not sure how the administration can say that's true. Across the non-reappointment meetings with the Provost, it's my understanding that multiple faculty members asked for clarity and questioned how their programs would continue to run due to these cuts. No clear plan was provided. The FAQ tells students to contact their department chair and program coordinator if they have questions about their programs. How are we supposed to answer questions for students if the administration won't answer ours?"

Furge shared that she has been working alongside department chairs to move towards a 12:1 student to faculty ratio through the implementation of the new weekly course schedule in fall 2026 and increasing course caps, amongst other efforts to ensure a smooth transition.

One faculty member given a letter of non-reappointment is unlikely to return for the 2026-2027 academic year. Bruno Bohn, who joined Muhlenberg's Public Health department at the start of the 2025-2026 academic year, stated, "I find it [the non-reappointment offer] to be an affront to the original terms of my hiring as a tenure track assistant professor; this is completely unaligned with the goals, sacrifices and rewards of an academic career. I feel betrayed by the people and the institutions that were supposed to look out for me and my career."

Anh Le's departure after the 2026-2027 academic year means that Muhlenberg will no longer be able to offer introductory history courses in East and Southeast Asian history. His work was often interdisciplinary, and he stated that his leaving will "deeply weaken Asian Studies and International Studies" amongst other programs. He continued, "This layoff sends a troubling message about the College's priorities. At a time when students need rigorous knowledge of Asia, global political economy, migration, empires and international affairs more than ever, reducing institutional capacity in these areas risks narrowing the scope of a liberal arts education. Disinvestment from area studies, international studies, language education and humanistic inquiry is not only shortsighted; it diminishes the College's ability to prepare students for an increasingly complex world."

As a response to these terminations, the Faculty Personnel and Policies Committee (FPPC) composed a letter addressed to Harring and members of Muhlenberg's Board of Trustees focused on concerns regarding the decision-making process and shared governance. The letter identifies a concern shared by many members of the community: "The issue is not whether this institution faces real challenges. It is whether those challenges are being met with the level of clarity, consistency and leadership that this moment requires. The gap between what is being communicated and what is being experienced across the community is too significant to ignore."

In correspondence with the campus community, the administration stated that decisions about which positions were eliminated were not made based on personal performance but rather data and factors like student demand and institutional priorities. However, the FPPC letter argues that how these factors are measured have not been clarified by administration. Additionally, the Financial Stewardship Plan shared by Harring and Board of Trustees Chair Lance R. Bruck on May 21 emphasizes investing in select programs, but according to the FPPC, several of the cuts seem misaligned with those areas of growth, like the recently approved musical theater major and 4+1 program. While these layoffs are intended to save the College $6 million in the next two years, the FPPC states that "they also present significant risk to reputation, lost revenue (tuition and donations), possible legal costs and, though less tangible yet equally important, sense of community and shared mission."

In response to the community outcry, Harring and Furge shared in a June 5 FAQ, "The College's overarching goal is to balance the budget with minimal disruption to the student experience. The objective is to return to a 12:1 student faculty ratio while maintaining as robust offerings as possible for a wide variety of student needs and interests."

Harring also helped paint a picture of what other efforts the College is implementing to secure Muhlenberg's future. "In addition to implementing new strategies to strengthen enrollment, the College is expanding conference services and corporate sponsorships. In addition, the College continues to secure philanthropic support for strategic priorities and the institution at large and, as part of its strategic planning process, is laying the groundwork for our next comprehensive campaign."

[WUPHF]

Bruh...

One faculty member given a letter of non-reappointment is unlikely to return for the 2026-2027 academic year. Bruno Bohn, who joined Muhlenberg's Public Health department at the start of the 2025-2026 academic year, stated, "I find it [the non-reappointment offer] to be an affront to the original terms of my hiring as a tenure track assistant professor; this is completely unaligned with the goals, sacrifices and rewards of an academic career. I feel betrayed by the people and the institutions that were supposed to look out for me and my career.

[IC798891]

I mean, on the one hand, getting fired is unaligned with everyone's career goals, sacrifices, and rewards. We all sacrifice when we take one job and leave another. We all have goals. And most of us don't have the reward of tenure dangling in front of us at all. And, hey, this is higher ed in 2026. Job uncertainty just comes with the territory.

But on the other, the whole point of hiring someone on tenure track -- as opposed to the other lanes for faculty -- is in fact the implication that you do want them in your department for a significant amount of time, and that the person can in fact expect that they'll be there for the foreseeable future.

[MCScots2013]

The "look out for me and my" is the part that got me. The entitlement is laughable.

How about look out for 7 generations of alumni and be around for 7 more generations?

[Kuiper]

Bruh...

One faculty member given a letter of non-reappointment is unlikely to return for the 2026-2027 academic year. Bruno Bohn, who joined Muhlenberg's Public Health department at the start of the 2025-2026 academic year, stated, "I find it [the non-reappointment offer] to be an affront to the original terms of my hiring as a tenure track assistant professor; this is completely unaligned with the goals, sacrifices and rewards of an academic career. I feel betrayed by the people and the institutions that were supposed to look out for me and my career.

It's a tone deaf statement, but here's where I do get where he's coming from. Small liberal arts colleges these days frequently rely upon visiting professors rather than hiring professors on the tenure track.  That's because of the uncertainties associated with school budgets and student enrollment/demand.  It's part of the deal now for someone graduating with a PhD and going on the teaching market.  Therefore, when a school does hire someone for the tenure track, that's a  big, big deal.  The expectation is that the school has run the numbers and projected demand out for several years and has decided to make a commitment to that subject area and the need for a faculty slot.  It's not a lifetime commitment to that area and that faculty slot, but the assumption is that the school has decided they need someone for the foreseeable future.  Then, in hiring this person to a tenure-track spot and not a visiting spot, they signal that they are willing to give this person a couple of years to prove themselves worthy of that spot. 

What he seems upset about is that he was hired starting in 2025-2026 and didn't even last a full academic year before the school realized that it, in fact, did not have the resources, demand, and commitment it thought it did a year ago.  Even worse, it could suggest that the school never really fully made that commitment, but didn't tell him that and called it a tenure-track slot anyway, possibly to get him to accept the position. 

So, that's a longer way of saying what IC798891 said!

The "me and my" part that MCSots2103 referred to is also a little more understandable with context.  I don't think he's talking about Muhlenberg here.  He's upset that his PhD advisors and PhD institution, who were in a better position to gauge whether Muhlenberg was capable of honoring its commitment, failed to advise him well.  That's why he referred to "the people and institutions that were supposed to look out for me and my career."  At their advice, he may have even declined other tenure track offers or visiting offers at better schools to take this position and now he's at a disadvantage going back on the market.  Ultimately, it's his career and he was the one making the decision and responsible for the consequences of that decision, but his disappointment is understandable if he thinks he was steered in the wrong direction by bad or ill-informed advice.

His big mistake was saying this to students reporters at the school newspaper.  He should have saved it for his fellow junior colleagues or started the process of rebuilding his career by lining up glowing recs from Muhlenberg faculty and sending his resume everywhere to try to get a visiting gig somewhere.

[MCScots2013]

I get the whole tenure thing, I really do.  But, higher education acts as though they are immune to things "normal" businesses have to face.  These institutions are employers--were they really going to tell potential hires they are facing financial issues?  Do hiring committees owe a duty of care or loyalty to advise applicants on their careers as opposed to the best interest of the institution (ie. hiring the best available candidate)?  The answer to both are no.  Financial stress is a broad issue across the country for small private schools.  Should have been in the back of the mind.

Health is an in-demand industry.  I wish Bruno luck.  This will probably end up being a dump in the road in an otherwise good career. 

Edit to add clarification:  re-reading your post I think I misunderstood who the "advisors" where at first.  I guess his advisors at his school could have mentioned something, but I think it would be a stretch for an academic advisor to say "hey don't go to this school for xyz" unless they were in serious trouble like losing accreditation.  Still, those with PhD's are adults (not 18 year olds) and capable of understanding their industry and current market. 

[IC798891]

He may have even declined other tenure track offers or visiting offers at better schools to take this position and now he's at a disadvantage going back on the market

Yeah, I think this is really what he's getting at.

I worked for a now-defunct publishing company that --after I left-- closed almost without warning after getting bought out by a larger media company. Basically, they got called in and were told, "We're closing at the end of the week".

When one of the employees talked to me about it, he said he felt that the boss -- who of course was going to be a part of the new company -- told him that he didn't warn people because he wanted to finish the last thing the soon-to-be-defunct company was putting out, and he didn't think people would do it if they knew the company was closing.

I'm very glad I got out of there before that, and most of my colleagues found other (better) jobs quickly. But there was definitely a feeling of rug-pulling, and that anger was justified

[IC798891]

But, higher education acts as though they are immune to things "normal" businesses have to face.  These institutions are employers--were they really going to tell potential hires they are facing financial issues?

If you want to say that you're dealing with the same things "normal" businesses deal with, then hire the way a "normal" business does. Change it to a non-tenure track position.

But dangling the carrot of tenure -- something specific to academia that carries a promise of job security -- to attract candidates*, and then throwing your hands up 12 months later and say "Well, we're no different than any other employer" is nonsense.

*Because the minute you change it to non-tenure track, your applicant pool will shrink drastically.

[MCScots2013]

I agree with you. No one should have one year contracts as W2 employees.

[Kuiper]

I agree with you. No one should have one year contracts as W2 employees.

Employers want one year or one semester contracts as much as employees do in colleges and universities, even for non-tenured faculty.  It provides some theoretical deterrent and remedy if a professor disappeared in the middle of the semester without finishing their class and turning in grades.

[WUPHF]

The future of Division III is fewer tenure-track faculty lines, faculty layoffs, and faculty lamenting the lack of communication and transparency (or tough decisions, depending on your perspective) by the administration.

The past is prologue.

It is impossible to know, as many faculty are cross-listed, but I was looking at various Muhlenberg department website and the institution seems surprisingly well resourced or bloated, depending on your perspective.

[WUPHF]

His big mistake was saying this to students reporters at the school newspaper.  He should have saved it for his fellow junior colleagues or started the process of rebuilding his career by lining up glowing recs from Muhlenberg faculty and sending his resume everywhere to try to get a visiting gig somewhere.

Mistake is an understatement.

I do believe it is insane to suggest that he was betrayed by anyone in his PhD program or by people at Muhlenberg, whichever the case may be, though there may be more to the story.