As many readers will know, the Purdue-West Lafayette chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recently issued a statement urging the University Senate to pass a vote of no confidence in Provost Patrick Wolfe due to short-sighted decisions and non-transparent leadership. This understandably generated media coverage and discussion across campus and in the greater Lafayette community. This was a momentous decision that carries much professional risk. It is one we did not take lightly as a chapter. The following statement is intended to clarify who we are and what our role on campus is.
To start, what is the AAUP? Quite simply, the AAUP is the national organization representing faculty in higher education, with chapters at over 500 accredited colleges and universities across the country, including every Big Ten university and every Ivy League institution. Founded in 1915, the AAUP was the primary force in defining faculty tenure and developing principles of shared governance for American universities. Both of these principles are increasingly at risk across the United States.
At Purdue, the AAUP is one of the primary independent voices advocating for faculty rights. We understand ‘faculty’ to mean anyone who teaches or does research at the university, including graduate students, non-tenure-track faculty and lecturers, and research scientists.
Given our position as advocates, people from across campus regularly reach out to us with their concerns. And the vast majority of the communications we have received in the past two years revolve around our Provost. We encourage everyone to read the entire statement, which contains sixteen individual concerns, including issues related to hiring, due process, fairness, and transparency. (Although the search for the Dean of Purdue Libraries was finally completed earlier this month, we stand by our reporting of the other concerns listed in that statement.)
As our letter highlights, Provost Wolfe has consistently made decisions by fiat, without consulting faculty. Moreover, he has steadfastly refused to explain or justify these decisions, leaving faculty both disenfranchised and confused. Among our concerns, the letter highlights Provost Wolfe’s “[u]nilateral decisions to block faculty hires and refusal to sign offer letters.” On numerous occasions, after departments had vetted potential candidates and after the relevant College had signed off, Provost Wolfe simply refused to finalize the contract, leaving candidates’ futures in limbo and departments in confusion. The faculty has long had a central role in hiring, but overhauls of hiring processes have taken much of this power away and centralized it within the Provost’s office. And, as with other decisions, faculty were neither consulted in this process nor given adequate explanation.
Provost Wolfe’s actions, moreover, undercut the upward trajectory of the Honors College, ranked most recently in the top 8 in the nation. In April 2025, all seventeen faculty in the Honors College were told that they would undergo a realignment process and should pursue new homes in relevant disciplinary colleges. The reasons for this change were never discussed with the faculty. The process for the realignment was kept vague until several months later. Only after repeated requests for a transparent and ethical process did it become clear that the financial burden of their absorption into new disciplinary homes would need to be carried by the individual departments and would impact the departments’ prospects for future lines. At the same time, the Provost allegedly attempted to disincentivize such realignments in off-record conversations with department heads and deans. Despite these barriers, nine of the seventeen managed to secure job offers from departments outside the Honors College. Then, without explanation and in contradiction to previous reassurances offered to the University Senate, the Provost refused to approve the contracts for seven of them. This decision dismantles the academic infrastructure that supports dedicated faculty mentorship and program continuity, leaving students in an academically uncertain environment.
Faculty have sought answers from the administration about these issues through questions submitted to the University Senate, the official governing body of the faculty and the official point of contact between faculty and administration, but the responses have been consistently vague and ambiguous. Understandably, few individual faculty members feel they are in a position to speak up against the Provost’s decision-making. As Lisa Bosman, chair of the Senate’s Steering Committee, reported at the last Senate meeting, “[o]ver the past week, several Senators have also shared with me that they support the AAUP letter but are hesitant to express that support publicly out of concern about potential repercussions.” This situation highlights the need for the AAUP, an independent voice for faculty rights.
The Provost told Based in Lafayette that “[o]ur declared aspiration to become a Top 5 public university in the United States requires considered choices and trade-offs, and understandably such are bound to be uncomfortable for some.” This is a false dichotomy. Top universities excel across the curriculum and retain top faculty by honoring their expertise. Top universities value transparency and official processes, and they communicate decisions clearly. Top universities treat their faculty and staff with dignity. If you agree, then contact your senator and let them know they should support a vote of no confidence. And if you want to fight for a better Purdue, join the AAUP to help support shared governance and protect faculty rights.