Editor’s Note, 5/22 12:03 p.m.: This story has been edited to clarify that institutional neutrality is a longstanding policy of the university.
A week after his Congressional testimony, Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong told the Academic Senate on May 13 that he won’t sign a statement against federal intervention in higher education.
A fifth of Cal Poly faculty asked the university president to sign a statement from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) addressing the independent nature of universities and how it’s been threatened by federal actions.
Not all faculty agreed. Some opposed these efforts and said it is the wrong time to sign.
Armstrong’s decision comes as the Trump administration leverages universities’ federal funding over accusations of rampant antisemitism and liberalism, the Associated Press reported. On May 7, Armstrong became one of 10 university presidents involved in Congressional antisemitism hearings.
University spokesperson Matt Lazier said Armstrong’s decision reflects the policy on institutional neutrality, where Cal Poly “will refrain from taking positions on subjects that can be considered political and/or ideological in nature.”
Mustang News previously reported the university’s response to the AAC&U statement:
“Cal Poly cares deeply about its programming, faculty and academic freedom,” Lazier said in an email to Mustang News. “However, the university has no role in determining public policy and therefore will not be signing on to the letter.”
No policy action is listed on the AAC&U statement. However, faculty advocacy occurs alongside Harvard University’s heightened federal battle and proposed budget cuts to higher education.
What is the AAC&U statement?
The AAC&U published this statement on April 22 in response to recent federal actions, including federal funding cuts and institutional reforms. University presidents and higher education leaders helped design the statement at the AAC&U’s national meetings, the statement read.
The AAC&U statement’s 650+ signatures highlight a nationwide effort to “oppose undue government intrusion.” All ten UC campus chancellors, the UC system president, 17 Cal State campus presidents and 19 California community college presidents signed the statement as of Wednesday morning.
The AAC&U statement said federal intervention can limit higher education’s contributions to “American prosperity.”
For eight decades, the federal government invested billions in research funding to universities, the New York Times reported. This long-standing partnership made the United States a leader in scientific inquiry and innovation.
Since this partnership is in jeopardy, the AAC&U statement calls on the federal government to stabilize its relationship with universities.
While discussing the idea of the statement, college leaders were reluctant to speak out, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported. Some expressed concerns over board permission, donor outrage or federal retaliation.
Why do faculty want Armstrong’s signoff?
Faculty involved in this effort see the AAC&U statement as a way to stand in solidarity with American higher education and to reaffirm academic freedom.
Physics professor Thomas Gutierrez took a formalized approach by drafting an Academic Senate resolution.
The Academic Senate represents the faculty’s voice on university affairs. Gutierrez served as the previous Academic Senate chair for three years.
The current Academic Senate chair, Jerusha Greenwood, introduced the resolution on April 29. Then, it went to a vote at the May 13 meeting.
The resolution passed with more than a two-thirds majority, Greenwood said. On Friday, the resolution was sent to Armstrong.
At the Academic Senate meeting last week, five faculty told Armstrong to sign the statement. Two faculty supported Armstrong’s decision to not sign.
Armstrong said he’s worried it could threaten Cal Poly’s federal funding.
“I’m not going to put half a billion dollars of funding at risk,” Armstrong said at an Academic Senate meeting on May 13. “I’m not going to participate in that. I indicated I wouldn’t have signed it, absent the hearing. And we will just have to agree to disagree.”
Faculty speakers at the meeting cited censorship of pro-Palestinian speech and urged support for existing academic principles.
“In my opinion right now, there’s no real way to avoid making a political statement,” education professor Leah Wood said after Armstrong’s initial remarks. “This is a watershed moment and not signing, I think it is probably more of a political statement, even than signing.”
Armstrong said he’s “never seen anything like this” in regards to the current political pressure on higher education.
“We’re at a time that I never thought I would experience in my years,” Armstrong said. “But I also want to be very careful and deliberate about what we do and what we don’t do for the long-term sustainability of the university.”
Faculty’s joint letter
Todd Hagobian, kinesiology-public health department chair, and a small group of faculty took a different approach and sent a joint letter to Armstrong directly. It received nearly 300 signatures.
Hagobian and others emailed their joint letter to Armstrong on May 2. Within the hour, President Armstrong acknowledged their letter, according to Hagobian.
The letter is published without signatures to protect the safety of faculty signers.
The letter centers around three demands:
- Speak out publicly in support of Harvard University. Their leadership lost billions in funding because of their refusal to follow federal demands, according to the Associated Press.
- Sign the AAC&U statement
- Reach out to the presidents of the other Cal State campuses to do the same
Hundreds of faculty members signed the letter, a response unexpected by Hagobian.
“I didn’t think it was going to be that high,” Hagobian said. “I thought it wasn’t going to be because I didn’t think it was going to reach people.”
Some faculty held concerns about retaliation ahead of the May 7 hearing. Greenwood characterized their sentiment, saying Armstrong’s signature could be played up as “extra ammunition” ahead of a “contentious” hearing.
“I would argue that even if inconvenient or risky, faculty should still ask their President to stand up for what the university already stands for. If we wait until the political climate is comfortable or agreeable, then we never speak.”
Thomas Gutierrez, former Academic Senate chair and physics professor
What’s at stake?
In explaining his decision, Armstrong is likely referring to the federal government’s $446 million for Cal Poly student financial aid, but Lazier did not confirm this when asked directly over email.
The federal government also gave Cal Poly $24.4 million in overall federal awards, according to a 2023-2024 audit.
Cameron Jones, the vice president of Cal Poly’s faculty union chapter, lost his National Endowment of the Humanities grant because the Trump administration cut 75% of the agency’s staff.
“They just don’t have the capacity to deal with my project,” Jones said.
Other Cal Poly researchers also experienced the impact of major cuts to federally funded research.
The federal government froze nearly $18 million in research grants and program funding to Cal Poly, according to a voluntary faculty spreadsheet obtained by Mustang News. University spokesperson Matt Lazier could not confirm this figure, since “the extent of the impacts is unknown and is shifting frequently.”
“We cannot predict how far the current federal administration will go to curtail our academic freedom,” faculty’s joint letter read. “We can however say that we never imagined, as faculty in the United States of America, that we would ever see this level of censorship and intrusion into university governance.”
