Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
Faculty

No-Confidence Votes Are No Longer a Death Knell

By Seth Zweifler July 15, 2013
John Sexton, president of New York U., received a no-confidence vote from faculty in the College of Arts and Science in March, one of several such votes against him. But he retains the support of his board and remains in place.
John Sexton, president of New York U., received a no-confidence vote from faculty in the College of Arts and Science in March, one of several such votes against him. But he retains the support of his board and remains in place.Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg via Getty Images

When a hockey alumni association felt the athletic director at the University of Alaska at Anchorage had made bad and autocratic decisions, the group voted to express no confidence in him. Two weeks later, the faculty at Occidental College used no-confidence votes to voice its frustration with the way the institution’s general counsel and dean of students had handled allegations of sexual assault on the campus.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

When a hockey alumni association felt the athletic director at the University of Alaska at Anchorage had made bad and autocratic decisions, the group voted to express no confidence in him. Two weeks later, the faculty at Occidental College used no-confidence votes to voice its frustration with the way the institution’s general counsel and dean of students had handled allegations of sexual assault on the campus.

In between the votes at Alaska and Occidental this spring, at least five other faculties took votes of no confidence in campus leaders. One came at a community college in Alabama; another was held at a midsize public university in West Virginia. A third, at one of the most-prominent campuses to hold no-confidence votes this year, was at New York University, where several groups of professors have complained about the leadership style and strategic priorities of John E. Sexton, the president.

Voting no confidence has become a common strategy for faculty members to express disapproval in their institution’s leadership. No group keeps data on the number of no-confidence resolutions considered annually, but dozens of such votes were taken on college campuses in the 2012-13 academic year. That’s far more than many professors say they can remember in one year.

Faculty members are no longer the only ones who issue these votes either, with students, staff members, and alumni among the groups that have expressed no confidence in college leaders in recent months. And votes of no confidence are hardly limited to presidents anymore. Beyond the athletic director, general counsel, and dean of students, recipients of votes of no confidence in the 2012-13 academic year have also included provosts, vice provosts, school deans, department chairs, and even a curriculum.

The broad use of the no-confidence vote, however, may in some ways be diminishing its effect. Taking a vote of no confidence, some faculty members say, was once thought of as a “nuclear” option—a symbolic expression that the professoriate would settle for no less than the ouster of a president. When Harvard University’s arts and science faculty voted no confidence in Lawrence H. Summers, the president, in 2005, the move was seen as an immediate precursor to Mr. Summers’s eventual departure.

Now, however, a vote of no confidence may not be a death knell for a president. At New York University, for example, Mr. Sexton has maintained strong support from his Board of Trustees, which holds the ultimate authority to decide whether he keeps his job, and the president does not appear to be stepping down anytime soon.

Like anything else, faculty members say, if you overuse a no-confidence vote, its impact wanes.

“If you take one of these votes against everybody you have a quibble with, it’s going to become diluted,” says Harold S. Wechsler, a professor and higher-education historian at New York University. “It does strike me that many of these grievances against high-level staff used to be handled more informally. That change says a lot about the state of higher education today.”

Roots of No Confidence

Carl A. Botterud, general counsel at Occidental College, was surprised when he saw an e-mail from faculty members this spring announcing that they would be taking a vote of no confidence in him for his handling of sexual-assault cases. He had heard of college presidents facing such votes, but never an institution’s lawyer.

“I can’t think of many instances when it would even be appropriate for a faculty member to have a full and complete picture of my job,” Mr. Botterud says, “so the vote certainly was a bit shocking.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The general counsel says the vote was difficult for him to work through personally but adds that it hasn’t had much of an effect on his day-to-day interactions with the faculty.

Professors and administrators have pointed to different reasons behind the prevalence of votes of no confidence. For some, the frequent use of no-confidence votes is a sign of the unease across campuses.

“Higher education is not an industry that handles change very well, and we are going through a period of very dramatic change,” says Brian C. Rosenberg, president of Macalester College. “There aren’t many tools in the faculty toolbox to resolve conflict at universities. The only real tool that gets noticed outside the institution is the vote of no confidence.”

Others say that the recent slew of no-confidence votes has happened, in part, because of a domino effect; as one institution goes, they say, so goes another.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Professors aren’t voting no confidence as mere displays of solidarity with one another, but seeing one institution take a vote can certainly embolden the faculty across town to take similar steps,” says Andrew Ross, a professor of social and cultural analysis at NYU and president of the institution’s American Association of University Professors chapter.

The phrase “no-confidence vote” originated in the British Parliament in the late 18th century, according to Mae Kuykendall, a professor of law at Michigan State University who has researched votes of no confidence. It was used by Parliament to express dissatisfaction in British leadership after the surrender to the Americans at Yorktown.

In the higher-education context, Ms. Kuykendall says, a vote of no confidence may not carry with it any binding power, but it can still sway public opinion and perception of a leader. A vote of no confidence in a college president, she says, generally produces one of three outcomes: The board of trustees stonewalls the faculty, maintaining strong support for the president and refusing to act upon the vote; the president quietly leaves the institution a year or two after the vote was taken, not drawing any explicit connection between the no-confidence measure and the departure; or the president immediately steps down, possibly because of pressure from the board.

The first outcome has been the most common in recent cases. “If the intent of the no-confidence vote is to get the person out of office, then it’s not working,” says William G. Tierney, a co-director of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at the University of Southern California.

ADVERTISEMENT

Beyond Mr. Sexton at New York University, other leaders who have faced recent votes of no confidence seem to have a firm hold on their jobs. Ronald M. Berkman, president of Cleveland State University, has maintained strong backing from his board in the wake of a no-confidence vote in April. The vote followed a dispute over a proposed change to convert the undergraduate curriculum from four-credit to primarily three-credit courses.

Among the many other survivors of no-confidence votes this year are Stephen J. Kopp, president of Marshall University, and Lori S. Gonzalez, provost and executive vice chancellor of Appalachian State University.

The failure of many no-confidence votes to push presidents out of office may be a sign, some professors say, of a growing disconnect between faculty senates and boards of trustees. Some trustees, these professors say, have come to view faculty senates as a collection of the most high-strung, disgruntled professors on campus. “As power becomes more centralized,” says Ted Magder, the departing chair of the Faculty Senators Council at New York University, “the disconnect between faculty and those with decision-making authority is likely to grow.”

It now often takes more than a vote of no confidence alone for a faculty to exert enough pressure to remove a president, says Ellen P. Carnaghan, the political-science department chair at Saint Louis University. A no-confidence vote can still be the spark behind a president’s ouster, she says, but a more-concerted campaign is required for anything to happen.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Faculty Council of Saint Louis’s College of Arts and Sciences passed a no-confidence resolution last fall against the Rev. Lawrence Biondi, the Jesuit institution’s president. An overwhelming majority of the council also said it had no confidence in Manoj S. Patankar, the university’s vice president for academic affairs.

Mr. Patankar stepped down from his position soon after the vote. Father Biondi retained the support of the university’s board, but he announced in May that he intends to retire. He has not given a timetable for his departure, and the chairman of Saint Louis’s board has insisted that the president’s retirement was not motivated by faculty actions.

Ms. Carnaghan says she believes both departures were the result of a universitywide discussion about the future of the institution, which was spurred by the votes of no confidence.

In other cases, effective faculty campaigns have sidestepped the no-confidence vote, using professors’ voices in more focused ways. Last year faculty members at the University of Illinois system began raising concerns that their president, Michael J. Hogan, was infringing upon campus-level autonomy. But the campaign against him picked up steam only when Edward A. Kolodziej, the prominent director of the Center for Global Studies at the institution’s flagship Urbana-Champaign campus, wrote a letter that criticized Mr. Hogan.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Kolodziej’s letter was signed by more than 120 professors with named or endowed chairs. Some say the letter was the tipping point that ultimately pushed Mr. Hogan out of office. Mr. Hogan announced his resignation from the Illinois presidency in March of last year.

“I don’t think the Board of Trustees would have listened to us if we’d just chosen a random collection of faculty,” Mr. Kolodziej says. “If you lose the faculty who signed that letter, then you lose the University of Illinois.”

Raising a Red Flag

While a vote of no confidence may not result in concrete action, some professors say the tactic can be an effective way to raise a red flag about leadership before a conflict escalates too far.

Mr. Magder, of New York University, says that a number of professors who voted no confidence in Mr. Sexton did not necessarily want to see the president step down. Instead, he says, they saw their vote as an invitation to start a conversation about institutional governance.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Sexton has appeared open to having that conversation in the wake of the no-confidence votes in him, saying in a statement in March that he is looking forward to having more discussions with faculty about the university’s future.

At the City University of New York, some professors who voted no confidence in May in a new curriculum did not expect that it would lead to the removal of administrators or even change the policies they opposed. These faculty, says Alex S. Vitale, an associate professor of sociology at CUNY’s Brooklyn College and the head of the college’s faculty-union chapter, mostly wanted to have a bigger say in governance.

When CUNY rolled out its new systemwide curriculum in 2011, called Pathways, many professors said they had been left out of the academic decision-making process. Pathways, which some CUNY faculty members say will significantly lower education standards for the institution, is expected to go into effect this fall.

In response to the publicity surrounding many recent no-confidence resolutions, some university leaders are considering how they might prevent these votes from taking place. Mr. Rosenberg, the Macalester president, says it is incumbent upon administrators to be open in their decision making in order to maintain good working relationships with faculty leaders.

“The consequences of the no-confidence vote may not be what they were years ago,” says Mr. Rosenberg, “but it’s still the last thing you want a conflict to come to.”

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin