Skip to content
News
Link copied to clipboard

Temple faculty union authorizes a vote of no confidence to take place against university leaders

Faculty aren’t the only ones concerned. The 16 deans at Temple also plan to send an email to chair of the board Mitchell Morgan Wednesday morning requesting a meeting.

Temple University President Jason Wingard
Temple University President Jason WingardRead moreMONICA HERNDON / Staff Photographer

In a historic move, Temple University’s faculty union has decided to hold no-confidence votes against three university leaders — president Jason Wingard, provost Gregory N. Mandel, and Mitchell Morgan, chair of the board of trustees.

But faculty aren’t the only ones concerned.

The 16 deans at Temple plan to send an email to Morgan on Wednesday morning requesting a meeting, according to a source close to the deans.

“We want solutions,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “We will help with solutions. But the central administration has to start doing their job.”

The source said deans already had met with the provost to say they have “lost faith,” but because that meeting didn’t seem to have any impact, the deans decided to reach out to Morgan. Deans are “deeply concerned” about a continued drop in enrollment. Deposits are down 25% compared with the same time last year, the source said.

At the same time, 92% of more than 1,000 students surveyed by the Temple News, the student newspaper, said they disapproved of Wingard’s performance.

The announcement by faculty union leaders follows an online vote held over the last several days with the majority endorsing the move. More than 900 faculty cast votes, well above the 20% participation needed for the vote to count.

About 84% voted to proceed with a no-confidence vote on at least one of the three university leaders. Of those voting yes, 97% were in favor of including Wingard, 86% Morgan, and 79% Mandel.

“As the bargaining unit has expressed clear support for a vote of no confidence, we will be proceeding with the vote on the week beginning April 10,” the union said in the email.

It’s a first for the 2,600-member Temple Association of University Professionals in its 50-year history. While a vote of no confidence would send a powerful message, it is largely symbolic and has no ability to authorize change.

“This is historic that there’s such strong concern across the board,” said Jeffrey Doshna, TAUP president.

He said the vote could be averted if the board of trustees takes action, such as making leadership changes.

In a statement late Tuesday night, Temple said “faculty faculty members define our academic strength. We value and respect our faculty and share their commitment to ensuring our university meets its important mission.

We are ready and willing to engage and work closely with faculty, deans, staff, students and all other dedicated groups to confront the challenges facing our great university. We are confident that together we can address the pressing issues before us.”

Wingard, a former Columbia University dean who also previously worked at Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania, was in Harrisburg on Tuesday, testifying before the House Appropriations Committee as part of its budget process. Wingard, 51, became president of the 33,600-student university July 1, 2021.

» READ MORE: Temple faculty union makes its case for a no-confidence vote against university leadership

The survey by the student newspaper was conducted March 10-18, and students had to have a Temple email to participate and could submit only one response.

“We respect the goals of our student news leaders to capture the sentiment of their peers and understand the concerns that were raised by some in the survey,” university spokesperson Deirdre Childress Hopkins told the Temple News. “We are committed to listening and better incorporating student voices as we continue to implement solutions to the issues facing our campus.”

In the survey, safety emerged as the largest concern for students and the biggest challenge for the university, with three-quarters of students citing it.

In February, Temple Police Sgt. Christopher Fitzgerald was shot and killed while on duty near campus, and just last weekend, several people were shot at a hookah lounge in the 1000 block of Diamond Street, near the practice facility for Temple’s football team. Also on Friday, someone was arrested with a loaded gun in a restaurant area at Morgan Hall, according to the university. And last Thursday, a 25-year-old was stabbed at 12th and Diamond Streets.

After Temple student Samuel Collington was shot and killed outside his off-campus residence in 2021, the university said it would increase its police force by 50%. But the school actually had fewer officers in January than in the weeks after Collington’s death — 72, compared with 79. Last week, it welcomed eight new officers from the police academy.

The university has struggled to hire police officers amid a national shortage. The Temple University Police Association last weekend called for 40 more officers to be hired and said Temple police are paid less than city police. Jennifer Griffin, vice president of public safety, said earlier this month that the department is reviewing its salary and benefit package to make sure it’s competitive. The starting police officer salary, which took effect in a new contract last year, is $59,200.

The union decision on a no-confidence vote follows a 42-day strike by Temple’s graduate students that was settled last week. While the administration’s handling of the graduate student negotiations may have been the impetus for considering a vote, union leaders have cited other areas of concern, including noncontract renewals for some nontenured faculty, mounting public safety concerns, and vacancies in some key administrative jobs — a union memo cites 15 top jobs of deans, vice provosts, and other leaders where there has been turnover in the last 18 months.

They also have raised concerns about university finances and problems in the offices of ethics and compliance and research, “to the point of threatening essential grants and jeopardizing established partnerships,” the memo said. They also cited Wingard’s seeming lack of presence on campus.

But some faculty have questioned why now when the university also has struggled under prior presidents. Some have said it would send the wrong message to vote no confidence in Temple’s first Black president when he has had less than two years on the job and has been confronting post-pandemic problems — rising gun violence and a 14% drop in enrollment since 2019 — that are not in his control.

Some members also were concerned about such a move when TAUP is beginning its own negotiations for a new contract with the administration.

In its email Tuesday, the union acknowledged the differing opinions on how to proceed.

“Despite that, our care and commitment to Temple University’s educational mission were always at the center of the discussion,” the union said.

Doshna noted the student newspaper survey and said he also has heard concern building in other areas, including among deans.

“There’s a lot of people who are very worried, and they’re coming out, and it is broader than any one part of the Temple community,” he said.

But Gianni Quattrocchi, student government president, said he remains convinced the vote is a bad idea.

“It’s a symbolic move that doesn’t actually do anything,” he said. “There hasn’t been a very solution-oriented discussion. It would be one thing if the union said this was what they wanted improved. Their preference seems to be clearing house entirely, and that doesn’t make sense to me.”

Faculty began discussing the possibility of taking a no-confidence vote in university leadership several weeks ago as the graduate student strike dragged on and concerns about safety mounted after Fitzgerald’s death. Faculty were particularly upset that the university stopped paying for health care and tuition remission for striking members.

The union held a meeting March 3 and its executive committee announced the following week that the union would convene another meeting to decide whether to have a vote.