It’s been over two months since college President Nicole Hurd lost a historic no-confidence vote from the faculty. While she promised “constructive conversations” between them, her administration and a supportive Board of Trustees, the faculty is divided on whether she has meaningfully addressed their concerns.
“I would say that there is a disconnect among different constituencies on what constitutes ‘constructive conversations,’” Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies professor Dana Cuomo wrote in an email.
The motion’s signatories have been largely unsatisfied with the ensuing administrative action.
“It’s unclear to me how, and in what way, any of the substantive issues raised in the motion of no confidence are being addressed,” said religious studies professor Robert Blunt, one of the signatories. Several other professors echoed his sentiment.
So far, Hurd has not announced any specific initiatives in response to the vote.
The most frequently cited venues for faculty to discuss their concerns — an administration speaker series and a trustee dinner in late February — were scheduled before the no-confidence vote. Several faculty members said they believed the dinner had been reformatted to include more faculty voices.
Closed-door conversations between faculty committees, Hurd and Provost Laura McGrane have occurred, and a “mini-retreat” to discuss shared governance has been planned, according to Morse. The Lafayette could not corroborate his statement because it was submitted after its publication deadline.
Hurd and McGrane did not respond to requests for comment.
“The President and Provost communicate directly with faculty, not through media outlets,” Morse wrote in an email.
Those who attended the trustee dinner, to which all faculty were invited, said the event was centered on concerns raised in the no-confidence motion. Several faculty members said the dinner was the first time they had ever had direct access to the board.
“At my table of trustees, faculty, staff and administrators we had an open and honest discussion about the state of the College, challenges of Hurd’s leadership, and potential next steps,” psychology professor Lauren Myers wrote in an email.
In an email to all faculty after the dinner, Hurd provided “action items,” including plans for collaboration on the strategic plan the faculty rejected in December, conversations with faculty committees on shared governance and efforts to increase dialogue between “Trustees, the leadership team, and faculty.”
Board of Trustees Chairman Bob Sell ‘84 did not respond to requests for comment.
Some faculty said the dinner, while meaningful in subject, has led to little in results.
“After the trustee dinner, which was a great start and an important set of conversations, there’s been nothing, no response,” said anthropology professor William Bissell, another of the motion’s signatories.
Several other faculty members pointed to “Forward Together,” a lineup of presentations spotlighting senior administrators and their work at the college. Since February, four presentations have been held on topics like college finances and the student conduct system.
While sharing a name with Hurd’s post-vote response letter, “Moving Forward Together,” the series predates the no-confidence motion by almost a month. College spokesman Scott Morse confirmed in February that the series and Hurd’s “constructive conversations” were “two different things.”
“This series is well-intentioned but misses the mark a bit,” Myers wrote. “It seems to be more focused on one-way presentations about the issues rather than open and honest discussions focused on hearing/listening to community members.”
To biology professor Nancy Waters, who voted against the no-confidence motion, it may be too early to make a judgment.
“I don’t see two months as a very long time in the pace and rhythm of an academic year,” Waters wrote in an email. “Real progress in communication doesn’t happen like turning on a faucet or flicking a light switch.”
For some, the focus has shifted to building mutual respect and optimism.
“I think we are doing our best to come together and to make something good and positive from the place where we are right now,” said Spanish professor Michelle Geoffrion-Vinci, emphasizing the student body as a “shared North Star.”
Others expressed the same.
“I think that there’s going to be a continued interest among faculty to try and make sure that we are the best that Lafayette can be,” said Bissell, explaining that to him, the no-confidence motion was an effort to say “we need to do better.”
“But that depends on having an effective administration and a board that’s going to evaluate and hold them to accountability,” he continued. “And that’s on them. That’s their part of shared governance.”
Yet another proud alum • Apr 24, 2025 at 6:33 pm
Good work to continue shedding light on this issue. As with other things, I sense that Hurd might believe that the problem will fade away if she pretends it didn’t exist.
Paul Young • Apr 18, 2025 at 3:21 pm
I bet if the faculty thought of the students as the “paying customers” rather than as a “shared North Star” that the students wouldn’t struggle as much with getting slots in the classes they want to take. I hear students struggle with classes getting “all booked up” – is that true?
If the students knew what was good for them, they would form committees to study what courses the faculty are teaching and to re-allocate the faculty slots so as to provide the education they are paying for. The students would then bypass the faculty and tell management, the President, to have the profs teach the courses they want.
Good governance, it seems to me, should put the voices of the students over those of the employees (the faculty). The faculty should double down on pleasing their customers rather than asking for more say in the school’s finances.
Paul Young, Pard son, brother and father
Another Proud Alum • Apr 21, 2025 at 5:56 pm
Hey Paul- Pard son, brother, and father,
Not so fast. Are you so unaware of what goes on across America at all colleges and universities about favorite profs and courses getting “all booked up” that you would write such a letter suggesting students take over and tell the faculty and President what courses to teach and when to do it?
And your comments about students…who are for the first couple of years during their college careers just teenaged children, finding themselves while gaining the knowledge through learning what to do for the rest of their lives when they grow up and become functioning adults, there for four years at most, taught by caring and dedicated professors who love their jobs and the institution and stay on for several decades intimately involved with Lafayette, and then when they graduate they fall into the vast cavern of alumni status, with many never to be heard from again, you are suggesting that the students should have a greater say in how a college is run than the faculty and the President? No, I don’t think so, nor would the overwhelming vast supermajority of us. Not only is this a shallow idea, it is a dumb idea.
Lafayette would quickly fall into the bottom ranks of all liberal arts and engineering colleges if anything as foolish as this was ever promulgated, and the valuable and respected institution it has been now for close to two centuries would disappear from the face of the earth.
Paul Young • Apr 22, 2025 at 7:06 pm
Another Proud Alum – are you really a Pard or are you a sock puppet for one of the humanities profs attacking the President? (all the signatories of the letter against the President are humanities profs and I do not believe even one has “several decades” of experience at the college).
I, myself, am not anonymous …
I am happy to discuss why the students often cannot get the classes they want and, yes, I know a lot about the issue …
But calling the students “teenaged children” seems offensive in the extreme.
Road Rage Regulator • Apr 24, 2025 at 4:14 pm
Dear Paul, if I may, I just wanted to remind you that although there were “only” ten signatories of the motion of no confidence, the motion passed by a solid majority. But, more importantly, I think you should make up your mind about those dastardly humanities professors; you seem to be suggesting that they are so insane that nobody should listen to them, while at the same, strangely, you find them incredibly potent, but magically so. I mean, how could they have possibly convinced the majority of the faculty, across the divisions, of the merit of the arguments presented in the motion without channeling the dark side of the force? That is how everyone around them turned into “sock puppets” evacuated of all will and reason like zombies doing the bidding of some evil wizard. Perhaps you should stop thinking of the humanities faculty as Scooby Doo villains, and entertain the possibility that they are highly skilled and thoughtful professionals who know a thing or two about how a college is supposed to be run. By the way, one of those signatories has been a stalwart of the college for thirty-seven years and another for well over twenty. Clearly in your usage, “humanities” is a catch all dirty word meant to smear the credibility of the signatories, but it is probably worth pointing out that many of the signatories are actually social scientists.
Paul Young • May 2, 2025 at 5:56 pm
Road Rage – you seem very reasonable, but – again – you also remain anonymous.
There is a direct conflict of interest between faculty who want higher pay, and students who want more class choices and lower tuition. ’nuff said?