A temporary halt on Sonoma State University's plan to cut over a dozen academic programs has been put in place as a Sonoma County judge issued a temporary restraining order. Judge Kenneth English's decision blocked the execution of a cost-saving strategy that threatened the futures of programs, including philosophy, economics, and modern languages. Sonoma State, grappling with a $24 million budget shortfall, made the call in January to cut these programs to stabilize financial standing, CalMatters reports.
The court order came after seven student-athletes sued the university's interim president and the California State University (CSU) chancellor, claiming that proper procedures were not followed. The suit alleges a lack of collaboration with the Academic Senate and insufficient communication regarding the changes. Lawyer Ross Middlemiss, representing the plaintiffs, argues that a feedback process was neglected, "There’s just supposed to be a process of proposing a plan, getting feedback, getting a recommendation from the Academic Senate, in addition to other steps that were not followed," Middlemiss told CalMatters.
The Press Democrat notes that the academic cuts are part of broader cost-cutting measures, including the proposed elimination of the school's NCAA sports teams. While the restraining order does not extend to sports programs, it does put academic departments such as art history and theater/dance on hold from being phased out. The order is in effect until a follow-up hearing is scheduled for May 1.
The university has maintained that it followed policy when deciding on the cuts. “SSU maintains that the university followed its established policies regarding academic discontinuation, including communicating with and considering feedback from all programs impacted by the proposed reductions,” interim president Emily Cutrer stated in an email to the campus community, documented by The Press Democrat. Contrarily, faculty members have disputed this claim, with novelist and SSU English professor Stefan Kiesbye revealing that the news of cuts to their program came abruptly via email without any prior discussion. "There were no prior talks," Kiesbye said.
Further contention arises around the impact of the proposed cuts on the athletics department, with a lack of concrete evidence supporting claims of significant financial savings. The plaintiffs' attorney, David Seidel, emphasized, per The Press Democrat, "They say it would save $3.7 million, and we dispute that." The fate of the athletics program will also be considered in the upcoming court hearing.
