Anticipating a $20 to $30 million budget shortfall for fiscal year 2027 (FY27), the next month will culminate in several major decisions made by University of Denver (DU) administrators and the Board of Trustees over whether to potentially close two academic departments.
Dean Sahara Byrne of the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (CAHSS) confirmed in an email statement to The Denver Clarion that the Department of Religious Studies (RLGS) is one of the departments undergoing further review.
Dean Michelle Sabick responded to a request for comment on anonymous statements provided to The Denver Clarion regarding the status of two departments within the Ritchie School of Engineering and Computer Sciences (ECS). While Sabick clarified that one would not be reviewed for potential closure, she declined to comment on the status of the other department, Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Provost Elizabeth Loboa wrote in a weekly newsletter to faculty and staff, “This week, on the recommendation of the Goal 3 Committee and in consultation with the deans, I submitted two academic departments to the Academic Unit Review Committee (AURC) for evaluation for closure.”
The Goal 3 committee was established earlier this year to review programs across the university and provide recommendations to support the third academic transformation priority identified by Loboa, “Strengthening Academic Excellence.” It has three subcommittees examining “Academic opportunities for revenue growth,” “Creative restructuring across schools, departments and academic programs” and “Programs to be considered for closure.”
A highly anticipated report from the Goal 3 committee was delivered to the provost and chancellor on May 1, just as some colleges across the university started to make internal organizational changes. In some colleges, like in CAHSS, these processes were underway “before the provost committees were initiated,” according to Byrne.
The university-wide Goal 3 committee process follows a defined timeline and recommendation structure, while any potential college-level discussions related to budget concerns would be organized separately by individual colleges.
No conclusions have been reached about program closures. The review processes for potential program closures will take time, and final decisions will be made by the Board of Trustees at their meeting on June 5. Loboa stated, “Those decisions will be communicated to the DU community in June following the meeting.”
Furthermore, while some faculty and staff members could be impacted by changes made to departments, students in impacted programs will be able to graduate with their declared degrees regardless of these changes.
“I want to affirm that DU is committed to offering students a pathway to complete their current degree programs, including those joining us this fall. Faculty in closing units will be considered for rehoming in other departments if possible,” Loboa stated in the newsletter.
How does the Goal 3 committee work?
The Goal 3 committee delivered its finalized report to the provost on May 1. While that report is not yet public, the first subcommittee will likely provide details about missed investment opportunities around DU.
The second subcommittee is expected to highlight how colleges can restructure certain programs in ways that better reflect student interests and are more cost-effective.
As Jennifer Karas, senior vice provost for academic affairs, put it during a Faculty Senate meeting on Feb. 13, “If we were going to start all over and create a university from scratch, how would we do it?”
On March 20, the provost stated, “I see the priority for the Goal 3 Committee to offer recommendations in its May 1 report that reflect the work of its three subcommittees around program investment, restructuring and closures, as well as how to implement and sustain potential recommendations. The committee will not be responsible for making decisions, but they have the valuable role of providing guidance on the range of possibilities, contexts to consider and thoughts for how to implement and sustain the academic transformation efforts.”
The third subcommittee, “Programs to be considered for closure,” has received significant attention from faculty because the university could eliminate faculty positions, even for tenured professors, if the program housing them is closed through a process outlined in its governing Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (APT) policy.
However, recommendations from the committee do not ensure a program will be closed. Even if a program is closed, impacted faculty members might be rehoused elsewhere at the university. Regardless, no final decisions will be made regarding program closures until June.
As specified by the APT policy, the Goal 3 subcommittee’s recommendations are now being evaluated by a group of elected faculty members serving on Academic Unit Review Committees (AURC). By May 15, they will decide whether to support the recommendation for closure and deliver their conclusions to the provost and other university leadership for review.
The Board of Trustees will meet on June 5. There, the chancellor and the provost will present their final recommendations. The board will then vote whether to approve the recommendations, which would begin to go into effect over the course of FY27, which begins July 1, 2026.
Loboa stated that, “I look forward to sharing all three committee reports with the DU community following the June Board of Trustees meeting.”
Thus, no part of the Goal 3 committee report, including the third subcommittee’s recommendations, has been publicly released. However, report findings were shared with deans shortly after it was presented to university administrators. The Denver Clarion has independently confirmed two programs that were recommended for closure and have been sent to the AURC for review.
The Department of Religious Studies was directly confirmed by Dean Byrne.
On May 5, in an email statement to The Denver Clarion, Byrne wrote, “As part of the provost committee recommendations on academic transformation, the Department of Religious Studies in CAHSS will be reviewed by the Faculty Senate Academic Unit Review Committee (AURC) for potential closure as an academic appointment home. This is the next step in the review process and no decisions have been finalized at this time.”
Byrne further elaborated on the AURC review process and how restructuring would be done. “The AURC review does not apply to the offering of degree programs, so students in those programs should know that what is being considered is a change in administrative structure – not a loss of access to the academic programs… If the department is no longer maintained as a standalone unit, the degree programs under it can continue as interdisciplinary programs, taught by faculty across the college with deep expertise in the field and whose scholarship and teaching engage with those topics. We already have several majors that are successfully offered this way. This means continuity in existing degree paths, as requirements will remain unchanged.”
In a follow-up statement on May 6, Byrne commented, “While departments all faced review, the only department in CAHSS that has been sent for AURC review is Religious Studies. No determination has been made yet about that department’s future, as it is still under review… It is important to note that even if Religious Studies is closed as a faculty appointment home, as Dean of CAHSS I am committed to offering the degrees through [an] interdisciplinary method.”
Furthermore, Loboa specified that she submitted “two academic departments” to the AURC for review.
At the Daniels College of Business (DCB), Dean Naomi Boyd spoke about general program and department changes at the university with The Denver Clarion, but did not specify how, if at all, DCB will be impacted by these changes.
Dean Frederick Mayer of the Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs did not respond to outreach from The Denver Clarion.
Dean Andrei Kutateladze and Associate Dean Nic Ormes confirmed that none of the five departments housed within the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics (NSM) were recommended for closure.
“As a result of the [Goal 3 committee] review process, no NSM departments were recommended for additional review,” Kutateladze stated.
He and Ormes cited the financial performance of the college as one of several indicators of its organizational strength.
“We have the highest percentage operating margin on campus,” explained Kutateladze. He described how the average operating margin – or the revenue generated after accounting for expenses – is 36 percent for academic units at DU. At NSM, it’s 50 percent.
While NSM will continue to adjust to meet students’ demands, Kutateladze stated that he does not anticipate major reductions in faculty positions.
What should DU community members expect over the next few years?
The program review processes underway are some of many austerity measures that will impact academic units as the university prepares to address a projected $20 to $30 million dollar budget deficit.
A timeline of potential changes affecting faculty over upcoming fiscal years was presented in a Faculty Senate meeting on April 10. Two of the processes identified for completion during the current fiscal year (FY26) are already underway: cuts to the College of Professional Studies (PSC), and the merging of the Morgridge College of Education (MCE) and the Graduate School of Social Work (GSSW) to create the Unified College of Education and Social Work.
Both initiatives were underway before the establishment of the Goal 3 committee.
PSC Dean Bobbie Kite highlighted how the school had been facing internal financial pressures in addition to those experienced by the broader university. She noted that “2027 would have been the third year that the College of Professional Studies functioned in a negative variance to budget.”
She also shared that before the announcement in March that PSC would close 10 of its 12 remaining master’s programs, as four master’s programs had already been eliminated within the past year. Six teaching professors were informed that their contracts would not be renewed once they expired, and 31 staff positions were eliminated.
The timeline also showed that additional programs could face review in the coming years, potentially moving through a similar AURC review process as dictated by the APT policy.
Provost Loboa told assembled Faculty Senate representatives that the expectation of the Board of Trustees is that the university bring its budget deficit “down to zero” by FY27.
She also noted that the Goal 3 committee report will include recommendations detailing how the university can create a budget surplus of $15 million by the beginning of FY28 on July 1, 2027. Then, the university plans to “rebuild and reinvest” in FY28 and FY29.
Internal college restructuring vs. university-wide program reviews
Internal discussions surrounding program or department changes can vary by college and are difficult to assess. Byrne noted that faculty discussions within CAHSS about internal changes — though “completely separate” from the university-wide Goal 3 committee process — appear to have been conflated with it.
She clarified that these changes were initiated prior to the establishment of the Goal 3 committee, and are faculty-driven structural shifts to better serve student and faculty interest.
Crucially, while some CAHSS departments and programs may reorganize, the process itself is not expected to require the termination of faculty or reduce academic program availability in the years to come. The ongoing program review process dictated by the APT policy will not necessarily result in either outcome, but could.
Byrne clarified that, “the intention is to offer these degree paths in a more impactful way to improve the student experience.”
Byrne also confirmed that “the faculty of two departments in CAHSS have intentionally chosen to deliver their associated majors and minors in a more interdisciplinary way (Philosophy and Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies (GWSS).”
There are already several successful CAHSS programs organized similarly, such as Critical Race and Ethnic Studies (CRES) and Socio-Legal Studies (SLGS). Dr. Lisa Pasko, director of SLGS, believes that these kinds of restructurings will ultimately benefit both faculty members and students through increased resource efficiency, as well as more consistency and inter-department community development.
“For Socio-Legal Studies, our major contributors are [the] Criminology and Sociology and Political Science departments. Because we have faculty seated in both departments, Socio-Legal Studies can act as a bridge between them,” Pasko explained.
Other developments in CAHSS departments seeking to restructure are in “the initial stages of discussion,” Byrne stated. Faculty in Media, Film and Journalism Studies (MFJS) and Communications Studies have been “engaging in productive conversations” and faculty across the language departments “are working together on a unified structure to better serve student demand.”
Additionally, Byrne said CAHSS is “exploring a new strategy for the performing arts and are closely examining Theatre as having potential synergy with Lamont School of Music, given the many programmatic activities they share and opportunities that might arise with such synergies.”
While these processes are still in the early stages, Byrne stated that she expects them to take place over the next year.
A campus at the crossroads
Faculty members in colleges across the university, all of whom spoke to The Denver Clarion anonymously, described feelings of unease, frustration and uncertainty surrounding their positions and those of their colleagues. Several cited concerns surrounding transparency and communication, particularly from administrative leadership.
Conversely, Boyd highlighted the potential positive outcomes from the university’s academic transformation.
“The purpose of the process is to provide students with the best options possible,” Boyd said.
She also pointed to increased opportunities that she believes will enhance students’ abilities to “obtain degrees, find gainful employment and lead lives of purpose.”
Still, even among those that share Boyd’s sentiments about the long-term outcomes for students, there is an acknowledgement that the university will face a challenging future.
Loboa stated that “while the Goal 3 Committee’s work will help make DU a stronger institution, it is not easy.”
This is a developing story. Expect more updates from The Denver Clarion.
