University of Arizona faculty chair says she's against deal with Trump administration

Faculty at the University of Arizona are expected to talk Monday about a proposal from the Trump administration that would tie some federal research funding to the school’s agreeing to follow a number of administration priorities.

Among them: capping the enrollment of international students and aligning with the federal government’s position that there are two genders.

Leila Hudson, a professor of Global Studies at UA and chair of the faculty there, does not support the university accepting the offer. She said her opinions are her own, and not those of the university or the state.

And we started with why she finds this proposal so problematic.

Full conversation

LEILA HUDSON: Well, it's problematic in spite of any reasonable ideas and topics that it addresses. It's problematic because it represents the attempt of elements of the federal government to condition, limit and in some cases exert punitive actions over the free, functioning and governance of our university.

So that puts us at the top of a very, very slippery slope. And many of my colleagues I have called, including John Paul Schaefer, the former president of the UA, have called it extortion, that in fact, we are being offered an opportunity to have favored status with the federal government for presumably for research and other educational funding based not on the peer reviewed excellence of our research or the quality of our endeavors, but on the basis of a pledge of affiliation.

MARK BRODIE: Is it your understanding that if the university were to decline this offer, that it would not be eligible for research grants? Or does it not just sort of give the UA, as you reference, sort of that favored status? 

HUDSON: Well, I think there is a line in the document that I have seen, which by the way, I've only seen circulated from the press and from people outside of the UA. But there is a line in it that says, “yeah, you're free to,” and I'm paraphrasing here, at the end of the first paragraph says, “yeah, you're free to not sign on to this, but you might have to do without your federal funds.”

That's the stick, right, on the other side of that carrot.

BRODIE: Are there aspects of this that you think are maybe not terrible ideas for the UA to do, if not in this manner, you know, coming from the federal government? 

HUDSON: Well, as I've said before, much of this document contains suggestions that are already our practice and that represent our values and our aspirations quite well. So, when you first look at the subsections of the document, equality and admissions, marketplace of ideas and civil discourse, that's stuff that we already do, and we always try to improve our game. We are constantly trying to make the university more accessible, more fair, more affordable, etc.

There are other ideas there that are not ready for prime time that are certainly subject to ongoing and vigorous debate, discussion and civil discourse, and none of that is objectionable, except when you put it in the form of an offer from the federal government that, to paraphrase the gangster movies, that you can't refuse.

BRODIE: Have you had any conversation with university administration about which way they're leaning on what they might want to do with this? 

HUDSON: I have not had a chance to talk to President Suresh Garimella about this, and that concerns me.

BRODIE: Do you have any indication from, from him or his advisors or any conversations with anybody else about which way the university is leaning?

HUDSON: Well, I've had lots of conversations across the board with our local community, our university workforce, our students, our peers in the eight other institutions that have been made the same offer across the board.

There's been vigorous conversation and it's unanimous in my experience, that in fact, we must stand up for our integrity. We must stand up for our values and not accept what John Paul Schaefer called the “poisoned apple” that is being offered here.

So, I also can tell you that we'll discuss it in the Faculty Senate this afternoon. And Provost Patricia A. Prelock has cleared her schedule tomorrow to have a series of discussions with our faculty governance and other shared governance leadership where we will have the first systematic opportunities to engage with the administration on this very important topic.

BRODIE: Is it your understanding that some majority of the faculty at the UA feels about this the way that you do? 

HUDSON: That is my understanding based on the voluminous correspondence that I have received. It's unanimous in my experience, and I'm sure there are people out there who haven't reached out who may have concerns, particularly about the ramifications of doing anything that would further compromise our access to the already scarce and limited federal funding. I know those concerns are out there as well, and I hope we will hear some of them as we engage in the necessary debate and discussion around this, around this offer.

BRODIE: Well, when you talk about concerns about the university's access to federal funding, I'm wondering if you consider those concerns legitimate. 

HUDSON: Well, of course, they're legitimate because federal funding is one of the key sources of our revenue and we are addicted to it. We need it. It's part of our business model.

Now, that being said, we have spent the last nine months or so, reckoning with the Trump administration's body blows to the federal scientific research funding infrastructure. And we understand now that in fact, we need to develop a more diverse set of funding opportunities and models.

So we're on this road already, and frankly, I don't think that in the long term, the system of research funding that has made the U.S. educational system and research university system again the envy of the world, I don't think that our society will choose to shut that off due to politics, ideology, especially when and if we stand up for our integrity and our excellence.