Update on Consultative Working Group (CWG) Process
Dear all,
The process of cutting faculty positions continues at Earlham College.
The timetable for the decisions is as follows:
• November 7, 2025: Final draft of CWG criteria for 2026-27 budget cuts, including academic plan as specified in Section O of the Earlham College Faculty Handbook and section N of the ESR Faculty Handbook.
• November 21, 2025: Recommendations for specific department and program discontinuances or reductions from the CPC and FAC in Earlham College and from the faculty in ESR.
• November 21, 2025: Recommendations for specific faculty cuts from the FAC in Earlham College and from the Dean in ESR.
• December 20, 2025: Final action by the President (in consultation with the Provost) and Board Approval on department, program, and personnel cuts, with notifications to individuals whose positions have been cut. Final action on administrative faculty and staff cuts by Vice Presidents in Earlham College and the Dean of ESR, with notifications to individuals whose positions have been cut.
• March 31, 2025: Decisions on non-personnel cuts that apply to the 2026-27 academic year budget.
• July 1, 2026: Target date for adoption of a new strategic plan for Earlham.
With the hope that we can still substantially modify this firing process, I encourage members of the community and students to speak with the people who are making these recommendations and decisions:
Consultative Working Group for a New Earlham (CWG) members:
Ben Brazil, Gretchen Castle, Mila Cooper, Mike Deibel, Carrie Ervin, Rodolfo Guzman, Natalie Hart, Seth Hopper, Jennifer Lewis, James Logan, Chris Little, Gariot Louima, Beth Mechlin, Elana Passman, Max Paule, Charlie Peck, Jeff Perkins, Rachael Reavis, Lori Schroeder, Jennifer Seely, Mia Slayton, Paul Sniegowski, Kim Tanner, Lyn Thomas, Maggie Thomas, Colleen Wessel-McCoy, Jenny Williams, Bonita Washington-Lacey, Liarucha Zahnke Basuki.
Curricular Policy Committee (CPC) members: Marc Benamou, Seth Hopper, Rachael Reavis, Jennifer Seely, Lori Schroeder, Scott Hess, Malik Barrett, Corinne Deibel, Thor Hogan, Julia Muse.
Faculty Affairs Committee members: Rodolfo Guzman, Belen Villareal, Yasumasa Shigenega, Mark van Buskirk, Lori Schroeder, Meg Streepy-Smith.
As I reflect on this Substack trail, I wanted to emphasize the significance of the process. I am concerned that some people may interpret these writings as self-interested records and attempts to gain sympathy, etc. This is not the case. As I have said before, we underwent a similar process in 2018, and although it was not nearly as severe as it appears to be now, that process had a significant impact on the campus. In fact, I would argue that it was one of the reasons why we never recovered from declining enrollment. At the time, no faculty openly spoke against the process, and nobody spoke publicly for those who were more vulnerable.
I want to highlight that this process of firing comes at the worst possible time in relation to the political situation in the USA and amidst unprecedented attacks on higher education by the current administration, and more importantly, on individuals whose presence in the USA is precarious. If Earlham fires certain people on campus, it is not just that they will leave Earlham, but they have to leave the US as well, or at least their immigration status will be jeopardized.
These are all realities of the situation, but perhaps the most insufferable aspect of this process for me is denial and hypocrisy. These firings are common in many institutions nowadays, but what makes it particularly egregious at Earlham is our pretension of being a community. We are literally kicking people out of Earlham, and we say that we have compassion about it, and that we care about their emotions and well-being. We use compassion transactionally, and it actually devalues human relations even more.
I understand that those who are charged with the decision to recommend to the president who should be fired are just doing their jobs. Yet do we really expect that this split of the faculty into categories of those who make the recommendation and those who are fired as a result, is not going to have repercussions beyond this year? Some of our colleagues agreed to be put in the position of recommending who should be fired. Even if we “understand” this or even empathize with them, are we supposed to think that this is not problematic?
I am so genuinely disgusted by this process and our performances that I will leave Earlham College as soon as I can, even if I am not fired. I do not want to work at a place that plays one against the other blatantly and pretends that this is okay.
Just to be clear, I will make sure that we follow this process beyond December, when the president will make the decisions of who to fire. We impart significant power on individuals, but we rarely hold them accountable for their decisions. It is not any consolation to say “I told you so.” Therefore, it is important to say it now: Earlham College will be (and already has been) significantly damaged by this process, which might move those who care about the abstract idea of an institution but not its people. Or worse nowadays, people hope that some people will be fired so that they are not.
Hi, Ferit,
I am sorry you are upset about the process. From reading your most recent post, I feel it is important to share my viewpoint.
The work to restructure and cut positions is difficult for everyone here at Earlham, including Paul and the Board of Trustees. In my eight years at Earlham and 17+ years at other non-profit organizations, I have never observed a president or a Board of Trustees with so much care, compassion, and dedication to the employees and the non-profit’s mission.
This restructuring is unfortunate but necessary to right-size Earlham’s budget. To get Earlham to a break-even or positive budget, changes should have been planned and implemented well before Paul started as President.
I have worked at organizations that were impacted by mergers, restructuring, and reductions in force (RIF). In every circumstance, there was limited communication until decisions were made by executive leadership.
At Earlham, employees and students are given several options to provide input and ask questions, including throughout the restructuring review process that will involve personnel cuts. Decisions will not be taken lightly.
We are living in tough times at Earlham and throughout the world! Now more than ever, we need to all show kindness.
Lianne Warner