The university's decision to cut programs is under legal scrutiny, led by attorney David Kesselman, who argues that an email announcement was merely a proposal. However, the court's ruling indicated the email signified a definitive decision. The senate's rejection of the cuts prior to enrollment opening in April appeared to support that the decision was preemptive, thus implicating that the school failed to engage meaningfully with stakeholders. There are also concerns regarding the financial justifications for the cuts, particularly in athletics, which may not demonstrate actual savings.
In his ruling, English said the argument that the school-wide email was a proposal, not a decision, 'is not persuasive nor does it square with the evidence presented.'
Collection
[
|
...
]