NFA will defend faculty who are targeted or accused of VIOLATING UNJUST policIES

The 2020s may be remembered on college and university campuses as the years when many of the longest-standing bedrock principles of the American higher education model came under sustained attack. The siege is rooted in the ideology of the extreme right-wing groups who lobby to influence laws and policies and to support like-minded candidates for legislative and governing board seats across the nation, including Nevada. It remains to be seen if faculty will fend off the attacks.

You are not mistaken or paranoid if your perception is that these efforts are partisan, coordinated, and targeted. Isaac Kamola, the director of AAUP's Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, recently published a comprehensive report, Manufacturing Backlash, Right Wing Think Tanks and Legislative Attacks on Higher Education, investigating the sources and strategy behind these attacks. It reveals that a small group of think tanks promote shared political objectives by pushing the same messaging and amplifying each other's work to create the false impression of legitimacy and whip up moral outrage targeted at higher education, and mostly, at faculty. For example, this disinformation led many legislators and policymakers to see critical race theory (CRT) and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as divisive topics requiring regulation, or worse, prohibition. They subsequently introduce bills based on model legislation developed and promoted by this network. From 2021 to 2023, over 150 bills, based on models developed by these think tanks, were introduced across the United States. This number, however, does not include the number of model-based policies submitted to governing boards of regents/trustees.

Although multiple think tanks are involved, they share many of the same board members who direct their activities. For example, a LittleSis search of conservative activist Christopher Rufo reveals that he is a board member at the New College of Florida, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, director of the Discovery Institute's Center on Wealth, Poverty, and Morality, and has held (or currently holds) positions at a fellow at both the Claremont Institute and the Heritage Foundation, an adjunct fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, and a contributor to the Federalist Society. It's very likely that he is a major contributor to the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025.

Working almost exclusively with Republican politicians, these groups are actively bringing the culture war to campuses and manufacturing a backlash against faculty and the autonomy of academic institutions. The strategy is not arbitrary and it is often racist. It has been honed by these highly partisan think tanks to not only have a chilling effect on faculty, but to also encourage governing bodies to curtail academic freedom and institutional autonomy by weakening tenure and accreditation.

Some members of the Nevada Board of Regents embrace this dogma. By making restrictive policy proposals advanced by this network, and even inviting one of the participating think tanks to make a presentation on higher education governance, these Regents expose themselves as partisans who are hostile to faculty rights and higher education values. Unfortunately, they sometimes succeed despite vigorous opposition from NFA and other campus groups.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance will continue to zealously oppose any and all efforts to erode faculty rights and protections, or diminish the foundational principles that made the American higher education model the global gold standard. NFA will actively defend these fundamental rights for all our members, and by extension, all others in the profession. If you or a colleague experience discipline, retaliation, or any other adverse employment actions based upon these ill-advised policies or activities, please contact an NFA officer on your campus. You can find more information at NevadaFacultyAlliance.org.

More Information:

• Executive Summary: Manufacturing Backlash
• Inside Higher Education: 'Manufacturing Backlash'
• NFA stands ready to defend academic freedom and free speech rights

Campus communities across the United States are experiencing an unprecedented increase in attacks on the core principles of free speech and academic freedom, primarily from external sources. A wave of ideologically driven policies and regulations represents one of the most significant challenges to academic independence in decades. Unfortunately, Nevada colleges and universities are not immune. There are credible indications that these attacks are the results of a coordinated pressure campaign by ideological groups to chill, if not outright prohibit, classroom discussions, research, and student engagement in topics with which they disagree. Moreover, faculty and staff face increasing risks of being targeted, doxxed, harassed, or even dismissed for exercising their academic freedom. These coordinated attacks not only undermine diversity of thought but also impede the pursuit of knowledge and the healthy exchange of ideas, which are fundamental to the academic ethos and democratic society at large. Even frivolous claims of discrimination or political indoctrination can harm reputations and careers.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance stands as a guardian and will vigorously defend the fundamental rights of free speech and academic freedom for all its members, and by extension, all others in the profession. The NFA strives to ensure that educators can teach, research, and express ideas without fear of political or external pressures. Through the NFA and its affiliations with the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers, members may access a variety of services including professional guidance and legal defense options. With a commitment to fostering a fearless exchange of ideas and protecting the academic community from censorship, the NFA is a bulwark against attempts to undermine the educational mission. It champions the right to debate and deliberate freely.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance also stands with the American Association of University Professors in firm opposition to legislative attempts to restrict classroom instruction and campus discourse based on content.

For further information:

• 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure | AAUP
• Academic Freedom of Students and Professors, and Political Discrimination | AAUP
• Defending Academic Freedom and Campus Free Speech | American Federation of Teachers
• Academic independence under fire | APA
• Report Finds Hamline Violated Academic Freedom | AAUP
• On Academic Freedom and Transphobia | AAUP
• Statement on Legislation Restricting Teaching about Race | AAUP
• Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism | AAUP
• @AAUP on X (Twitter)

The UNR Chapter Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance continues to be deeply concerned about the failure of shared governance in leadership searches at UNR. In our previous post, we noted that UNR–which has seen record turnover in dean and vice president positions since 2020–has not consistently been following the processes set in place by college and university bylaws in leadership searches. In particular, the administration has not been taking into consideration stakeholder input, which is paramount for hiring the strongest candidates who have the qualities to lead while being respected as leaders in their fields.

UNR’s leadership continues to hire leaders “over the reasoned opposition of the faculty” (AAUP, “Faculty Participation”). We saw this in the hiring of Dean Erick Jones in Engineering, who was not recommended as a finalist by the search committee. The result of this search was national embarrassment and a precipitous decline in morale among College of Engineering faculty. We have now seen this in the hiring of a permanent Dean for the College of Liberal Arts, which has seen a decline in morale, the loss of many faculty, and program cuts that have limited course options for students in the past two years. The hiring of the current Interim Dean to this position despite the availability of stronger external candidates has reinforced perceptions that UNR leadership does not value the college, its faculty, or shared governance more generally.  

Although we could point to a number of ways in which this process was flawed, the greatest concerns are that: 

• The search committee was disbanded before the candidates visited campus, which arguably violates CLA and UNR bylaws that state: “Upon completing the search process, the committee shall present the Provost with an unranked list of those applicants it considers best suited for the position of dean” (UNR Bylaws 3.6.4, emphasis added).
  
• Despite the search committee’s requests, the Provost refused to meet with them to solicit their thoughts on the candidates;
  
• The two strongest external candidates, who were broadly considered to have performed far better than the internal candidate during their open forums and meetings with the CLA chairs, were not extended an offer.

We reiterate the calls made in our previous statement:

• Search committees and public forums should continue to exist for all leadership positions at the Dean level or above, or those that have a campus-wide role. This will not only uphold our principles of shared governance but will also create a faculty and staff who will be more confident in leadership and more supportive of initiatives.
  
• Search committee chairs must work closely with committees through every step of the process. 
  
• Search committees should represent a diversity of perspectives and have a strong role in the hiring process. 
  
• Stakeholder surveys should be conducted and, even more important, that feedback should be central to the hiring process. Summaries should also be released to the campus community. 
  
• Any person involved in the hiring process must disclose personal connections or conflicts of interest that may influence their hiring of a particular candidate and recuse themselves from a decision-making role.
  

We affirm our belief that a meaningful commitment to shared governance can assist UNR’s leadership in correcting course and restoring our faith in the hiring of future leaders.

Recommendations to the NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding

Submitted by the Nevada Faculty Alliance, 6/24/2024

At the May 30th meeting of the NSHE Ad Hoc Committee on Higher Education Funding, Chair Hardesty asked faculty for our responses to the recommendations from HCM Strategists, the Committee’s consultants.  After reaching out to faculty members at each of the seven colleges and universities for feedback, the Nevada Faculty Alliance recommends the following changes to the formula funding mechanism. We have tailored these recommendations to be largely consistent with the Committee discussion on May 30th.

A. Student Enrollment Component

1) Implement the headcount and unweighted student credit hour components at a percentage between 7.5% and 12.5% of funding in the first biennium and between 15% and 25% thereafter (rather than 40% as proposed by HCM). As recommended by HCM, unduplicated resident headcounts and full-time-equivalent (FTE) resident enrollments are equally weighted in the student enrollment component. FTE should be calculated as they are currently, using unweighted resident student credit hours at 30 credits/year for undergraduates, 24 credits/year for masters students, and 18 credits per year for doctoral students.

In the absence of a full analysis of the costs to provide wrap-around student services for diverse groups of students at an equitable level, the percentage allocation to the student enrollment component is a judgment call. We believe the 40% allocation initially suggested by HCM is much too large. Current expenditures on Student Services, which are correlated with headcounts, represent about 8% of the combined budgets of the seven institutions. That should be the baseline for funding by per-student enrollment. Our suggested range of 15% to 25% allocated to this component would represent substantial redistributions compared with the current Weighted Student Credit Hour formula. That means that new funding is needed to keep some institutions and their students from being harmed.

2) Count underrepresented minority (URM) students and Pell Grant recipients with a 1.5 multiplier (resulting in a 2.25 multiplier for a URM student with Pell), rather than double and triple counting as proposed by HCM. A 1.5 multiplier is sufficient to double (or more) the advisor-to-student ratio for the at-risk students.  Within the next several years, develop ways to count and include underserved and at-risk students beyond URM and Pell and analyze actual costs to provide services to them.

3) For caseload adjustments in future biennia, adjust the per-headcount dollar value for inflation over the past two years using the Higher Education Price Index.

B. Outcomes-Based Funding

1) Eliminate the current Performance Pool as a 20% carve-out of base funding that has to be earned back for later allocation.

2) Implement Outcomes-Based Funding using the Relative Growth Model as recommended by HCM, except with a percentage of funding of 2.5% in the first biennium and 5% in the second biennium and thereafter (rather than 20% as proposed by HCM).

3) For the biennial budget, calculate relative growth by comparing the count year to the year two years prior to the count year. The Outcomes-Based Funding must be part of the regular budget closing, not held back and allocated later, so that budget planning can occur.

4) During the first year of the next biennium, review and revise the performance metrics so that none are directly correlated with absolute enrollment or graduation numbers. Performance metrics should reward student success and institutional efficiency, not overall enrollment which is already included in the formula through headcounts and student credit hours. College access for certain at-risk students (initially URM and Pell students) will be included in the student enrollment component; success outcomes for underserved and underrepresented students should be measured relative to the population of the targeted groups. Because graduate rates are lagging indicators, measures of semester completion or progress toward a degree or certificate should be considered.

5) Performance metrics should include the percentage of courses taught by full-time instructors, faculty-to-student ratios, and advisor-to-student ratios,

C. Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) Formula

1) With the above recommendations for the headcount and performance components, resident WSCHs will account for 85% to 90% of the formula in the first biennium and 70% to 80% thereafter, after carve-outs for research O&M and the small-institution funding.

2) For caseload adjustments, adjust the WSCH dollar value for inflation for the past two years using the Higher Education Price Index.

3) Implement a periodic process (about every four years) to review and adjust the weights to capture both curricular costs and the state’s workforce needs.

D. Summer WSCH Funding

1)  Although we believe in the principle that the state should fund summer courses, we concur with Chair Hardesty’s suggestion to defer a recommendation on including summer courses in the WSCH formula for further study of the fiscal, managerial, and staffing/workload impacts.

2) Any inclusion of additional summer school courses in the WSCH or headcount formulas should be contingent on full funding as a budget enhancement. Summer courses could be phased in as funding becomes available, starting with core general education courses and career and technical education (CTE) courses.

3) Because most instructors have academic-year contracts within the state operating budget and because summer terms span state fiscal years, continued budget flexibility is needed to provide summer courses. Student registration fees paid for summer courses must remain in self-supporting budgets.

E. Small Institution Administrative Allocation

1) Eliminate the phase-out formula for the Small Institution Factor, which penalizes growth and the higher weights implemented for CTE courses, and eliminate its dependence on WSCHs. The recognized funding need at small institutions for fixed administrative costs does not depend on credit hours and applies to every institution.

2) Instead of the current Small-Institution Factor amount per WSCH, fund a flat $700,000 for a minimal administrative staff allocation for each of the seven institutions, as a carve-out before distribution using credit hours and headcounts. The $700K value is based on the calculation in the following table for one chief academic officer, one chief financial officer, and a human resources administrator, i.e., minimal administrative staffing that is not dependent on enrollment. We do not include Presidents because their salaries are directly set by the Board of Regents.

Position	Median on Salary Schedule
CC Executive	$190,018
CC Executive	$190,018
Admin Faculty D	$125,940
Subtotal	$505,976
Fringe @34%	$172,032
Total	$678,008

3) For future biennia, adjust this amount by the Cost-of-Living Adjustments for faculty.

4) Unless full new funding is provided ($4.9 million less the current Small Institution Factor of $866,000), implement only for GBC and WNC as the preexisting small institutions at an additional cost of about $535,000.

F. Fee Waivers

1)    Request new funding to fund fee waivers based on actual fee waivers for the average of the prior two years for:

a) All legislatively mandated fee waivers.

b) The NSHE-approved fee waivers for former foster youth and others.

c) Discounts for dual and concurrent registration fees for high school students.

Note that fee waivers are a form of state-supported financial aid; other state financial aid programs are not included in the funding formula.

2)    Include appropriate inflation factors according to the NSHE predictable pricing program.

3)    Because fee waiver demand may vary widely among institutions, in future biennia fund fee waivers based on the past two years of actual fee waivers over and above the formula distribution based on WSCHs and student enrollment. (Alternatively, fund through the Office of the State Treasurer on a reimbursement basis.)

F. General Implementation

1) Maintain a single formula for all seven institutions. No method has been proposed for dividing the institutions and their funding into groups with separate formulas. Using current funding levels would perpetuate existing disparities.

2) Phase in the new components of the formula over two biennia as indicated above.

3) Instead of a single count year, use the best of the past two full academic years for each institution. A three-year average increases the lag time between enrollments and funding, and still counts even and odd years differently with biennial budgeting. The best-of-two allows for single-year declines due to circumstances that cannot be controlled and allows for better planning.

4) For any institutions experiencing a loss of funding compared with FY2025 appropriations (after including AB491 and AB494 enrollment recovery and supplemental appropriations but not other one-shot funding), provide hold-harmless funding at 100% for the first biennium and 50% for the second biennium. Apply the hold-harmless funding on the combined effect of formula changes, not separately for each component.

5) For biennial base budget calculations, adjust the dollar values per WSCH and per headcount/FTE for inflation by the past two years of the Higher Education Price Index.  That is, adjust the base budget for both inflation and caseload enrollment changes.

6) The proportion of revenue from the state versus from student fees and tuition has not been considered. The proportions should be fixed as part of the budgeting process to avoid needing student fee increases to cover shortfalls. Both state funding formulas and student fees and tuition should have inflation factors applied to maintain the level of services.

7) For full transparency and to promote trust between NSHE and the Legislature, all institutional reporting of formula factors (e.g., WSCHs and headcounts) should be audited regularly. The formula should incentivize services to students, not creative accounting.

G. Further Study and Review

1) Create an NSHE committee with broad-based faculty representation for regular review of the weights for WSCHs and enhancement factors for student headcounts.

2) Fund a follow-up study to determine the costs of providing adequate, high-quality, and equitable higher education serving Nevada’s students of all socioeconomic backgrounds, demographics, and geographic areas.

H. Impact of Formula Recommendations

For reference, Table 1 shows the impact of adopting the full recommendations of HCM Strategists (page 57) in the absence of any new funding. We are unable to calculate precise effects using NFA’s recommendations because of interactions among the various components, but we estimate the changes would be reduced by one-third to two-thirds assuming no new funding and depending on the percentage allocation to student enrollment in the formula. Table 2 summarizes the recommendations from NFA. To avoid harming some institutions while raising up others, new components to the formula should be contingent on new funding and hold-harmless funding should be provided.

Table 1: HCM Strategists Recommendations

 

Table 2: Summary of NFA Formula Recommendations

(percentages after small institution and research O&M allocations)

Formula factor	Current	HCM Strategists Recommendation (5/30/2024)	NFA Recommendation (First Biennium)	NFA Recommendation (Second Biennium)
Resident WSCH	100%	40%	85% to 90%	70% to 80%
Resident Headcount + FTE Enrollment	0%	40%	7.5% to 12.5%	15% to 25%
Outcomes Based Funding	20% Performance Pool carve-out	20%	2.5%	5%
Administrative Allocation	Small Institution Factor @$30/WSCH, with phase-out	Small Institution Factor @$40/WSCH, with phase-out	$700,000 per institution, over and above  the formula
Summer School Courses	Certain nursing and teacher education courses included in WSCH	Include all summer courses in the formula, with or without funding.	Do not include additional summer courses in the formula without full funding per WSCH and headcount. Maintain summer student registration fees in self-supported budgets.

 

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Recommendations

The following submission is from NFA member and UNLV Professor Gregory Brown and does not necessarily reflect the views of the NFA State Board.

Dear colleagues and friends,

I'm writing you on a matter of some importance and which I believe is important to discuss, so I hope you will indulge me to read this letter. I am writing to explain the intent, language, and effect of the amendment approved by the Board of Regents to  the above-numbered section of the NHSE Code, which serves as our faculty handbook. I am writing you about this, because you signed an open letter to the Board opposing this change, and since it has now passed, and since I advocated strongly for it, I feel you are entitled to an explanation of why and more importantly why I believe you need not feel concerned that your academic freedom or free speech will be encroached and why, perhaps, you may view the practical effect of this with sympathy and support. 

Some of you I know very well and some I do not, so I feel I want to explain my own positionality to start. I am a 26-year faculty member at UNLV, an historian of European and World history, a former head of the chapter and state level Nevada Faculty Alliance, a former faculty Senate chair, and formerly Vice Provost for Faculty and Policy. I am someone with quite a solid track record in defense of academic freedom, shared governance and faculty rights in general. Ive testified in federal court on behalf of faculty tenure rights, and I served on an AAUP national committee on the defense of tenure rights and academic freedom. I am also a Jewish-American and one of the founders of the recently recognized Jewish Faculty and Staff group, which is part of the Office of Diversity's affinity group program and as such a member of the Presidential Advisory Council's subcommittee on diversity. I hope therefore that you will accept my comments below in good faith and based on a decent amount of experience working in these issues. 

I have also over the past 8 months been an advisor to leaders of the campus's small Jewish student population, which is only several dozen students, and which includes a number of Israeli students (as well as Israeli faculty and staff). I have been consulted by them since last October, when some of them found themselves, in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks on Israel, subject to hostile treatment and asked in some cases in classroom environments to explain aspects of Israeli policy and history for which they should not have any particular knowledge or responsibility. In other cases, they found themselves ostracized within student life, excluded from certain student clubs, and in a few cases subject to minor but clearly worrisome attacks on their person and property. (This was in the days while the attack was still going on, long before any armed response from Israel by the way.) As the weeks went by, these students felt -- whether rightly or wrongly -- targeted on campus, through social media and through rhetoric that they considered to be aggressive, hostile and in some cases violent. In no case did I or anyone seek or advocate for anyone to be punished for such actions (with the exception, of course, of the incident in which a visiting scientist had his lecture shut down, in clear violation of university free speech policies.) In many cases, I advised students to understand that hostile language on social media is something they can ignore, or in other cases, explained to them the history and significance of slogans or symbols that they considered hostile. In all cases, I urged them to do three things -- to avoid confrontation (including to stay home on days of large demonstrations by groups which chose to engage in rhetoric they found offensive), to report any actual physical or emotional harm done to them or negative impact they may have experienced on their education and thirdly and most importantly, to engage in dialog, to listen and to share their views non-confrontationally. I have regularly had lunch with these students, met with them privately, received personal communications, and generally did what any faculty member would do, which is to  help them understand the world around them.

I do think that among the individuals who spoke on the matter at hand, I am the only one to have had such close relationships and to provide support to those students.

As you may know, the group of faculty with whom I have been working held a few open conversations, on topics such as Jewish Identity at UNLV, the prospect of Jewish studies curriculum at UNLV, on interfaith dialog ("How to be a peacemaker"), and on the occasion of Israeli independence day, a visiting speaker who is a senior Israeli reporter who had been reporting from Israel and Gaza, on the current conditions there as he saw them. Many of these students attended, participated, and learned. These have been open events, announced to the campus, and to which all students and faculty have been welcome.

I have also attended events organized by other groups, including the Jewish Law School student association, and events organized by students engaged in advocacy for a cease fire and on the question of genocide (both very well run events organized by students whom I commended and with whom I engaged in quite detailed and thoughtful discussion). I have engaged in discussion with students of very different backgrounds and points of view -- or often no point of view at all -- in the first year course on the history of Zionism that I taught last spring. 

Finally I have had many meetings and conversations with the office of Student Diversity Programs, the Office of Diversity, the Provost´s office, the President, the University Police, and community partners to encourage de-escalation of rhetoric, and try to encourage educational initiatives. 

I therefore feel that my engagement on this question is not merely on the particular issue of the Code amendment.   

The proposal that was put forth, debated and eventually approved by the Regents on Friday was discussed in the petition you signed as an action to "adopt" a particular definition of antisemitism. I do think that particular definition is defensible, and I did write a memo in support of it, which I will take the liberty of attaching here. But I do not think the issue is properly represented as an adoption of any particular definition, because the measure proposed was to adopt the provisions of federal civil rights law adopted by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, with respect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. That action, by executive order of the president, does refer to -- as does the Code amendment approved by the Board -- the most widely adopted definition, which is referred to commonly (though not entirely accurately) as the "International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance" (IHRA) definition. And for that reason, the compliance with civil rights regulations as set forth in the US DOE OCR "Dear Colleague Letter" of May 7. 2024, does refer to that definition as one basis for determining discriminatory intent. But it does not criminalize criticism of Israel -- this is stated plainly in both the definition itself and in the Code amendment -- and does not in any way make it possible for a student to be expelled or a faculty member to be terminated based on criticism of Israel. Indeed, the point I wish to make to you is that the idea that this is fundamentally about Israel at all is not accurate.

As the text of the amendment itself, which I will past below and attach, it was  a measure that was brought forth, defended and eventually approved not to change or adopt a particular definition of antisemitism -- but to add the language of the Office of Civil Rights -- to the Code in the paragraph that states the NSHE principles of anti-discrimination. 

That article begins with the following sentence: 

"The Nevada System of Higher Education is guided by the principle that there shall be no difference in the treatment of persons because of race, religion, color, age, sex (including a pregnancy related condition), sexual orientation, military status or military obligations, disability (whether actual or perceived by others to have a disability including veterans with service-connected disabilities, or national origin, and that equal opportunity and access to facilities shall be available to all."

The amendment then inserts this sentence (which I reproduce in its entirety)
"This extends to individuals who experience discrimination (including antisemitism* ) based on their actual or perceived: (i) shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or (ii) citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity "

This language comes directly from US Dept of Ed Office of Civil Rights title VI regulations. The only element of the above that does not come directly from the OCR is the insertion of "(including antisemitism)" though that is clearly a part of the meaning of the OCR guidance. (The OCR guidance, using the above-cited language, also includes specific reference to Muslims and Palestinians.)

So the opposition is to the inclusion of a basic statement of civil rights already established under federal law. The letter that you signed wondered why this language was being inserted now, seemingly to the exclusion of discussion of other forms of discrimination, and I think the answer is clear -- because those were already present in the Code. They were already present in the Code because, as the lawyers among you will I hope agree, they had been and remain a part of federal civil rights law and compliance procedures. 

What is new is that this new language was adopted to provide specific protection to groups that, I believe, there is universal assent ought to be protected, including (but not limited to) Jewish students and faculty. Because the Civil Rights Act of 1965 did not specify religion as a protected group, there was a need to find a way to interpret the law to extend this protection to groups, including but not limited to Jews, who are both a religious group and an ethnic identity. The somewhat awkward language in bold above was the solution, and this was adopted by executive order of the president, beginning in 2019 by then-president Trump  and reaffirmed in May 2023 by president Biden.

It is precisely because the main thrust of the amendment is to specify the protection of the civil rights of Jewish students that I advocated for the amendment and why I had hoped that others would as well. Indeed, the letter you signed states your support for the principle  of protecting Jewish students and faculty from antisemitism, and so it would have seemed to me helpful to have specified in the letter or in other public statements that the language above -- again the language that is already adopted by the federal government for purposes of civil rights protections. Indeed, it is my hope that you might be willing to make such a statement, individually, or collectively, of your support for the "principle¨ that "there shall be no difference in the treatment of persons because of"....being Jewish and the extension of the principle of "access to facilities for all" to include Jews. That, for me and for the students who spoke on behalf of the item, and for the majority of the Regents who voted for it, is the key point. That  is what the university was already required to ensure and what the University will, I hope, continue to do so. It is therefore to my mind a very good thing that attention has been called to this legal and moral responsibility.

The second part of the amendment is where, I believe, the objection lies. This is a small modification to a footnote used to describe "antisemitism" as it appears in the language above. In December 2022, the Board voted to insert into section 2 of this same chapter -- again the chapter deals with anti discrimination and section 2 deals with anti-bias training for faculty and staff -- a reference to antisemitism as being among the forms of discrimination to be addressed in this training. At that time, the footnote was inserted to specify that the antibias training should refer to the IHRA definition and associated examples. That reference has been in the Code since December of 2022, so it would not be accurate to say it was being "adopted" or "added into the main body of the Code" through this action. It remains in a footnote. 

The textual amendment added some language that specified that this would not be, as you have expressed concern, a restriction on free speech. I reproduce below the footnote, which is by the action of the Board  now moved from section 2 to section 1, and I have highlighted and bolded the added language.

“Antisemitism” refers to (i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism [sic] adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and (ii) the "Contemporary Examples of AntiSemitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent they might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent. Consideration of the materials described in (i) and (ii) shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment and shall not be construed to conflict with local, federal, or state law. Determinations that a particular act constitutes illegal discrimination or harassment requires detailed analysis of the particular facts at issue and consultation of applicable legal and regulatory guidance . "   

Note that not only does this language specify that there  is infringement upon First Amendment protected speech but it also specifies that the examples of the IHRA definition cannot be used as basis for determining discriminatory intent or harassment without "detailed analysis of the particular facts at issue and consultation of the applicable legal and regulatory guidance." In other words, the concern that a "process of simple ´matching´" would be used to prosecute or punish faculty or students is explicitly counter-indicated in the text of the amendment. And again, for those who are familiar with the handbook, extensive process exists in other parts of the Code for matters such as discipline of student or faculty, so  this passage would not be the basis for encroachment upon academic or free speech is, not only in my view of but that of the System Counsel, as she explained at the Board discussion on Friday.

The bulk of the letter you signed is fundamentally about the philosphical question of the "IHRA" definition in relation to other possible definitions. And certainly there is a good basis, always, for further discussion and debate. And in that debate, which I hope we will have, I would be eager to make  the case for at least some of the aspects of the IHRA to which your letter objects, notably the examples that do specify instances in which holding Jews accountable for the policies of Israel or criticism of Israel that is not applied to any other country, could be considered antisemitic. You may be interested to know that while the letter dismisses the 7 of the 11 examples that refer to Israel as being not related to "antisemitism", the Jerusalem Declaration devotes 9 of its 15 "principles" to consideration of Israel. I do not think it is either intellectually sound or fair to suggest that there can be a discussion of antisemitism and protection against harassment of Jews without some reference to Israel, and in particular I would suggest that the provision holding that it could be discriminatory to hold individual or group s of Jews responsible for policies of Israel is a quite valid concern. 

The attached memo explains the history of this definition, which was first developed by specialist scholars on antisemitism in 2003 and was known for most of its history as the "EUMC" definition, referring to the European Union Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, which adopted it in 2005. This was in turn adopted by European Union parliament and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (to which the US is a party) the same year, and it was adopted in 2013 by the United States Department of State for the purpose of determining if a foreign country should be considered to have a problem of antisemitism in its culture. It was also adopted in 2013 by the United States Department of Defense in 2013 for purposes of anti bias training of the armed forces. It was, in turn, adopted in 2016 by the IHRA and since then it has been adopted by over 40 countries, over 1200 cultural and educational institutions, and over 350 American universities. It was adopted by the US as part of the national antisemitism strategy in 2019 and included in the 2023 expansion of that strategy. In no instance in any of these jurisdictions has anyone been prosecuted or disciplined for speech critical of Israel based upon this definition. (There are jurisdictions in Europe in which Holocaust denial or antisemitism is illegal, including the Federal Republic of Germany, but in no cases has anyone been prosecuted by virtue of the IHRA definition.) Indeed the European Union prepared and published in 2021 a Practical Handbook for the Effective Use of the IHRA Definition (which I have attached) which includes explanations of the real-world examples of each of the "contemporary examples," which are not actually that vague or abstract in light of the actual cases laid out here. Moreover, it includes a page on best practices for the use for which the Regents adopted it on Friday, for reporting and compliance (page 19) and it includes a 3-page section on best practices for use in educational institutions and universities (page 27-30), none of which are as speech codes or to restrict academic freedom. Indeed, the primary author of this definition did as your letter indicates, state that it should not be used to inhibit speech, as did former AAUP president and leading academic freedom advocate Cary Nelson, and this is precisely why the use adopted by the Board does not and could not, in any "detailed analysis," be used to punish anyone for speech. It could be used to identify a "pervasive and persistent" environment of harassment (the standard used by the Compliance office in title IX or title VI investigations) but it could not be used to punish someone for a use of speech that is critical of Israel or even which calls for the "dismantlement" of Israel.  

But hereś the key. The code amendment did not -- despite the somewhat inaccurate headline in today's LVRJ -- adopt a definition of antisemitism at all. This is not only because the IHRA definition had already been adopted, by the Federal government, and this is included in the DOE OCR guidance. Therefore, if the case is to be made to adopt a different definition, in the context of title VI compliance, that case is being made in the wrong venue by opposing the NHSE Code Amendment. That case should be made to the federal government, and if that is your intent, fortunately, there is a presidential election this year. There is also of course the option of litigation against the federal government for adopting this definition as an encroachment on 1st Amendment protected speech.

But as one of the Jewish student leaders said to the Board on Friday, "Why should explicit protection of my civil rights as a Jewish American be set aside so there can be a philosophical debate about a definition"? IF the Board were to adopt the same article with a reference to the Jerusalem Declaration, any compliance reporting to the Department of Education or any response to a title VI investigation would have to be based upon the federal government's definition, which is to say, in reference to (not necessarily based upon) the IHRA definition. 

Finally, for those who wish to enter into the specifics of the competing definitions, the primary substantive differences are that the IHRA definition does specify that statements which question the "right of the Jewish people to self determination on its ancestral homeland" could be considered antisemitic, while the Jerusalem definition notes that the right of "Jews as individuals" to self determination "in equality" with others would be possibly antisemitic. The IHRA definition uses as an example the statement that "Israel is a racist state" as an example of possibly antisemitic speech and that calls for the outright destruction of Israel do imply violence against Jews and could be considered antisemitic. The Jerusalem definition does not. Thus, as I have said to some of you already, if the concern is that you feel you will be restricted from saying "Israel is a racist state" or calling for the "destruction" or "dismantlement" of Israel, then yes there is a substantive difference in the two definitions. BUT this does not mean that under an environment in which IHRA has been adopted as a working definition, such as the one in which we have been living since 2019, you would not be able to say those things. They are stil protected by the First Amendment, and I personally would continue to advocate for your academic freedom to say those things. 

But I would ask you to consider how that sounds to an Israeli student or colleague. Or if you state that as a Jewish student or I as a Jewish faculty member are responsible for the actions or policies of Israel that you consider racist, I do think that is hostile. Not illegal. But hostile. If stated in a persistent and pervasive manner, that could certainly create an environment in which access to education or the ability to do ones job could be inhibited.

If you are still reading, I will close with this. I supported and celebrated the adoption of this amendment. And if it turns out I am wrong and you find yourself or anyone you know finds yourself in a position in which your speech is being curtailed or in which you are being punished or disciplined for criticism of Israel, please let me know. I will be among the first to help, and I will draw on my experience as an advocate for faculty rights and for academic freedom. I can also request the assistance of the AntiDefamation League on your behalf, as could you, as the ADL regularly provides support and assistance to students or workers facing discrimination based on their Muslim religion, Arab cultural heritage or otherwise. And of course you can count on the ACLU and the NFA to protect you if it is a matter of prosecution based on political speech.

But Id like to ask something of you, colleague. Having signed a letter stating your concern about antisemitism, can I ask for your help? Can I ask for you to help students who are fearful? Can I ask you to help launch a discussion on campus about antisemitism -- a serious, intellectual and historically informed one? One that actually looks to decades of scholarship in this field and applies the principles of anti-racism that we apply when we discuss anti-Black racism or harassment of LatinX or Asians? 

That is the issue on which the Regents voted on Friday, and in my opinion, they made the right decision. You may disagree, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss. Please feel free to reach out, by email or phone, and please raise concerns, objections, objections of moral outrage to what I have written or said. The campus has had a difficult year for many reasons, not least that many are afraid to discuss this issue. Lets stand against that fear and silence and lets not treat each other as hostile entities, but as colleagues. I look forward to talking to you.

Additional resources from Professor Brown:

Dear Colleague Letter_ Protecting Students from Discrimination, such as Harassment, Based on Race, Color, or National Origin, Including Shared Ancestry or Ethnic Characteristics (May 7 2024)

Handbook for the practical use of the IHRA working-definition

IV-8-1

On the IHRA definition

The Nevada Faculty Alliance welcomes contrasting points of views and appreciates Dr. Brown's feedback. NFA condemns bigoted and hateful behavior in all forms. 

UPDATE, June 12, 2024: On June 7, 2024, the Nevada Board of Regents, by a vote of 7 to 6, amended the Board of Regents Handbook's anti-discrimination policy to include language specifically identifying antisemitism based on the IHRA working definition and examples. The NFA State Board rejects and abhors antisemitism and continues to support statements from the ACLU and AAUP that oppose adoption of the IHRA definition. Our position echoes that of AAUP in their letter to the US Department of Education.  In the event that this new policy is not applied as its many supporters have testified, the NFA is prepared to defend any faculty member who is unreasonably accused  of discrimination based on the IHRA definition or examples of antisemitism. We look forward to working amicably with all students and faculty at our NSHE institutions to foster an environment that encourages free speech and avoids any discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin, and recommit our members to fostering diversity, equity and inclusion.  

ORIGINAL POST, June 4, 2024: At their next quarterly meeting on June 6 and 7, the Board of Regents will consider an amendment to the Handbook’s definition of discrimination so that it includes “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity, and permit consultation of the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of ‘antisemitism’ and accompanying examples thereof.” It begs the question, could criticism of Israel and/or the Israeli government be considered discriminatory of Jewish people and the Jewish faith? The proposal, which has been submitted by Regents Joe Arrascada, Byron Brooks, and Stephanie Goodman, aims to add the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and specific examples to the Handbook which governs the Nevada System of Higher Education. The definition is already included in mandatory anti-bias and anti-discrimination training for Regents and NSHE employees.

The Nevada Faculty Alliance condemns antisemitism in all its forms, just as we condemn all forms of discriminatory and hateful behavior.  However, we vigorously oppose this proposal for infringing on the first amendment rights of free speech and freedom of religion, and we encourage all higher education employees in Nevada to voice their opinions to the Board.

The definition developed by IHRA provides examples of what can be considered antisemitism, but explicitly references Israel. Ironically, the author of the original definition on antisemitism that is used by the IHRA, Kenneth Stern, testified in Congress against enshrining the definition into any law because the definition “was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.” Instead, the definition was only meant to be non-legally binding guidance.

Indeed, the definition is not universally accepted even in the Jewish community. More than 1,300 Jewish college and university faculty members from across the United States have signed a statement that rejects the IHRA working definition because “[c]riticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not - in and of itself - antisemitic.” The group acknowledges there are differing opinions on Israel, even within its own ranks, but it cautions against the dangerous belief “that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel’s government.” Instead of combating antisemitism, this notion may have the inverse effect and actually intensify the real threats Jewish Americans already face.

Other definitions of antisemitism exist, including the Jerusalem Definition developed by Jewish academics. It is unambiguous in its simplicity and makes no link between Jewish people and institutions to the government of Israel. Similarly, the Nexus Project, which has published multiple documents designed to guide policy makers in the fight against antisemitism, opposes using the IHRA working definition to formulate policies and laws.

In their submission, Regents indicate they have consulted with Jewish student organizations about this proposal, but we know of no outreach to Jewish faculty who are equally, if not more, exposed to antisemitic behavior. It appears the Regents submitting this proposal may have failed to recognize that Jewish NSHE faculty can provide valuable insights when forming a policy such as this.

NSHE is not the first place where ideological groups, motivated by former President Trump’s Executive Order 13899, have moved to enshrine this language into educational governance. Earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a letter to the US Department of Education urging them to reject the IHRA definition in any rules, policies, or practices for enforcing civil rights because it “conflates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination, and enshrining it into regulation will chill the exercise of First Amendment rights and risk undermining the agency's legitimate and important efforts to combat discrimination.” 

Besides the obviously unconstitutional aim of suppressing the right of individuals to criticize government activities, the IHRA definition is ill-suited as the basis of a policy because it is simultaneously too ambiguous in one sense while being too specific in others.

First, the handbook change would include “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity” as a potential basis of discrimination. There are a number of countries around the globe that have dominant religions or a distinct religious identity, such as Afghanistan, Cambodia, Egypt, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others. Could this definition lead to an assault on free speech for far more than one nationality and curtail objective, rational discussions of international current events, politics, art, and literature in the future?

Second, it does not make sense to codify into the handbook incredibly specific examples of antisemitism that make direct references to a specific country without doing the same for other types of discrimination. 

College campuses are places in which students learn and create their world views. It is imperative that we keep free speech paramount on our campuses and encourage students, faculty, staff, and community members to understand that their words can literally be dangerous - something we have said to the Board in the past regarding oppressed identities. In other words, it is our responsibility to teach and remind students, and each other, of the weight that is our right to free speech, not to dictate what we can and cannot say as members of public higher education in Nevada. 

The NFA echoes the ACLU’s objections when they stated, “[a]dopting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism would lead to more censorship on campus, and change the nature of universities, which exist to promote the free flow of information and marketplace of ideas.“ We will vigorously defend the rights of all Nevada faculty members and students to engage in free speech and the uncensored exchange of ideas. It is a pillar of our mission as an organization, and a foundation of our profession. 

As stewards of higher education in Nevada, the Board of Regents should reject this proposal.

At their May 23, 2024, meeting, the Nevada Board of Regents will consider a resolution to delegate their authority in litigation matters to the Chancellor. While Nevada laws permit such delegation, and several public bodies have adopted similar resolutions delegating litigation decisions to executive leadership, this proposal gives the Chancellor and the NSHE Chief General Counsel blanket authority over litigation decisions with little, if any, oversight by the Board. It only requires the Chancellor to consult with the Board Chair. There is no mandate that the two must agree. Similarly, there is no requirement to keep the other members of the Board informed. Alarmingly, the resolution states that the Chancellor would have the authority to make any decision “consistent with the advice of the Chief General Counsel.” That is, it appears to delegate real authority to the Chief General Counsel, not the Chancellor. 

There is no argument that delegation is often necessary. Nevada’s Open Meeting Law makes it untenable for Regents to confer as a body on all litigation within the deadlines set by courts. Previously, the Board delegated this authority to the Chair who was charged with seeking approval from the Chancellor and the General Counsel. The new proposal, generally, reverses those roles, delegating authority to make litigation decisions “to the Chancellor, after consultation with the Board Chair and consistent with the advice of the Chief General Counsel.”

As presented, this resolution would apply to all litigation, including lawsuits initiated by NSHE on behalf of the Board, not just those where NSHE is a defendant.

The NFA recommends that Regents amend the resolution to authorize delegation ONLY when time does not allow consideration by the full Board. It should also require that the Board Chair approve decisions by the Chancellor, not just be consulted, and that the full Board be informed once a decision has been made. The Board Chair should retain the right to seek additional legal counsel and not rely solely on the advice of the NSHE Chief General Counsel. If the Board Chair disagrees with a decision of the Chancellor pertaining to litigation, the matter should automatically go before the full Board. Furthermore, NSHE should not initiate any legal action without consideration by the full Board of Regents. 

Regents have the fiduciary responsibility for the Nevada System of Higher Education. A blanket delegation of authority over litigation abdicates a significant portion of that responsibility. It should not happen. Once established, the delegation of authority would be difficult to reverse. Consider the consequences of the worst possible Chancellor and General Counsel, not the current ones, having authority over litigation under any possible circumstances effectively without Board oversight.

Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers

Part 6 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education.

The recommendations here from the Nevada Faculty Alliance are presented in good faith as ways to improve the funding formula and meet achievable goals. We appreciate the Committee’s difficult task and hard work. Our shared concerns are in serving students across the state, especially those in underserved areas. 

One of our actionable solutions begins with analyzing the current NSHE funding formula. Because it is only a distribution formula an institution can meet all of its performance goals and still experience a budget decrease because other institutions had larger enrollment growth. Any new formula that merely redistributes existing funds will produce winners and losers and fail for Nevada’s students. 

Chair Hardesty and Vice Chair Charleton have emphasized the Committee’s charge is to develop a new formula without new funding. Committee members have advocated for additional funds to fairly implement formula changes. As shown in Part 3, including summer course credits in the Weighted Student Credit Hour (WSCH) formula without additional funds would result in significant budget cuts for five of the seven institutions. 

Reimagining the Formula as a Funding Formula

Budgets for the seven NSHE colleges and universities are currently developed through the state budget process, starting with the base-year budget and making various maintenance adjustments including caseload. At the end of the process, the total appropriation for the seven institutions is redistributed according to their WSCHs. That is backward and it leads to constant competition among the colleges and universities.

A true funding formula would determine the cost of providing higher education per WSCH (or other chosen metrics), then budget that amount multiplied by the WSCHs. The existing dollar value per WSCH should be adjusted for inflation according to the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI). Then that value multiplied by each institution’s WSCHs would be the institution's new base budget. The detailed budget (including cost-of-living adjustments) for each institution would be developed with the formula funding totals. Using WSCHs as the starting point for budgeting would prevent a redistribution or competition between institutions.

If the state provides insufficient funds to fully fund the formula, the only alternative is to reduce the appropriation per WSCH across the board by the same percentage and then raise student fees or cut services to compensate. That’s the reality regardless of which formula is established.

In case another sudden drop in enrollment were to occur, as happened during the pandemic, the best of the past two years of the WSCHs should be used to provide time for recovery or adjustment. (A three-year average has been proposed, but that still counts even and odd years differently with a biennial budget and increases the lag between count and budget years.) Ideally, projected enrollments would be used, but further study would be needed to find a feasible and accurate projection method.

Funding Student Services

In Part 4, we recommended shifting funding for existing student services expenditures from the WSCH to a headcount to reflect the costs of providing student services beyond the classroom. To implement that in a revenue-neutral way, each institution’s current student services expenditures would be carved out of their WSCH allocation (8% overall but varying from 5% to 14%). The total amount would then be redistributed according to the average of fall and spring student headcounts, resulting in an initial minor funding shift. For future budgets, the total student service funding would be divided by the total headcounts to obtain the dollar value per headcount. That value would be increased by HEPI inflation to set the budget based on each institution’s new headcount.

Funding Enhancements

The Committee cannot appropriate funds, but it can recommend additional changes in the formula be contingent upon full funding. These should include:

• Adding all summer course credits to the WSCH formula, with an appropriation to cover the full cost. Unintended consequences of including summer credits without additional funding are discussed in Part 3. If all summer school courses convert to regular WSCH funding in the state-supported operating budget, then UNR’s and UNLV’s academic departments must receive equivalent funding levels to support their research missions.

• Enhancing the headcount formula to fund additional wrap-around services for at-risk and underserved students, counting them at 1.25 to 1.30, with an appropriation to cover the full cost. The categories of at-risk students should include Pell-grant recipients, underrepresented and first-generation students, English-language learners, and students needing disability accommodations. Details can be found in Part 4.

• An adjustment to the weighting in the WSCH formula for Nursing and possibly other critical needs. Again, weight enhancements must be fully funded to avoid robbing one institution to pay another. The Committee should also recommend a regular procedure to update the level and discipline weights in the WSCHs. They should be revised every four to six years to keep up with changes in the cost of instruction and the state’s critical economic areas.

Without full funding for these enhancements, smaller institutions would face severe budget cuts because existing funds would be redistributed to larger institutions. Recommending formula enhancements contingent upon funding would provide a path to future budget requests.

Inflation Adjustments

NSHE already has a policy to raise student registration fees according to HEPI, and state funding should keep up. A funding formula that is not adjusted for inflation results in cuts that prevent our ability to serve students and compensate faculty and staff fairly and competitively. The HEPI by Commonfund is a reasonable national measure of inflation in the higher education sector. For each biennial budget, the WSCHs or headcounts should be adjusted for the most recent two years of HEPI inflation.

Indexing the WSCH dollar value for inflation is not a major change from actual practice. For all the biennial budget requests and supposed enhancements since the current formula was established, the following figure shows that the appropriation per WSCH adjusted for inflation has been mostly flat since 2014, except for the decline after the pandemic from which we haven't not fully recovered.

If (and only if) the formula funding for NSHE is indexed for inflation, then the mechanism for funding COLAs for NSHE employees could be reconsidered for the formula-funded NSHE budgets. COLAs in line with the HEPI could be accommodated within the formula. Catch-up increases for competitive compensation require additional state funding, however.

Outcomes-Based Funding

We recommend eliminating the current performance pool as a carve-out from base funding. Any outcomes-based funding should be additions to the base budgets. Our recommended enhancement to the headcount formula for at-risk and underserved students provides outcomes-based funding, applied to about 8% of the budget (versus the 20% carve-out in the current performance pool). Institutions that recruit and retain those students would receive a funding boost based on their headcounts but without competing against other institutions for a fixed allocation or being threatened with a reduced budget for not meeting targets, as with the current performance pool. Headcount values could also include student-centric performance metrics for retention, progression, and completion. If a larger percentage of the formula is allocated to headcounts to enhance student support services (such as disability resources or mental health), it should be phased in with hold-harmless funding.

Other performance could be rewarded in a similar manner. For example, WSCH values could receive a bonus for efficiency measured by the number of degrees and certificates awarded per credit hour; that would prevent a reduction in funding if an institution graduates its students more quickly. All outcomes incentives must be additional funds that do not make institutions compete or put base funding at risk. No performance funding should risk base funding using metrics that track the total number of students, directly or indirectly. The WSCHs and headcounts already account for enrollment. Instead, institutions should be rewarded for increasing efficiency or reaching a higher proportion of a target population.

Audits

For full transparency and to promote trust between NSHE and the Legislature, all institutional reporting of formula factors (e.g., WSCHs and headcounts) should be audited regularly.  The formula should incentivize services to students, not creative accounting.

###

Data are sourced from public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Recommendations
  
• 
  

Updated 5/20/2024 11:30 a.m. Edited for clarity.

A Separate Formula for the Community Colleges using Headcounts Could Decimate the Rural Colleges

Part 5 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHECommittee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamentalPrinciples for Funding Higher Education. 

Several presidents and members of the Committee have recommended establishing separate formulas for different institution types to account for their different missions and student demographics. HCM Strategists, the Committee’s consultant, has advised against that, stating that there are too few institutions for multiple formulas to be practical and that the Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs) formula can provide sufficient differentiation by mission.

A simple two-formula system has been suggested to maintain the WSCH formula funding for the three universities but switch the four community colleges to a headcount formula. Table 1 shows how that system would affect the community colleges. With no additional funding or hold-harmless provisions, CSN’s budget would increase by 8%, but the other three colleges would have their funding reduced by 4% for TMCC, 9% for GBC, and 33% for WNC. The smaller and rural community colleges would be significantly harmed. Such a change should not be contemplated, at least not without long-term hold-harmless funding for the smaller institutions. 

As recommended in part 4, a less radical and more practical solution would be to shift funding for Student Services expenses, about 8% of the budget overall, to a headcount formula but keep the student credit hour formula to fund instruction and related academic support.  A credit-hour formula, weighted or not, more accurately represents the costs of instruction than do headcounts, but student support costs are better correlated with headcounts.

Table 1. Comparison of WSCH and headcount formulas for CSN, GBC, TMCC, & WNC 

College	WSCH	Share of WSCH	Formula Appropriation (millions)	Funding Per WSCH	Headcount	Share of Headcount	Headcount Formula Funding (millions)	Funding Per Head	Change (millions)	Change (%)
CSN	564061	60.1%	$97.0	$172.01	33546	64.6%	$104	$3,127	$$7.9	8.1%
GBC	81614	8.7%	$14.6	$179.50	4279	8.2%	$13.4	$3,127	($1.3)	-8.7%
TMCC	204001	21.7%	$35.0	$171.76	10754	20.7%	$33.6	$3,127	($1.4)	-4.0%
WNC	89534	9.5%	$15.6	$174.65	3333	6.4%	$10.4	$3,127	($5.2)	-33.3%
Totals	939210	100%	$162.3		51912	100%	$162.3	$3,127	$0	0%

Sources: NSHE and LCB public reports. WSCH and Unduplicated Resident Headcount for the 2021-2022 count year. Formula appropriation is from the General Fund for FY2024 before COLAs and enrollment recovery funding.

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Recommendations
  

Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts

Part 4 in a series analyzing proposals being considered by the NSHE Committee on Higher Education Funding. These articles delve into various proposals the Committee will consider on May 30 and finalize on July 25. The NFA has issued a set of fundamental Principles for Funding Higher Education. 

A valid criticism of the current funding-distribution formula, which allocates state appropriations using resident Weighted Student Credit Hours (WSCHs), is that it does not account for students from diverse backgrounds and part-time students needing wrap-around services. Several of the presidents have proposed using headcounts instead of WSCHs to distribute funding. HCM Strategists, the committee’s consultant, recommend using headcounts for only a portion of the formula.

In part 2, we showed that a complete switch from WSCHs to a headcount distribution formula would have disastrous consequences for multiple institutions. In this article, we analyze cost estimates for student services based on advisor-to-student ratios and recommend that funding for student service expenditures be tied to a student headcount measure.

Achieving a 350-to-1 Advisor-to-Student Ratio

NSHE's service standard for student services is one academic advisor or counselor per 350 students. Table 1 provides a cost estimate for funding that many advisors system-wide. 

Table 1. Estimated cost of academic advisors and counselors

Total Student Headcount (Fall 2023)	107,000
Advisors at 350-to-1 students-to-advisor	305
Compensation per advisor ($56K average salary + 35% fringe + 11% FY2025 COLA)	$84,400
Total Cost	$25,700,000

The total cost of about $25.7 million represents 2.7% of the total budgets of the seven NSHE colleges and universities.

Enhancement for At-Risk and Students: Closing the Achievement Gap

Another goal is to enhance funding for services to at-risk students, including underrepresented minorities (URM), Pell Grant recipients, first-generation students, English-language learners, and students needing disability accommodations. NSHE data indicate 63% of students or 67,000 are historically minoritized and 32000 are Pell-grant recipients (data for the other categories are not readily available). The calculations in Table 2 show a cost of about $18.5 million overall to provide additional advisors or other program staff to support these students at the same 350-to-1 ratio as regular academic advisors.

Table 2. Estimated cost for additional support personnel for at-risk and underrepresented students (at a 350-to-1 student-to-staff ratio)

Student Services Expenditures

Funding advisors and support personnel is only a portion of student services. We can examine current expenditures attributed to Student Services for the colleges and universities. The NSHE Operating Budgets classify expenditures using standardized functional categories. Table 3 shows percentage expenditures for the NSHE colleges and universities for 2021-2022. The overall expenditure for Student Services is 8.0% of the budget, varying from 5% for UNR to 14% for NSU. Student Services include not only academic advising, but a wide range of services and programs beyond classroom instruction including information technology.

Table 3. 2021-2022 Expenditures by Functional Categories

A correlation analysis (Table 4 in footnote) shows that institutional expenditures for Instruction, Academic Support, and Operations & Maintenance are most highly correlated with Weighted Student Credit Hours. In contrast, expenditures for Student Services are most highly correlated with Total Fall Headcounts. Thus, the institutions are already allocating resources to serve students outside of the classroom in proportion to headcounts. The left side of Figure 1 shows that institutions are spending similar amounts on Student Services per student ($644 overall).  The right side shows, in contrast, that the two comprehensive universities spend a much smaller portion of their budgets (5 to 6%) on Student Services than do NSU and the community colleges (11 to 14%).  

Figure 1. Student Services Expenditures by Institution 

As discussed in Part 2 of this series, a complete switch for the distribution formula from Weighted Student Credit Hours to headcounts would result in huge disruptions of funding. However, distribution by headcounts for up to the current 8% of expenditures for Student Services would be reasonable and would account for a variety of support services and technology infrastructure.  

Recommendations

NFA recommends that Student Services expenditures (approximately 8% of the formula-funded budgets overall) be carved out from the resident WSCH distribution formula individually for each institution and that those amounts be distributed using an average of Fall and Spring resident headcounts. In future budgets, these headcount allocations should be updated through caseload maintenance items in the state budget process, plus an adjustment inflation. Because current Student Services expenditures are highly correlated with headcounts, this change would not cause a major disruption in funding, but it would allow for growth in services to students based on headcounts rather than student credit hours, accounting for part-time students who predominate at the community colleges.

Additionally, the headcounts should be enhanced for underrepresented minority, Pell recipients, and other identifiable at-risk or underserved students (without double counting individual students) by a factor sufficient to fund an additional counselor or other program officer per 350 of those students (roughly 0.25 to 0.30).  Because the current formula does not account for these students in any way, this funding should be implemented as a enhancement.  Once funded and implemented, the enhancement of headcounts for at-risk students acts as a performance factor–recruiting and retaining those students would boost future funding. 

NFA also recommends that all reporting by the institutions of student credit hours, headcounts, and other factors that go into the funding formula should be audited regularly. The formula should provide incentives to serve students, not incentives for creative accounting.

###

Data are sourced from NSHE public records and reports. We welcome questions and welcome corrections from authoritative sources.  Contact:kent.ervin@nevadafacultyalliance.org.

_______________

Table 4. Correlation Analysis of 2021-2022 Institutional Expenditures in Major Functional Categories

NFA Series on NSHE Funding Formula

• Principles for Funding Higher Education
• Part 1. Consultant's Preliminary Recommendations
• Part 2. Reslicing the Higher Education Funding Pie: Winners and Losers
• Part 3. Unintended Consequences of Including Summer Courses in the WSCH Formula
• Part 4. Funding Student Support Services Based on Headcounts
• Part 5. A Separate Headcount Formula for the Community Colleges Could Decimate the Rural Colleges
• Part 6. Reimagining the Formula: A Win-Win for Students and Institutions, not Winners and Losers
• Part 7. NFA Recommendations
  
•