Resolution FPC 25-02 Program Discontinuance

Academic Senate Resolution  

Resolution FPC 25-02 

Program Discontinuance  

April 9, 2025  

2nd Reading  

Approve: 32 /Oppose: 2 /Abstain: 3 

RESOLVED: That a central and efficient policy specific to Program Discontinuance has not been adopted by CSUDH (see previous EPC Resolution 23-19 which passed CSUDH Academic Senate but not enacted), and be it further; 

RESOLVED: That the term Program Discontinuance for the purposes of this policy replaces terminology such Program Deactivation Processes currently in place, and be it further;  

RESOLVED: That the language of the attached document be incorporated into CSUDH Academic Affairs policy, and be it further; 

RESOLVED: That this resolution be forwarded to the Provost, the President, the faculty of CSUDH, all Academic Affairs staff, and the CSU Chancellor’s Office.  

RATIONALE: Program Discontinuance differs from Program Suspension in that Program Discontinuance is permanent and Program Suspension is temporary (Senate Exec 09-05). Discontinuance of an academic program is a very serious step that must be based on data informed practices in consultation with faculty, administration and when appropriate California Faculty Association. Further matters of curriculum fall under the purview of faculty regardless of tenure status.  In keeping with the AAUP (Policies on Academic Freedom, Dismissal for Cause, Financial Exigency, and Program Discontinuance | AAUP ) this policy asserts that budgetary and educational considerations are not equal in terms of weight when making decisions to discontinue a program. Program Deactivation has been used interchangeably with Program Discontinuance, however, no policy specific to deactivation exists thus, this revised policy will encompass what was previously referred to as Program Deactivation. Further, it is vital when making curriculum decisions that the mission of the university is central to such matters. Additionally, given the importance of transparency in shared governance this policy seeks to provide a process that has many opportunities for faculty input and protection of employment rights afforded by the CBA.  

Program Discontinuance Policy 

This is the discontinuance of academic programs policy. Academic programs are defined as a designated and related “cluster of credit bearing courses that constitute a coherent body of study within a discipline or a set of related disciplines” (AAUP, Recommended Institutional Regulations 4C2, 2011). This includes a designated major, minor, certificate, concentration, option, or cluster of credit bearing courses.  

1.0  Who can initiate the request to discontinue a program? 

The following individuals have standing to initiate program discontinuance: 

1.1  The Department Chair/Program Director of the degree program with the written approval of a majority of the tenured and probationary faculty in the program or faculty within the program, in appropriate instances, the program review committee. 

1.2  The Dean of the College in which the program is housed. 

1.3  The Dean of Undergraduate Studies, and in instances where the program is an undergraduate or blended program. 

1.4  The Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, but only regarding a graduate or blended program. 

1.5  The Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs. 

1.6   The President of the University. 

2.0 Program Discontinuance Process: 

Program discontinuance shall be a data informed, deliberative process.  Proposals for program discontinuance shall include a clear rationale and analysis of (a) factual information over at least the past five years,  (b) an impact analysis of both the existing issues and of discontinuance, and (c)  rationale as to how this program discontinuance does not undermine or conflict with the University’s mission, vision, and strategic plan  that makes a persuasive case in favor of discontinuing the program as the most the optimal way forward.  Rationale must specifically address issues related to how the students and communities served by CSUDH are impacted by program discontinuance. However, cyclical or temporary variations in enrollment do not, absent other reasons, constitute an acceptable rationale for discontinuing a program. 

The process must include due consultation with all affected parties including the faculty,  staff, enrolled students and administrators with retreat rights. 

2.1 Process for Proposing Program Discontinuance* 

2.1.1 The proposer shall develop a proposal for program discontinuance and submit a Program Discontinuation Form to the Curriculum Review Process.  The proposal shall include 

2.1.2 A full explanation of why program discontinuance is being proposed and why there are no other viable alternatives to discontinuance. 

2.1.3 Student enrollment and application patterns and graduation rates for the program during the past five years. 

2.1.4 A rationale as to how this program discontinuance does not undermine or conflict with the University’s mission, vision, and strategic plan.   

2.1.5 The number and type (tenured, tenure-track, non-tenure-track) of faculty members currently teaching in the program and the way(s) in which the program discontinuance will affect them. 

2.1.6 The number and type of university staff employed in the program and the way(s) in which the program discontinuance will affect them. 

2.1.7 A plan for students currently enrolled in the program to earn their degrees. 

2.1.8 An analysis of the impact of discontinuance on other programs on campus that utilize courses from the program considered for discontinuance and ongoing projects and grants that involve the program faculty and staff. 

2.1.9 A description of the consultation process followed as noted in 4.0. 

2.2 Requests for discontinuance shall be published in the Curriculum Register and its publication shall be communicated within 24 hours to the entire campus community.* After this communication there shall be a moratorium of 10 working days during which time members of the campus community may review the entire proposal and submit an objection. 

 *Only uncontested proposals are submitted to the Curriculum Registry 

3.0 Response to the Program Discontinuance Proposal 

3.1 Uncontested Discontinuance 

3.1.1 A program discontinuance proposal that has no registered objections through the curriculum objection process may proceed through the curriculum review process for discontinuation. 

3.2 Contested Discontinuance 

3.2.1 Definition: A contested discontinuance is one whose proposal is met with an objection by a person with standing as defined in 3.0, a faculty member of the relevant program, or a majority of the faculty of the relevant program. 

3.2.2 Process: An objection to a program discontinuance proposal must be made in writing and be accompanied by a clear and substantive rationale countering the arguments made in the discontinuance proposal.  A plan for impacted faculty relocation must be included if such a plan was not included in the discontinuance proposal. 

3.2.2.1 When a preliminary faculty relocation plan is part of a discontinuance proposal or an objection to the proposal, such a plan shall be developed through a consultative process1 with the California Faculty Association (CFA) and the Office of Faculty Affairs1. The plan should consider the following: Severance Packages, Permanent Reassignments, Early Retirement Options, Extended Notice Period, Priority Rehire Rights, Alternative Roles or Non-Tenured Positions, Collaboration with Other Institutions, Research-Focused Roles, Appeal or Review Processes, Outplacement and Career Transition Support,  

3.2.3 An objection to a program discontinuance proposal as outlined in 4.2 shall be submitted to the following individuals and groups for review: 

3.2.3.1 The chair of the affected department 

3.2.3.2 The faculty members in the affected department and program 

3.2.3.3 The relevant curriculum committees 

3.2.3.4 The Dean and Associate Dean of the appropriate college 

3.2.3.5 The Dean of Undergraduate Studies or the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, as appropriate 

3.2.3.6 The chair of the Academic Senate 

3.2.3.7 The Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, and 

3.2.3.8 The President of the University. (AAUP, 4C, 2011) 

4.0 Process for adjudicating contested discontinuance 

4.1 An ad hoc committee comprised of faculty members of the program review panel (PRP) must be constituted to 1) determine that a valid reason exists for the request and 2) conduct an impact study on other departments, including the impact of the relocation plan for tenured faculty.  

4.1.1 CFA representatives and other experts should be consulted as needed. 

4.1.2 The ad hoc committee shall submit a report to the Academic Senate Executive Committee and the Provost. 

4.2 The Provost must review the ad hoc committee report, the most recent Program Review, the original discontinuation request, all supporting documents, and all rebuttals to determine whether the discontinuance proposal has merit and thus should move forward.  The Provost must submit a decision in writing to the Academic Senate Chair and the relevant Deans and faculty within 30 days in accordance with AAUP. 

4.2.1 If the Provost supports the resumption of the discontinuance process, the Chair of the Academic Senate, in collaboration with the Provost, shall initiate the formation of a Discontinuance Review Committee (DRC). Prior to proceeding to the DRC, for those programs that have not undergone a program review within the past 5 years, a program review should be conducted immediately and concluded within 18 months. The department faculty, chair, dean, and provost in consultation with PRP Committee will determine the timeline. 

4.2.2 All documented evidence shall be forwarded to the DRC. 

4.2.3 The Discontinuance Review Committee (DRC) shall include one representative from each of EPC, FPC, UCC, and the Chairs Council from the college containing the program to be discontinued, a faculty representative from the program affected, and the Dean from the college housing the program.  

4.2.4 The DRC shall produce a report detailing their recommendation and submit it to all stakeholders as defined in section 5.3. The report should include all supporting evidence.  

4.2.4.1 If issues were identified in the last two program review cycles without reasonable progress, DRC should recommend discontinuation. 

4.2.4.2 If the DRC recommends that the program should not be discontinued, the Provost should make a recommendation to the President. 

4.2.4.3 If the DRC recommends that the program be discontinued, representatives of the academic program including students and the faculty can challenge the DRC’s recommendation via written rebuttal sent to the Senate Executive Committee and all stakeholders as defined in section 5.3. 

4.3 If the DRC finds in favor of discontinuance, the Academic Senate will review the DRC’s report and any rebuttals and vote on whether they affirm or oppose the DRC’s findings. This vote should take place no later than the penultimate senate meeting of the academic year. The vote either affirm or contest discontinuance. 

4.4 Results of the academic senate vote will be communicated to the Provost, the Chair of the Academic Senate, the College Dean, and Department Chair within 24 hours of the vote. 

4.5 The Provost shall review and evaluate the DRC’s report, the votes and recommendations of the Academic Senate and any rebuttals. The Provost will then make a final recommendation to the President whether to continue or discontinue the program within 10 working days. 

4.6 The President shall review the proposal and the Provost’s recommendation and make the decision whether to continue or discontinue the program. The President’s decision shall be communicated promptly in writing to all stakeholders as outlined in section 5.3. 

4.6.1 If the President’s decision is to discontinue the program, this decision must be submitted to the CSU Chancellor’s Office. 

5.0 Automatic discontinuance 

5.1 A program that has been suspended for 5 years, is eligible for discontinuance pending approval by Dean, Associate Dean, and program Chair (when applicable), after notification in writing by the provost or designee.