Penn State’s Faculty Senate this week formally called on university administration to “pause” its planning for the closure of some Commonwealth Campuses as President Neeli Bendapudi nears a decision on which of 12 locations are to be shuttered after the 2026-27 school year.
The positional report, which passed by a 97-62 vote on Tuesday, marked the senate’s first formal pushback against campus closures, though members have voiced concerns on multiple occasions.
“We’re concerned that the process has moved too quickly and that impacts on Penn State University and the communities that Penn State serves have not been fully assessed,” Douglas Edmonds, an assistant professor at Penn State Altoona, said. “We’re also concerned that other options were not adequately considered, nor was there time for Faculty Senate committees to discuss and propose alternatives to closing campuses.”
A decision on closing campuses is expected some time in mid-May, after Penn State’s commencement May 9-11. Tracy Langkilde, interim executive vice president and provost, said during Tuesday’s senate meeting that a meeting of the Board of Trustees will be convened to consider closure recommendation and will be announced in advance. It will not occur at the trustees’ meetings on May 8-9.
The measure passed by the senate expressed “strong opposition to closures of small Penn State campuses” without conducting “transparent, detailed public assessments and thorough community review.” A committee led by three senior administrators has been tasked with evaluating and delivering recommendations on a plan for the campuses to Bendapudi.
“Such actions, taken without clear evidence and open dialogue, threaten the integrity, mission and public trust of the university,” the report stated.
It called for Penn State to put off any decision about closures until a full impact assessment with community input, student data and financial analysis was completed, as well as reinvestment in small campuses and exploration of “innovative models for academic delivery.” It also recommended shared governance with the senate and others in strategic planning, a commitment to maintaining a presence in underserved regions and an audit of “the decision-making process that led to the current closure proposals.”
In an overview of the report during the meeting, Elisa Beshero-Bondar, a professor at Penn State Behrend, said the closure of smaller campuses would hinder access for economically disadvantaged students, reduce diversity of course offerings, harm retention rates and contradict Penn State’s mission as a land-grant university.
“One of the major things we really wanted to emphasize here is that closing small campuses is going to harm local community economies and cultures,” Beshero-Bondar said Small campuses are economic and cultural anchors for the towns and counties they serve. They provide employment, stimulate local economies and serve as community hubs for lifelong learning, civic engagement and youth development.”
She added that campuses are often among the largest employers in their areas, and closures could lead to hundreds of direct and indirect job losses.
“Closing these institutions undermines the stability and future of entire communities and accelerates economic inequality between urban and rural regions of Pennsylvania,” Beshero-Bondar said.
Senators also questioned the rationale and financial justification for campus closures. The report notes that budgets for smaller campuses have been “cut disproportionately” and that Penn State would bear short-term and long-term costs for closing them, including severance packages, lost tuition, continuing property maintenance and reputational harm.
At an April 1 senate meeting, Bendapudi said that the decision was not being driven by financial savings but rather student success and experience. Robin Bower, an associate professor at Penn State Beaver, said that is a change in rhetoric from what had been put forth previously.
“And if that is the case, I can think of no more robust student experience than the one that we offer at the campuses, with very, very, very close collaboration between students and faculty and the kind of student and faculty interactions the small campus affords to students who are to some extent, finding it necessary to have a transitional kind of experience between high school and college,” Bower said. ”So the campuses indeed allow for and support the robust student experience that President Bendapudi is now putting forward as the reason for these closures.”
Daniel Perkins, a professor at University Park, said he shared his colleagues’ concerns, but that the university faces budget constraints resulting from underfunding by the state. He added that Penn State’s land-grant mission is to extend knowledge beyond campus, not necessarily to operate multiple campuses.
“I’m just not convinced that we do not have to consider the need to close some campuses,” Perkins said.
Kofi Adu, a professor at Penn State Altoona, was among senators who said campuses and academic units shouldn’t be looked at on a direct profit-loss basis. He compared it to the Penn State athletic department, where football funds numerous programs that are not self-sustaining.
“It is the sports as a whole that makes our sports program the best,” Adu said. “If we translate that into academics, I think we all know that it’s not all units that are going to be financially solvent. However, all those units come together to make our institution the best as it can be.
“… It seems we are going to the last result, which is the closures. That should be the final thing that we should consider when we have exhausted all other options, and it seems all other options haven’t been exhaustively investigated. This is not going to be for tomorrow. It’s going to change the DNA of what we call Penn State.”
Other senators said the positional report does not suggest closures can never happen, but that they need to see the data that would support it and that a thorough, public process is required.
For those working and learning at campuses under consideration, the uncertainty has been difficult, said Angela Pettit, associate professor at Penn State Shenango.
“It’s, I think, hard to describe to people who aren’t at some of the campuses how disorienting the whiplash has been as we’ve been told that budgetary concerns were the primary motivator, then to find out they’re not the primary motivator, to have our budgets cut and to lose faculty and colleagues and then find out our campuses might be closing. To find out that the university doesn’t necessarily believe we’re providing a robust experience to our students after our budgets have been cut and we therefore aren’t able to provide as much to our students.
“It has been exhausting. It’s been stressful. We’re living not knowing if we’ll have jobs. We don’t have the security.”
The positional report concludes that closing those campuses could be damaging to the university and the communities it serves.
“The closure of small Penn State campuses is not a solution; it is a surrender. It abandons our most vulnerable students, harms entire communities, and betrays the University’s foundational values. If Penn State is to remain a leader in public higher education, it must prioritize access, equity, and community impact over short-term cost-cutting and administrative convenience.”
