Metric-Centric Policy,Practice,and Faculty Equity Issues

Abstract

This case study of Florida International University is part of a 12-year line of research on changes in public metropolitan research universities. Using IPEDS data, this study focuses on changes (2011–2020) in 20 intersectional, full-time faculty categories that combine Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Appointment Type. The analysis explores issues connected to metric-centric faculty hiring policies. The results show that during the study period, 2011 and 2020, the FIU full-time faculty composition changed in intersectional categories of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Appointment Type. FIU’s metric-centric policies appear to favor the exchange of full-time Permanent lines (tenured or tenured-track) for full-time Contingent contracts (non-tenure). The gains made by non-White faculty, tend to be in Contingent categories rather than Permanent lines.

Keywords

equity faculty academic freedom tenure

Introduction

The present brief report examines metric-centric university policy that is oriented to performance-based funding and rankings. It focuses on changes in the composition of an institution’s faculty (2011–2020), as described by Appointment Types in intersectional Race/Ethnicity and Gender categories (Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System [IPEDS] categories). Faculty appointment types–Permanent (full-time tenured and tenure-track) and Contingent (full- and part-time non-tenure)–correlate with job security, work assignment, and pay (American Association of University Professors, 2015, pp.170–185; Robertson, 2022). Permanent faculty in research universities (a) have ongoing protections of tenure (tenured) or its possibility (tenure-track), (b) tend to have significant research assignments relative to teaching assignments, and (c) are likely to be paid more than Contingent faculty. Contingent faculty (a) have the protection of time limited contracts, (b) tend to have significant teaching assignments relative to research assignments, and (c) often are paid less than Permanent faculty (Robertson, 2022). In terms of job security, from lowest to highest, the progression is: (a) part-time Contingent, (b) full-time Contingent, and (c) full-time Permanent. We address issues related to intersectional race/ethnicity and gender identities in the discussion of the results. We situate this discussion in a case study of Florida International University, a public, metropolitan, Research I university in the Florida State University System. Academic freedom, job security, and working conditions for faculty appear to be changing in higher education, in particular in the United States (Stripling, 2022). Faculty appointment type matters regarding the job security of individual faculty. Contingent faculty are hired in time limited contracts and are more vulnerable than Permanent faculty. With these dynamics as context, we now present and discuss our case study of Florida International University, 2011–2020.

Case Study Setting and Rationale

Florida International University (FIU) is a large public metropolitan research university in Miami, Florida, with Carnegie designations of Highest Research Activity (R1) and Engaged. In addition, FIU is 1 of only 25 universities nationally to receive the Carnegie Foundation’s new designation of Leadership for Public Purpose. FIU is one of the largest public universities in the United States with a 12-month unduplicated headcount of 74,678, and the largest Hispanic Serving Institution with 64% of its students self-identifying as Hispanic/Latino (Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System, 2022). FIU belongs to an emerging institutional category called “new universities”–research universities that “organize around inclusion rather than exclusion, and focus on offering social mobility to historically marginalized students” (Hamilton & Nielsen, 2021, p. 12). In 2023, Florida International University was ranked #4 nationally by the Wall Street Journal among public universities (https://www.wsj.com/rankings/college-rankings/best-colleges-2024). In 2021 and 2023, FIU was #1 in performance metrics among the 12 public universities in Florida’s State University System (https://www.flbog.edu/finance/performance-based-funding/). In 2024, FIU was designated a Preeminent University in the Florida State University System, Also in 2024, FIU was ranked as the second most impactful U.S. university in the world and #13 most impactful among all countries by Times Higher Education (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/impactrankings).

These FIU rankings are just the beginning of a long list of impressive rankings nationally and internationally that, given the results and discussion of this report, encourage examination of unintended negative consequences of metric-centric policies and practices. This study focuses on FIU in order to explore the effects of a specific metric-centric policy on faculty job security. The policies have worked at FIU (witness the awards and rankings related to performance metrics), but at what cost?

This study of FIU is part of a 12-year line of research on intentional change in public metropolitan research universities (Robertson, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023; Robertson & Pelaez, 2016, 2018, 2023). This research included an examination of a U. S. sample of 35 public metropolitan research universities (member institutions of the Coalition of Urban Serving Universities, 2018) to identify the institutions that had improved the most during 2008 to 2016 on the combined, potentially competing variables of Student Success (retention and on-time graduation rates) and Access (Pell and minority rates) (Robertson, 2019). A subsequent study (Robertson, 2020) selected from this U.S. sample the 18 public metropolitan research universities that had the Carnegie designation of Highest Research Activity (R1). That study further explored exemplary improvement, 2010 to 2017, in other potentially competing variables, Student Success with Access (retention, on-time graduation, Pell, and minority rates) and Research Preeminence (research doctorates and research expenditures). That analysis identified three universities that stood out from the rest (in order of performance): (a) Florida International University, (b) Georgia State University, and (c) Central Florida University (Robertson, 2020). The present brief report of a case study, focuses on Florida International University, which improved the most significantly among these metropolitan universities during the study period on the derived variables of student success with access and research preeminence.

Regarding FIU, this study examines IPEDS data (Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System) over a 10-year period from 2011 (when FIU began concentrated efforts to improve performance in student success metrics, such as retention and on-time graduation) to 2020 (the most recent IPEDS data available at the time of this study’s analysis). The year 2015 is not only a convenient mid-point in the 10-year study, but it also relates to a significant policy event. In 2015, a policy was introduced that related directly to FIU’s effort to improve in the metrics of the newly implemented (2014) performance-based funding system of the Florida State University System Board of Governors (BOG), as well as to improve in the metrics of national ranking systems that overlapped with those of the BOG. In 2015, the FIU Provost’s Office initiated the Resource Reallocation Policy. When a tenured or tenure-earning line was vacated the funding went to the Provost’s Office. The department losing the line funding could apply to get no more than 50% back by making their case for the need. None could be returned depending on the judgment of the Provost’s Office. Because 50% of a Permanent line is rarely sufficient to create another Permanent line, a conversion occurred from Permanent to Contingent in departments, or the department simply lost the line. The funds accumulated in the Provost’s Office were used to invest (in a metric-centric paradigm) in full-time Contingent faculty to teach in 17 high-enrollment, high-failure, gateway courses and for cluster-hires in a few “preeminent” research centers, as well as metric-related administrators and staff. Gains in metrics performance followed. These events help to explain the study’s focus on changes in three periods: (a) 2011 to 2015, (b) 2015 to 2020, and (c) 2011 to 2020.

Research Questions

This study examines two fundamental research questions: (a) during the study period, 2011 to 2020, has the FIU faculty composition changed in intersectional categories of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Appointment Type? and (b) if changes have occurred, are there patterns of change?

Method

This study of Florida International University employs published data from the federal Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS). No statistical software was used in the analysis. The years selected are 2011, 2015, and 2020. In 2011 (Beginning Focus), FIU enacted a formal effort to improve performance metrics (particularly those related to undergraduate student success); it constitutes a baseline. In 2015 (Resource Reallocation), FIU introduced formal policy (Resource Reallocation Policy) to shift funding from Permanent faculty lines to Contingent faculty lines and faculty cluster hires in support of improving performance metrics related to student success and research preeminence. In 2020 (Decade Focus), targeted efforts to improve selected performance metrics reached a 10-year milestone.

The study’s foundational variables for full-time faculty included: (a) Race/Ethnicity, and (b) Gender. Faculty Appointment Type for full-time faculty became a binary, derived variable: (a) Permanent (combining the variables of Tenured and Tenure Track), and (b) Contingent (combining the variables of Multi-Year Contract and Annual Contract). Twenty intersectional variables for full-time faculty (another group of derived variables) were created by combining the following: (a) Race/Ethnicity (Nonresident Alien, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Black, White), (b) Gender (Male, Female), and (c) Appointment Type (Permanent, Contingent). Four Race/Ethnicity categories (American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Two or More Races, and Race and Ethnicity Unknown) were not included in the intersectional category analysis because these faculty were essentially not represented in the data (each of the four categories were ≤0.73% of total full-time faculty). Data from these four categories were included in the total full-time faculty number for percentage calculations for the various intersectional categories that were included in the individual category analysis. These intersectional categories are crude but still represent a step in the right direction toward the best practice in equity analysis of disaggregating data as much as possible (Dowd & Elmore, 2020; McNair et al., 2020). See Table 1, Figures 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Full-Time Faculty by Intersectional Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Appointment Type Categories, 2011, 2015, and 2020.

Year	Gender	Permanent				Contingent				N	%TotalRace/Eth.	%AllFac.
Year	Gender	N	% Perm. Race/Eth.	%Total Race/Eth.	%All Fac.	N	%Con.Race/Eth.	%TotalRace/Eth.	%All Fac.	N	%TotalRace/Eth.	%AllFac.
	Nonresident Alien
2011	Female	18	36.7	25.7	1.9	11	52.4	15.7	1.1	29	41.4	3.0
	Male	31	63.3	44.3	3.2	10	47.6	14.3	1.0	41	58.6	4.2
	Total	49	100.0	70.0	5.1	21	100.0	30.0	2.2	70	100.0	7.6
2015	Female	20	37.0	22.7	1.7	10	29.4	11.4	0.8	30	34.1	2.5
	Male	34	63.0	38.6	2.8	24	70.6	27.3	2.0	58	65.9	4.8
	Total	54	100.0	61.4	4.5	34	100.0	38.6	2.8	88	100.0	7.3
2020	Female	20	45.5	21.5	1.5	34	69.4	36.6	2.5	54	58.1	3.9
	Male	24	54.5	25.8	1.7	15	30.6	16.1	1.1	39	41.9	2.8
	Total	44	100.0	47.3	3.2	49	100.0	52.7	3.6	93	100.0	6.7
	Hispanic/Latino
2011	Female	24	31.6	16.4	2.5	44	62.9	30.1	4.6	68	46.6	7.0
	Male	52	68.4	35.6	5.4	26	37.1	17.8	2.7	78	53.4	8.1
	Total	76	100.0	52.1	7.9	70	100.0	47.9	7.3	146	100.0	15.1
2015	Female	23	26.7	10.9	1.9	72	57.6	34.1	6.0	95	45.0	7.9
	Male	63	73.3	29.9	5.2	53	42.4	25.1	4.4	116	55.0	9.6
	Total	86	100.0	40.8	7.1	125	100.0	59.2	10.4	211	100.0	17.5
2020	Female	29	32.6	10.2	2.1	109	56.2	38.5	7.9	138	48.8	10.0
	Male	60	67.4	21.2	4.4	85	43.8	30.0	6.2	145	51.2	10.5
	Total	89	100.0	31.4	6.5	194	100.0	68.6	14.1	283	100.0	20.5
	Asian
2011	Female	22	20.6	17.1	2.3	11	50.0	8.5	1.1	33	25.6	3.4
	Male	85	79.4	65.9	8.8	11	50.0	8.5	1.1	96	74.4	9.9
	Total	107	100.0	82.9	11.1	22	100.0	17.1	2.3	129	100.0	13.4
2015	Female	31	22.5	18.5	2.6	16	53.3	9.5	1.3	47	28.0	3.9
	Male	107	77.5	63.7	8.9	14	46.7	8.3	1.2	21	72.0	10.0
	Total	138	100.0	82.1	11.4	30	100.0	17.9	2.5	168	100.0	13.9
2020	Female	49	30.6	24.4	3.6	19	46.3	9.5	1.4	68	33.8	4.9
	Male	111	69.4	55.2	8.1	22	53.7	10.9	1.6	133	66.2	9.7
	Total	160	100.0	79.6	11.6	41	100.0	20.4	3.0	201	100.0	14.6
	Black or African American
2011	Female	18	50.0	29.0	1.9	12	46.2	19.4	1.2	30	48.4	3.1
	Male	18	50.0	29.0	1.9	14	53.8	22.6	1.5	32	51.6	3.3
	Total	36	100.0	58.1	3.7	26	100.0	41.9	2.7	62	100.0	6.4
2015	Female	17	51.5	20.2	1.4	26	51.0	31.0	2.2	43	51.2	3.6
	Male	16	48.5	19.0	1.3	25	49.0	29.8	2.1	41	48.8	3.4
	Total	33	100.0	39.3	2.7	51	100.0	60.7	4.2	84	100.0	7.0
2020	Female	19	50.0	20.9	1.4	41	77.4	45.1	3.0	60	65.9	4.4
	Male	19	50.0	20.9	1.4	12	22.6	13.2	0.9	31	34.1	2.2
	Total	38	100.0	41.8	2.8	53	100.0	58.2	3.8	91	100.0	6.6
	White
2011	Female	130	33.6	23.3	13.5	83	48.8	14.9	8.6	213	38.2	22.1
	Male	257	66.4	46.1	26.6	87	51.2	15.6	9.0	344	61.8	35.6
	Total	387	100.0	69.5	40.1	170	100.0	30.5	17.6	557	100.0	57.7
2015	Female	155	38.1	23.6	12.9	130	52.0	19.8	10.8	285	43.4	23.6
	Male	252	61.9	38.4	20.9	120	48.0	18.3	10.0	372	56.6	30.8
	Total	407	100.0	61.9	33.7	250	100.0	38.1	20.7	657	100.0	54.5
2020	Female	152	37.3	21.6	11.0	154	51.9	21.9	11.2	306	43.5	22.2
	Male	255	62.7	36.2	18.5	143	48.1	20.3	10.4	398	56.5	28.9
	Total	407	100.0	57.8	29.5	297	100.0	42.2	21.6	704	100.0	51.1

Note. Four IPEDS Race/Ethnicities categories (American Indian or Alaska Native, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Two or More Races, and Race and Ethnicity Unknown) were not included in the analysis of individual Race/Ethnicity categories because these faculty were so few (each of the four categories were ≤ 0.73% of total full-time faculty). Data from these four categories were included in the total full-time faculty number for percentage calculations for the various intersectional categories that were included in the individual category analysis.

Source: Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (November 19, 2022). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

Figure 1.

Percent of full-time faculty by race/ethnicity-gender-appointment type categories, 2011, 2015, and 2020.

Figure 2.

Percent change of full-time faculty by race/ethnicity-gender-appointment type categories, 2011 to 2020.

Results and Discussion

The study’s results indicate that the answers to the two research questions are affirmative: (a) during the study period, 2011 to 2020, the FIU faculty composition changed in intersectional categories of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Appointment Type; and (b) the results reveal patterns of change.

Overall FIU Full-Time Faculty Change in Appointment Types

During the study period, 2011 to 2020, FIU increased its full-time faculty 42.8% (965 to 1,398). During this same period, the Permanent : Contingent ratio decreased dramatically 47.6% from 2.1 in 2011, to 1.1 in 2020, a decrease which was 4.8% points greater than the overall increase of full-time faculty. In other words, the increase in full-time faculty comprised mostly Contingent full-time faculty rather than Permanent full-time faculty. Between 2011 and 2020, Contingent full-time faculty increased 114.8% (310–666); Permanent full-time faculty increased only 11.8% (655–732).

FIU’s policy and practice regarding faculty hiring seems to place it as an outlier among U.S. Research Universities with the Carnegie Highest Research Activity designation (R1), where the norm has been relatively stable for decades at 2 to 1, Permanent Full-time to Contingent Full-time (e.g., American Association of University Professors, 2015, pp. 170–185; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Bowen & Tobin, 2015; DePaola & Kezar, 2018; Finkelstein et al., 2017; Gappa et al., 2007; Garcia et al., 2018; Kezar & Maxey, 2016; Levin & Shaker, 2011; Ott & Cisneros, 2015; Tkachenko & Louis, 2017). The ratio has lowered in recent years at R1 universities. However, FIU’s rapid pace of change in its Permanent : Contingent ratio in a mere 10 years (from 2:1 to 1:1, Permanent : Contingent) is not normative among R1 universities and appears to be related to its Resource Reallocation Policy enacted in 2015 in pursuit of metrics performance related to rankings.

Negative unintended consequences of this precipitous shift in faculty composition have been identified and include the following: (a) reduced breadth and quantity of scholarship across the university as opposed merely to scholarship in targeted areas (primarily STEM and medical) that attract large grant funding; (b) overload for faculty with Doctoral Advisor Status that has been needed to supervise and chair doctoral committees; (c) weakening of shared governance systems; and (d) ironically, eroding peer reputation broadly beyond the metrics and rankings (Robertson, 2020, pp. 45–47).

Essentially, another possible negative unintended consequence of these metric-centric policies regarding faculty are the exacerbation of inequity and issues of representation in faculty hiring and appointments. As is often the case, something bad may come from something that looks good in the beginning: strategic investment in student success may negatively impact faculty job security. Merit-based funding for students at the expense of need-based funding, the net outcome of which is to perpetuate systems of privilege, would be another good example (St. John et al., 2018).

Intersectional Faculty Categories That Changed the Most

Regarding the 20 intersectional categories that combine Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Appointment Type, 10 categories increased between 2011 and 2020, and 10 categories decreased (Figure 2). Of the 10 categories that increased, all but one (Asian Female Permanent) were Contingent. Of the 10 categories that decreased, all but one (Black Male Contingent) were Permanent. The four categories with the most extreme changes (> 100%, 2011–2020) were all Contingent categories and were all increases (Figure 2): (a) Black Female Contingent (+198.9%), (b) Hispanic/Latino Male Contingent (+184.1%), (c) Nonresident Alien Female Contingent (+166.3%), and (d) Hispanic/Latino Female Contingent (+104.9%). We discuss each category below.

Black Female Contingent Faculty

The context of Black Female Contingent full-time faculty, the intersectional category with the largest change (+198.9%), is noteworthy.

Regarding all Black full-time faculty, their proportion of all full-time faculty remained stable (2011, 6.4%; 2015, 7.0%; 2020, 6.6%; Table 1, Figure 1), and collectively, the underrepresentation of Black full-time faculty relative to Black students’ representation among all 12-month unduplicated students remained level (Black faculty representation compared to Black students, Black faculty percentage of total faculty minus Black students percentage of total students, 2011, 6.4% [faculty] −13.2% [students] = −6.8% points, underrepresented; 2015, 7.0%−13.0% = −6.0% points, underrepresented; 2020, 6.6%−12.7% = −6.1% points, underrepresented; IPEDS, 2022).

The Appointment Type composition of Black full-time faculty changed dramatically, with the concentration of new hires in Black faculty being in the Black Female Contingent category (+198.9%).

Three of the four Black full-time faculty categories decreased during the study period, 2011 to 2020: (a) Black Male Contingent (−65.4%), (b) Black Female Permanent (−37.2%), and (c) Black Male Permanent (−37.2%).

The news is mixed for Black Female full-time faculty: they were hired more but in Contingent lines not Permanent. For Black Male full-time faculty, they were hired less in both Contingent and Permanent lines. Faculty hiring during the metric-centric policy period under study (2011–2020) did not improve representation numbers for Black faculty.

Hispanic/Latino Male and Female Contingent Faculty

Of all 20 intersectional categories, 2011 to 2020, the categories with the second largest change (Hispanic/Latino Male Contingent, +184.1%) and the fourth largest change (Hispanic/Latino Female Contingent, +104.9%), constitute the two Contingent categories of the four intersectional Hispanic/Latino full-time faculty categories. In contrast, both of the Hispanic/Latino Permanent categories decreased (Hispanic/Latino Male Permanent, −27.4%; and Hispanic/Latino Female Permanent, −22.0%).

Regarding all Hispanic/Latino full-time faculty, they increased 93.8%, 2011 to 2020 (compared to 42.8% for all faculty), and their proportion of all full-time faculty increased 5.4% points or by about one-third (2011, 15.1%; 2015, 17.5%; 2015, 20.5%; Table 1, Figure 1). Even so, collectively, Hispanic/Latino full-time faculty remained markedly underrepresented relative to Hispanic/Latino students’ representation among all 12-month unduplicated students (Hispanic/Latino faculty representation compared to Hispanic/Latino students, Hispanic/Latino faculty percentage of total faculty minus Hispanic/Latino students percentage of total students, 2011, 15.1% [faculty]−57.7% [students] = −42.6% points, underrepresented; 2015, 17.5%−62.6% = −45.1% points, underrepresented; 2020, 20.5%−63.6% = −43.1% points, underrepresented; IPEDS, 2022).

This stark underrepresentation of Hispanic/Latino faculty relative to Hispanic/Latino students is particularly stunning given that FIU is the largest Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the United States.

The bottom line for Hispanic/Latino full-time faculty (Female and Male) is that they increased their numbers and proportions overall but in Contingent lines not in Permanent lines and their underrepresentation remained extremely high.

Given the importance for students of having professors with whom they can identify, particularly for female and minoritized students, the poor performance of metric-centric hiring policy (2011—2020) in improving numbers for Hispanic/Latino faculty should be concerning

(Abdul-Raheem, 2016; Bañuelos & Flores, 2021; Bettinger & Long, 2005; Blackwell, 1988; Contreras, 2017; Fairlie et al., 2014; Figueroa & Rodriguez, 2015; Fuesting et al., 2022; Greene, 1990; Griffith, 2014; Hirshfield & Joseph, 2012; Hoffmann & Oreopoulos, 2009; Kim et al., 2021; O’Meara et al., 2020; Parker & Hood, 1995; Ramos & Yi, 2020; Rask & Bailey, 2002; Robst et al., 1998; Schwarz & Hill, 2010; Stout et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2010; Taylor et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2007; Tuitt, 2012; van Mens-Verhulst et al., 2014; Vargas, 2018; Vargas et al., 2021; Verdugo, 1995; Wei & Hendrix, 2016; Winslow & Davis, 2016).

Nonresident Alien Female Contingent Faculty

To complete the discussion of the four intersectional categories with the greatest change (all increases > 100%), we discuss the category with the third greatest change, Nonresident Alien Female Contingent (+166.3%; Figure 2). Nonresident Alien Male Contingent showed a slight increase (+7.2%). The category with the greatest decrease, 2011 to 2020, of all 20 intersectional categories was Nonresident Alien Male Permanent (−65.4%). Nonresident Alien Female Permanent also decreased significantly (−31.7%). The number of Nonresident Alien full-time faculty increased by one-third (32.9%), 2011 to 2020, which was less than the increase of all full-time faculty (42.8%), and its proportion of all full-time faculty fell by 0.9% points (2011, 7.6; 2015, 7.3; 2020, 6.7).

Because of its myriad global possibilities and potentially volatile political contexts in the U.S. and in home countries, the Nonresident Alien category is challenging to characterize and interpret. If FIU hires Nonresident Alien full-time faculty, it appears to concentrate that investment in Female Contingent faculty who are arguably the least expensive.

White Faculty

When examining all 20 intersectional categories in all three of the study years (2011, 2015, 2020), looming over all the other categories at FIU–which notably is the largest Hispanic Serving Institution in the U.S. (FIU students, 2020: Hispanic/Latino, 63.6%; White, 10.3%)–are the four White full-time faculty categories: (a) White Female Permanent, (b) White Male Permanent, (c) White Female Contingent, and (d) White Male Contingent (Table 1, Figure 1).

Although decreasing moderately in their large proportions, 2011 to 2020, White full-time faculty all together constituted over half of the full-time faculty during the study period (2011, 57.7%; 2015, 54.5%; 2020, 51.1%). Of all 20 intersectional categories, White Male Permanent is proportionally the largest single category by far (2011, 26.6% of all faculty; 2015, 20.9%; 2020, 18.5%; Table 1 and Figure 1).

For White faculty, like the other Race/Ethnic intersectional categories, FIU’s metric-centered hiring policies have also swelled Contingent hires at the expense of Permanent lines (2011–2020), with increases in White Female Contingent (+42.7%) and White Male Contingent (+21.6%) and decreases in White Male Permanent (−43.6%) and White Female Permanent (−25.9%).

White full-time faculty were profoundly overrepresented relative to White students’ representation among all 12-month unduplicated students (White faculty representation compared to White students, White faculty percentage of total faculty minus White students percentage of total students, 2011, 57.7% [faculty]−14.3% [students] = +43.4% points, overrepresented; 2015, 54.5%−11.4% = +43.1% points, overrepresented; 2020, 51.1%−10.3% = +40.8% points, overrepresented; IPEDS, 2022).

The sampling of voluminous research cited above regarding the importance of having professors with whom students can identify questions the educational wisdom of the overrepresentation of White faculty at FIU given the diversity of its students (Robertson, 2023). FIU’s metric-centric hiring policies during the study period appear to have done little to change that pattern beyond reducing the overrepresentation of White faculty slightly and shifting White faculty hires from Permanent to Contingent.

Asian Faculty

The pattern of Asian full-time faculty mirrors that of White full-time faculty, only at a smaller scale. FIU has a medical school and its metrics emphasize STEM areas, both of which may contribute to the Asian full-time faculty pattern.

After the four White intersectional categories, the largest category of the remaining 16 intersectional categories is Asian Male Permanent for all three of the study’s data years, 2011 (8.8%), 2015 (8.9%), and 2020 (8.1%) (Table 1 and Figure 1). During the study period, the Asian Male Permanent category decreased moderately (−12.2%) but still dwarfed the other three intersectional Asian categories (Table 1 and Figure 1).

During the study period, these three Asian categories made gains: (a) Asian Female Permanent increased 79.9%; (b) Asian Male Contingent increased 57.2%; and (c) Asian Female Contingent increased 29.9%. Again, like White full-time faculty but at a smaller scale,

Asian full-time faculty were significantly overrepresented relative to Asian students’ representation among all 12-month unduplicated students (Asian faculty representation compared to Asian students, Asian faculty percentage of total faculty minus Asian students percentage of total students, 2011, 13.4% [faculty]−3.1% [students] = +10.3% points, overrepresented; 2015, 13.9%−2.7% = +11.2% points, overrepresented; 2020, 14.6%−2.6% = +12.0% points, overrepresented; IPEDS, 2022).

Limitations

This study uses published, aggregate data (IPEDS), which are high quality, audited, comprehensive, and span decades. However, the categories are extremely general. Significant nuances of equity issues require disaggregating data as much as possible and situating the analysis in specific contexts (Dowd & Elmore, 2020; McNair et al., 2020).

Future Research

In future research, we will build on this published data research by conducting qualitative interview studies of selected FIU faculty regarding faculty work in conditions of increasing job insecurity.

Conclusion

At FIU, the Resource Reallocation Policy (2015-present) uses natural turnover of faculty to create funds for investment in programs directly targeted at improvement in external performance metrics and rankings, such the Florida Board of Governors’ Performance Funding Program and U.S. News & World Report College and University Rankings. This study documents in 20 intersectional gender and race/ethnicity categories changes in faculty composition and appointment type that are contemporaneous with the Resource Reallocation Policy. The study shows that the policy appears to result in a dramatic shift (2011–2020) in full-time faculty appointment types from 2 to 1 Permanent to Contingent (2011) to 1 to 1 Permanent to Contingent (2020), thereby significantly reducing the job security of FIU’s full-time faculty. This study shows that historically underrepresented faculty are disproportionately affected by this policy.

This study is particularly significant because it focuses on a period that immediately precedes Florida’s self-described Stop WOKE legislation aimed at Florida’s public education systems (2021-present). First-responder scholarly literature about recent and ongoing political interference in Florida’s public education systems is developing quickly (e.g., Adams, 2024; Barsky, et al., 2023; Batker & Turpin, 2023; Carr & Yousfi, 2024; Goodman, 2024; Green, 2023; Groton et al., 2023; Gupton & O’Sullivan, 2024; Guy & Moore, 2023; Hahn, 2024; Hampson, 2024; Hutchens & Miller, 2023; Johnson et al., 2024; Kamola, 2024; Majewska & Feeder, 2022; Moody, 2024; PEN America, 2024; Rainwater, 2024; Robertson, 2025a, 2025b, under review A, under review B; Russell-Brown, 2023, 2024; Schoorman, 2024; Schoorman & Gatens, 2023, 2024; Taylor & Somers, 2021; Thornhill, 2023; Topalidis & Austin, 2023; Turner Roberts, 2024; Watson, 2023; Whittington, 2024; Zelnick et al., 2023).

This study provides important context for that emerging scholarship. Our line of research shows that metric-centric policy can have significant unintended consequences–in this case, laying the foundation for substantially increasing job insecurity collectively for historically underrepresented faculty. It happens to have been followed by a legislative agenda that aims to eliminate tenure as we know it. Following its year-long investigation in 2023, the American Association of University Professors concluded:

Legislatively imposed regulations on post-tenure review have substantially weakened tenure in the Florida State University System and, if fully implemented as written, threaten to eliminate tenure protections, as understood by the AAUP (American Association of University Professors, 2023, p. 24).

Full-time FIU faculty are experiencing a one-two punch: first, a significant reduction in the percentage of faculty who have tenure, and second, an attack on the tenure protections of those professors in that diminished percentage who have tenure. Historically underrepresented faculty appear to suffer disproportionately.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Frost Professorship Collaborative Projects Funds, Department of Counseling, Recreation, and School Psychology, Florida International University.

ORCID iD

Douglas L. Robertson

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received financial support for the publication of this article from the Frost Professorship Collaborative Projects Funds, Department of Counseling, Recreation, and School Psychology, Florida International University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are public information available at Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System, National Center for Educational Statistics, .

References

Abdul-Raheem

(2016). Faculty diversity and tenure in higher education. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 23(2), 53–56.

Adams

(2024). Tightrope walking: Balancing theatre teachers’ academic freedom of expression with the implementation of Florida’s Stop Woke Act and Don’t Say Gay Bill. Barry Law Review, 29(1), Article 4. https://lawpublications.barry.edu/barrylrev/vol29/iss1/4

American Association of University Professors. (2015). Contingent appointments and the academic profession (pp. 170–185). Johns Hopkins University Press.

American Association of University Professors. (2023). Report of a special committee: Political interference and academic freedom in Florida’s public higher education system. https://www.aaup.org/report/report-special-committee-political-interference-and-academic-freedom-florida’s-public-higher

Baldwin

R. G.

Chronister

(2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a new era. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bañuelos

Flores

G. M.

(2021). “I could see myself”: Professors’ influence in first-generation Latinx college students’ pathways into doctoral programs. Race Ethnicity and Education, 27(5), 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.1969906

Barsky

A. E.

Groton

Spadola

(2023). Impacts of viewpoint diversity law on teaching and learning in Florida’s state universities. Educational Policy, 2023,1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1849036

Batker

C. J.

Turpin

J. E.

(2023). Who has the final say? Academic freedom, censorship, and governance in higher education. Journal of Academic Freedom, 14, 1–12.

Bettinger

E. P.

Long

B. T.

(2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95(2), 152–157.

10.

Blackwell

J. E.

(1988). Faculty issues: The impact on minorities. Review of Higher Education, 11(4), 417–434.

11.

Bowen

W. G.

Tobin

E. M.

(2015). Locus of authority: The evolution of faculty roles in the governance of higher education. Princeton University Press.

12.

Carr

E. M.

Yousfi

(2024). “Anti-wokeism” & authoritarianism: A renewed call for constitutional protections for education. Syracuse Law Review, 74, 971–1026. https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Carr.pdf

13.

Contreras

(2017). Answering the call: Hispanic-Serving Institutions as leaders in the quest for access, excellence, and equity in American higher education. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 11(3), 223–250.

14.

DePaola

Kezar

(2018). The changing face of employment at research universities. In Garcia

H. A.

McNaughton

Nehls

(Eds.), Hidden and visible: The role and impact of contingency faculty in higher education (pp. 83–96). New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 176. Wiley.

15.

Dowd

A. C.

Elmore

B. D.

(2020). Leadership for equity-minded data use toward racial equity in higher education. In Kezar

Posselt

, Higher education administration for social justice and equity: Critical perspectives for leadership (pp. 159–175). Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

16.

Fairlie

R. W.

Hoffmann

Oreopoulos.

(2014). A community college instructor like me: Race and ethnicity interactions in the classroom. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2567–2591.

17.

Figueroa

J. L.

Rodriguez

G. M.

(2015). Critical mentoring practices to support diverse students in higher education: Chicana/Latina faculty perspectives. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(171), 23–32.

18.

Finkelstein

M. J.

Conley

V. M.

Schuster

J. H.

(2017). Wither the Faculty? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(4), 43–51.

19.

Fuesting

Bichsel

Schmidt

(2022, January). Women in the leadership pipeline in higher education have better representation and pay in institutions with female presidents and provosts (Research Report). CUPA-HR.

20.

Gappa

J. M.

Austin

A. E.

Trice

A. G.

(2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

21.

Garcia

H. A.

McNaughton

Nehls

(Eds.) (2018). Hidden and visible: The role and impact of contingency faculty in higher education. New directions for institutional research, no.176. Wiley.

22.

Goodman

R. T.

(2024). Higher education as the frontline of democracy: The case against Florida House Bill 233, the anti-shielding/intellectual viewpoint diversity/student recording legislative act. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 46(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2023.2245311

23.

Green

M. Z.

(2023). (A)woke workplaces. Wisconsin Law Review, 2023(3), 811–872.

24.

Greene

L. S.

(1990). Tokens, role models, and pedagogical politics: Lamentations of an African American female law professor. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice, 6, 81–92.

25.

Griffith

A. L.

(2014). Faculty gender in the college classroom: Does it matter for achievement and major choice? Southern Economic Journal, 81(1), 211–231.

26.

Groton

Barsky

A. E.

Spadola

(2023). Perceived impacts of a viewpoint diversity law in Florida’s State Universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2023, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2023.2191071

27.

Gupton

J. T.

O’Sullivan

(2024). Critically framing Florida’s anti-Woke education reform movement. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 56(4), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2024.2376717

28.

Guy

Moore

(2023). Chilling speech in the name of “Woke”: A critique of the Stop WOKE Act. The Reporter: Social Justice Law Center Magazine, 2023(1), 4. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/sjlcr/vol2023/iss1/4

29.

Hahn

(2024). Illiberal America: A history. W. W. Norton & Company.

30.

Hamilton

L. T.

Nielsen

(2021). Broke: The racial consequences of underfunding public universities. University of Chicago Press.

31.

Hampson

C. D.

(2024). Critical theory & commercial law in the sunshine. Florida Law Review, 75 (Forum), 15–34.

32.

Hirshfield

L. E.

Joseph.

T. D.

(2012). ‘We need a woman, we need a black woman’: Gender, race, and identity taxation in the academy. Gender and Education, 24(2), 213–227.

33.

Hoffmann

Oreopoulos

(2009). A professor like me: The influence of instructor gender on college achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 44(2), 479–494.

34.

Hutchens

Miller

(2023). Florida’s Stop WOKE Act: A wake-up call for faculty academic freedom. Journal of College and University Law, 48(1), 35–69. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4353927

35.

Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (2022, November 19). https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

36.

Johnson

V. C.

Ruth

Schrecker

(2024). The right to learn: Resisting the right-wing attack on academic freedom. Beason Press.

37.

Kamola

(2024). Manufacturing backlash: Right-wing think tanks and legislative attacks on higher education, 2021–2023. American Association of University Professors.

38.

Kezar

Maxey

(Eds.). (2016). Envisioning the faculty for the twenty-first century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model. Rutgers University Press.

39.

Kim

K. W.

Kalev

Dobbin

Deutsch

(2021). Crisis and uncertainty: Did the Great Recession reduce the diversity of new faculty? Sociological Science, 8, 308–324.

40.

Levin

Shaker

(2011). The hybrid and dualistic identity of full-time non-tenure track faculty. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 1461–1484.

41.

Majewska

Feeder

(2022). The persuasive impact of teachers as position experts on education policy: Florida and “Stop WOKE.” Florida Journal of Educational Research, 59(4), 1–18. https://journals.flvc.org/fjer/article/view/131308

42.

McNair

T. B.

Bensimon

E. M.

Malcom-Piqueux

(2020). From equity talk to equity walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

43.

Moody

(2024, October 3). A battle over Florida’s general education courses: Florida International University faculty have raised concerns about course revisions designed to comply with state law, a process undertaken quietly across the state. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/state-oversight/2024/10/03/florida-institutions-slash-general-education-offerings#

44.

O’Meara

K. A.

Culpepper

Templeton

L. L.

(2020). Nudging toward diversity: Applying behavioral design to faculty hiring. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 311–348.

45.

Ott

Cisneros

(2015). Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher education: A comparison of full-time non-tenure track and tenure line experiences. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 23(90), 1–25.

46.

Parker

Hood

(1995). Minority students vs. majority faculty and administrators in teacher education: Perspectives on the clash of cultures. Urban Review, 27(2), 159–174.

47.

PEN America. (2024, October 7). Course cancellations at Florida International University signal escalating censorship. Press Release, October 7, 2024. file:///Users/douglasrobertson/Library/Mobile%20Documents/com~apple~CloudDocs/Fascism%20and%20Higher%20Education/Stereotype%20Threat/Scholar%20Identity/Course%20Cancellations%20at%20Florida%20International%20University%20Signal%20Escalating%20Censorship%20-%20PEN%20America.html

48.

Rainwater

(2024). Florida faculty unions and the struggle for public education. In Johnson

V. C.

Ruth

Schrecker

(Eds.), The right to learn: Resisting the right-wing attack on academic freedom (pp. 162–175). Beacon Press.

49.

Ramos

(2020). Doctoral women of color coping with racism and sexism in the academy. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 15, 135–158.

50.

Rask

K. N.

Bailey

E. M.

(2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), 99–124.

51.

Robertson

D. L.

(2019). Performance perspectives on undergraduate student success at public metropolitan research universities. Innovative Higher Education, 44(2), 87–101.

52.

Robertson

D. L.

(2020). Student success, research preeminence, and unintended consequences at public metropolitan research universities. Innovative Higher Education, 45(1), 35–49.

53.

Robertson

D. L.

(2022). Equifinality, equity, and intersectionality: Faculty issues in pursuit of performance metrics. Innovative Higher Education, 47(4), 683–709.

54.

Robertson

D. L.

(2023). Underrepresentation of Hispanic faculty at Hispanic serving metropolitan research universities. Metropolitan Universities, 34(4), 9–25.

55.

Robertson, D. L. (2025a). Intimidation. Paper presented, Annual Meetings, Association for Behavior Analysis International, Washington, DC, May 24, 2025.

56.

Robertson

D. L.

(2025b). Inclusion overcomes intimidation: Toward identity safety. Behavior and Social Issues. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-025-00211

57.

Robertson

D. L.

(under review A). Midnight watch for rogue waves: Experiencing faculty intimidation in Florida.

58.

Robertson

D. L.

(under review B). On being faculty in Florida public higher education.

59.

Robertson

D. L.

Pelaez

(2016). Behavior analytic concepts and change in a large metropolitan research university: The graduation success initiative. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 36(2–3), 123–153.

60.

Robertson

D. L.

Pelaez

(2018). Rules, rule-governed behavior, and organizational change in a large metropolitan research university. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 23(1), 113.

61.

Robertson

D. L.

Pelaez

(2023). Connecting research, policy, and practice in colleges and universities: An internal researcher/practitioner model. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(1), 18–24.

62.

Robst

Keil

Russo

(1998). The effect of gender composition of faculty on student retention. Economic of Education Review, 17(4), 429–439.

63.

Russell-Brown

(2023). “The Stop WOKE Act”: HB 7, race, and Florida’s 21st century anti-literacy campaign. N. Y. U. Review of Law & Social Change, 47, 338–386.

64.

Russell-Brown

(2024). The multitudinous racial harms caused by Florida’s Stop WOKE and anti-DEI legislation. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 51(1), Article 4. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol51/iss3/4

65.

St. John

E. P.

Daun-Barnett

Moronski-Chapman

K. M.

(2018). Public policy and higher education: Reframing strategies for preparation, access, and college success (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

66.

Schoorman

(2024). Waking up to the “Anti-Woke” agenda. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 56, 404–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2024.2364632

67.

Schoorman

Gatens

(2023). A threat to democracy: Florida’s agenda to dismantle public higher education. Journal of Academic Freedom, 14, 1–12.

68.

Schoorman

Gatens

(2024). Understanding Florida’s HB7: A policy of intimidation by confusion. Educational Policy, 39, 464–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048241235405

69.

Schwarz

Hill

K. L.

(2010). Why so few minority professors in higher education? Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 14(2), 83–95.

70.

Stout

Archie

Cross

Carman

C. A.

(2018). The relationship between faculty diversity and graduation rates in higher education. Intercultural Education, 29(3), 399–417.

71.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2010). Majority as temporary minority: Examining the influence of faculty-student relationships on satisfaction among White undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 509–524.

72.

Stripling

(2022, November 17). Channeling Orwell, Judge blasts Florida’s “dystopian” ban on “woke” instruction. The Chronical of Higher Educationhttps://www.chronicle.com/article/conjuring-orwell-florida-judge-blasts-dystopian-ban-on-woke-instruction?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in . Retrieved 17 November 2022

73.

Taylor

Apprey

C. B.

hill

McGrann

Wang

(2010). Diversifying the faculty. Peer Review, 12(3), 15–18.

74.

Taylor

Z. W.

Somers

(2021). Controversial and contradictory: Historical and contemporary apologies for (a lack of) faculty academic freedom. Journal of Research on the College President, 5(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.54119/jrcp.2021.508

75.

Thomas

K. M.

Willis

L. A.

Davis

(2007). Mentoring minority graduate students: Issues and strategies for institutions, faculty, and students. Equal Opportunities International, 26(3), 178–192.

76.

Thornhill

(2023). Goodbye Florida, I’m out! For good. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 9(4), 440–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/23326492231201500

77.

Tkachenko

Louis

K. S.

(2017). Re-shaping the faculty: Emergence and development of “permanent-contingent” roles through the lens of cultural-historical activity theory. International Journal of Higher Education, 6, 140–152.

78.

Topalidis

Austin

(2023). Documenting Black faculty experiences in the “Stop Woke” era. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 9(4), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/23326492231201501

79.

Tuitt

(2012). Black like me: Graduate students’ perceptions of their pedagogical experiences in classes taught by Black faculty in a Predominantly White Institution. Journal of Black Studies, 43(2), 186–206.

80.

Turner Roberts

(2024). Indoctrination at its apex: “Stop Woke Act” and its ramifications on law schools and professors of color. Widener Law Review, 30(25), 25–45. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4818649

81.

van Mens-Verhulst

Woertman

Radtke

(2014). Faculty women as models for women students: How context matters. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 1–15.

82.

Vargas

(2018). Racial expropriation in higher education: Are Whiter Hispanic Serving Institutions more likely to receive Minority Serving Institution funds? Socius, 4, 1–12

83.

Vargas

J. H.

Saetermoe

C. L.

Chavira

(2021). Using critical race theory to reframe mentor training: Theoretical considerations regarding the ecological systems of mentorship. Higher Education, 81, 1043–1062.

84.

Verdugo

R. R.

(1995). Racial stratification and the use of Hispanic faculty as role models: Theory, policy, and practice. Journal of Higher Education, 66(6), 669–685.

85.

Watson

L. M.

(2023). The anti-“critical race theory” campaign–Classroom censorship and racial backlash by another name. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 58, 487–549. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/vol-58-no-2-summer-2023/

86.

Wei

F. F.

Hendrix

K. G.

(2016). Minority and majority faculty members in a Historically Black College/University: Redefining professors’ teacher credibility and classroom management. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 17(1), 102–111.

87.

Whittington

K. E.

(2024). You can’t teach that: The battle over university classrooms. Polity Press.

88.

Winslow

Davis

S. N.

(2016). Gender inequality across the academic life course. Sociology Compass, 10(5), 404–416.

89.

Zelnick

J. R.

Kim

M. E.

Goodkind

(2023). First they came for critical race theory… Affilia, 38(2), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/08861099231163651