Regents, faculty push back on presentation by national group known for right-wing policies

Faculty from several Nevada colleges and universities criticized the Nevada Board of Regents Friday for entertaining a presentation from a national institute known for right-wing stances on diversity and ‘academic freedom.’

Although the presentation from James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal President Jenna A. Robinson centered on higher education board governance models, faculty argued welcoming a group seen as hostile toward faculty and diversity policies erodes the already fraught reputation of the Board of Regents.

Doug Unger, president of the UNLV chapter of Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA), said the Martin Center pushes for “draconian policies that diminish faculty rights” and that their work in higher education is “akin to big oil companies addressing climate change.”

“Anything this group advocates for should be taken with more than a grain of salt,” added Unger.

Nevada Faculty Alliance President Jim New shared a similar sentiment.

“The organization has existed for several years under various names with one objective: to empower partisans in government by restricting the rights of faculty,” he said. “Giving (Robinson) a platform implicitly validates her organization’s work and ideological approach.”

The Martin Center in its presentation describes itself as advocating for “responsible governance, viewpoint diversity, academic quality, cost-effective education solutions, and innovative market-based reform.”

The group regularly advocates against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, especially in North Carolina where it is based.

“I would like to remind the board we have one of the most diverse student populations in the nation,” said Pete Martini, NFA’s Nevada State University chapter president. “What are those students to think about who we choose to stand next to today?”

Several regents echoed those faculty’s concerns, although the presentation on “the principles and practices of highly effective governing boards in higher education” proceeded as scheduled.

Regents Shelly Cruz-Crawford, Amy Carvalho and Laura Perkins expressed concerns with the group over their stances on DEI, but each member’s full thoughts were cut short by the board attorney, who cautioned that discussing the Robinson of the Martin Center’s “character or competence” would be a violation of state open meeting law because the board was not agendized to discuss it.

Regents Carol Del Carlo and Patrick Boylan demanded to know who made the decision to allow the group to present and whether the group was being paid. Del Carlo also noted the Board of Regents are dues-paying members of the Association of Community College Trustees and the Association of Governing Boards.

“Both of them are the gold standard in our industry of higher education,” she added. “Why aren’t they coming in?”

Before answering, Board Chair Byron Brooks criticized Del Carlo and the other regents for not raising their concerns or asking questions prior to the meeting.

Boylan in his comments shot back at the chair, saying, “It’s useless asking when the agenda’s been made to give us any answers or change anything because you never do.”

That snark earned him a quick rebuke from the board attorney who again said the board could not discuss competence or character of anyone unless it was agendized.

Brooks said there was zero cost to the presentation and the group’s presence was made in conjunction with him as chair. He said it was brought upon by a desire for “an alternative source of support in providing guidance to the board.”

“From my perspective, we could use some support,” he said. “While there are other organizations that we certainly could have asked … I was thinking about this more in terms of something perhaps different because what we have had seems to not stick.”

Not all of the regents pushed back against the presentation.

Regent Stephanie Goodman acknowledged the Martin Center as “a very conservative group” but said the presentation itself was “benign” and “not remotely political.”

“Each member will take what is valuable to them and leave behind what isn’t,” she said. “There’s something to be said about taking a moment and listening, Even if it’s something we don’t agree with. Even if there are things they have done that we don’t agree with. This is what higher education is all about, is listening to opposing views.”

Goodman added that faculty and the regents should be collectively focused on “fighting Senate Joint Resolution 7” — a proposal to remove the Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution, potentially reshaping the governance of the state’s higher education system. The resolution, which was approved by lawmakers during the 2021 and 2023 legislative sessions, is set to appear before voters for final approval on the 2024 general ballot.

The board attorney cautioned her that the resolution was not agendized for discussion.

Correction: This story has been updated with the correct spelling of Regent Patrick Boyland’s name.