Earlier this year, Wisconsin lawmakers passed Act 15, a sweeping piece of legislation negotiated almost entirely in the state Capitol. The measure introduced a dramatic shift in expectations for faculty across the University of Wisconsin System. Under the new law, professors at campuses outside of Madison and Milwaukee learned they would soon be required to carry a 24-credit annual teaching load—the equivalent of four courses each semester.
For many faculty members, this mandate represents a fundamental change in the balance between teaching, research, and service, signaling a move by legislators to prioritize classroom instruction over scholarly activity. While UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee, the state’s two research-intensive universities, were granted exemptions from the full requirement, regional campuses like UW-Green Bay now face the prospect of heavier workloads that could reshape the academic culture of Wisconsin’s higher education system.
According to UW–Green Bay Professor Jon Shelton, chair of Democracy and Justice Studies, not a single teaching faculty member anywhere in the system was consulted before this law requirement was passed. “This agreement was negotiated without any input from faculty—none,” Shelton said. “Not union leaders, not teaching faculty, not the people who understand the academic workload. It was politicians making a deal based on preconceived notions that faculty don’t work enough.”
Shelton says the consequences for campuses like UW–Green Bay are already unfolding.
Losing Local Control Over Faculty Workload
For years, UW–Green Bay has operated with what faculty describe as a 4–3 teaching load, with a built-in three-credit reassignment for tenure-track faculty to support ongoing research and service.
That reassignment wasn’t a luxury, Shelton explained.
“Teaching is not the only thing we do,” he said. “Research, advising, service, mentoring, curriculum development—those are central to the job. That three-credit reassignment recognized that. Act 15 takes away UW-Green Bay’s ability to maintain that model, which would remove the flexibility for the administration to set an appropriate workload. “It’s frustrating to see decisions made by politicians who don’t understand how our campuses actually work.”
Exemptions for Madison and Milwaukee Raise Questions
The state exempted UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee because they are the system’s research-intensive institutions. But Shelton argues the reality is more complex.
“Yes, tenure standards differ,” he said, “but we have faculty here doing major research. I’ve written books. I have colleagues winning national grants. People at UW-Green Bay contribute significant scholarship while teaching heavy loads.” He points to a colleague in education who recently received a major external research grant—all while carrying a 4–3 teaching schedule.
The designation of the Milwaukee and Madison Campuses suggests a devaluation of research being conducted on other regional campuses, where scholarly work would be funded only with administrative approval. “Devaluing research at regional campuses misunderstands the role we play,” Shelton said. “Students deserve experts who stay active in their fields.”
Shelton is worried that allowing certain faculty to continue research while exempt from the workload increase will create a two-tiered faculty system, which he wishes to avoid.
A Leaked Proposal Sparks Campus-Wide Concern
Alongside the state mandate, UWGB is facing internal restructuring after a leaked “white paper” from Chancellor Mike Alexander outlined possible changes to faculty roles and governance. This proposal comes at a time of great uncertainty for many faculty and students alike on campus, who are concerned that educational quality will decrease as a result of the increased workload.
The most controversial proposal: eliminating elected department chairs and replacing them with appointed directors selected by the administration.
Shelton said this idea has united the campus in opposition in a way he has never seen. “I’ve talked to dozens, maybe a hundred faculty and staff,” he said. “There is not one person who supports replacing elected chairs with appointed directors.”
Under the current system, chairs, chosen by their colleagues, oversee curriculum decisions, evaluate faculty, plan course schedules, and ensure academic integrity.
If directors were instead appointed from above, Shelton says, the academic mission would suffer.
“Experts in the field should be making academic decisions,” he said. “Administratively appointed directors would make choices based on cost-efficiency or enrollment metrics, not curriculum quality. That will affect students directly.”
A Breakdown in Communication With Administration
Shelton, who also leads UWGB’s faculty and staff union, says Chancellor Alexander meets regularly with individuals expressing concerns or seeking clarification, but refuses to meet with the union as an organization.
“It’s strange,” Shelton said. “We are the only organization representing faculty and staff across campus. Meeting with individuals is not the same as meeting with our elected leadership.”
The divide was especially visible during a Nov. 18 town hall organized by the union, a gathering of faculty, staff, and students. The Chancellor declined the invitation.
“If he felt strongly about this proposal, I’d think he would want to explain it,” Shelton said. “We even shared the questions in advance. But he won’t meet with us, and I think that speaks volumes.”
What’s at Stake for Students– the road ahead
Shelton emphasizes that the issues affect more than just faculty.
“The conditions under which faculty teach are the conditions under which students learn,” he said. “If workloads increase, if research becomes impossible, if decision-making moves away from faculty expertise—students lose.”
Other recent decisions, such as the elimination of under-enrolled majors and expensive upgrades to athletics facilities, suggest a shift in priorities.
“It feels like the university is being run more like a business,” Shelton said. “Chasing donors, cutting programs, prioritizing things that attract shareholders instead of focusing on students and faculty.”
A campus-wide petition opposing the governance changes has circulated, and Shelton said it is only gaining more traction. “We want him to know this isn’t one person upset,” Shelton said. “There is broad opposition. And we want students involved.”
“We’re not going just to go away,” Shelton said. “Faculty and staff love this university deeply. We care about our students. Our work is bigger than one person’s agenda.”
The current petition has 443 petition signatures and continues to grow.