UT President Jim Davis declines interviews, fuels transparency worries

University of Texas Regents handpicked President Jim Davis to lead its flagship university one year ago, bypassing a national search or a process that would have involved input from a committee of other UT presidents, faculty, alumni and students.

Davis is the first UT leader in more than 100 years who doesn’t come from academia, and regents say they trust he’ll carry out their priorities and improve operational efficiency. Indeed, his first year brought sweeping changes – from investments in the School of Civic Leadership to an overhaul of university core courses and consolidation of UT’s ethnic and gender studies departments.

But no matter the scale of the change or how many students his decisions affected, he repeatedly declined all interview requests – more than a dozen in total – from the Austin American-Statesman. He has also declined interview requests from the Texas Tribune and KUT, the outlets confirmed. The Daily Texan, UT’s student newspaper, also has not spoken with him.

The refusal to engage with the media contrasts Davis’ predecessors and contributes to a sharp decline in transparency at the Forty Acres, which also lost its faculty senate, a long-standing public forum that allowed faculty to question the president directly. The UT System ended faculty senates to comply with Senate Bill 37, a sweeping higher education reform law that handed greater power to governor-appointed regents.

Faculty, students and the public have had no way to question UT leaders’ decisions publicly, going against public university leaders’ tradition of engaging with stakeholders and the public. Davis’ decisions impact the future of the top public university, which educates 55,000 students annually and employs 20,000 people. He is paid $1.25 million annually.

“People have different styles, different norms. But it is unusual for someone of that prominence to not engage with the media,” said Sondra Barringer, a Southern Methodist University associate professor of higher education who studies the behavior of university leaders. “Not engaging in that work is relatively unusual, and I don’t think it’s ideal.”

UT spokesperson Mike Rosen declined to answer the Statesman’s questions about the apparent change in practice or point to an interview Davis has done with a media outlet, but defended UT’s media relations. Davis’s second-in-command, Provost William Inboden, has spoken to The New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education, but denied all interviews with the Austin American-Statesman and The Daily Texan.

“We interact with reporters every day,” Rosen said in a statement. “We answer their questions and keep them well informed of our leadership’s strategy to move UT forward.”

Davis has sat for one written interview with Jim Zook, who served as UT vice president of marketing and communications at the time. The interview appeared in The Alcalde, a magazine for UT alumni. The American-Statesman could not find any other interview with Davis after he was appointed president last February.

Kristen Shahverdian, campus director for PEN America, a nonprofit that advocates for academic and press freedom, said the lack of transparency reflects a shift in how institutions are interacting with the public, signaling a new norm where leaders avoid “scrutiny or critical speech.”

“Yes the president reports to the board (of regents), but he does to the public as well,” Shahverdian said “Not having leaders willing to either be accountable, to explain their positions or to engage with their communities is really problematic and can harm public trust.”

Shahverdian said the lack of transparency puts public trust in UT and higher education at risk.

“Losing that back and forth, that engagement with your community is a huge loss,” she said. “That will, in the end, harm higher education.”

In the year before his resignation, former UT President Jay Hartzell spoke at least eight times with the Austin American-Statesman about closing student support centers after the passage of SB 17, campus safety, opening new housing, hitting research milestones, renovating the UT Tower, South by Southwest UT events, pro-Palestinian protest enforcement and students’ return to school. 

After Davis was unanimously appointed by regents to his new role, he declined an interview immediately. In the month after, the Statesman made repeated requests for a sit down. He declined them all.

Davis later said no to an interview after announcements on a new $100 million investment in the School of Civic Leadership and new safety measures. At press conferences, Davis did not take questions –  a change in practice from Hartzell’s administration.

He also declined to comment on the university’s ADA compliance, his goals for curriculum, his statement on academic integrity, an offer from the federal government, regents’ decision to officially name him president, his state of the university address, the establishment of a new computing school at UT, consolidation of ethnic and gender studies, back to school events and his reflections on leading UT for one year.

Barringer, the SMU professor, said Davis’s lack of engagement with the media comes as university decision-making processes shift in southern states. Typically, universities function similar to the U.S. government with faculty and regents acting as important checks and balances based on their expertise: faculty as a check on curriculum and regents to help oversee finances and strategic planning, she said.

This level of transparency and balance is considered best practice because it ensures there are no unintended consequences on other degree programs, courses or students. It also encourages buy-in from all parties, Barringer said. But with laws like SB 37, that is no longer the case. 

“That’s one of the reasons these universities have survived for so long,” she said. “When faculty are not consulted, how do you know that you’re doing what’s best for the students, and what’s best for the academic integrity of the institution?” 

It’s not just UT that’s wrestling with how to best engage with stakeholders, she said. When faculty lose their voice in curriculum and forums to publicly question decisions, the university and its reputation can suffer, she said.

“It’s really important for leaders of these institutions to engage the faculty, staff and other administrators to understand the full context of their decisions and the consequences,” Barringer said. “That is very much a nationwide thing we are confronting right now.”

Davis declined an interview with the American-Statesman for this piece.