The University of Nebraska–Lincoln’s attempt to apply new productivity metrics to academic programs has prompted an outcry from faculty after leaders signaled six programs could be closed as part of a plan to close a $27.5 million budget gap. Faculty members described the process as rushed, opaque and driven by flawed data; department chairs say they were blindsided by elimination notices. Executive vice chancellor Mark Button defended the process as consultative and necessary to address structural deficits. But faculty members and shared‑governance advocates argue the timing and communication undercut trust and violated norms of transparency around program review. The dispute spotlights a wider trend: public universities under enrollment and fiscal pressure are increasingly using data‑driven program reviews to reallocate resources—moves that can trigger sharp debates over academic mission, regional access to programs and the role of faculty in governance.