An academic advisory group at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln opposed most of the chancellor’s proposed program eliminations, urging delay and more time for units to identify alternatives. The committee voted against eliminating four of six programs recommended as part of a plan to save $27.5 million, citing concerns about the metrics, rushed timelines and transparency of the review process. Faculty complained the top‑down evaluation relied on flawed productivity measures and provided insufficient opportunity for shared governance; the chancellor said he is reviewing the committee’s recommendations before issuing final proposals for the Board of Regents. The controversy has produced town halls, thousands of public comments and calls for more deliberative planning. The UNL case typifies wider tension on public campuses facing budget shortfalls: administrators pressing for rapid structural savings while faculty demand robust data, transparent criteria and time to propose programmatic alternatives that preserve academic missions.