Dear Faculty:

Since becoming Old Dominion University’s 9th President in July 2021 and throughout my five-year tenure at this great institution and more than thirty years in higher education administration, I have led with an unwavering commitment to honesty, integrity, and respect. To the faculty who have acknowledged the future direction of the University and acted in a collegial manner, I appreciate, commend, and value your commitment and engagement. To those who have boldly and proudly stepped forward to share their commitment and even enthusiasm for the University’s ongoing transformation with adaptability and flexibility at the forefront, you are a true testament to the compassion, care, and community of the Monarch spirit.

However, in recent months, I have witnessed some individuals at our institution allow personal feelings and other interests to overshadow professional standards. This undermines the collective voice of our campus that, on countless occasions, has proven we are indeed changemakers, innovators, and trailblazers focused on student engagement and success. Despite the many Monarch advocates, champions, and supporters for change, innovation, and transformation, it is unfortunate that the tone and tenor of the academy generally and our institution specifically have led to a variety of concerns and observations needing to be addressed before misrepresentation spreads further.

Through advocacy, engagement, and outreach efforts to date, the sole focus has been on the data and rationale to support the forward-focused nature of our critical work. The University’s administration has not argued or debated with faculty or others regarding their claims, insights, and perspectives. However, today, I am sending this message with a clear request for individuals to recommit to engaging professionally and upholding truths rather than myths. Please join me in protecting the integrity of the academy by disagreeing ethically and on the basis of facts. To support my concerns and the need to make such an important plea, please see the below examples in which important context and actual facts have been overshadowed by personal agendas.

First and foremost, our forward-focused work is not new, and it truly emerged in late 2021 as part of the strategic planning process and related efforts. The University’s forward-focused journey began years ago through a collaborative, multi-year process defined by deliberate planning and faculty engagement. Forward-Focused Digital Transformation (FFDT) did not emerge suddenly. It reflects nearly five years of planning and governance – yes true shared governance. I encourage you to review a timeline of highlights to both refresh your memory and relive key milestones with regard to the incremental and instrumental steps that have been taken along the way. The timeline is available at https://www.odu.edu/president/forward-focused-timeline.

Despite what is being touted, a recent faculty-led survey did not have a 43% response rate. Indeed, it was disconcerting to learn that some faculty mischaracterized the process for a survey that they developed, released, and analyzed. These mischaracterizations included: reporting incorrect response rates; reporting findings that were out of context from the actual survey questions; and making a call for improving two-way communication. It is worth noting this call for improvement was after leadership already committed to such engagement with well-attended, highly-productive, and open discussions held throughout the summer and fall, particularly in December, prior to the issuance of the actual survey and subsequent findings. If these misrepresentations stayed within the walls of our institutional home, I would address them internally and with the specific individuals or groups who made them. However, the concerns have been shared with external audiences, including in media interviews and in a press release. As a result, I am compelled to address them here.

To begin, the response rate has been incorrectly calculated for both the poll and the faculty survey. The poll and the faculty survey were distributed by the Faculty Senate to a broad population that included teaching and research faculty, adjunct faculty, and administrative and professional faculty – among others. For instance, 4,253 individuals received the faculty survey invitation, which was not restricted to a single response per individual. Using the standard and scientifically accepted method for calculating response rates, dividing the number of completed responses (558) by the total number of individuals who received the survey, the actual response rate is approximately 13%, not the 43% that has been repeatedly reported on campus and in the media.

Even if one were to apply the method being implied by some individuals of subtracting administrators from the distribution list and only counting the 503 respondents that self-identified as instructional faculty, which is not an accepted or appropriate approach for response-rate calculation, the resulting population would still include approximately 2,895 part-time and full-time teaching and research faculty who received the survey. Under that scenario, the response rate would be approximately 17%, not 40% as it has been claimed. The continued effort to retroactively narrow the denominator to only full-time teaching and research faculty, despite the survey being distributed far more broadly, is an ineffective attempt to substantiate a conclusion that is not supported by the data.

Compounding this concern is the assertion that both the survey and the poll were sent to the same faculty population, while reporting identical response rates, but significantly different sample sizes. From a statistical standpoint, this is not possible if the same population was in fact targeted. Taken together, these inconsistencies underscore that the reported response rates are inaccurate, and the conclusions drawn from them are fundamentally flawed.

Furthermore, three questions on the survey asked respondents about the level of confidence they had for specific leaders “regarding curricular leadership for this initiative.” These findings were reported to the external audience without reference to the question. Instead, the findings were reported in communications with the media as if respondents were asked about their amount of confidence in specific leaders. Amount of confidence and confidence “regarding curricular leadership for this initiative” are two different variables. Conflating them is truly problematic and equally misleading.

We shared a detailed purpose and clear vision, and we implemented an actionable and thoughtful plan. The University’s leadership has consistently articulated the same message for nearly five years: higher education is facing real and accelerating headwinds. These include declining demographics, rising costs, evolving workforce needs, rapid technological change, and increased scrutiny of value. In Virginia, birth rates have declined 21.6% since 2007. For a public university serving a predominantly in-state population, this reality requires intentional adaptation. Because student behavior and outcomes at Old Dominion University provide clear evidence supporting asynchronous and accelerated learning models, it makes perfect sense to expand our footprint in those areas. If we do not meet students where they are, someone else will.

Recent conversations have suggested that this work is new, rushed, or developed without faculty engagement; however, the record reflects otherwise. FFDT is the result of multi-year strategic planning with sustained faculty involvement and data-driven decision-making, which are aligned with national best practices and student needs. This initiative, which has drawn much attention and even criticism, reflects a deliberate choice to shape the University’s future intentionally rather than have it dictated by demographic decline, market shifts, or technological disruption. Universities across the nation are cutting programs and resources to address these external forces. I am fundamentally opposed to cutting programs and resources as a strategy to prepare for the future. As a contrast, FFDT is a long-term investment in academic excellence, student success, research capacity, and institutional sustainability – by design, not by circumstance.

FFDT is not a single initiative, nor is it a departure from the University’s academic mission. Only fully online bachelor’s and master’s programs will transition to the asynchronous accelerated model by Fall 2026, consistent with national norms in online education. Faculty governance remains central with curriculum, academic standards, and academic integrity remaining under faculty oversight. Contrary to what is being shared, this work does not diminish or undermine college, department, school, or Faculty Senate authority. It simply addresses operational frameworks, such as systems, calendars, technology, and infrastructure, that support academic work and student success. Operational decisions of this nature are the responsibility of University leadership, and they are designed to support – not eliminate or substitute – the academic expertise of faculty.

Contrary to faculty statements of inactivity and lack of readiness, we have made significant progress. During the Fall 2025 semester, much was accomplished to demonstrate widespread progress and true readiness across classroom modernization; systems and process alignments; research enablement; 8-week course development progress; and faculty training and support. Detailed information regarding key highlights is available at https://www.odu.edu/president/FFDT-key-highlights.

Last, but certainly not least, we have been offering accelerated online courses since 2015. We have more than a decade of data and success in a specific area that is being referenced by some faculty as a new and unknown endeavor for our institution. We began piloting full programs in this format in 2022. Therefore, the assertion from some faculty that proper planning and piloting has not occurred is inaccurate. With prior pilots that were successful, it is time to move forward with full-scale production and implementation as this has been part of the institution for more than a decade. The facts are clear: we have experience and success in accelerated online learning. Students enroll in asynchronous courses more than any other modality. Asynchronous learning is selected twice as often as synchronous formats. DFW rates are 2.4% lower in asynchronous courses than face-to-face courses and 5% lower in existing 8-week asynchronous online courses than traditional-length, face-to-face courses. These are not projections or experimental assumptions rather they are observed outcomes from Old Dominion University’s own students.

Taken together, the facts provided underscore the thoughtful direction and intentionality of our path forward. And, in the days where headlines are made by the most polarizing stories rather than those of unity, common purpose, and shared goals, my career and service – then and now – have been built and will continue to function on a firm commitment and an ongoing willingness to agree to disagree. However, such an arrangement can only occur in an environment where facts emerge over fiction and where a collective campus takes precedent over individual attitudes, endeavors, and perspectives. While it is impossible for all parties to agree on any particular initiative, issue, or matter, it is our role as leaders and scholars to set an example for respectful discord rather than actively engage in dishonest efforts to mislead or sway others in what is supposed to be a collegial, intellectual, and professional environment.

As I have shared in recent months through in-person meetings and other outreach, it is my hope and mission to bring this community of distinct and varying opinions together to secure the future of our beloved institution. That can only occur in an environment where integrity and professionalism are upheld and valued in our daily engagements and overall efforts. That is why I am asking all Monarch faculty, who are responsible for nurturing the minds of our students, to recommit to our core values, specifically collaboration, excellence, innovation, and most importantly – respect. I ask that you be the voice of reason in response to unreasonable claims. Indeed, it is deeply disappointing that with the amazing work of our resilient students, world-class faculty, and dedicated staff, our campus and community are hearing incorrect information and seeing negative stories that portray Old Dominion University as an institution in turmoil.

So many across this campus say that we do not tell our story, we are a hidden gem, we have so much to share, and yet when some of us have the opportunity to put our best foot forward as advocates for this great institution, we instead use the platform to cite grievances without providing full context and utilizing skewed data. I want to ask a very simple question. How do we highlight the best of Old Dominion University and make progress together when we take the adversarial stance and weaponize the media to cover inflammatory statements that are not rooted in truth? Whether we choose to agree or disagree, the manner in which we engage will either positively or negatively impact our mission and our students. Regardless of what is in front of us, as your leader, I will always choose to positively embrace our mission and serve all constituents regardless of the particular initiative, issue, or matter, because this transformational work is much bigger than each of us as we are responsible for creating generational knowledge and greater opportunities.

In closing, the Board of Visitors has given me a tremendous duty and significant responsibility to secure Old Dominion University’s future, and, in good conscience, I cannot occupy this position knowing the obstacles ahead for Virginia and higher education in general, such as declining birth rates and Medicaid funding cuts, and not position our institution to both respond and succeed. Without question, we are at a pivotal point in our forward-focused journey. To those who have advocated, championed, and supported our critical efforts and the path forward, together, we will enable current and future generations to achieve more, dream bigger, and make an incredible impact on our campus, our community, our Commonwealth, and beyond. This – above all else – is our passion, our promise, and our purpose!


With Monarch Pride,

Brian O. Hemphill, Ph.D.
President


Quick Links