Universities of Wisconsin regents defended Tuesday’s dismissal of system president Jay Rothman on Thursday, telling lawmakers that the board’s action was not a surprise and that disputes over artificial intelligence and other issues played a role. Leaders on the board, which oversees the 165,000-student university system, said Rothman was aware of concerns about how he was handling critical developments as the regents moved to remove him.
Rothman had said in an interview this week that he was kept in the dark about why he was being fired and that the decision “blindsided” him. But when the regents appeared before a state Senate committee hearing, two regents testified that Rothman knew more than he acknowledged and that there were “substantial” reasons for the firing.
Regent President Amy Bogost said the board’s vote reflected more than a disagreement over messaging. “That decision was not made lightly,” Bogost said. “It was not political. It was not retaliatory. It was unanimous. … We made a difficult decision for the right reasons, and I firmly stand by it.”
Bogost and Nixon faced lawmakers who, according to the hearing account, had grown frustrated by Rothman’s surprise dismissal and called the public session to question what drove the move. Rothman’s dismissal came after a closed-door meeting, and regents “said little publicly until Thursday” about the basis for the decision.
Nixon, who testified to lawmakers, said Rothman lacked urgency in dealing with issues that lawmakers and regents described as pressing, including artificial intelligence. Nixon also said Rothman was not fully aligned with the board, tried to limit public board discussions and open-records handling, and took steps that Nixon characterized as limiting interactions between board members and lawmakers.
Nixon also discussed Rothman’s public stance toward lawmakers and policy makers, saying Rothman “doesn’t want to upset either the Legislature, the governor or the faculty or anybody else.” Nixon added, “He didn’t want to upset the apple cart and, quite frankly, I think the apple cart needs some upsetting.”
In their testimony, the regents also addressed confidentiality surrounding personnel decisions. Bogost said Rothman could waive his right to confidentiality related to the firing if he chose, and that such a waiver would allow board members to share more information. She said, however, that Rothman had instead used confidentiality as a “shield” to craft what she described as a “deliberately one-sided” narrative, and she said that harmed the university system.
Bogost added, “That is not a search for truth,” and described the ensuing media coverage as “strategy.” She said, “To do the media circuit that he’s on denigrates our great universities, and that makes me sad.”
Nixon compared the handling of Rothman’s departure to the approach sometimes used when large corporations replace chief executives, noting that the board rejected an offer for Rothman to retire or resign. Nixon said Rothman’s departure, including how it was handled, resembled a “new quarterback” change: “This is no different than moving on to a new quarterback, no matter what you thought of the previous quarterback and what they did,” Nixon said.
The testimony underscored the tension between Rothman’s version of events—an account of being kept in the dark—and the regents’ position that the president’s awareness and responsiveness to key issues, including artificial intelligence, were among the reasons for removing him.