A New College of Florida Professor Quits in Dramatic Fashion. Here’s Why He Felt He Had to Go.

Matthew Lepinski decided he’d had enough. At the very end of New College of Florida’s contentious Board of Trustees meeting last week, Lepinski, who is a board member, faculty chairman, and an associate professor of computer science, announced that he was “very concerned about the direction that this board is going,” wished everyone luck, and resigned. Then he exited the room.

It was another head-turning moment at New College, the small, public liberal-arts institution that Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, has turned into a talking point by nominating six trustees to execute an ideological overhaul. The college’s top diversity officer was fired, as was the president. Christopher Rufo, a board member best known for crusading against “wokeness,” has taunted those who complained. Meanwhile the interim president, Richard Corcoran, a former Republican speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, has promised that the changes are all part of an effort to increase enrollment, improve the educational experience, and transform New College into the best liberal-arts college in the country.

Whatever happens at New College, Lepinski, who was hired as a faculty member in 2015, won’t be along for the ride. Plenty of other professors are weighing their options, too, and it’s likely more resignations will follow. But they probably won’t be as dramatic. The Chronicle spoke with Lepinski about why he finally lost faith in the board. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Did you walk into that board meeting knowing that you were going to resign?

No, certainly not. I was — perhaps wrongly so — optimistic that the meeting would go better than it did. Obviously, I had some concerns about the direction that the board was taking New College, and I worried about how bad the meeting might be, but I really went into the meeting looking for some sign the board was really willing to work with our current students and our current faculty to try to make the school better and that there might be some room for compromise. But by the end of the meeting, it was clear to me that there was nothing that I could point to indicating that the board was valuing our current students and what they were going through.

Was there a particular statement or moment during the meeting that sealed your decision?

We had an unusually large number of students who were coming to speak at the meeting. A number of those students talked about their personal experiences working with the professors who were up for tenure. They talked about the wonderful experiences that they had both in class and in research with these professors, and I found those stories to be very moving and I was hopeful that the other board members were paying attention to these students and would be moved as well. And somewhere along the process I just thought, like, what am I going to tell our students the next day? What am I going to say to students who are working with these professors? And how am I going to explain what just happened here and why these professors’ contributions to their fields aren’t valued?

One of the other board members, Christopher Rufo, tweeted after your resignation that faculty who “prefer the old system of unfettered left-wing activism and a rubber-stamp board are free to self-select out.” Is that what you prefer?

No, certainly not. I welcome robust debate with my fellow board members. But what we saw was not a robust debate. What we saw was a summary judgment that some of these files were deficient and that the board wouldn’t be granting tenure to anyone this year due to current circumstances. And when I look at these five tenure cases, I don’t see people who are doing left-wing activism on this campus. I see serious historians, professional musicians, bio and organic chemists. These are not politically charged topics. These are not professors who have put themselves in the middle of the culture war. These are professors who are trying to challenge our students and teach them skills and critical thinking and problem-solving.

What would you say to the argument that New College is struggling and therefore radical change is required?

I and quite a number of other faculty members were eager to work with the new trustees because we certainly did see the challenges that the college was facing and were looking for ways to strengthen the college and ensure its success in the future. I would have welcomed discussion about the curriculum, about whether or not there were things that we didn’t teach that we could teach, whether there were ways of structuring the curriculum that would be more attractive to students and would help position ourselves in the marketplace. But instead, it seems like what our trustees have decided to focus on are things like dismantling our Office of Outreach and Inclusive Excellence, which was doing a lot of good work strengthening our reputation and helping us recruit in the local community. This doesn’t feel like a serious discussion about how we can make our college better.

You’ve said that a lot of students reached out to you since you resigned. What have they said?

I have been overwhelmed by the love and the support that I have received from our students. A number of students have told me that they felt heard and that I was with them. I think too often it felt like people who were sitting around the table at the Board of Trustees meeting were not hearing our current students. I think to have somebody at the Board of Trustees table stand up and show solidarity with our current students is something that resonated with them.

It’s been strangely bittersweet. The day after I resigned was my 45th birthday. A student gave me a handmade birthday card, and they had printed out a “We Love Lepinski” thread from a discussion forum that faculty members don’t have access to. They stuffed it into the birthday card. And when I saw that, I just completely lost it.