SuppliedEach year, The Gateway publishes an evaluation of the Students’ Union Executive and the Board of Governors representative. This year, Bill Flanagan began his second term as President of the University of Alberta. As such, The Gateway decided to publish a similar evaluation of Flanagan’s term.
Bill Flanagan: C-
As the President and Vice-chancellor of the University of Alberta, Bill Flanagan holds one of the most influential positions in Alberta’s post-secondary landscape. His decisions carry weight not just for the institution’s operations, but for its values, culture, and public standing. Flanagan is responsible for guiding the university through financial, political, and social headwinds. He is accountable to students, faculty, and the wider community. However, over the past year, his performance has raised serious questions about leadership, advocacy, and transparency.
Budget and advocacy: D
The provincial operating grant for 2025–26 has remained flat at $436.6 million for the fourth consecutive year, which amounts to an effective cut when adjusted for inflation and stagnant enrolment growth. Since 2019, the U of A has lost a total of $222 million in government operating support, leading to a hiring freeze, academic restructuring, and growing reliance on tuition and alternative revenue. While Budget 2025 includes infrastructure investments — like $100 million for the Biological Sciences building — the government has offered no increase to core funding, leaving the university to absorb rising costs internally. This financial pressure has created a structural imbalance that continues to strain departments, staff, and student services.
Despite these mounting challenges, Flanagan characterized the budget as evidence of government support — pointing to infrastructure spending as a sign of provincial investment — rather than calling out the lack of operating grant increases. His measured and supportive tone drew criticism from advocates who expected stronger leadership and more vocal emphasis on the university’s operational needs.
The faculty of arts, in particular, continues to bear the brunt of years of austerity. Departments are grappling with chronic underfunding, unstable course offerings, and minimal institutional support for contract instructors, many of whom work under precarious conditions with little recognition. The physical environment compounds these academic pressures. While science and engineering buildings receive major capital investments, the aging and often neglected state of arts buildings signals a troubling disparity in priorities. Yet Flanagan has offered little public acknowledgment of this imbalance. His limited response has left many in the arts feeling overlooked by an administration that seems more eager to showcase partnerships and capital growth than to advocate for equitable academic support across all faculties.
Student and campus life: C
Under Flanagan’s leadership, the university has struggled to present a unified vision for student well-being and representation. The University of Alberta Students’ Union (UASU), and other campus groups, responded to the 2025 budget announcement with frustration, highlighting the administration’s insufficient communication about potential impacts. UASU 2024–25 President Lisa Glock emphasized that without adjusting funding for inflation, the budget “is essentially just a cut,” signalling a disconnect between student needs and administrative response. Students may start to feel side-lined, given that their concerns are seemingly less important to the administration than maintaining provincial goodwill
Moments of controversy have also defined Flanagan’s presidency. His decision to involve police in the eviction of a peaceful pro-Palestine encampment on campus in May 2024 drew sharp backlash from students and faculty. Many viewed the move as a suppression of student activism and an abandonment of the university’s stated commitment to academic freedom and open dialogue. In justifying the eviction, Flanagan cited safety concerns and university policy. However, critics argue the administration prioritized optics and political expediency over community engagement.
Equity and inclusion: C+
In spring 2025, Flanagan announced a transition away from the university’s “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” (EDI) framework. This was in favour of a new model centred on “Access, Community, and Belonging,” (ABC). According to Flanagan, the shift aims to promote broader participation and connection among all campus members. The language suggests a more holistic approach to inclusion. But, some stakeholders worry it reflects a retreat from hard-won institutional commitments to anti-racism, reconciliation, and systemic equity. The rebranding has been met with cautious interest but also skepticism. Especially from marginalized communities who fear that abstract language may replace measurable progress.
The decision to shift to the ACB model was done without consultation with academic staff and students. Given that the model is meant to improve equity for members of the U of A community, to not include them in consultation looks bad.
Transparency and public image: C-
Flanagan has generally favoured behind-the-scenes diplomacy over public confrontation. This strategy is evident in his handling of recent campus upheavals and budgetary pressures. In May 2024, several members of the Faculty of Arts Committee on EDI resigned. Critics accused the administration of having “pushed away and harmed the administrators who genuinely care about students,” and warning of a concerning breakdown in trust and transparency.
Similarly, during the May 2024 pro-Palestine encampment, Flanagan’s office issued statements that focused heavily on institutional policy and concerns for safety — while giving little attention to student voices or their lived experiences. This approach drew criticism for prioritizing procedural formality over empathetic, frontline engagement.
Overall Leadership: C-
Now in his second five-year term as President, Flanagan remains a polarizing figure. His supporters credit him with steering the university through difficult fiscal terrain with pragmatism. His critics argue he has been too accommodating to government pressures, too opaque with stakeholders, and too hesitant to stand up for the university’s core academic and social values. Budget challenges are not of his making, but how a president chooses to respond to them matters.
So far, Flanagan’s strategy has been marked more by cautious alignment with government than bold leadership. With tensions high and budget constraints deepening, his next moves will be crucial in defining his legacy. As a stabilizer, or as a steward who failed to fight for his institution when it mattered most.
