RADFORD -- The one Radford University program recommended to be axed during a controversial expedited academic review was spared Thursday, but faculty are still questioning the process to which it and other programs were subjected.

Provost Wil Stanton went before the Academic Affairs Committee of the Radford University Board of Visitors on Thursday to describe the review process and the motivations behind it.

Several programs reviewed were recommended for restructuring. But the only program the university's Academic Program Review Committee recommended be cut, a post-baccalaureate certificate in Appalachian Studies, will continue with a new recommendation to "restructure to be more interdisciplinary," according to the report Stanton presented.

Stanton said he read the original proposal for the program, which began less than four years ago, and decided to give the program two more years to become more interdisciplinary. Stanton said there is great potential for Appalachian-themed courses in history, geography and religious studies.

But while the program had become a flash point for discontent about the expedited review process, comments from the faculty senate president Thursday and a letter handed out to board members indicated that it was the process -- not the outcome -- that concerned professors. The letter signed by 65 faculty members called into question the validity process and asked for a halt to all curriculum changes it recommends.

The complaints are similar to those in letters and faculty senate resolutions about the speed of the review process and the decision-making path used in department mergers. Many faculty have said they believe the actions violate the university's shared-governance model, as well as professional and accreditation agency standards.

The university designated 29 programs for expedited review earlier this year, calling for program leaders to justify their continued existence. Five programs were voluntarily discontinued before the process began. The mergers of several other departments and programs were approved at a board of visitors meeting in February after Stanton met with academic deans, who received input from department chairs.

In addition, 28 of Radford's 48 academic concentrations within majors were discontinued because of low enrollment, Stanton said.

On Thursday, Stanton cited budget pressures, long-term goals and the constant need to reshape programs as the driving forces behind the various moves. He quoted from Radford's "7-17" strategic plan to illustrate the need for the university to be dynamic and responsive in its academic offerings.

Stanton also said he alerted the academic community about the need for changes several times in the fall as the implications of state budget cuts became apparent. The fact that the budget issues were resolved by the elimination of concentrations before the academic reviews does not mean the process should stop or slow down, he added.

"If we want to support our new initiatives ... we can't just be mired to the past and lock ourselves in time," he said.

Stanton drew a distinction between the program and department mergers, which he dubbed "organizational," and the changes recommended in the program review, which he said were curricular and did involve faculty.

But the lack of faculty input in the process was a major theme of the letter.

"We are concerned that the reputation of the university has already suffered from the manner in which the Office of Academic Affairs has chosen to go about its plans for curricular transformation," the letter reads. "Recent administrative actions threaten to undermine our excellence by diminishing the essential role that a university faculty must play in governance and in shaping the curriculum."

Faculty senate President Stephen Owen said he didn't want the faculty's concerns and actions to be seen as antagonistic -- even the decision to form an ad hoc committee to investigate the administration's actions.

"My perspective is that this committee should be used to restore confidence and trust and communication among all of the university community," he said.

Board member R.J. Kirk said the board shared his interest in cooperating.

"We certainly recognize that this is first and last a teaching institution," he said. "The faculty are doing the teaching. ... We would be more than remiss, we would be utterly incompetent" to not seek faculty input.