Philosopher-turned-university administrator Ann Cudd spent 27 years at the University of Kansas, teaching and writing on oppression, feminism, and the ethics of capitalism. She later moved into senior academic leadership at Kansas, then became dean of Arts and Sciences at Boston University. She was later appointed provost at the University of Pittsburgh. In 2023, she became the 11th president of Portland State University. Because she spent her career defending positions on markets and equality, her decisions as an administrator can be measured against her own views.
As provost at Pittsburgh, she put major university funding behind need-based aid and made the SAT and ACT optional. When Black student organizations pressed for an anti-racism course, she backed it. That same administration spent millions resisting a faculty union. It also closed the English Language Institute, a 60-year-old program for international students.
Cudd belongs to neither the left-progressive nor the free-market camp. She is a liberal-institutionalist who treats markets, competition, and hierarchy as legitimate. Within that frame, she uses institutional power to correct failures that make competition unfair. Her corrections stop short of equalizing outcomes or dismantling the hierarchy that sorts people into winners and losers. Across Kansas, Boston University, and Pittsburgh, she consistently advanced this position.
The Rules of the Game: Defending “Enlightened Capitalism”
Cudd’s philosophy is grounded in contractarianism, a tradition that justifies social arrangements by asking whether rational people could agree to them for mutual advantage. Her 2006 book Analyzing Oppression conceives oppression not as individual prejudice but as a structural condition of institutions. If the problem is structural, the remedy must be as well.
Cudd makes her case in the 2011 Cambridge volume Capitalism, For and Against, a formal debate with the socialist-feminist Nancy Holmstrom, in which she takes the pro-capitalist side. She does not defend laissez-faire capitalism but advocates for what she calls an “enlightened capitalism,” one that is “feminist and liberal.” She accepts capitalism’s defining elements, private capital, decentralized markets, and wage labor. However, she insists that markets must not discriminate and that the government must play a corrective role. It includes public health and education, a minimum level of welfare, limits on pollution, and checks on overspeculation. For Cudd, the state should correct market failures, not redistribute wealth for its own sake.
Her conception of competition is drawn from sport, not what she calls the “no-holds-barred dogfight.” She rejects the predator-and-prey model, instead likening competition to a game. It has rules like property and trade, players who mostly abide by them, and losers who still gain from participating. Healthy competition, in her view, requires clear rules and referees to enforce them. She first developed this metaphor in a 2007 paper on competition and the ethos of capitalism. Competition, she writes, is only justified when the rules are fair. Exclude a group from the rules, and competition forfeits the very benefit that makes it worth defending. This is a point she repeated in her 2012 University Distinguished Professor lecture at Kansas.
Holmstrom, her debate opponent, sees capitalism as an obstacle to human progress, whereas Cudd sees it as the means to achieve it. She rejects the Marxist charge of exploitation as outdated, arguing that it does not survive scrutiny. According to Cudd, the disadvantages feminists blame on capitalism stem from patriarchy. This is an older system that capitalism can profit from by paying women less, but did not invent. The culprit, for her, is patriarchy, not the market. She credits capitalism with the global decline in extreme poverty, and argues that where poverty persists, the cause is “not too much capitalist development, but too little.” Even the environment, she argues, is better protected by private ownership than by collective ownership, because shared resources get overused while owners have reason to maintain what they own.
Her most consequential distinction, the one she leans on most later, is between inequality and poverty. Material inequality, she argues, matters only when it leaves someone deprived. The rich pulling further ahead of the poor is acceptable to her, as long as those at the bottom are still rising. This distinction enables her to target unmet financial need while remaining untroubled by inequality itself.
Cudd is no free-market absolutist. She maintains that capitalism “requires restraint and intervention if it is to be justifiable.” The real task, she argues, is to reform it, not to defend it as it is. Her reconciling line unifies her position: market conviction and correction as one commitment, not two.
Her critic, Nancy Holmstrom, gets the last word in the volume, and it is worth taking seriously. Holmstrom’s objection is that Cudd reasons from an idealized capitalism. Defending the system as it could be, she says, leaves the system as it is unchallenged. Her deeper objection is that while sexism and racism can in principle be eliminated from capitalism, class division cannot, because it is “constitutive of the system.” That is the fault line: Cudd wants fair footing and a fair race; the socialist wants the hierarchy itself abolished. The divide between those two is the divide between Cudd and the left.
Her 2017 chapter “What Is Equality in Higher Education?” brings this philosophy to academia. She begins with the principle that everyone is entitled to an adequate education. Beyond that minimum, she accepts inequality if it serves three social goods: flourishing lives, collective provision, and democratic participation. Elite institutions and some degree of meritocracy, in her view, are acceptable. Her main critique concerns merit-based financial aid, which she regards as a zero-sum competition that weakens the system. She advocates replacing it with need-based aid and outcome-focused rankings. Notably, the passage about admissions weighing “cultural competence” for an “elite leadership group” is often misattributed to her. In context, she is summarizing Elizabeth Anderson’s argument, not her own. Her core proposal is to shift from merit-based to need-based aid. She would attempt to implement this policy five years later at Pittsburgh.
Kansas: When Theory Becomes Method
At Kansas, she began applying her scholarship to the structural barriers she saw around her. In 2002, while co-chairing a state task force, she pointed out that Kansas women were better educated than men yet rarely reached management positions. The barrier was structural: a shortage of affordable childcare, not a failing of the women themselves. In 2004 she made a similar argument about the faculty tenure clock, which forces women to build a career and raise children at the same time.
While overseeing the women, gender, and sexuality studies program, she established a graduate degree using existing faculty and no new state money. It was an early example of an approach she would repeat: expanding programs by repurposing what she already had. In 2013, as the university’s first vice provost for undergraduate studies, she institutionalized this approach. It consisted of early-alert flags in course software, referrals to advising and federal college access (TRIO) programs, and a deliberate focus on first-generation, low-income, and minority students. She framed it as data-driven rather than market-driven. The method is informed by her scholarship: find a patterned disparity, measure it, and intervene before students leave.
In 2013, as KU touted its economic impact to state legislators, Cudd pointed to what the argument overlooked. The value of the humanities, she noted, defies any economic measure. Left out of a case built on dollars, they could eventually lose their funding, unless faculty spoke up for them. She called KU’s humanistic tradition a strength worth preserving. Boston, however, would show the other side of her.
Boston: Representation as Institutional Design
Cudd arrived at Boston University in 2015 as dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. She was tasked with setting priorities across a college spanning everything from nuclear physics to 17th-century poetry, and with a stated pledge to diversity. She pursued it through strategic planning. After convening a task force and a diversity planning committee, she defended a diverse faculty on three grounds: “reasons of justice, reasons for good education, and reasons for innovative thinking.” The first is the one everyone expects. The other two, that diversity improves teaching and makes the institution’s ideas more original, are the argument she makes for treating a diverse elite as a public good, not only a matter of fairness.
At Boston, the humanities defender from Kansas became the administrator who had to weigh a program’s cost. In December 2015, Cudd barred the small, internationally admired Editorial Institute from admitting new doctoral students and convened a review committee. She called it a one-year hiatus rather than a closure, and said she was “fully supportive of the work” of the Institute. Its co-director, the T.S. Eliot scholar Christopher Ricks, resigned in protest; scholars and publishers wrote to her, asking her to reconsider. Faculty interpreted the decision as a lack of support for an expensive humanities program.1 The decision was clear: a dean who defended the humanities in principle applied enrollment and cost criteria to one of its programs in practice. It is the first apparent contradiction between her principles as a philosopher and her goals as an administrator.
Pittsburgh: The Philosophy in Practice
In 2018, Cudd was named provost at Pittsburgh, an institution finally large enough to turn the whole of her scholarship into policy.
The strongest case is financial aid. The Pitt Success Pell Match, which she championed, put substantial university money behind students with demonstrated need. A year in, it helped more than 5,000 students at a cost of around $25 million and, by her account, improved retention by three points. Her reason was that the university had “a retention and, frankly, a graduation issue” rooted in unmet need. This is the argument from her 2017 chapter “What Is Equality in Higher Education?” put into practice: fund need instead of merit, and the competition gets fairer. Test-optional admissions followed from the same principle. She argued that standardized tests measure access to test prep as much as ability. ReSTART, the revenue-sharing budget model she introduced, applied the same approach institution-wide. It pushed authority and accountability down to deans and units so they could fund their own priorities. She defended it as “best practice” for a research university.
The Pittsburgh diversity record is often misinterpreted. Pitt’s anti-racism work did not originate with Cudd. It came largely in response to organized pressure. The Black Action Society and 17 other groups, along with the African American Alumni Council, presented the university with a documented record and a list of demands. Black students were about 5 percent of undergraduates, down from roughly 14 percent in 1979. The organizations asked Pitt to reverse a four-decade decline, with a target of 10 percent within five years.
The organizations also demanded an anti-racism course, which Cudd approved. She described it as making the curriculum “more engaged and inclusive to the Black narrative.” Her account of retention pointed to belonging, inclusive classrooms, and, again, affordability. Cudd worked from a theory of structural inequality. The students’ demands gave it a specific problem to address, and she translated it into a racial-equity program.
Her early pandemic decisions demonstrated the same priorities. Within days of the shutdown, she permitted students to switch courses to satisfactory/no-credit grading, protecting their transcripts and degree progress. She also co-signed a joint objection, with other provosts, to Trump-era visa rules that put international students at risk.
On labor, theory and practice diverge. Cudd’s own 2011 scholarship treats labor unions not as an expression of worker solidarity but as a market correction, a “reasonable remedy” for the power a sole employer holds over workers. Yet as provost she presided over an administration that spent more than $3 million on union-avoidance counsel since 2016. Though the institution had traditionally engaged in such practices, spending under $9,000 in a typical year, by 2019, as the unionization fight peaked, the administration had spent more than $1 million. It was only after the faculty prevailed in their union election that the spending fell back. Pitt’s disclosures itemize the spending but do not show that Cudd personally authorized it.
This spending drew objections. In 2020, graduate students petitioned Pitt to redirect the money it “planned to spend on union avoidance” toward emergency aid. When the faculty union did bargain, the main demand was a $60,000 minimum for the instructors who represented two-thirds of the teaching force. In 2018, Cudd’s administration had questioned whether a faculty union was even needed. During a bargaining impasse, she listened to protesting faculty through an intercom rather than meeting them. She said the rules barred her from discussing negotiations. The union, pointedly, turned her own “Year of Emotional Well-Being” theme into a slogan against her. The contradiction is more specific than “diversity champion versus union-buster”: a provost whose own theory treats collective bargaining as a legitimate market-failure remedy, nevertheless presided over an administration that resisted it.
At Pittsburgh, the English Language Institute shared the same fate as the Editorial Institute. It was to close in 2023 due to declining enrollment. By the department chair’s account, Cudd “initially signed off on the closure” while trying to make it “the least disruptive as possible.” After a student petition and a six-page letter to Cudd and the dean, the institute won a one-year reprieve. This was what she had done at Boston: professed support, least disruption, and a rationale of enrollment and cost. By itself, the closure was a defensible administrative decision. Enrollment had fallen, money was tight, and any provost might have made the same call. Nothing in her philosophy resisted the closure. A framework for making competition fair has no principle for saving a program that cannot compete.
Rearranging the Hierarchy: Fair Competition and Its Limits
What is the common thread of this philosopher who defends capitalism, becomes a dean who promotes faculty diversity, and then serves as a provost who closes programs and resists a union? The answer is the difference between what she pursued and what she merely managed. The commitments she pursued all point one way, toward access, mobility, representation, recruitment, and student success. Need-based aid, test-optional admissions, retention analytics, cluster hiring, and the anti-racism curriculum are the policies she pursued across her career. On the other side are faculty employment and the preservation of specific academic programs. For these, the questions are about viability, cost, enrollment, and restructuring. This is where her actions regarding union spending, the Editorial Institute, and the ELI belong.
Both sides follow from a single principle, maintained from 2011 onward: she never argued against competition, only that it must be fair. That is what makes them coherent rather than contradictory. Correcting the rules of the game is the intervention her framework demands. That means removing the merit-aid distortion, the testing barrier, and the disadvantages of income and race that keep qualified students out. But the existence of competition, of an elite, of winners and losers among programs and workers, is something she accepts as legitimate. Her endorsement of Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” and her explicit acknowledgment in the Equality chapter that her own preferred policies “would probably also decrease the number of viable institutions” are not asides. They reflect the same disposition that lets her close a program with professed regret. The line she draws is between correcting competition and abolishing it, and she invariably sides with correcting.
She summarized her argument in a single sentence: capitalism “requires restraint and intervention if it is to be justifiable.” Substitute “the university” for “capitalism” and you have her entire administrative philosophy. The university becomes a competitive, hierarchical institution, made fair by correcting specific failures, not by leveling outcomes. The same principle spans her academic career, from the 2007 sport metaphor to the Pittsburgh policies. She developed these ideas as a scholar, then implemented them as an administrator.
Holmstrom’s objection points to a limit in Cudd’s equity of representation, which measures fairness by who is admitted and who is hired. That is a real and demanding commitment, but one about access and representation. Her framework prioritizes access and recruitment, but treats the stability of existing faculty and programs as a separate question. It leaves that question to cost and viability, not to equity. Consequently, what appears to be a clash in values is consistent within her own framework. A provost can diversify the student body while her administration resists the faculty union, or defend the humanities in principle while closing a humanities program, without any inconsistency in her own terms.
Representation diversifies who stands where in the structure; it does not make those lower in it any less precarious. If class hierarchy is, as Holmstrom argues, constitutive of the system, then fair competition and need-based correction leave the pyramid intact. They rearrange the hierarchy without flattening it.2 On that reading, Cudd’s equity is genuine but limited. It extends to access and representation, and it ends when protecting the vulnerable (untenured faculty, a small program’s staff) would require constraining competition rather than correcting it. That is not a personal failing; it is the predictable blind spot of a liberal-institutionalist, and readers should weigh it as such.
None of this is to say Cudd invented the pressures she managed. She governed under a decades-long strain on public higher education that she did not create and could not escape, a strain of declining state support, enrollment volatility, and the rankings arms race.3 The question the record raises is not whether she caused those conditions, but how she responds to them: whether liberal-institutionalism is a way of resisting the market-based university or a way of administering it more fairly.4
Coda: Open Questions at Portland
Cudd left Pittsburgh in 2023 to become president of Portland State University, an urban-serving public institution very different in character from the elite research universities where her model took shape. Nothing in the pre-Portland record settles what she will do there, and this profile makes no prediction. But it does suggest what to watch.
Her framework raises pressing questions about a place like PSU. A liberal-institutionalist committed to fair competition and need-based access has an obvious agenda at an access-mission university. But she also faces a clear pressure point, because such institutions are defined less by competition for scarce elite places than by the survival of programs and the security of those who staff them.
The same philosophy that produced Pell Match also produced the ELI closure. The question is whether, at an institution whose whole purpose is to serve first-generation and working-class students rather than to select an elite, Cudd’s instinct to correct competition can coexist with the distinct imperative of protecting what the market would cut. That is the question the record leaves open, and the one worth following.
Notes
1. A student leader described the administration’s reasoning in blunt terms of viability. That job-placement rationale was the student’s paraphrase, not Cudd’s own.
2. This line of critique holds that a politics of representation can diversify an elite while leaving intact the class structure beneath it. Adolph Reed Jr., “The Limits of Anti-Racism” (Left Business Observer, no. 121, September 2009), and Class Notes (New York: New Press, 2000), argues that anti-discrimination and diversity aims, pursued on their own, make the distribution of places within a hierarchy fairer without challenging the hierarchy itself. Nancy Fraser, Justice Interruptus (New York: Routledge, 1997), distinguishes a politics of recognition from a politics of redistribution and warns that gains in the first can come at the expense of the second. Ellen Meiksins Wood, Democracy Against Capitalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), makes the structural version of the argument: class is not another axis of identity to be equalized but the constitutive relation of capitalism. The point is structural rather than biographical: it concerns the reach of the liberal-institutionalist framework, not the sincerity of Cudd’s diversity work.
3. See also, on the conditions themselves, Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos (New York: Zone Books, 2015), on the remaking of public institutions and their subjects by neoliberal reason, and Christopher Newfield, The Great Mistake (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), on the defunding and marketization of public higher education. Both describe conditions under which public universities have operated in this period; they are cited to ground those conditions, not to settle whether Cudd’s framework resists or administers them.
4. This profile’s thesis is an interpretive synthesis, well-supported across her writing and decisions, but stated outright by no single source, and offered as the most coherent account of the evidence rather than the only possible one.
Sources Consulted
A note on sources: newspaper and wire articles were retrieved through the ProQuest U.S. Newsstream database; each is cited to its original outlet with the ProQuest document number given for retrieval. Cudd’s books and book chapters are cited to the printed editions. This list reflects the verified sources on which the profile draws; it omits unverified material and sources outside the pre-Portland scope.
Books and Book Chapters
Cudd, Ann E. Analyzing Oppression. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Cudd, Ann E. “For Capitalism as a Feminist Ideal and Reality.” In Capitalism, For and Against: A Feminist Debate, by Ann E. Cudd and Nancy Holmstrom, 3–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Cudd, Ann E. “Ann Cudd’s Reply to Nancy Holmstrom.” In Capitalism, For and Against: A Feminist Debate, by Ann E. Cudd and Nancy Holmstrom, 263–288. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Cudd, Ann E. “What Is Equality in Higher Education?” In The Equal Society: Essays on Equality in Theory and Practice, edited by George Hull, 267–289. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017.
Holmstrom, Nancy. “Nancy Holmstrom’s Reply to Ann Cudd.” In Capitalism, For and Against: A Feminist Debate, by Ann E. Cudd and Nancy Holmstrom, 289–322. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Kansas Era (2002–2015)
“Report Shows Kansas Female Workers More Educated but Paid Less.” Lawrence Journal-World (KRT wire), November 22, 2002. ProQuest doc. no. 461992028.
“Kansas Women Faculty, Students Face Hard Choices between Career and Family.” Lawrence Journal-World (KRT wire), April 2, 2004. ProQuest doc. no. 463709605.
“Women’s Studies Wants Name Change.” Lawrence Journal-World (McClatchy wire), November 4, 2007. ProQuest doc. no. 463718489.
“Meet Kansas University’s Deans.” Lawrence Journal-World, August 16, 2008. ProQuest doc. no. 238801006.
“Regents Approve Advanced Degrees in Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at KU.” Lawrence Journal-World, November 18, 2010. ProQuest doc. no. 806225988.
“University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy to Give Inaugural Lecture.” Targeted News Service, December 7, 2012. ProQuest doc. no. 1238809011.
“KU Names Three New Distinguished Professors.” Lawrence Journal-World, June 19, 2012. ProQuest doc. no. 1021104298.
“KU Moving Faster Now on Online Education.” Lawrence Journal-World, April 28, 2013. ProQuest doc. no. 1346556218.
“KU to Choose among Internal Candidates for New Vice Provost Job.” Lawrence Journal-World, June 13, 2013. ProQuest doc. no. 1367254067.
“KU Picks Longtime Philosophy Professor to Oversee Undergraduate Education.” Lawrence Journal-World, July 11, 2013. ProQuest doc. no. 1399474509.
“Touting Its Economic Impact, KU Skips over the Humanities.” Lawrence Journal-World, November 4, 2013. ProQuest doc. no. 1448339065.
“Professors Ask Regents to Suspend Social Media Policy.” Lawrence Journal-World, January 9, 2014. ProQuest doc. no. 1476251618.
“KU’s Core Curriculum Entering Its Second Year.” Lawrence Journal-World, August 24, 2014. ProQuest doc. no. 1555604048.
“Eastern Kansas Universities Work to Improve Retention and Graduation.” Lawrence Journal-World, January 3, 2015. ProQuest doc. no. 1641713703.
“Four Are Finalists for UF Liberal Arts Dean.” Gainesville Sun, January 30, 2015. ProQuest doc. no. 1649637433.
“Kansas Professor Speaks about Women and Capitalism.” Radford University / Targeted News Service, April 8, 2015. ProQuest doc. no. 1671163546.
“BU Announces Ann Cudd as New CAS Dean.” Daily Free Press (University Wire), May 30, 2015. ProQuest doc. no. 1684366604.
“KU Vice Provost Leaving for Dean’s Job in Boston.” Lawrence Journal-World, June 10, 2015. ProQuest doc. no. 1687288250.
Boston University Era (2015–2018)
“Announcement: Ethical Leadership MOOC.” Targeted News Service, March 3, 2016. ProQuest doc. no. 1770438265.
“Success Rate of Earning Bachelor’s Degree Depends on Family Income.” Daily Free Press (University Wire), April 22, 2016. ProQuest doc. no. 1783521857.
“Small but Acclaimed BU Institute Fears for Its Future.” Boston Globe, July 6, 2016. ProQuest doc. no. 1802057046.
“Small Institute Fears BU Is Targeting It.” Boston Globe, July 7, 2016. ProQuest doc. no. 1802114389.
“Student Curriculum Committee Forum Discusses Gen-Ed Program.” Daily Free Press (University Wire), October 5, 2016. ProQuest doc. no. 1825710721.
“Stan Sclaroff Named Interim CAS Dean.” Daily Free Press (University Wire), September 5, 2018. ProQuest doc. no. 2099901417.
University of Pittsburgh Era (2018–2023)
“NYC Company, Pitt Extend Experiment to Cut Intro Course Prices.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 8, 2020. ProQuest doc. no. 2334118994.
Simonton, Justin. “Pitt Challenging National Merit-Aid Trend.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 8, 2020. ProQuest doc. no. 2373439577.
Schackner, Bill. “Pitt Gives Students Option to Forgo Letter Grades.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 22, 2020. ProQuest doc. no. 2380537960.
Nigrosh, Benjamin. “Nearly 800 Pitt Grad Students Sign Petition Demanding Funding Extension.” The Pitt News (University Wire), June 26, 2020. ProQuest doc. no. 2417234592.
“’Embarrassing’: Black Student Leaders Criticize Low Black Student Enrollment.” The Pitt News (University Wire), August 26, 2020. ProQuest doc. no. 2437089722.
“’They Wanted to Be Seen’: African American Alumni Council Discusses BAS Demands, Racial Justice Efforts.” The Pitt News (University Wire), October 23, 2020. ProQuest doc. no. 2453654361.
“Pitt Submits Document Opposing Proposed DHS Visa Rules.” The Pitt News (University Wire), November 11, 2020. ProQuest doc. no. 2459130487.
Schackner, Bill. “Emphasis on College Entrance Tests Declining.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 2, 2021. ProQuest doc. no. 2557160037.
Hagen, Lacretia. “Pitt Faculty Choose Union in a Landslide.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 20, 2021. ProQuest doc. no. 2583327917.
“Exclusive: Gallagher Reflects on Tenure, Decision to Step Down.” The Pitt News (University Wire), April 21, 2022. ProQuest doc. no. 2656347355.
“Finalist: Let’s Restore Value of College Degree.” Wisconsin State Journal, May 5, 2022. ProQuest doc. no. 2659531580.
“Ann Cudd Talks Free Speech, Revenue at Chancellor Search Q&A.” The Badger Herald (University Wire), May 4, 2022. ProQuest doc. no. 2659474987.
“Faculty Assembly Talks Community Engaged Scholarship, New Budget Model.” The Pitt News (University Wire), May 18, 2022. ProQuest doc. no. 2665429594.
“University of Pittsburgh Makes SAT, ACT Optional through 2025.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 6, 2022. ProQuest doc. no. 2721509622.
Troy, Jack. “Solidarity, Serenity and Slow Negotiations: Faculty Look Back on Year since Unionization.” The Pitt News (University Wire), October 28, 2022. ProQuest doc. no. 2729537527.
Schackner, Bill. “Pitt Faculty Members Protest Slow Contract Talks.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, December 7, 2022. ProQuest doc. no. 2747785672.
Schackner, Bill. “Pitt to Close English Language Institute.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, January 10, 2023. ProQuest doc. no. 2763185932.
Troy, Jack. “Pitt’s Spending on ‘Union Avoidance Firm’ Slows, but Reaches $3M.” The Pitt News (University Wire), January 18, 2023. ProQuest doc. no. 2766302977.
Schackner, Bill. “Fate of Pitt’s English Language Institute Remains Uncertain.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, January 18, 2023. ProQuest doc. no. 2766605116.
Schackner, Bill. “Cudd One of Two PSU Presidency Finalists.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, February 24, 2023. ProQuest doc. no. 2779828841.
Schackner, Bill. “University of Pittsburgh Provost Ann Cudd Leaving for Portland State.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, March 10, 2023. ProQuest doc. no. 2785535620.
“English Language Institute Remains Open for Another Year, Though Its Future Is ‘Unknown.’” The Pitt News (University Wire), March 30, 2023. ProQuest doc. no. 2792250276.
Aiken, Anya, and John Tomasic. “High Court Rejects Race in College Admissions.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 30, 2023. ProQuest doc. no. 2831170556.