I graduated from Furman University in 1968 and completed a master’s degree in chemistry there in 1970. I have loved Furman for the 61 years since I arrived on campus for the first time — alone, in a taxi, after a 28-hour bus ride from Miami to Greenville. Furman was a life-changing experience for me, and I will always be deeply grateful. 

It is because of that gratitude that I write now — not to criticize from the sidelines, but to raise serious concerns about the direction of the institution I care so much about. 

For several years, I’ve watched troubling trends take shape. The tipping point came last month, when Fitch Ratings changed Furman’s bond outlook from “Stable” to “Negative.” For those unfamiliar, bond ratings serve as an institution’s financial reputation in the eyes of investors. A negative outlook doesn’t mean bankruptcy, but it does signal that Furman’s current model is under real strain. 

Fitch’s concern was unsurprising to those who have been paying attention. Over the past five to seven years, Furman has run operating deficits. Enrollment is shrinking. According to Fitch, tuition discounting now exceeds 60%, meaning Furman is earning far less per student than its notoriously high price suggests.  

To put it bluntly: The university is spending more money to educate fewer students — and relying on its reserves to cover the gap. That is not a sustainable path. 

To be fair, Furman still has significant advantages. Its balance sheet is strong, thanks in large part to generous alumni. But those resources are not bottomless. They are meant to support the university’s long-term health — not act as a stopgap for ongoing deficits. If Furman continues down this path, the next Fitch report may be even less forgiving. 

University President Elizabeth Davis must act — and quickly. Expenses must be reevaluated. A serious effort to control administrative growth is long overdue. Just as importantly, Furman must take bold steps to grow enrollment. One promising strategy would be to study schools in our region that have seen steady enrollment gains in recent years—Wofford, Samford, College of Charleston and Erskine among them. What are they doing differently? 

Furman should also examine its yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who ultimately enroll. At just 13.2%, it’s markedly lower than our peers. That statistic alone should prompt urgent self-reflection. 

One area that is overdue for change is campus culture. Furman’s current environment is simply not welcoming to many of the families that used to send students to Greenville, generation after generation. Today, too many potential students and parents sense that their perspectives will be marginalized, and they are looking elsewhere. 

This is not a call for Furman to change its academic standards or core commitments. Rather, it’s a reminder that the university must remain a place where students from a wide range of backgrounds and beliefs feel a genuine sense of belonging. A university’s strength lies in its openness — its ability to foster real dialogue and intellectual diversity. 

Furman still has a great deal to offer. But its current financial predicament requires honest assessment, clear planning and a willingness to adapt. 

I am concerned about whether Furman’s current leadership will take full ownership of these troubling issues and act with the urgency required. A key factor in solving any problem is believing that one actually exists. 

I am not alone in my concern. Many of us who love Furman deeply are watching, hoping and, when necessary, speaking up. We want the university to succeed. But we also believe that success depends on meaningful course correction. 

There is still time. But not unlimited time. The decisions made in the next few years will determine whether Furman thrives — or continues to drift into deeper financial and cultural isolation. 

For those of us who owe so much to this place, the stakes could not be higher.