After Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed “An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency” into law, Tufts University launched a faculty range transparency initiative and completed a university-wide faculty market analysis — efforts that have drawn mixed reactions from faculty members.
The act, passed in July 2024, required employers with over 25 employees to disclose wage ranges in job postings and provide employees with their positions’ salary ranges upon request by Oct. 29, 2025 in an effort “to increase equity and transparency in pay in the Commonwealth.”
In response, the university’s Office of the Provost and Senior Vice President launched a Faculty Range Transparency initiative in January 2025, joining the existing Faculty Market Analysis initiative established in January 2024.
According to Colleen Ryan, vice provost for faculty, and Melissa Stevenson, assistant provost for faculty affairs, the Faculty Range Transparency initiative was designed to establish formal pay ranges for all positions.
“The university initiated a focused project to establish formal pay ranges for all faculty positions. Between January and October 2025, the university developed, reviewed, and finalized faculty pay ranges to ensure compliance by the effective date of the law,” Ryan and Stevenson wrote in a joint email to the Daily.
Faculty communication throughout the process was maintained through updates and informational meeting sessions, the administrators wrote.
“The project team responsible for the range transparency initiative provided updates to the deans, executive administrative deans, and the Faculty Senate during the project,” Ryan and Stevenson wrote. “In addition, the provost attended schoolwide faculty meetings to present the university’s faculty pay initiatives, discussing the new Massachusetts transparency law and explaining the methodology used to develop pay ranges.”
The range transparency initiative was joined by a broader Faculty Market Analysis that began in January 2024, which sought to review compensations for full-time faculty who were not covered by a collective bargaining agreement using comparative models.
“The university engaged an external consultant to compare individual faculty salaries to market benchmarks to ensure we pay faculty competitively as determined by a range of factors including, but not limited to, discipline, experience, performance, and tenure status,” Ryan and Stevenson wrote.
Meetings with university staff, including faculty members and deans, were held regularly, with initial stakeholder conversations and updates shared throughout the process. When the analysis concluded, schoolwide sessions were implemented to “[share] the results of the university-wide market analysis and next steps for the deans to implement any necessary adjustments at their schools,” Ryan and Stevenson wrote.
Following the conclusion of the market analysis, deans reviewed their data within their specific disciplines to inform compensation-related decisions for their school. They then shared details about the new compensation strategy with faculty to encourage feedback and inform individuals of any pay adjustments made.
Ryan and Stevenson emphasized the historic nature of the projects undertaken by the administration. “The university-wide compensation benchmarking effort has been widely recognized as an important and historic step,” Ryan and Stevenson wrote.
They added that the projects stem from a desire by the university to demonstrate its commitment to faculty and uphold institutional values through transparency and regular communication.
“Regularly reviewing and updating pay range structures ensures market competitiveness, signaling that the institution is committed to its faculty,” they wrote. “Ultimately, the balance is achieved by treating disclosure not as a one-time compliance task but as an ongoing conversation that aligns legal obligations with institutional values, preserving healthy relationships across both faculty and administration.”
In response to these initiatives, faculty leaders have recognized administrative efforts but still have concerns about management.
“Faculty response to the Provost’s Office compensation transparency and market pay analysis has been mixed and, at times, school-specific,” Fair Vassoler, faculty senate president and associate professor at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, wrote in an email to the Daily. “In general, faculty appreciate the intent behind the process and the recognition that compensation equity matters.”
However, Vassoler noted several areas of frustration regarding “the selection of peer groups, the length of time the analysis has taken,” and “questions about how market comparisons were constructed.”
These sentiments were acknowledged by the administration. “Some faculty have expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the results, primarily the selection of peer comparator institutions and the ongoing, rising cost-of-living pressures in the Boston area,” Ryan and Stevenson stated.
Looking ahead, Vassoler emphasized faculty visions for university structures rooted in clearer communication and more equitable review.
“Beyond compliance with the new Massachusetts salary transparency law, the Faculty Senate hopes this analysis will lead to clearer compensation structures, more consistent evaluation criteria across schools and a cultural shift toward proactive equity review rather than reactive correction,” Vassoler wrote. “Whether that broader cultural shift occurs will depend on sustained communication, follow-through, and faculty engagement across all schools.”
