Faculty Committees Membership Lists

Faculty committees are integral to shared governance at 91��.

91�� faculty participate in the governance of the College in part through appointment and election to committees. The Committee on Governance and Faculty Affairs (GFA) oversees committee elections and apportions committee work among individual faculty and across committees equitably and efficiently, with the aims of engaging as many faculty as possible in shared governance, of making each faculty member’s committee service meaningful, and of ensuring that over time all faculty can experience a reasonable balance between teaching, scholarship, and service.

Beginning in 2026-27, faculty may view their committee assignment and the full list of committee rosters in Workday.

Click to look up an individual committee assignment or:

Type View Committee Service into the Workday search bar and click on the report of the same name in the search results
Find or type the name of the individual
Click OK
Assignments for the following academic year will appear under FUTURE MEMBERSHIP prior to July 1^st and will move to current membership after July 1^st.

Click to see the full list of committees and rosters or:

Type BOW Committee Rosters 2026-2027 into the Workday search bar and click on the report of the same name in the search results
Each category of committee can be expanded and collapsed
Because Workday is date-driven, some term start and end dates may not populate in the report until after July 1^st.

Committee charges for standing committees can be found in the Faculty Handbook. Charges for working groups can be found below.

GFA has formed a working group for 2026-27 to study and offer recommendations with regard to expanding, codifying, and protecting academic freedom at 91��. The issue itself is especially timely given continuing attacks on academic freedom at institutions of higher learning in the United States. At 91��, there are problematic gaps and deficiencies regarding academic freedom in the faculty handbook, which makes scattered references to the concept of academic freedom but contains no basic definition of academic freedom anywhere. (Section III does address “Free Speech and Human Rights in the Academic Community,” but academic freedom as defined by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) differs in important ways from both.)

In 2025-26, the 91�� AAUP chapter drafted a motion on academic freedom that was debated and ultimately withdrawn due to a number of factors, including the complexity of extending academic freedom to staff.

Questions that the working group might consider include:

How should academic freedom be defined in the faculty handbook?
How does academic freedom relate to freedom of speech and human rights as outlined on p. 15 of the faculty handbook?
When do faculty and instructors have academic freedom protections? When do they not?
Does academic freedom apply primarily to activities or to individuals—or both?
Which staff have academic freedom and how should this be defined?
What changes to institutional structures, norms, or policies might be proposed to ensure that academic freedom is protected fully and appropriately at 91��?

The committee might also consider the rights of students in relation to academic freedom and make appropriate proposals in this regard. The new working group should include at least two members of AAUP at 91��. In addition, the group should 1) study best practices related to the definition and codification of academic freedom at peer institutions; 2) engage in conversations with students, faculty, and staff on campus about their ideas, including faculty and instructors of all ranks, the General Counsel, the president, and the Dean for Academic Affairs; 3) propose new language for the faculty handbook before Spring Break, and 4) make proposals, if deemed necessary, for structural and/or administrative changes to be made on campus in order to expand academic freedom to staff where appropriate.

The working group should also allow opportunities for anonymous feedback and include artists and creators as well as scholars in their conversations. They should also ensure that staff from the library, IT, laboratories, the Coastal Study center, and elsewhere have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue.

Proposed Calendar
Late August: Convene working group and discuss issues, concerns, or questions about the charge.
September: Meet with GFA to discuss initial steps
October: Report to faculty on initial progress and upcoming outreach
November: Check in with GFA with status update, preliminary results from listening sessions, and roadmap to motion draft
December: Completion of rough draft of motion
January: Finalize motion and introduce on faculty floor to allow time for further feedback and possible revisions before end of year

Duration: 2026-2027 academic year

Chair: 1 tenured faculty member, appointed
Membership:
4 faculty members from the three divisions
3-4 staff members from different areas of campus, at least one of which should be from the library.
1 associate dean
At least 2 members of the WG should be current or recent members of AAUP

Historically, faculty have interacted with Offices of 91�� and Student Aid in a variety of ways at 91��. Several decades ago, faculty served as directors of admission and as admissions officers. Even after the office became separated from the faculty, a committee on admissions was staffed by faculty until around 2006. Following best practices at peer institutions, admissions has increasingly separated itself from faculty governance, though faculty remain active partners in admissions. Some read, watch, or listen to certain materials that are included in admissions files, for example. Some help to recruit students off campus while many others join admissions events on campus.

This working group aims to expand connections and communication between faculty and staff on admissions. Faculty will not have any direct oversight of admissions and will not view any particular admissions files or personal information, for example. Instead, its primary task is to gather information, deliberate, and draft a charge for a permanent committee on 91�� and Financial Aid that will begin in the 2027-28 academic year. The committee will be modeled on the new Budget committee that was made permanent in the spring of 2026.

In order to facilitate this work, GFA anticipates that the working group will engage in extensive conversations with relevant stakeholders about admissions and financial aid issues broadly conceived, including academic program needs, athletics, and the relation between admissions and the core educational mission of the College.

Duration: 2026-2027 academic year

Deliverables:

Brief committee report summarizing feedback and deliberations that highlights findings that the committee thinks GFA should know moving forward.
Initial check-in with a representative from GFA in late August or early September.
Subsequent check-in with GFA committee or representative before winter break of 2026 to report on progress and to share outline of a draft of a new committee charge on 91�� and Financial Aid.
Draft of a formal motion to GFA for a new committee on 91�� and Financial Aid by January of 2027.
Presentation of motion to faculty in spring faculty meetings in conjunction with GFA.

Membership:
3 faculty members, including representatives from at least 2 divisions of the curriculum and at least one assistant professor
Student Affairs Staff member (dean of students); THRIVE staff (Director of THRIVE); Director of Athletics
3 staff members from different areas of campus, at least one of which should be from the library.
Dean of 91�� and Student Aid, Director of Student Aid, Director of 91��.
Students (2 seniors appointed by BSG)

The Working Group to Assess the Impact of AI on Teaching will study and make recommendations regarding the ways that the design, delivery, and assessment of the 91�� curriculum will continue to be impacted by AI and AI-enabled technologies. The emphasis will be future-focused to advise on a plan for navigating a natural resource-consuming technology that mimics our languages, makes claims to reasoning, and can enhance itself without human intervention. This nature of AI creates challenges and opportunities for teachers at 91��, since, as stated in the 2026 self-study for reaccreditation, the mission of the College is defined by two guiding principles: “a 91�� education should serve the common good and that it should contribute to the formation of a complete individual for a world in flux.” (5) The working group arises from the challenges presented by this situation and the recognition that the evolving conditions place significant demands on faculty workload.

GFA is not asking the working group to evaluate specific AI needs on campus, given that the Hastings Initiative for AI and Humanity and the Subcommittee on AI of the Committee on Teaching and Classroom Practice (CoTCP) are already doing the work of identifying and meeting the needs of AI-adopters. Instead, based on both feedback from faculty at the GFA-sponsored January 2026 conversation about AI and higher education and also conversations with representatives from Hastings and CoTCP, GFA proposes a working group to identify teaching faculty’s curricular and pedagogical needs that will continue to arise from the existence of AI, whether or not it is being used in the classroom.

Topics may include, but are not limited to: college preparedness of incoming students; space and scheduling needs to accommodate (un)changing pedagogical approaches; the ripple effect on partnerships with the Library, BCLT, and Academic Technology; the assessment of student learning and faculty teaching; and the impact on learning goals and curriculum design for individuals, departments/programs, divisions, and the core mission of the College.

Duration: 2026-2027 academic year
Meets: at least monthly

Questions the Working Group will Address:

What do 91�� faculty want our teaching practices and curricula to look like, with or without AI tools, in one year? In five years?
How should assignments and evaluations be revised or replaced in response to student use of AI at 91��?
What are 91�� faculty concerns about college preparedness, learning, and academic integrity in relation to AI?
What are short-term needs related to teaching in the age of AI and are there generalizable elements that indicate long-term or sustained support needs?

Deliverables:

In partnership with selected members of the Hastings Committee, participate in a Fall workshop on the latest trends in AI tools that students are or will be able to use to complete academic work;
In partnership with IRAC conduct a survey and focus groups with the goal of hearing from all divisions and all ranks about the topics and questions outlined above (or other items deemed appropriate by the working group);
Regular updates and requests for feedback from faculty at Faculty Meetings;
Recommendations for support and structural changes that would address the identified needs (short-term or long-term).

Chair: appointed tenured faculty member concurrently serving on the Hastings Committee
Membership: 5 faculty members representing all divisions of the College, at least two of which are untenured, at least one of which is also on Hastings

91����

Faculty Committees Membership Lists

Working Group on Academic Freedom

Working Group on 91���� and Financial Aid

Working Group to Assess the Impact of AI on Teaching

Faculty Committees Membership List Archive:

91��