Faculty Senate Passes Handbook Appeal Amendments Amid AI Policy and Trustee Tensions

Context The Faculty Senate met Wednesday in Chicago’s Simpson‑Querry Auditorium and voted to amend the Faculty Handbook. The changes address a “grey zone” that lets chairs or deans label a faculty member’s removal from the classroom as administrative, bypassing formal disciplinary procedures. At the same meeting, faculty wrestled with proposals for a university‑wide generative AI policy and heard the Board of Trustees reiterate its stance on shared governance.

Key Facts - The Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee warned that the handbook’s vague language allows administrators to remove faculty without due process, a right to fair legal procedure. The new amendment requires any removal to be reviewed by the Provost’s Office and the Office of General Counsel before taking effect. - Professor Angelique Duenas questioned how faculty can discuss academic rights if a single AI policy dictates classroom use. She asked, “How do we navigate conversations about what our academic rights are if we’re all expected to fall in line with a specific policy?” - The Senate’s discussion followed a report from the Educational Affairs Committee, which noted student‑government leaders seeking clearer AI guidelines to prevent academic‑integrity violations. - Board of Trustees President Ian Hurd relayed that the Board affirmed its “commitment to shared governance” but clarified that the switch to UnitedHealthcare was an administrative decision, not a Board or faculty one. The Board also said salary concerns would be reviewed by its Academic Affairs Committee. - Faculty Senate President‑elect Rebecca Zorach and other leaders emphasized the need for “guardrails” on AI use, arguing that faculty should retain the freedom to decide when to incorporate or reject the technology. - Professor Seth Lichter warned the Senate’s recent letter to the Board could be seen as a threat of litigation, a concern echoed by Professor Jonathan Guryan, who cautioned that aggressive language might undermine shared governance.

What It Means The handbook amendment strengthens faculty due‑process protections by closing the administrative loophole that previously allowed unilateral teaching removals. However, the debate over a uniform AI policy reveals a deeper clash between faculty autonomy and university administration’s push for standardized technology use. The Board’s dismissal of faculty input on the health‑plan change underscores ongoing tension over who truly governs university decisions. As the Senate prepares to refine its correspondence with the Board, faculty will watch whether the new appeal process and AI discussions translate into concrete policy shifts.

Looking ahead, the Senate’s next steps will focus on drafting a detailed AI framework and monitoring the Board’s response to salary and governance concerns, setting the stage for a broader contest over academic freedom and institutional authority.