The WG consists of 11 members in total. 7 of them are faculty, 4 are administrators from within Academic Affairs. While we considered expanding the group to include more faculty, realistically it would’ve been too difficult to schedule, accommodate, and engage a larger group. Faculty were recommended by their Deans, in consultation with department Chairs. We strove for representativeness along all axes: demographic, discipline, rank, and title type. Three of the WG members are former or sitting department Chairs. Because the Academic Renewal Initiative taken as a whole – not just the Working Group – will help shape �춹��Ƶ for years to come, it was important that all have a representative seat at the table.

See the timeline here.

Your trepidation is understandable. It seems like fresh news of program closures at all types of institutions of higher education circulates every week or so. As an institution, we want to be in the position of making needed changes on our terms, with those who know our core business best – the faculty – in the driver’s seat. The Working Group will use publicly available data to develop a shared understanding of how to determine program health. We will suggest options for programs that appear not to be thriving.

At other institutions, programs have decided to merge, made concerted efforts to update their curriculum or otherwise broaden their appeal, or formed regional consortia. In other cases, programs have been curtailed or closed. The specific actions taken at �춹��Ƶ will be determined by the Chair and the Dean, working in close collaboration with their faculty on the one hand, and the Provost on the other. It is important to underscore that the Working Group is not a decision-making body. In all cases, the continuity of education for students and employment for full-time permanent faculty and staff will be prioritized.

There will be plenty of opportunities to engage in this work outside of formal membership on the Working Group. Chairs and faculty will be asked for input and feedback once preliminary data analysis has been conducted by the Working Group but before the report is compiled. Two of the Working Group meetings – one in December 2025 and one in February 2026 – will be opened to Chairs and Program Directors (or their designee) who wish to attend and engage. In March and April of 2026, departments will be invited to sign up for members of the Working Group to attend a faculty meeting, with the objective of gathering input and context on initial analysis of program data. And once the report has been submitted to the President at the end of the Spring semester, he will structure additional opportunities to engage.

While details of our working discussions should be confidential in order to encourage candor and protect Working Group member wellbeing, you can always ask any Working Group member about what we’re discussing and where we are in our work. Again, we are 100% committed to communication, shared governance, and transparency.

The articles below illustrate the fact that �춹��Ƶ is one of many institutions of higher education across the state, and nation, confronting complex challenges that are demographic, economic, political, and cultural. We are not alone and are to be commended, as a community, for taking a proactive and faculty-engaged approach to reviewing our academic programming. This reading list samples approaches taken by different institutions, displaying both the breadth of the sector and range of possible approaches.

• Examples of academic program review processes that engage shared governance and strong communication. It is true that Juniata and Ithaca College are different in key aspects from �춹��Ƶ (smaller, private) but there are important similarities as well. Ithaca is unionized, and both institutions identify strongly as liberal arts institutions.
  • Juniata:��
  • Ithaca College:��
• Examples of how several New York institutions have managed demographic change, declining enrollments, and changing student demand.
  • SUNY: SUNY institutions operate with considerably more latitude than CUNYs do, but they also have their own governing boards.
    • Buffalo State: ��
  • Syracuse: ��
• How this is playing out when legislators become involved:
• A couple of thoughtful pieces regarding how faculty can be productively engaged outside of a formal process

I heard that the Provost is mandating a 10% reduction in force on the faculty side.

• Rumor. At this time, no reduction in faculty force has been mandated locally or by the CUNY system. Typically, in a unionized environment, a condition known as “financial exigency” must be declared before faculty or staff with labor permanency are let go.

I heard that one goal of the ARI is to right-size academics for a smaller college, enrollment-wise.

• Real. As of Fall 25 we are at 14,913 students. Our short-term goal at the college level is enrollment stabilization. Our mid-term goal, per our (draft) Strategic Enrollment Management Plan, is steady growth to 17,000 by 2027.

I heard the administration hand-picked the faculty Working Group members to guarantee a pre-determined outcome.

• Rumor. See response to the FAQ above, “How were the members of the working group selected?” Moreover, there are no specific pre-determined outcomes. What must be understood, however, is that we cannot remain status quo with respect to the extent and focus of our academic programming. Our enrollments have steadily declined, and our students and community have changed since 1937. Through the Academic Renewal Initiative, �춹��Ƶ has a golden opportunity to sharpen our identity and articulate our value to our stakeholders, positioning ourselves strongly for the future – not just of �춹��Ƶ and the borough we serve, but of higher education itself.

I heard that the Academic Renewal Initiative is just a covert expense reduction strategy.

• Rumor. While we do need to reduce expenses, that objective will not be attained by consolidating or closing programs. The ARI is better seen as a revenue generation strategy, given our focus on enhancing the focus and appeal of our programs to attract more students. While the Provost, CFO, and officers from CUNY Central are meeting monthly to discuss expense reductions on the academic side, this is a separate undertaking from what the Working Group is doing.

I heard that if we request it, members of the Working Group will make themselves available to speak with our faculty at a departmental meeting.

• Real. We will aside time in March and April 2026, for departments to sign up and have available members of the Working Group attend a faculty meeting, to hear feedback on preliminary data analysis and gather additional context.