June Trustees Meeting Coverage
A stated meeting of the Penn Board of Trustees took place Friday, June 12, 2026.
After Trustees Board Chair Ramanan Raghavendran called the meeting to order, Charles Howard, University Chaplain and Vice President for Social Equity & Community, gave the invocation.
Mr. Raghavendran presented six resolutions, each of which was approved:
- To revise the procedures for proxy voting
- To amend and restate the conflict-of-interest policy of the Trustees
- To revise the structure of the Trustee committees and their charters
- To identify the committees that will include faculty and student liaisons
- To amend the statutes of the Trustees
- To designate M. Elizabeth Magill as President Emerita
President J. Larry Jameson reported that during academic year 2025-2026, Penn made significant progress on its strategic priorities. He thanked those who had made Penn’s Commencement activities and Alumni Weekend so successful. He also noted Drs. Albert Maguire, Jean Bennett, and Katherine High were awarded the 2026 Breakthrough Prize (Almanac April 28, 2026). President Jameson presented a resolution of appreciation for Gregory J. Pellicano, upon his retirement as vice president for audit, compliance, and privacy, and another to appoint Timothy Susanin to that role. Both resolutions were approved.
During the academic report, Provost John L. Jackson, Jr., highlighted the strategic plans and initiatives of Timothy Rommen, vice provost for the arts, and Sanya Carley, vice provost for climate science, policy, and action. Provost Jackson then presented a resolution on faculty appointments and promotions, which was approved.
Executive Vice President Mark F. Dingfield gave the financial report. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, the total net assets for the consolidated University are forecasted to increase by $2.8 billion to $36.7 billion ($25.8 billion for the academic component and $10.9 billion for the health system). An increase in net assets from operations of $591 million is projected for the consolidated University. Cash is projected to increase $294 million to $3.3 billion for the consolidated University ($2.0 billion for the academic component and $1.3 billion for the health system).
Jonathan A. Epstein, Executive Vice President of the University of Pennsylvania for the Health System and Dean of the Perelman School of Medicine, announced the extension of the appointment of Kevin Mahoney as UPHS CEO through June 2031. Vice Provost and Dean of Admissions E. Whitney Soule reported on the incoming the class of 2030. Committee chairs then provided reports regarding meetings held on Thursday, June 11, 2026.
The Budget & Finance committee presented 12 resolutions, which were approved. The Governance Committee presented three resolutions—to elect the executive committee, to elect the investment board, and to re-elect Trustee Harlan Stone—each of which was approved.
Mr. Raghavendran presented resolutions of appointments to the Penn Medicine and other boards, which were approved.
The next Board of Trustees meetings are scheduled to take place on Thursday, September 24.
Senate Committee on Faculty and Academic Mission (SCOF) 2025-2026 Report
This report advances a set of targeted, actionable recommendations in response to the committee’s two charges, focused on aligning faculty classifications with current practice, strengthening teaching-focused faculty pathways and expanding participation in Faculty Senate processes. In particular, we call on SEC to take the following steps:
- Vote to recommend a new teaching professor track within the associated faculty category and the creation of a process to replace the existing full-time lecturer track in the Academic Support Staff category and to enable all current full-time lecturers and senior lecturers to opt into this new track or another track more aligned with their current job and responsibilities.
- Vote to expand participation in Faculty Senate processes by establishing a standing committee focused on issues affecting associated faculty and academic support staff and including associated faculty and academic support staff as non-voting members of existing Senate committees and with the goal of moving toward a unified faculty governing body that includes all full-time faculty.
Below we describe each of our three charges in more detail.
1. Seek feedback from campus stakeholders (including from each of the schools) on the proposal to revise the title and description of ranks currently within the ‘Academic Support Staff’ category that was developed by SCOF during 2024-2025 and revise as needed and explore if and how to replace that category with a new teaching track that acknowledges the pedagogical work done by individuals hired in this track and seeks to identify improved professional pathways for faculty who currently fall under this category.
In response to this charge, the committee undertook a multi-stage process that included review of prior Senate reports, analysis of Faculty Handbook provisions, consultation with the Vice Provost for Faculty, and comparative review of models at peer institutions. The committee also examined existing models within Penn, including those in GSE and SEAS, as well as teaching-focused faculty tracks at peer institutions including Boston University, Columbia University, and the University of Washington. These models were considered in relation to Faculty Handbook structures governing standing faculty and associated faculty with particular attention to rank, promotion, and evaluation processes.
Across multiple Senate reports, persistent concerns have been documented regarding the professional status, advancement opportunities, and evaluation processes of full-time lecturers and senior lecturers. While the largest concentration of full-time lecturers is in SAS, data provided by the Vice Provost for Faculty indicate that such appointments exist across a wide range of schools, including Annenberg, GSE, Law, Nursing, PSOM, SEAS, SP2, Wharton, and Weitzman. These patterns confirm that the issues associated with the lecturer track are institutional in scope rather than school-specific, even as schools have developed localized titles and appointment structures in response.
Our review affirms a consistent finding that although lecturers and senior lecturers are formally classified as Academic Support Staff—a category historically associated with temporary or support-oriented roles—they frequently hold long-term or effectively career-length appointments and play central roles in the instructional, advising, and programmatic missions of their departments and schools. These roles include sustained responsibility for curriculum development, coordination of multi-course sequences, mentorship of students, and, in many cases, service and scholarly or applied contributions aligned with school and University priorities.
Over several decades, schools have attempted to address this misalignment within the constraints of existing Faculty Handbook structures. These efforts include the expansion of renewable lecturer categories, the creation and extension of the senior lecturer rank, and, in GSE and Nursing, the addition of advanced senior lecturer ranks. SEAS has moved toward the use of practice professor appointments to provide clearer pathways and greater stability for those who would previously have been hired as full-time lecturers. While these approaches have provided partial solutions, they have resulted in a patchwork of school-level practices that do not resolve the underlying structural issue at the University level.
In light of these limitations, the committee reviewed several potential models for addressing this structural issue, drawing on both existing practices within Penn and approaches adopted at peer institutions.
One approach would extend the current lecturer-based framework by formalizing a three-step progression (e.g., lecturer, senior lecturer, advanced senior lecturer) across schools. While this model builds on existing Faculty Handbook professional designations and may offer a more incremental path to reform, it does not fully resolve concerns regarding clarity of role, alignment with broader faculty rank structures, or the continued perception of these positions as primarily support-oriented.
A second approach draws on the practice professor model currently in use in SEAS, which situates teaching-focused faculty within an existing associated faculty track. This model offers greater clarity in expectations and promotion pathways, though it may be too broad of an umbrella in its inclusion of those who come with traditional academic qualifications alongside those with a great deal of industry experience for whom the practice professor category has traditionally been applied. This raises important questions about how to evaluate such a diverse group of faculty for promotion.
A third approach, increasingly adopted at peer institutions, is the establishment of a distinct teaching professor track, with ranks aligned to assistant, associate, and full professor and situated within the associated faculty category as defined in the Faculty Handbook. This model most directly addresses concerns regarding status, clarity, and advancement by aligning teaching-focused roles with existing faculty rank structures while explicitly recognizing the centrality of pedagogical contributions.
During our deliberations, the committee concluded that the establishment of a teaching professor track, situated within the associated faculty category, represents the most effective and coherent model for addressing the underlying challenges identified across multiple years of Senate inquiry. This model provides the greatest clarity in rank structure, aligns expectations for appointment, review, and promotion with existing Faculty Handbook frameworks, and more accurately recognizes the central pedagogical and programmatic roles of these faculty. It should also be noted that our discussion with colleagues from the health schools and SEAS indicated that current associated faculty and academic support staff outside of the lecturer track might also be better placed into this track indicating potential broader benefits of such a track beyond those currently classified as full-time lecturers.
In light of these findings, we offer the following recommendations.
SEC should vote to recommend the creation of a new teaching professor track within the associated faculty category with ranks aligned, as appropriate, to assistant, associate, and full professor. As part of this action, SEC should also endorse the creation of a process through which all current full-time lecturers and senior lecturers would be offered the option of opting into this new track or, in collaboration with their school leaders, another track most aligned with their current roles and responsibilities with the goal of eventually eliminating the existing lecturer track within the Academic Support Staff category prior to the hiring of new teaching track faculty.
Second, following these actions, SEC, in collaboration with the Provost’s Office, should engage in structured consultation with key stakeholders—most notably current full-time lecturers and senior lecturers, as well as leadership from Penn’s 12 schools—to further develop the details of the teaching track appropriate for each school. This process should include refinement of rank definitions, evaluation criteria, compensation and benefits and related Faculty Handbook language, with the goal of formal revision and implementation in a timely manner. Part of this process should be to take the findings from this year to develop a best practices document for a teaching track to ensure that the changes are most effectively developed and implemented.
2. Continue to explore how the Faculty Senate could more effectively represent the interests of non-standing faculty by addressing questions offered in SCOF’s 2024-2025 report. Consider the convening of an advisory subcommittee that includes equitable representation of standing faculty, associated faculty, and academic support staff from across the University to assist in this exploration.
In addressing the question of how the Faculty Senate can more effectively represent the interests of non-standing faculty (members of the associated faculty and academic support staff), the committee began by reviewing prior Faculty Senate reports and examining existing governance structures both within Penn and at peer institutions. The committee consulted with several schools at Penn that have established formal mechanisms for shared governance that include associated faculty and academic support staff faculty, including PSOM, Dental Medicine, Vet, and Nursing. In addition, the committee reviewed governance models at peer institutions, including Columbia University, Northwestern University, and New York University and consulted with experts at each of these peer institutions to better understand the affordances and challenges associated with each of their respective models.
Leaders from schools within Penn reported robust structures for the incorporation of associated faculty and academic support staff within shared governance. The Vet School has a Faculty Council where all tracks are offered comparable voting privileges. PSOM, Vet and Nursing have Faculty Senates that afford associated faculty and academic support staff faculty voting privileges on areas relevant to their expertise. Leaders from these three schools noted that they have continued to further incorporate associated faculty and academic support staff into shared governance and that this has allowed them to feel more valued while offering them the opportunity to more effectively share their expertise with the broader school community. Based on their positive experience with a unified governance model and concerns about how two separate models might further marginalize associated faculty and academic support staff, leaders from all four schools favored a unified governing model for the University-wide Faculty Senate.
Across our peer institutions we found similar governing structures to the ones that we found within the four Penn schools consulted. In particular, leaders from all three of these peer institutions have a unified governing body that includes representation of both tenure and non-tenure line faculty. In the case of Columbia certain positions such as senate chair are reserved for tenure-line faculty though the majority of the seats are open to both tenure line faculty and non-tenure line faculty. NYU has tenure and contract faculty councils of equal numbers that meet together along with the broader university governance constituencies including administrators and students while also meeting separately as appropriate to discuss issues solely relevant to their respective constituencies. Northwestern reformed its faculty senate in 2010 with the incorporation of non-tenure line faculty one of its foundational principles. Here, non-tenure line faculty are eligible for all positions including senate chair and can participate on any senate committee. They also include a non-tenure line faculty standing committee that reports to the faculty senate on issues relevant to their tracks.
As these conversations developed, it became increasingly clear that the question of representation could not be considered in isolation from broader structural changes in higher education. The presence of associated faculty and academic support staff at Penn aligns with a larger national trend. This is shaped by multiple factors, including financial pressures, growing reliance on tuition revenue, the need to develop and sustain high-quality academic programs that attract and retain students, and facilitating standing faculty’s focused effort on research.
Within this broader context, the committee recognized the importance of acknowledging concerns about the erosion of tenure, particularly with respect to tenure density, academic freedom, and shared governance. Some standing faculty expressed concern that faculty without tenure protections may feel less able to speak freely, potentially weakening the collective voice of the faculty. At the same time, the committee’s discussions underscored the vital role that associated faculty and academic support staff play in the academic life of the University. They are central to supporting Penn’s mission of ensuring high-quality teaching, advising, and program development adaptable to changing times and responsive to shifting needs. In many cases, they also speak in support of academic freedom and the broader academic mission of the institution even as they may be among those most vulnerable to potential risks associated with speaking out. Their inclusion in formal governance processes therefore has the potential to strengthen, rather than diminish, faculty voice by aligning representation with the full scope of faculty contributions to the academic mission. Indeed, the leaders we consulted both within Penn and at peer institutions reported that this was precisely the outcome.
Guided by these considerations, the committee’s review of peer institutions and internal models revealed a clear and consistent pattern that the inclusion of non-tenure line faculty in university governance structures is the norm rather than the exception. In this respect, Penn’s current governance structure is notably out of step with its peers. The committee also found that both peer institutions and schools within Penn that include non-tenure line faculty in governance operate with unified governing bodies rather than parallel or separate systems. In these cases, unified structures are often accompanied by internal caucuses or committees that allowed for focused discussion without creating separate governance structures. Even in cases such as New York University, which had been characterized in earlier reports as having separate governing bodies, governance is in practice organized through a single university-wide body that includes both tenure and non-tenure line faculty, alongside caucus structures that may meet separately as appropriate. This finding, combined with concerns raised during committee deliberations about the limitations of “separate but equal” representation, led the committee to conclude that a unified governance structure including standing faculty, associated faculty and academic support staff should be the ultimate goal. Such a structure would more fully reflect the composition of the faculty and support more integrated participation in shared governance.
At the same time, the committee recognizes that movement toward such a model will require a phased approach. Incremental steps can provide opportunities to pilot different forms of collaboration, build familiarity and trust, and allow faculty across categories to develop shared practices for engaging in university-wide deliberation. The committee recommends that this phased approach include periodic review with clearly defined criteria for assessing progress and determining next steps toward a cohesive unified governing structure that includes standing faculty, associated faculty and academic support staff.
As initial steps in the direction, the committee offers the following initial recommendations.
First, the committee recommends that SEC vote to establish a committee focused on issues affecting associated faculty and academic support staff. This committee should be led by associated faculty and academic support staff and, in collaboration with SEC, identify a set of charges for each academic year. It would report annually to SEC, providing a structured mechanism for ongoing consultation and communication. We further recommend that the chair of this standing committee be invited to serve as a non-voting participant on SEC in order to strengthen coordination and continuity across governance structures. This step falls within the current purview of SEC and would not require fundamental changes to existing Faculty Senate structures. It therefore represents a practical and immediately actionable step that could be implemented as early as the 2026–2027 academic year. Over time, this standing committee could also work in collaboration with SEC to explore more comprehensive models of representation, including the structure and composition of a unified governing body and the mechanisms through which different faculty groups might be represented within it.
Second, the committee recommends that the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) vote to approve the inclusion of full-time associated faculty and academic support staff as non-voting members of existing Senate committees. This approach would create opportunities for participation in committee work while allowing the Senate to assess how expanded membership functions in practice.
The committee views its work this year, particularly through the advisory subcommittee, as an initial pilot for the kinds of collaboration envisioned in these recommendations. Composed of members nominated by SEC representatives, the subcommittee worked in collaboration with the standing faculty members to create a structured space for sustained dialogue, feedback, and shared problem-solving across faculty tracks. This process not only informed the committee’s recommendations but also demonstrated the capacity and willingness of associated faculty and academic support staff to engage constructively in Senate-related deliberations. It also revealed that many faculty concerns related to the academic mission cut across faculty tracks and that working together can help us to better understand our many similarities while also helping us to better understand how we might best be able to support one another in relation to our differences. As such, it provides a strong foundation on which to build, both as a model for future collaboration and as a potential starting point for implementation.
Several current members of the advisory subcommittee have expressed interest in continued participation and could help support the initial formation of this new faculty committee, as well as serve as non-voting members of existing Senate Committees. We hope that SEC will take advantage of this momentum to begin to expand faculty representation within the faculty senate.
Committee Members:
Hydar Ali, Dental Medicine
Nelson Flores (chair), GSE
Carmen Guerra, PSOM/Medicine
Julia Hartmann, SAS/Mathematics
Jeffery Saven, SAS/Chemistry
Roger Allen, PASEF non-voting representative
Advisory Subcommittee Members:
Dave Aizenberg, Professor of Clinical Medicine (General Internal Medicine)
Bill Ashmanskas, Senior Lecturer in Physics
Sara Byala, Senior Lecturer in Critical Writing
Lizzie Collins, Lecturer in Foreign Languages (French)
Sarah Doherty, Lecturer in Theatre Arts
Feride Hatiboglu, Lecturer in Foreign Languages (Turkish)
Alicia Kachmar, Practice Assistant Professor of Nursing
Kate Ledwith, Full-Time Lecturer, SP2
Nupur Patel, Assistant Professor of Clinical Restorative Dentistry
Sudev Sheth, Senior Lecturer of International Studies (Wharton) and History
Swapneel Sheth, Practice Associate Professor of CIS (SEAS)
Emily Slocum, Lecturer (Nursing)
Caroline Watts, Senior Lecturer (GSE)
Elizabeth Woodward, Clinical Associate Professor, Biomedical Sciences (Vet Medicine)
Senate Committee on Faculty and the Administration (SCOA) 2025-2026 Report
SCOA was formally placed in reserve status for the 2025-2026 academic year. However, it convened by request to the Faculty Senate from the Vice Provost for Research to review a proposed Policy for Reviewing Alleged Research Misconduct. The finalized policy was effective January 1 and published in the January 16 issue of Almanac. SCOA members unanimously recommended the adoption of the proposed policy following a friendly amendment. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee voted to adopt the proposed policy (as recommended by SCOA) at its meeting on December 10, 2015, and as reported in the December 16, 2025, issue of Almanac.
General Committee Charge
The Committee on Faculty and the Administration: The Committee oversees and advises the Executive Committee on matters relating to the faculty’s interface with the University’s administration, including policies and procedures (e.g., the Patent Policy) relating to the University’s structure, the conditions of faculty employment (such as personnel benefits), and information. In general the Committee deals with the matters covered by the following sections of the University’s Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators: I.A.-D., G.-H.1., I.-K., II.E. III., V., VI. (henceforth referred to as the “Faculty Handbook”).
2025-2026 SCOA Membership
Geoffrey Aguirre, PSOM/Neurology, chair
Markus Blatz, Dental Medicine
Chenoa Flippen, SAS/Sociology
Christopher Marcinkoski, Weitzman
Lea Ann Matura, Nursing
Amy Sepinwall, Wharton
Shu Yang, SEAS/MSE
Members ex-officio:
Kathleen Brown, SAS/History, Faculty Senate Chair
Eric Feldman, Law, Faculty Senate Past Chair
Roy Hamilton, PSOM/Neurology, Faculty Senate Chair-Elect
Charles Mooney, Law, PASEF non-voting member
Faculty Senate Grievance Commission 2025-2026 Report
The Faculty Senate Grievance Commission (hereafter the commission) of the University of Pennsylvania is an independent committee consisting of three faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. This commission is available to all members of the Penn faculty and academic support staff who allege they have been subject to actions contrary to the University procedures, policies, or regulations; that are discriminatory; or that are arbitrary or capricious (see https://facultysenate.upenn.edu/governance/faculty-grievance-commission/). During academic year 2025–2026, John Paul MacDuffie (Wharton, Chair-Elect), Sarah Kagan (Nursing, Chair), and David Margolis (Past Chair, PSOM/Dermatology, Chair).
The commission received six new and one renewed grievance over the course of the year. The grievances were associated with promotion issues, employment issues, and scientific integrity. The commission, led by the chair, explored each grievance. Exploration included, as appropriate to the grievance, communication with parties involved and review of pertinent documents. The commission discussed each grievance and the information obtained through exploration of it, assessing it against the criteria under which the commission operates (viz. actions contrary to the University’s procedures, policies, or regulations; that are discriminatory; or that are arbitrary or capricious). Discussion continued until the commission achieved consensus amongst its three members. To date, none of the new grievances has resulted in a hearing. The number of queries is similar to numbers of grievances submitted in prior years. The commission continued a conversation, begun in the 2024-2025 academic year, with the tri-chairs of the Faculty Senate to clarify the charter governing its work.
Senate Committee on Students and Educational Policy (SCSEP) 2025-2026 Report
Background
The Faculty Senate Committee on Students and Educational Policy (SCSEP) oversees and advises the Executive Committee on matters relating to the University’s policies and procedures on the admission and instruction of students, including academic integrity, admissions policies and administration, evaluation of teaching, examinations and grading, academic experiences, educational opportunities (such as study abroad), student records, disciplinary systems, and the campus environment/climate. In general, the Committee deals with the matters covered by the following section of the University’s Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators: IV.
2025-2026 SCSEP Specific Charges
- Investigate the impact of recent changes to federal student loan and financial aid policies on the undergraduate student experience.
- Investigate the impact of the adoption and usage of artificial intelligence technology on student learning and on standards for academic integrity.
- Explore the ways in which existing and new first year courses cover concepts of civics skills, especially as they relate to communication across theoretical divides and highlight existing strengths and areas for improvement.
SCSEP elected to focus its work this year on the impact of artificial intelligence on student learning and educational policy. The following report reflects the Committee’s findings and recommendations.
1. AI will impact all fields and disciplines.
All education, including higher education, will be reshaped in deep ways by AI. AI will fundamentally change the way we teach and what we teach. We have to determine what aspects of each discipline are fundamental and should be taught. Many faculty, staff and students separate into two camps: 1) one group is enthusiastic about the use of AI in teaching and 2) a group based in the humanities and qualitative social sciences that is critical of AI and the role AI companies are playing in society and within the university and that is skeptical about the role that AI can play in certain types of teaching. Even techno futurists acknowledge that there has to be some limit on AI use so that students will learn foundational skills and creative writing.
Recommendations:
- Need centralized guidelines about acceptable and unacceptable use of AI (i.e., what are the broad guardrails on AI use that address concerns of students and faculty) consistent with Penn’s mission.
- In most courses, a certain percentage of grades will come from authentic assignments that reflect engagement and skill, and the other percentage allows use of AI to a greater or lesser extent.
- The University should engage in research on the effects of AI assisted learning. More data on this are needed. Learning outcomes in courses in which similar pedagogical approaches are used can be compared to previous years to help determine the impact of AI on learning and critical thinking and to help drive policy changes as AI becomes embedded in higher education.
2. Faculty need training and support in use of AI.
There is a critical need to train faculty and instructors in the practical use of AI, in how to modify their grading and assignments to take AI into account and how to best allow students to use AI. The training of faculty/instructors likely needs to occur at the institutional or school level and needs to be conducted urgently.
Recommendations:
Faculty should be shown options for the use of AI in education. It is important that faculty retain academic freedom and flexibility in the classroom. The best approach is to ensure that the faculty are informed and encouraged to experiment with AI.
3. Students are anxious about AI.
The vast majority of students use AI to some extent. The ones who do not use AI feel that AI is unfairly used by other students to give them an advantage. Students are unclear when they can use AI and to what extent. They are asking for guidance for AI use for each of their courses and asking for engagement with their instructors to better understand how they can use AI. The guidance from instructors needs to be clear and explicit at the start of the course in order to allay anxieties about whether and how a student can use AI. Students expressed a need to better understand how course policies on AI were developed for their courses.
Recommendations:
All students must learn Penn’s institutional policies on the practical and ethical use of AI in courses when they become available. For new students, this can be part of orientation.
At the start of each semester, professors should address AI in their course policies. From the perspective of students, having a statement on AI policy in a course syllabus is insufficient. Having a conversation between instructors and students at the start of semester laying out what is acceptable use of AI in that course and why is much preferred since this will help to level the playing field and lower stress for students.
Policy regarding AI in instruction and student learning needs to be nuanced and differ amongst disciplines. Curricula need to be modified to reflect the strong impact of AI and its ubiquitous use in writing assignments.
4. AI is being used in creative ways throughout campus.
AI is used as a chatbot to provide information to students and faculty. AI is used as a tutorbot to help answer questions on class lectures when notes are unclear and to develop exam guides. Efforts should be made to facilitate sharing of ideas and to make faculty aware of creative uses of AI on campus to inspire them to try experiments of their own.
Broader impacts
Ultimately, we as an institution have to think about how we provide the best possible education in the time of AI. Penn should think about how it can distinguish itself from institutions that use AI in generic ways. A more human-centered learning approach, instead of AI-centered learning, is likely to be more beneficial to students and more consistent with Penn’s mission.
This is a time of both alarm and opportunity. Alarm because we need to move rapidly to understand how AI impacts our education and research missions, and to understand how to manage the impact of AI in these missions. In thinking about these things, it represents an opportunity to re-shape or re-affirm the missions and values of Penn. This time also presents a great opportunity for research at Penn on AI impacts on student learning and assessment that can help guide us in the near future.
SCSEP 2025–2026 Committee Members
Seema Bhatnagar (chair), PSOM/Anesthesiology and Critical Care
Vance Byrd, SAS/FIGS
Ted Chinburg, SAS/Mathematics
Roopali Kulkarni, Dental Medicine
Greg Ridgeway, SAS/Criminology
Akhilesh Reddy, PSOM/Pharmacology
Dylan Small, Wharton
Ex Officio:
Kathleen Brown, SAS/History, Faculty Senate Chair
Eric Feldman, Law, Faculty Senate Past Chair
Roy Hamilton, PSOM/Neurology, Faculty Senate Chair-Elect
Gail Morrison, PSOM/Medicine, PASEF non-voting member
Senate Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty (SCESF) 2025-2026
The Senate Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty (SCESF) is charged by the “Rules of the Faculty Senate” to:
Gather and organize data on faculty salaries and benefits;
Issue an annual report on the economic status of the faculty; and
Represent the faculty in the determination of University policy on salary issues.
SCESF did not produce a report during the 2025-2026 academic year and encourages the faculty to review the themes discussed in the May 2025 report. In keeping with practices of previous years, SCESF offers below the publicly viewable tables provided to the committee by the Provost’s Office and prepared by the Office of Institutional Research & Analysis.
To view the 2025-2026 SCESF tables, click here to read the PDF supplement.