BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Master of Fine Arts in Design in the College of Arts, Media and Design as approved by the University Graduate Curriculum Committee 8 September, 2025 (18-0-0)

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Bachelor of Science in Health Services, BS in the College of Professional Studies as approved by the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 22 October, 2025 (20-0-0).

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Doctor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Clinical and Rehabilitation Sciences, PhD in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences as approved by the University Graduate Curriculum Committee 30 October, 2025 (18-0-0)

BE IT RESOLVED That the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences be renamed as the Department of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences.

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Master of Science in Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, MS in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences as approved by the University Graduate Curriculum Committee 7 January, 2026 (15-0-0).

MOTION TO AMEND THE NOV. 19 FACULTY SENATE MEETING MINUTES:

In Section C, DEPARTMENT NAME CHANGE FOR DEPARTMENT IN BOUVÉ COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES, strike out:

"BE IT RESOLVED That the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences be renamed as the Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences."

And insert:

"BE IT RESOLVED That the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences be renamed as the Department of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences."

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Bachelor of Science in Kinesiology, BS in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences as approved by the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 11 February, 2026 (17-0-0).

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Master of Science in Precision Health, MS in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences as approved by the University Graduate Curriculum Committee 4 February, 2026 (19-0-0).

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Bachelor of Science in Engineering Design, BS in the College of Engineering as approved by the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 13 February, 2026 (18-0-0).

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Bachelor of Science in Quantitative Finance, BS in the D’Amore-McKim School of Business as approved by the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 11 February, 2026 (17-0-0).

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Bachelor of Science in Applied AI, BS in the College of Professional Studies as approved by the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 14 January, 2026 (18-0-0).

BE IT RESOLVED That the University rename the Bachelor of Science in Data Science to the Bachelor of Science in Artificial Intelligence, BS in the Khoury College of Computer Sciences as approved by the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 11 February, 2026 (14-0-3).

WHEREAS the Charge 1 asks the Academic Freedom Committee to research and recommend  best practices for fostering viewpoint diversity and cultivating a pluralistic learning  environment, while simultaneously supporting all community members’ sense of belonging  and engagement; and 
WHEREAS the Academic Freedom Committee has presented 16 recommendations based on  information given by Northeastern faculty in a response to the all-faculty survey and based  on research of relevant literature; and 
WHEREAS many of these recommendations connect to the ongoing work done by CATLR,  ADVANCE and the Office of the Chancellor; and 
WHEREAS the Academic Freedom Committee has produced a memo cover letter, included in  Appendix G of its report; 
BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate Agenda Committee deliver a memo, that shares the  recommendations in Charge 1 for consideration for future programming, to CATLR,  ADVANCE, the Office of the Chancellor, and any other parties that SAC believes would be  interested in the research. 
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate Agenda Committee consider charging an  appropriate committee next year with evaluating the feasibility of enhancing Northeastern's  civil discourse curricula, including appropriateness of adding a “civil discourse” NUPath  attribute and a “viewpoint diversity” TRACE student evaluation question.

WHEREAS the university's core mission is the production and transmission of knowledge through research, teaching, and learning—a mission that requires maintaining the university as society's preeminent space for open inquiry where competing ideas are tested through evidence and argument rather than predetermined by institutional orthodoxy; and
WHEREAS official institutional statements on matters beyond the university's core educational and research mission create several interrelated problems: they imply institutional orthodoxy that chills dissent from faculty and students who disagree; they displace the individual expert voices that should be engaging these issues; they privilege the institution's voice in domains where it is not the scholarly expert; they risk societal perception of the university as a political actor rather than a knowledge institution; and they erode the legitimate authority universities have earned in their actual domains of expertise; and
WHEREAS Northeastern University has issued statements on events that do not directly concern the institution's core mission, which can lead to requests that the university opine on myriad events; and
WHEREAS institutional neutrality — meaning that the university as an institution refrains from taking positions on political, social, or policy questions except where they directly affect core mission or operations, while individual faculty, students, and staff retain full freedom to express their views — is a well-recognized [1] and long-standing [2] principle for maintaining universities as spaces for open inquiry and genuine intellectual pluralism; 
BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate endorses the principle of institutional neutrality for Northeastern University, as described below:

a) The university and its leaders may speak officially on matters that directly affect its core educational and research mission (such as academic freedom, educational policy, research funding, accreditation) and matters essential to its operations (such as legal obligations, campus safety, student access, institutional autonomy).

b) The university and its leaders will exercise institutional restraint on matters that do not directly affect its core educational and research mission or operations (such as taking positions on social and political issues unless those issues threaten the mission of the university and its values of free inquiry).

c) Boundary determinations — deciding whether a given issue relates directly to the university's core mission — will inevitably involve judgment and good-faith disagreement, with policies applied consistently regardless of viewpoint or political valence, and using shared governance mechanisms.

d) Faculty, students, and staff retain full freedom to speak on any topic in their individual capacities, to conduct research on any subject, to teach according to their scholarly judgment, and to engage in civic and political activity. No individual should face sanction for expressing views that differ from any actual or perceived institutional  position.

[1] As of late 2024, at least 148 institutions of higher education have adopted policies of institutional neutrality, including Dartmouth College, Yale University, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Tulane University, Johns Hopkins University, Harvard University, Stanford University, Syracuse University, Princeton University. Arnold, A., Shaw, E., Tenhundfeld, N., & Barbaro Simovski, N. (2025, March). The rising tide of institutional statement neutrality: How universities are rethinking institutional speech Heterodox Academy heterodoxacademy.org/reports/a-revival-of-institutional-statement-neutralityhow-universities-are-rethinking-institutional-speech-in-2024/

[2] The modern concept can be traced to the 1967 “Kalven Report” from the University of Chicago, which recommends a "heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day" because it emphasizes that "the instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic." (Kalven, Harry (Chairman) "Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action." University of Chicago, November 11, 196

WHEREAS the university's core mission is the production and transmission of knowledge through research, teaching, and learning—a mission that requires maintaining the university as society's preeminent space for open inquiry where competing ideas are tested through evidence and argument rather than predetermined by institutional orthodoxy; and 
WHEREAS official institutional statements on matters beyond the university's core educational and research mission create several interrelated problems: they imply institutional orthodoxy that chills dissent from faculty and students who disagree; they displace the individual expert voices that should be engaging these issues; they privilege the institution's voice in domains where it is not the scholarly expert; they risk societal perception of the university as a political actor rather than a knowledge institution; and they erode the legitimate authority universities have earned in their actual domains of expertise; and 
WHEREAS Northeastern University has issued statements on events that do not directly concern the institution's core mission, which can lead to requests that the university opine on myriad events; and 
WHEREAS institutional neutrality — meaning that the university as an institution refrains from taking positions on political, social, or policy questions except where they directly affect core mission or operations, while individual faculty, students, and staff retain full freedom to express their views — is a well-recognized [1] and long-standing 

[2] principle for maintaining universities as spaces for open inquiry and genuine intellectual pluralism; 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate recommends that the Board of Trustees endorse the principle of institutional neutrality, as described below, at their next meeting. 

a) The university and its leaders may speak officially on matters that directly affect its core educational and research mission (such as academic freedom, educational policy, research funding, accreditation) and matters essential to its operations (such as legal obligations, campus safety, student access, institutional autonomy). 

b) The university and its leaders will exercise institutional restraint on matters that do not directly affect its core educational and research mission or operations (such as taking positions on social and political issues unless those issues threaten the mission of the university and its values of free inquiry).

c) Boundary determinations — deciding whether a given issue relates directly to the university's core mission — will inevitably involve judgment and good-faith disagreement, with policies applied consistently regardless of viewpoint or political valence, and using shared governance mechanisms.

d) Faculty, students, and staff retain full freedom to speak on any topic in their individual capacities, to conduct research on any subject, to teach according to their scholarly judgment, and to engage in civic and political activity. No individual should face sanction for expressing views that differ from any actual or perceived institutional position.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following a Board of Trustees endorsement, the administration, in consultation with Faculty Senate Leadership, establish a working group comprising faculty, administrative, and student representatives to: 

a) develop guidelines for implementing the principle of institutional neutrality university wide; 

b) develop an oversight or review mechanism, following shared governance norms, to ensure it serves its intended purpose of protecting open inquiry and intellectual pluralism;

c) steer the process towards implementation with target date of Spring 2027.

[1] As of late 2024, at least 148 institutions of higher education have adopted policies of institutional neutrality, including Dartmouth College, Yale University, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Tulane University, Johns Hopkins University, Harvard University, Stanford University, Syracuse University, Princeton University. Arnold, A., Shaw, E., Tenhundfeld, N., & Barbaro Simovski, N. (2025, March). The rising tide of institutional statement neutrality: How universities are rethinking institutional speech. Heterodox Academy heterodoxacademy.org/reports/a-revival-of-institutional-statementneutrality-how-universities-are-rethinking-institutional-speech-in-2024/

[2] The modern concept can be traced to the 1967 “Kalven Report” from the University of Chicago, which recommends a "heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day" because it emphasizes that "the instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic." (Kalven, Harry (Chairman) "Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action." University of Chicago, November 11, 1967: Kalven Committee: Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action

WHEREAS Northeastern University is committed to experiential learning, interdisciplinary research, and the pursuit of knowledge through free and open inquiry, which requires robust protection of freedom of expression for all members of the university community; and
WHEREAS Northeastern University ranks 253rd out of 257 institutions in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, earning an overall score of 46.8 out of 100 and a grade of "F" for its speech climate (reported by media outlets such as Newsweek, The Boston Globe, CBS News Online and The  Huntington News), representing a decline of 75 places from the previous year; [1] and
WHEREAS recent events at Northeastern, including concerns raised by last year’s Faculty Senate's Academic Freedom Ad Hoc Committee regarding university communications about demonstrations and free expression in AY2024-25, [2] and the controversy around a planned academic lecture in March 2025 that resulted in a deplatforming penalty from FIRE [3] demonstrate concrete problems that have resulted in reputational  damage and diminished academic offering to the NEU community, requiring institutional reform; and
WHEREAS a question in the recent faculty survey demonstrates a majority of faculty who responded to the faculty survey have low confidence (61% “not very” or “not at all confident”) that the administration would protect a speaker’s rights to express controversial views; [4] and
WHEREAS the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago (the "Chicago Statement"), issued in January 2015, articulates core principles regarding freedom of expression that have been adopted or affirmed by over 100 colleges and universities, including Princeton University, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, Brandeis University, Boston University, MIT, and Stanford University, and represents a widely recognized model for institutions seeking to strengthen their commitment to free expression; [5] and
WHEREAS the commitment to free expression in the Chicago Statement is broader than NEU’s Statement of Free Expression in the Faculty Handbook because the Chicago Statement covers all university community members while NEU’s statement covers only full-time faculty at NEU’s American campuses (because the Handbook does not cover part-time faculty and does not cover faculty at NEU’s Canadian and London campuses); and 
WHEREAS the commitment to free expression in the Chicago Statement is deeper than NEU’s Statement on Free Expression because NEU’s Statement clarifies that the university’s responsibility to protect and support free expression is for expression that occurs “in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect” while the Chicago Statement recommends the fullest possible expression clarifying that “although all members of the  University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas;” and 
WHEREAS a clear institutional commitment to freedom of expression will enhance NEU’s reputation, support the academic freedom of faculty, enrich the educational experience of students, send a clear signal to the media, and uphold the University's mission as a global research university dedicated to teaching, discovery, and  engagement with society; 
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate of Northeastern University endorses the “Chicago Statement.”

[1] Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), “2026 College Free Speech Rankings,” Published Online September 2025 (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/collegefree-speech-rankings 

[2] Northeastern University Faculty Senate Academic Freedom Ad Hoc Committee Report (April 2025), pg. 13-14 & appendix 7: https://faculty.northeastern.edu/senate/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/ReportAcademic-Freedom-Ad-Hoc-Committee-AFC-April-16- 2025.pdf

[3] “Fire Letter to Northeastern University,” from Aaron Corpora (FIRE, Program Officer, Campus Rights Advocacy) to Dean James R. Hackney (Northeastern University School of Law), 25 April 2025 (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/researchlearn/fire-letter-northeastern-university-april-25-2025

[4] 2025 Northeaster University All-faculty survey, question (Q276_1), Likert-type, 5-point confidence scale, M=2.20, N=289. (Appendix C). 

[5] FIRE “Chicago Statement: University and Faculty Body Support” (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/report-committee-freedomexpression-university-chicagoseptember-22-201

WHEREAS Northeastern University is committed to experiential learning, interdisciplinary research, and the pursuit of knowledge through free and open inquiry, which requires robust protection of freedom of expression for all members of the university community; and
WHEREAS Northeastern University ranks 253rd out of 257 institutions in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, earning an overall score of 46.8 out of 100 and a grade of "F" for its speech climate (reported by media outlets such as Newsweek, The Boston Globe, CBS News Online and The  Huntington News), representing a decline of 75 places from the previous year; [1] and
WHEREAS recent events at Northeastern, including concerns raised by last year’s Faculty Senate's Academic Freedom Ad Hoc Committee regarding university communications about demonstrations and free expression in AY2024-25, [2] and the controversy around a planned academic lecture in March 2025 that resulted in a deplatforming penalty from FIRE [3] demonstrate concrete problems that have resulted in reputational  damage and diminished academic offering to the NEU community, requiring institutional reform; and
WHEREAS a question in the recent faculty survey demonstrates a majority of faculty who responded to the faculty survey have low confidence (61% “not very” or “not at all confident”) that the administration would protect a speaker’s rights to express controversial views; [4] and
WHEREAS the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago (the "Chicago Statement"), issued in January 2015, articulates core principles regarding freedom of expression that have been adopted or affirmed by over 100 colleges and universities, including Princeton University, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, Brandeis University, Boston University, MIT, and Stanford University, and represents a widely recognized model for institutions seeking to strengthen their commitment to free expression; [5] and
WHEREAS the commitment to free expression in the Chicago Statement is broader than NEU’s Statement of Free Expression in the Faculty Handbook because the Chicago Statement covers all university community members while NEU’s statement covers only full-time faculty at NEU’s American campuses (because the Handbook does not cover part-time faculty and does not cover faculty at NEU’s Canadian and London campuses); and 
WHEREAS the commitment to free expression in the Chicago Statement is deeper than NEU’s Statement on Free Expression because NEU’s Statement clarifies that the university’s responsibility to protect and support free expression is for expression that occurs “in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect” while the Chicago Statement recommends the fullest possible expression clarifying that “although all members of the 

University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas;” and 
WHEREAS a clear institutional commitment to freedom of expression will enhance NEU’s reputation, support the academic freedom of faculty, enrich the educational experience of students, send a clear signal to the media, and uphold the University's mission as a global research university dedicated to teaching, discovery, and  engagement with society; 
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate requests the revision of the Faculty Handbook’s “Statement on Free Expression” to reflect the perspective represented by the Chicago Statement, along the lines suggested in Appendix I, with the final language to be confirmed by the Academic Freedom Committee in consultation with the Faculty  Handbook Committee, the Office of the Provost, and the Office of General Counsel, and that the Academic Freedom Committee shall present the proposed revision to the Senate.

[1] Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), “2026 College Free Speech Rankings,” Published Online September 2025 (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/collegefree-speech-rankings 

[2] Northeastern University Faculty Senate Academic Freedom Ad Hoc Committee Report (April 2025), pg. 13-14 & appendix 7: 
https://faculty.northeastern.edu/senate/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/ReportAcademic-Freedom-Ad-Hoc-Committee-AFC-April-16- 2025.pdf

[3] “Fire Letter to Northeastern University,” from Aaron Corpora (FIRE, Program Officer, Campus Rights Advocacy) to Dean James R. Hackney (Northeastern University School of Law), 25 April 2025 (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/researchlearn/fire-letter-northeastern-university-april-25-2025

[4] 2025 Northeaster University All-faculty survey, question (Q276_1), Likert-type, 5-point confidence scale, M=2.20, N=289. (Appendix C). 

[5] FIRE “Chicago Statement: University and Faculty Body Support” (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/report-committee-freedomexpression-university-chicagoseptember-22-201

WHEREAS Northeastern University is committed to experiential learning, interdisciplinary research, and the pursuit of knowledge through free and open inquiry, which requires robust protection of freedom of expression for all members of the university community; and
WHEREAS Northeastern University ranks 253rd out of 257 institutions in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, earning an overall score of 46.8 out of 100 and a grade of "F" for its speech climate (reported by media outlets such as Newsweek, The Boston Globe, CBS News Online and The 
Huntington News), representing a decline of 75 places from the previous year; [1] and
WHEREAS recent events at Northeastern, including concerns raised by last year’s Faculty Senate's Academic Freedom Ad Hoc Committee regarding university communications about demonstrations and free expression in AY2024-25, [2] and the controversy around a planned academic lecture in March 2025 that resulted in a deplatforming penalty from FIRE [3] demonstrate concrete problems that have resulted in reputational 
damage and diminished academic offering to the NEU community, requiring institutional reform; and
WHEREAS a question in the recent faculty survey demonstrates a majority of faculty who responded to the faculty survey have low confidence (61% “not very” or “not at all confident”) that the administration would protect a speaker’s rights to express controversial views; [4] and
WHEREAS the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago (the "Chicago Statement"), issued in January 2015, articulates core principles regarding freedom of expression that have been adopted or affirmed by over 100 colleges and universities, including Princeton University, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, Brandeis University, Boston University, MIT, and Stanford University, and represents a widely recognized model for institutions seeking to strengthen their commitment to free expression; [5] and
WHEREAS the commitment to free expression in the Chicago Statement is broader than NEU’s Statement of Free Expression in the Faculty Handbook because the Chicago Statement covers all university community members while NEU’s statement covers only full-time faculty at NEU’s American campuses (because the Handbook does not cover part-time faculty and does not cover faculty at NEU’s Canadian and London campuses); and 
WHEREAS the commitment to free expression in the Chicago Statement is deeper than NEU’s Statement on Free Expression because NEU’s Statement clarifies that the university’s responsibility to protect and support free expression is for expression that occurs “in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect” while the Chicago Statement recommends the fullest possible expression clarifying that “although all members of the 
University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas;” and 
WHEREAS a clear institutional commitment to freedom of expression will enhance NEU’s reputation, support the academic freedom of faculty, enrich the educational experience of students, send a clear signal to the media, and uphold the University's mission as a global research university dedicated to teaching, discovery, and  engagement with society; 
BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate recommends that the Board of Trustees endorse the “Chicago Statement” at their next meeting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that following a Board of Trustees endorsement, the administration, in consultation with Faculty Senate Leadership, establish a working group comprising faculty, administrative, and student representatives to: 

a) develop guidelines for implementing the principles of the “Chicago Statement” university-wide; 

b) develop an oversight or review mechanism, following shared governance norms, to ensure it serves its intended purpose of protecting open inquiry and intellectual pluralism;

c) steer the process towards implementation with target date of Spring 2027.

[1] Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), “2026 College Free Speech Rankings,” Published Online September 2025 (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/collegefree-speech-rankings 

[2] Northeastern University Faculty Senate Academic Freedom Ad Hoc Committee Report (April 2025), pg. 13-14 & appendix 7: https://faculty.northeastern.edu/senate/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/ReportAcademic-Freedom-Ad-Hoc-Committee-AFC-April-16- 2025.pdf

[3] “Fire Letter to Northeastern University,” from Aaron Corpora (FIRE, Program Officer, Campus Rights Advocacy) to Dean James R. Hackney (Northeastern University School of Law), 25 April 2025 (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/researchlearn/fire-letter-northeastern-university-april-25-2025

[4] 2025 Northeaster University All-faculty survey, question (Q276_1), Likert-type, 5-point confidence scale, M=2.20, N=289. (Appendix C). 

[5] FIRE “Chicago Statement: University and Faculty Body Support” (retrieved 19 September 2025): https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/report-committee-freedomexpression-university-chicagoseptember-22-201

WHEREAS Northeastern University is committed to experiential learning, interdisciplinary research, and the pursuit of knowledge through free and open inquiry, which requires robust protection of academic freedom and freedom of expression for all members of the university community; and 
WHEREAS Northeastern University articulates its protection of academic freedom and free expression in the Faculty Handbook; and 
WHEREAS the Faculty Handbook applies to only full-time faculty at NEU’s American campuses, because the Handbook does not cover part-time faculty and does not cover faculty at NEU’s Canadian and London campuses; and 
WHEREAS if the Board of Trustees endorses the Chicago Statement, as requested in Resolution 6, which would improve the free expression rights of all community members, there would remain important elements of academic freedom to be endorsed for faculty who are not covered by the Faculty Handbook; 
BE IT RESOLVED that next year’s Senate Agenda Committee shall assign to an appropriate committee the charge of researching how to improve academic freedom for faculty who are not covered by the Faculty Handbook.

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Master of Science in Applied Sustainability, MS in the Office of the Provost as approved by the University Graduate Curriculum Committee 18 February, 2026 (17-0-0).

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Master of Science in Human-Computer Interaction, MS in the Office of the Provost as approved by the University Graduate Curriculum Committee 11 March, 2026 (19-0-0).

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Master of Professional Studies, Organizational Intelligence, MPS in the College of Professional Studies as approved by the University Graduate Curriculum Committee 18 February, 2026 (15-0-0).

STATEMENT OF THE FACULTY SENATE:
WHEREAS Northeastern University's core principles include a commitment to remaining a diverse, inclusive, and truly global university [1], and to serving as a center of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation [2];
WHEREAS the US government has conducted a widespread effort [3] to deny free speech and academic freedom to non-citizen members of the academic community via arrests, jailing, and deportation of individuals engaging in protected speech critical of the US administration and its policies, and
WHEREAS the US government has sought by means including executive order, university agreements, and regulatory and funding agency actions, to (1) erase identities of transgender members of university communities [4], and prohibit campus speech on gender-related topics, and
(2) restrict university speech, teaching, and inquiry in additional areas [5], including but not limited to climate science, diversity, and racial justice; and
WHEREAS these actions have included both direct government actions against individuals and efforts to require universities themselves to enforce these denials of freedom,
BE IT AFFIRMED THAT the Faculty Senate states its full support for the University and those members of the Northeastern community impacted by these actions; specifically:
(1) As a global university, we hold that the rights of members of our community to academic freedom and free speech apply to US citizens and non-citizens alike;
(2) As members of a university community made stronger by its diversity, and embracing a respect
for the universal dignity of all members of the NU community, we support our transgender members and fully support their rights to identity and freedom from discrimination; and
(3) As an institution of higher learning we support all areas of scholarly activity, and oppose efforts to curb academic freedom or institutional autonomy via limits on any aspect of our academic
mission.
We believe that the aforementioned attacks and demands, whether against the University itself or targeted against individuals, are attacks against the institutional independence of the University and its core principles.
We therefore call on the Office of the President to uphold these core principles by (a) opposing any external demands or agreements that it violate the academic freedom or civil liberties of members of the University community, and (b) refusing assistance to any external efforts to identify and/or sanction community members for exercising these rights of free speech and academic freedom. We further call on the Office of the President to use all reasonable means, up to and including litigation, to defend these core principles.
[1] "Reaffirming our core values", Joseph Aoun, 2/5/2017
[2] "A Call for Constructive Engagement", AAC&U, 4/2025
[3] AAUP v Rubio, 9/30/2025
[4] "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government", 1/20/2025
[5] "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education", 10/1/2025

BE IT RESOLVED That the University establish the Master of Science in Design, MS in the College of Arts, Media and Design approved by the University Graduate Curriculum Committee 25 March, 2026 (13-2-4).

WHEREAS, ongoing faculty input on administrative leadership supports institutional effectiveness and shared governance; and
WHEREAS, providing faculty with a structured opportunity to share feedback on administrative leadership fosters a culture of mutual respect, strengthens collegial collaboration, and supports faculty morale by affirming that their professional experience and perspectives meaningfully inform institutional decision-making; and
WHEREAS, the Provost has committed to establishing a visible and consistent
mechanism through which faculty voices are heard confidentially and anonymously in
the evaluation of administrators;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Office of the Provost shall set up and manage, on an annual basis, a confidential and anonymous feedback process through which full-time faculty provide input on their college dean. The Office of the Provost shall determine the instrument and
administration method and shall carefully review and incorporate the feedback as appropriate in its evaluation of each dean.
2. The Office of the Provost shall assist each college dean in setting up and managing, on an annual basis, a confidential and anonymous feedback process through which full-time faculty provide input on department chairs (or their equivalent), and associate deans. The Office of the Provost shall develop a standardized instrument for use across all colleges to ensure consistency.
3. The Office of the Provost shall confirm to the Senate Agenda Committee by December 1 of each academic year that the processes described in sections 1 and 2 have begun.
4. In any year in which the AEOC conducts a formal evaluation of an administrator, the Office of the Provost shall not conduct a separate faculty feedback process for that administrator

WHEREAS: Resolution 24 (passed 25-0-0, 4/1/2020; Provost approved 4/10/2020) states: BE IT RESOLVED that usage of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) surveys such as TRACE in merit, tenure, and/or promotion considerations must involve (a) analysis of multiple SET queries and (b) utilization of multiple measures of the distribution of the responses (such as median or mode) rather than only the average of responses, and
WHEREAS: Resolution 25 (passed 44-0-0, 3/26/2025; Provost approved 5/5/2025) states: BE IT RESOLVED that TRACE survey results be used as one component in more comprehensive assessment of teaching effectiveness in faculty merit, promotion, and tenure processes that includes peer evaluations and instructors’ teaching reflections, and
WHEREAS: the Provost's office requires on TRACE survey a summative instrument for assessing “teaching effectiveness”, and the query “The instruction was effective at helping students learn in this course” being answered as either “Almost always effective (more than 80% of the time), or Usually effective (about 60–80% of the time), or Sometimes effective (about 40–59% of the time), or Rarely effective (about 20–39% of the time), or Almost never effective (less than 20% of the time)” is single-construct and psychometrically valid, is answerable by students’ observation, focuses on the instructor’s actions, contains an internal Rubric for each response choice, and is considered fair across all teaching styles and course formats, and
WHEREAS: the global Northeastern University faculty and the Student Government have provided valuable and legitimate feedback for revising the TRACE survey instrument, and
WHEREAS: the attached TRACE survey revision reminds students to focus on course material, student learning, instructor actions, instruction instead of instructors’ personal qualities, and emphasizes precise questions with actionable feedback for faculty, as recommended by the TRACE Committee,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the TRACE survey be revised to the structure and content presented below.

Please evaluate this class based on its content, your engagement with the material, your learning of intended course materials, and the instructor’s actions, rather than any unrelated attributes. We welcome student comments that are thoughtful, professional, constructive, and considerate. Your answers are anonymous and confidential.

Student reflection

1. How often did you attend this class?
· 80-100% of class meetings
· 60-79% of class meetings
· 40-59% of class meetings
· 20-39% of class meetings
· 0-19% of class meetings
· There were no class meetings to attend

2. The number of hours per week I usually devoted to this course or online sessions outside scheduled class meeting times is
· More than 10
· 8-10
· 5-7
· 3-4
· 0-2

3. What could I have done to make this course better for myself?

Course-related questions

4. The syllabus clearly described what I was expected to learn and how the course would be conducted
· Strongly Agree
· Agree
· Neutral
· Disagree
· Strongly Disagree
· I am not familiar with the contents of the syllabus

5. The required and additional course materials were helpful for my learning in this course.
· Strongly Agree
· Agree
· Neutral
· Disagree
· Strongly Disagree

Learning-related questions

6. Class sessions or modules (in person or online, or any other type of class meeting) were helpful for learning.
· Strongly Agree
· Agree
· Neutral
· Disagree
· Strongly Disagree
· There were no class sessions

7. I understood what I should learn from the course.
· Strongly Agree
· Agree
· Neutral
· Disagree
· Strongly Disagree

Instructor-related questions

8. The instructor consistently explained how students would be assessed in the course.
· Strongly Agree
· Agree
· Neutral
· Disagree
· Strongly Disagree

9. The instructor helped students identify ways to learn the course material.
· Strongly Agree
· Agree
· Neutral
· Disagree
· Strongly Disagree

10. The instructor created opportunities for students to be engaged in the course.
· Strongly Agree
· Agree
· Neutral
· Disagree
· Strongly Disagree

11. The instructor clearly communicated ideas and information.
· Strongly Agree
· Agree
· Neutral
· Disagree
· Strongly Disagree

12. The instruction was effective at helping students learn in this course.
· Almost always effective (more than 80% of the time)
· Usually effective (about 60-80% of the time)
· Sometimes effective (about 40-59% of the time)
· Rarely effective (about 20-39% of the time)
· Almost never effective (less than 20% of the time)

13. What did the instructor do well?

14. What could be improved about the course?

WHEREAS the Faculty Senate approved APC Resolution #13 of 2024, which was subsequently approved by the Office of the Provost on May 3, 2024, calling for clarification and standardization of faculty participation in annual workload determination and adjustment; and
WHEREAS the Academic Policy Committee has developed proposed Faculty Handbook language to implement the intent of Resolution #13 of 2024, in collaboration with the Faculty Handbook Committee; and
WHEREAS the Faculty Handbook Committee reviewed and approved the proposed language;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate approves the following revised FacultyHandbook language addressing faculty participation in workload determination and adjustment:
All full-time faculty members participate in some combination of instructional; research; scholarship; and creative and service activities that have been established to encourage the general development of Northeastern University students. Given that academic units vary in their contributions to the University mission, components of the workload policy will vary from one department or unit to another. However, each academic unit must have a comprehensive workload policy in accordance with criteria jointly approved by the University’s provost and the Faculty Senate. Further, full-time faculty will have the opportunity to discuss their workload assignments with their department chair or unit head before implementation. Initial workload assignments and any subsequent modifications shall be discussed with the faculty member by the chair or unit head through a collaborative process intended to promote mutual understanding and address questions or concerns regarding the assignment. Each unit’s workload policy must be approved by a vote of the full-time faculty of the academic unit and be approved by the College dean and the provost. Faculty workloads are administered by the appropriate academic unit head and or college deans.
Be it further resolved that the Faculty Handbook Committee, in collaboration with the Office of the Provost, is directed to incorporate the approved language into the Faculty Handbook and communicate the update to academic unit leaders

Statement of the Faculty Senate:
WHEREAS, shared governance depends on the ability of faculty to express collective judgment regarding administrative leadership when circumstances warrant; and
WHEREAS, existing administrator evaluation processes are periodic, administrative in nature, and do not provide a formal, faculty-initiated mechanism to express a loss of confidence and do not distinguish between procedures applicable to unit-level administrators (including deans and below) and those applicable to senior administrators, reflecting differences in scope and institutional impact; and
WHEREAS, the absence of clearly defined procedures for no-confidence votes may lead to inconsistent practices, lack of transparency, and unnecessary escalation of governance concerns; and
WHEREAS, institutions of higher education commonly maintain formal no-confidence procedures to address extraordinary situations involving breakdowns in trust, leadership, or institutional functioning; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a general framework for no-confidence procedures promotes fairness, clarity, due process, and institutional stability;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of the following formal, faculty-driven no-confidence process as a component of shared governance for unit-level administrators:

A. Unit-Level Administrators (Dean and Below)
The unit-level process is designed to address situations in which leadership within a school, department, or administrative unit is perceived to impair the functioning, trust, or integrity of that unit.

Initiation Phase:
- A petition must be supported by at least 30% of eligible voting faculty within the unit.
- The petition is submitted through a secure, confidential, and verifiable system administered by the Faculty Senate Office.
- The Senate Office verifies eligibility and threshold compliance within a defined timeline (typically within five business days).

Notification and Meeting:
- Upon verification, all eligible faculty are notified in writing.
- A special faculty meeting is scheduled within a defined window (14–30 days).
- The full resolution text and supporting materials are distributed in advance.
- The initiating faculty present the resolution.
- The administrator is provided an opportunity to respond.

Deliberation and Voting:

- A quorum requires at least 50% participation of eligible faculty.
- Voting is conducted via a secure, confidential ballot administered by the Senate Office.
- Approval requires a two-thirds majority of votes cast.

Certification and Communication:
- Results are certified within five business days.
- A formal report is distributed to faculty, the administrator, the administrator’s supervisor, and the Provost.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of the following formal, faculty-driven no-confidence process for senior administrators (including the President, the Chancellor, the Provost and other members of the executive level administrators reporting directly to the President, the Chancellor, or the Provost).

Initiation:
- A petition may be initiated through:
(i) a majority vote of the Senate Agenda Committee,
(ii) 30% of Faculty Senate membership, or
(iii) 25% of the full faculty electorate.
- The petition must include a clear statement of concerns and supporting rationale.

Review Process:
- An Ad Hoc Review Committee is established to gather information, solicit input, and ensure procedural fairness.
- The administrator receives formal notice and may submit a written response and address the Senate.

Voting:
- Voting is conducted by secure ballot across the full faculty electorate.
- A quorum of at least 50% participation is required.
- Approval requires a majority of votes cast.

Outcome:
- Results are transmitted to the President and/or Board of Trustees.
- A formal written response is required within 30 days outlining any actions or further review.

Be it resolved that the merit raise be 4.7%.

Be it further resolved that there be a one-time equity pool of 14.1% across Northeastern University to match our salaries to our closest match-mates in Boston.

Be it further resolved that each college dean complete an analysis of faculty salaries (using BU and BC data, in addition to other UDS, AAUP and other college-specific salary data sets) so that this one-time 14.1% equity pool be appropriately allocated across Northeastern University and
appropriate allocated to individual faculty members.

Be it further resolved that, after the one-time equity raise above, each college dean complete an analysis of faculty salaries (using UDS, AAUP and other college-specific salary data sets) one year in advance of their college's equity cycle. This analysis should be shared with the faculty of that college as well as the FAC to enable this committee to address the standing charge ("2. This Committee shall prepare annual recommendations for the improvement of faculty salaries and fringe benefits."). This will enable a more transparent process for a faculty member to understand the equity process and will afford faculty members advance notice to prepare an equity adjustment, when warranted.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT next year’s FAC confirm that the changes being implemented with regard to the retirement plan satisfy the 9 resolutions in the 2022-2023 FAC report that were passed by the Senate and approved by the Provost.