Updated: Feb. 21, 2025, at 11:26 a.m.
Staff Council members approved a resolution at their Tuesday meeting requesting that officials refrain from laying off staff members for reasons related to the rise of artificial intelligence until after they’ve explored alternative roles or career paths for the personnel.
Office of Communications and Marketing Representative Terry Carter, who sponsored the resolution, said the legislation will help to assure staff that the University is not using AI in a way that could “replace” them, given that the technology is increasingly shrinking job markets across the country. A June 2024 study found that 61 percent of large U.S. firms plan to use AI within the next year to automate tasks previously done by employees, like paying suppliers, conducting invoices and financial reporting.
A November 2024 study found a 21 percent decrease in the number of posts in automation-prone jobs per week compared to manual-intensive jobs, following ChatGPT’s launch in November 2022. The study found that writing jobs were affected by ChatGPT the most, with a more than 30 percent decrease, followed by software, app and web development, with a decrease slightly above 20 percent.
Carter said the resolution was “intentionally written to be broad,” adding that he wrote it after not seeing enough “formal conversations” from officials about the use of AI at the University. The resolution also requests the University to pay “special attention” to ensure that AI technologies do not “exacerbate” inequities or biases in workplace practices, like hiring and performance evaluation.
The resolution also requests the formation of a committee comprising representatives from the Staff Council, faculty and administration to oversee and evaluate the “ethical implications” of AI at the University.
Officials released guidelines for using AI in April 2023, which they said apply to faculty and students. The guidelines suggested faculty members adopt one of three options for regulating students’ use of generative AI in their classrooms — permit the tools in their courses, forbid the tools or allow the tools only for “certain purposes on certain assignments” at the faculty member’s discretion, according to the guidelines.
Tricia Greenstein, the justice, equity, diversity and inclusion chair, suggested the council consider the difference between AI and “language learning models.”
Staff Council President Emeritus Bridget Schwartz also suggested modifying the resolution to adhoc a group within the staff council to “explore AI policy” and provide a space for staff to “prepare” for the growing usage of AI.
Staff Council members also spoke with Interim Dean of the Business School Vanessa Perry and asked her questions about how staff can help build relationships with administrators and faculty members.
Perry said she believes one of the reasons there could be a divide between staff and faculty is because administrators — which the University classifies as staff — are typically elevated to their position after being a faculty member at a university. She said some administrators struggle to support staff members because they lack the perspective of what it is like to be a staff member before being promoted to top leadership positions.
She added that while the University has typically viewed faculty as a separate stakeholder group from staff, her own background as a staff member before joining GW helps her identify the similarities.
“No one is no is more important than anyone else,” Perry said. “No one is more significant, no one is more deserving of resources or attention or inclusion.”
Perry said that she was impressed with the council and their “positive noise” in the community and also extended gratitude to University President Ellen Granberg for being “open to” and “willing to listen” to the advice of all of the stakeholders, which she said has “not always been the case” with the University’s senior leadership.
Staff Council Parliamentarian Emily Lewis asked Perry about how staff can elevate their voices to get the administration of the University, as well as the administrators who oversee each college specifically, to take staff seriously.
Perry said the council should remember that many of the administrators themselves are staff, and many of them understand the importance of having “strong and supportive” staff that can recruit potential employees from competing universities, like Georgetown and American universities or the University of Maryland.
“When you think about it that way, it’s easier to start thinking about how you might break down some of these divides by getting one or more of them to speak to this council and to realize that the council is representing them too,” Perry said.
Katherine Puskarz, a representative from the Milken Institute School of Public Health, asked for suggestions on ways staff can stay up to date on changes in higher education and prepare for future workforce changes.
Perry said webinars hosted by trade associations can provide professional insight on the changing workforce. She said these webinars, along with getting advice from the many available “mentors” of GW’s faculty and staff allow for “all kinds of opportunities” in the wake of the changing workforce environment.
“This is going to sound like a cliche but AI is changing jobs, is changing higher education, it’s changing every stage of the value chain in higher education,” Perry said.
Staff Council President Kim Fulmer thanked Granberg, Provost Chris Bracey, deans of various schools and the rest of the administration for supporting the National Institutes of Health lawsuit and promoting “safety” by closing campus due to inclement weather last Tuesday.
GW and 15 other universities filed a lawsuit last week against NIH, arguing its decision to slash congressionally approved grant funding for universities is “flagrantly unlawful” and will cripple medical research.
Fulmer then mentioned the four main goals she presented in her board report to the Board of Trustees meeting. She said these goals included a four point increase in GW’s merit pool this year, lowering commuting costs, increasing staff reparation on committee framework and growing the membership of the council.
This post has been updated to correct the following:
The Hatchet incorrectly reported that Tricia Greenstein suggested the council amend the resolution to establish the difference between AI and language learning models. Greenstein asked the body to consider that terminology, but did not propose an amendment. A previous version of this post also referred to Greenstein as her old position. We regret these errors.
