At a moment of mounting uncertainty for GW, the Faculty Senate is underleveraging its platform and access to top officials. The body cannot criticize GW for poor communication when its senators let meetings pass without pressing for updates on critical issues. They cannot accuse the University of violating shared governance while using their time with officials to air internal grievances in public, signaling that they are distracted, disorganized and focused on the wrong priorities. Their behavior at October’s Faculty Senate meeting — notably the first since GW laid off 43 staff and struck an initial deal with Universal Health Services to co-own the debt-ridden Medical Faculty Associates — was immature, and watching them waste that time with top officials was painful.
Stakeholders across the University have long pressed for greater transparency and direct access to GW’s leaders, a request that has intensified this semester as financial woes and President Donald Trump’s policies rattle GW and the broader higher education landscape. Many seeking more information on pressing issues — like budget cuts, staff layoffs, GW’s plan to sever financial ties with the MFA and the future of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — lack both the access and forum to question officials, a limitation that extends to this editorial board. The Faculty Senate has both, and in recent months, it has misused the platform so many in the community wish they had.
These faculty representatives have a public platform to question the University’s top officials. They can draft resolutions and deliver presentations that have the potential to drive real change. Coverage of their meetings sits at the top of The Hatchet’s print and newsletter editions each month. They have fought for shared governance, pressed officials on the Board of Trustees’ decision to arm GW Police Department officers and drafted recommendations for student discipline after the pro-Palestinian encampment. Officials consult them on big-picture initiatives, like the strategic framework, and talk through their concerns about the University’s finances. They have immense influence, and right now, they do not appear to be using it.
Ahead of last month’s Faculty Senate meeting, we had already planned to discuss our concerns that senators were underusing their platform — evidenced by failures over the last few months to address and seek clarity on key issues, even those teased by top officials at meetings. Those concerns only deepened after October’s meeting, where senators’ behavior signaled that the body may be too consumed with internal disputes to demand public updates on GW’s most critical issues.
At the body’s first public meeting since officials laid off 43 staff members — the first round of University-wide personnel cuts since the COVID-19 pandemic — and disclosed negotiations with UHS over the MFA, faculty senators sat before top administrators, including University President Ellen Granberg and Interim Provost John Lach, and spent their time arguing over issues they refused to specify. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee asked its chair to resign, prompting another senator to draft a resolution to remove all FSEC members from their positions. One senator noted that the committee had exchanged more than 700 emails since May — again, about issues they would not share publicly, despite using public time to air them out. The meeting was undeniably entertaining. But with so much uncertainty facing the University and higher education at large, watching senators use their platform this way was disheartening.
The word “layoffs” never came up once during the meeting. Not a single senator asked about the MFA, diversity, Trump, international students, the Department of Justice’s antisemitism findings, financial aid, visas or budget cuts — the conversations that actually matter to the community. Top officials like Chief Financial Officer Bruno Fernandes couldn’t help but smirk as senators bickered. Senators ask to be taken seriously by officials and for them to consult the body on major decisions but last month spent their limited public time on infighting instead of tackling any of the countless issues facing the University.
We don’t know what led to this situation and don’t have enough information to judge whether asking the chair to step down was justified. But it should not have been handled that way in a public meeting. Those conversations belong behind closed doors. Using public time to air this internal drama was a poor use of the Faculty Senate’s platform and, given everything happening at the University, insensitive.
October’s meeting was jarring, but we had planned to write this staff editorial beforehand. The Faculty Senate once pressed officials for constant updates on issues like the debt-ridden MFA and demanded shared governance. At September’s meeting, Granberg mentioned that GW was in negotiations with UHS over the medical enterprise, and not a single senator followed up or appeared to notice the disclosure. It was The Hatchet, who sent a request for clarification to the University regarding Granberg’s comment, who caught the president’s tease and broadcasted the news to the community.
The Faculty Senate did not so much as mention the staff layoffs at October’s meeting. Senators notably declined to ask officials for the current figure of the University’s budget deficit — information the community has not received an update on since July, when it sat at $24 million. We know The Hatchet’s news team has requested this figure, but without direct access to officials, their inquiries are limited to emails. The community deserves transparency, not only about where the deficit stands now but also about the precise reasoning that led officials to cut 43 staff positions. We do not understand why the Faculty Senate, with its access and influence, has not used its platform to publicly ask for that type of information.
As an editorial board, we have spent the past few months asking officials for more information on the 43 staff layoffs, their budget-cutting priorities and ongoing negotiations with UHS over the MFA. We have called on officials to better support staff, to be specific and transparent about the goals of the strategic framework, to center students in decisions about graduate programs and to affirm GW’s commitment to DEI. We do not have the platform the Faculty Senate does. We do not have direct access to officials. Our only way to reach them is through our reporting and editorials. We use that platform every week to amplify the community’s concerns and hope officials read what we publish.
During a time of uncertainty and fear, every member and governing body at this University must stand up for the community’s priorities. We would love the opportunity to pose questions directly during Faculty Senate meetings, but we can’t. Instead, we tune in to the livestream, hoping senators will raise the questions we and so many others in this community are asking. It is incredibly disappointing when they do not.
As FSEC leadership changes hands, the Faculty Senate should treat this moment as a reset and remember the power of its platform. The incoming chair must guide the Faculty Senate toward renewed purpose and use its access to top officials to press officials on the mounting issues affecting the community. These faculty representatives have influence. They need to use it.
The editorial board consists of Hatchet staff members and operates separately from the newsroom. This week’s staff editorial was written by Opinions Editor Andrea Mendoza-Melchor, based on discussions with Contributing Opinions Editor Ava Hurwitz, Contributing Culture Editor Carly Cavanaugh, Contributing Sports Editor Grant Pacernick, Social Media Director Max Gaffin and Sports Columnist Syd Heise.
