Statement of Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Academic Renewal Initiative (ARI) is to focus, align, and update our academic programming. At this pivotal moment in higher education, institutions have an opportunity to think broadly about how best to serve students, faculty, communities, and other stakeholders. The Academic Renewal Initiative provides a framework for Queens College to position our academic enterprise for the future. It consists of several phases and is guided by five overarching principles.
Chaired by the Provost, the Working Group consists of an inclusive group of faculty from all divisions and across faculty rank and title types, along with several academic administrators. The Working Group will focus on compiling and analyzing publicly available basic data on program vitality. The Working Group will produce a report to the President that recommends the parameters for assessing program health; suggests options for faculty, Chairs, and Deans for programs that are not thriving; and provides a data-informed foundation for investing in new and existing programs. The work is informed by national best practices and examples from other institutions.
While the Working Group is an important body, membership in it is by no means the only avenue for substantive engagement in the Academic Renewal Initiative. Prior to submission of the report, preliminary observations and data will be shared with department Chairs, faculty, and Deans for additional input and feedback. After the report is submitted to the President, he will structure opportunities for faculty to hear his thoughts directly and to give feedback and additional input. He will then appoint an Implementation Oversight Committee, consisting of faculty and administrators, to provide direction, support, and oversight as the decisions are implemented.
FAQ
As the Academic Renewal Initiative proceeds, members of our community – faculty, staff, and students – will have legitimate questions about the process, objectives, and decisions shaping this work. These questions will understandably evolve over time, both as the work matures and as the landscape in which we operate evolves. On this page, we will address questions as they arise and attempt to anticipate questions that may arise. Check back from time to time. This page is a work in progress. We will do our best to address your concerns with the best available information we have at the time. We are committed to transparency, shared governance, leadership, and to Queens College.
Please submit your questions and ideas here: Academic Renewal Initiative – Your Input is Important! – Fill out form
(you must use your @login.cuny.edu email address to respond to this questionnaire)
Why is this effort being undertaken?
As a sector, higher education is experiencing rapid change. Technological and demographic shifts, questioning around the value of a college degree, and dramatic adjustments to our relationship with the federal government and our sector are resulting in diminished federal financial support, declining enrollments, and the realization among students and their families that a college degree may map in difficult-to-predict ways to a labor market in flux. These forces have led to colleges and universities across the nation taking decisive steps to ensure the relevance of what they offer to prospective and current students. Indeed, institutions who see the present moment as a golden opportunity to update their academic programming and articulate their value will be best positioned for success, while institutions failing to confront these challenges have seen cuts to academic programs, often taken under duress and without meaningful faculty input.
The reality of our situation at Queens College is that we have seen a 21% decline in our headcount enrollment since 2020, placing us in a chronic deficit condition (i.e., operating expenses outstrip revenues) as well as a challenging cash flow situation. Compared to our sister CUNY institutions, we have a very large number – 388 – of approved academic programs, some of which are quite small. And we have a higher ratio of faculty – 48% of our overall employee headcount – than any of the other CUNY institutions. Taken together, these factors are not sustainable, and we must take steps to increase revenue, control expenses, and focus and update our academic programming to enhance enrollment and student outcomes.
Using objective data on program health – metrics such as full-time students served, number of majors, students graduated in recent years – alongside data on the job market, we aim to identify struggling programs and suggest ways forward for their faculty, Chairs, and Deans. This work will also surface areas for growth and investment in new and existing programs. Together, addressing the future of struggling programs and making space for investment will result in a more relevant, appealing, and strong Queens College. We know we offer an accessible, high-quality education at an affordable price. Because higher education – or any other sector – is not stagnant, we must adapt to remain competitive and to serve our students effectively.
How were the members of the Working Group selected?
The WG consists of 11 members in total. 7 of them are faculty, 4 are administrators from within Academic Affairs. While we considered expanding the group to include more faculty, realistically it would’ve been too difficult to schedule, accommodate, and engage a larger group. Faculty were recommended by their Deans, in consultation with department Chairs. We strove for representativeness along all axes: demographic, discipline, rank, and title type. Three of the WG members are former or sitting department Chairs. Because the Academic Renewal Initiative taken as a whole – not just the Working Group – will help shape Queens College for years to come, it was important that all have a representative seat at the table.
What work has been done thus far under the aegis of the Academic Renewal Initiative, and what work is to come? What happens after the Working Group submits their recommendations in May of 2026?
I am in a department or program that may be identified as not thriving. What is going to happen to me, my colleagues, my students, and my program? Who will make those decisions?
Your trepidation is understandable. It seems like fresh news of program closures at all types of institutions of higher education circulates every week or so. As an institution, we want to be in the position of making needed changes on our terms, with those who know our core business best – the faculty – in the driver’s seat. The Working Group will use publicly available data to develop a shared understanding of how to determine program health. We will suggest options for programs that appear not to be thriving.
At other institutions, programs have decided to merge, made concerted efforts to update their curriculum or otherwise broaden their appeal, or formed regional consortia. In other cases, programs have been curtailed or closed. The specific actions taken at Queens College will be determined by the Chair and the Dean, working in close collaboration with their faculty on the one hand, and the Provost on the other. It is important to underscore that the Working Group is not a decision-making body. In all cases, the continuity of education for students and employment for full-time permanent faculty and staff will be prioritized.
How can I engage in this work if I haven't been asked to serve on the Working Group? How can I ensure my voice / the perspective of my program/department is heard?
There will be plenty of opportunities to engage in this work outside of formal membership on the Working Group. Chairs and faculty will be asked for input and feedback once preliminary data analysis has been conducted by the Working Group but before the report is compiled. Two of the Working Group meetings – one in December 2025 and one in February 2026 – will be opened to Chairs and Program Directors (or their designee) who wish to attend and engage. In March and April of 2026, departments will be invited to sign up for members of the Working Group to attend a faculty meeting, with the objective of gathering input and context on initial analysis of program data. And once the report has been submitted to the President at the end of the Spring semester, he will structure additional opportunities to engage.
While details of our working discussions should be confidential in order to encourage candor and protect Working Group member wellbeing, you can always ask any Working Group member about what we’re discussing and where we are in our work. Again, we are 100% committed to communication, shared governance, and transparency.
Rumor or Real?
I heard that the Provost is mandating a 10% reduction in force on the faculty side.
- Rumor. At this time, no reduction in faculty force has been mandated locally or by the CUNY system. Typically, in a unionized environment, a condition known as “financial exigency” must be declared before faculty or staff with labor permanency are let go.
I heard that one goal of the ARI is to right-size academics for a smaller college, enrollment-wise.
- Real. As of Fall 25 we are at 14,913 students. Our short-term goal at the college level is enrollment stabilization. Our mid-term goal, per our (draft) Strategic Enrollment Management Plan, is steady growth to 17,000 by 2027.
I heard the administration hand-picked the faculty Working Group members to guarantee a pre-determined outcome.
- Rumor. See response to the FAQ above, “How were the members of the working group selected?” Moreover, there are no specific pre-determined outcomes. What must be understood, however, is that we cannot remain status quo with respect to the extent and focus of our academic programming. Our enrollments have steadily declined, and our students and community have changed since 1938. Through the Academic Renewal Initiative, Queens College has a golden opportunity to sharpen our identity and articulate our value to our stakeholders, positioning ourselves strongly for the future – not just of Queens College and the borough we serve, but of higher education itself.
I heard that the Academic Renewal Initiative is just a covert expense reduction strategy.
- Rumor. While we do need to reduce expenses, that objective will not be attained by consolidating or closing programs. The ARI is better seen as a revenue generation strategy, given our focus on enhancing the focus and appeal of our programs to attract more students. While the Provost, CFO, and officers from CUNY Central are meeting monthly to discuss expense reductions on the academic side, this is a separate undertaking from what the Working Group is doing.
I heard that if we request it, members of the Working Group will make themselves available to speak with our faculty at a departmental meeting.
- Real. We will aside time in March and April 2026, for departments to sign up and have available members of the Working Group attend a faculty meeting, to hear feedback on preliminary data analysis and gather additional context.