The University of Michigan’s Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs met Monday afternoon in the Alexander G. Ruthven building to discuss faculty representation in the University’s ongoing presidential search and debate the scope of a new Faculty Senate committee on artificial intelligence.
SACUA Chair Kentaro Toyama began the meeting with a series of updates for the committee. Notably, Kentaro mentioned the passage of a previous SACUA resolution requesting Faculty Senate representation on the University’s recently restarted presidential search committee. Toyama said the University’s Board of Regents has not yet responded to the request. Steven Buchman, professor of plastic surgery, and several other SACUA members expressed disapproval over the University’s lack of communication on the matter.
“Maybe they’re taking their time, but the idea that in some way they wouldn’t even have the respect of the institution of SACUA to even reply, I think, is problematic,” Buchman said. “The idea that the administration would not even have the courtesy to answer the question is showing us how much they don’t believe in shared governance.”
Jesse Capecelatro, associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, said he believes the regents may be ignoring the Faculty Senate due to comments made by former SACUA Chair Derek Peterson. During the 2026 commencement address, Peterson praised pro-Palestine protesters, framing their actions as part of a long-standing tradition of student activism at the University. The speech was met with both applause and backlash online, and was condemned by University President Domenico Grasso.
“The relationship between SACUA and the regents is not the same post-2026 commencement,” Capecelatro said. “I’m not surprised there’s not a response — the regents have been very vocal about their displeasure with SACUA.”
Toyama then pointed out similarly-ignored requests for representation made by student governments representing the Rackham Graduate School and University of Michigan-Dearborn.
“This might be a more general thing,” Toyama said. “There are different groups who believe they should be represented on the presidential search committee, and this year — or at least this time around — many of us are left out.”
SACUA also discussed the creation of an ad hoc committee on artificial intelligence. Physics research scientist Michael Schubnell introduced the topic, and said he believes the committee should initially be focused on gathering faculty perspectives on AI to inform its policy recommendations.
“One could include the general workings of faculty, AI in an office environment, things like that, but just to keep (the scope) concise, teaching and research,” Schubnell said. “I think in terms of the terms of the charge, one could really describe the main charge as collecting faculty perspectives.”
Peterson, who has remained a SACUA member following the end of his chairmanship, said he was concerned Schubnell’s approach may unnecessarily delay the committee, highlighting previous Faculty Senate motions calling for increased regulation of AI, which have been largely approved by faculty members.
“We can do another study if you want, but we know pretty damn well what the majority of faculty who voted in April think,” Peterson said. “We don’t have to rework the wheel on this. More study is not what we need. We need action on the points that the faculty overwhelmingly endorsed.”
Peterson recommended the committee focus on developing policy solutions to help faculty manage generative AI use. His proposals included promoting the use of lockdown browsers during exams and establishing experimental AI-free residential learning communities that students could opt into.
Schubnell said he did not want the committee to come across as resolutely anti-AI, arguing the technology has become a necessity in his profession of physics and other science disciplines.
“It’s a disservice to our (STEM) students to not have them learn about AI tools and be knowledgeable, because that’s what they need in their next job,” Schubnell said. “It’s very different to use AI, for instance, in your (history) department than, for instance, in engineering, where you really use it as a very supportive tool.”
In regards to the extent to which AI should be regulated in classroom and research settings, Toyama voiced his support for gathering more faculty perspectives on the matter.
“I’m somewhat anti-AI, but I completely believe that the University should provide AI for those faculty and students who need it to learn the things they need to learn,” Toyama said. “It would be a great error if, as a university, we decided to impose my personal view of what AI should be.”
SACUA eventually tabled further discussion of the committee until its next meeting, which is scheduled to occur after the anticipated release of a separate report on AI at the University from the Office of the Provost.
Daily News Editor Glenn Hedin can be reached at heglenn@umich.edu.
