I met with members of the committee on two occasions.  First, when the subcommittee was in town to interview faculty August 8-10 and second when the full committee came back August 28-30.  They also met with Loyola AAUP members Ken Messa, Bill Hammel, Nancy Dupont and Lynn Koplitz.  They specifically asked to see Ken, Bill, Nancy and me.  They also wanted to see a faculty member who had not been terminated under the Pathways Plan if there was time.  I asked Lynn if she would be willing to wait in the wings and maybe be called or maybe not and she was willing to come under those conditions.  She had just received the Dux Academicus so I thought her credibility would be high. 

To start with a general impression, Mr. Kurland told me on the phone afterwards that they often go into situations like this and interview the faculty and administrators and conclude that they probably deserve each other.  They said they did not find that to be the case at Loyola.  They thought the faculty they met all seemed to be intelligent, sincere, hard working, and pleasant.  He told me he is sure we deserve whatever salary we’re paid and more.  Of course they haven’t met any of our administrators.  That speaks volumes.

I will report on the two meetings I attended separately. 

At the first meeting the questions I was asked were mostly about process.  How did the plan come about?  Were faculty involved?  They had read our Faculty Handbook, the information on the official Loyola web page as well as the information on Loyno.info.  Additionally, I had sent them every email message sent to the faculty by the president and provost.  I was actually surprised at how much they knew about Loyola specifically particularly given the fact that they are dealing with the same things at all the universities in the area.  These are people who are taking their jobs very seriously.  What they wanted to know from me was whether the administration followed the process that is so clearly articulated both in our Handbook and in AAUP Policy Statements.  The answer, of course, is no.

I told them that there have been seven planning entities at Loyola at the university level in the last six years. I have been on five of them and Nancy Dupont has been on the other two.  I was on SCAP, UPT, the Academic Affairs Strategic Agenda Committee, the QEP Committee and the President’s Planning Task Force. Nancy was on the SACS leadership team and the University Strategic Agenda Task Force (the group that was putting together the Strategic Plans from all the areas of the University into one big plan.) In addition, I was on the A&S College Planning Team. There was no discussion of any of what turned out to be the “Pathways Plan” in any meeting of any of those bodies.  When Wilds (the spelling of his name in a recent letter from him to the AAUP) says the plan is just part of the ongoing planning process, that statement is simply not true.

I also told them that as the Senate minutes show, I asked Wilds to use our regular governance structure to devise this plan – specifically to use a committee that has elected faculty representation and suggested UPT.  The only difference between UPT and his Task Force is that UPT has 11 faculty members and his task force had two (then three.)

They were clearly looking for a logical pattern on the terminations.  One AAUP staff member asked me if everyone who was terminated was a "troublemaker."  I said first of all, I would not characterize myself as a troublemaker, but second, no, everyone is not a troublemaker.  In fact I told them people like Jan Melancon and Jane Chauvin are the nicest, most cooperative people the world has ever known.  No, I told them, there is no logical pattern.

The first subcommittee met with Nancy, Lynn and me.  The second subcommittee came two weeks later and met with Ken and Bill.  I did not meet that group.

I did go to a meeting on the evening of August 29th that lasted from 8-11:30pm.  That was a meeting of the entire Special Committee with the AAUP Chapter Presidents from the universities and the AAUP State leadership.  The purpose of the meeting was to talk strategy for the committee to use in their meetings with the University Presidents the next day.  Of course there was not much for me to say since our president had refused to meet with them. 

As an aside, there is an amazing similarity between Wilds’ letter refusing to meet with the committee and Scott Cowen’s letter.  He clearly just copied Cowen’s letter.  As one of my colleagues at Tulane said, wouldn’t it have been nice if these two university presidents had gotten together on the sharing of resources or to benefit academic programs instead of for their mutual self-interest. 

Anyway, unfortunately at the August 29th meeting our president was (I don’t know how else to say it) the butt of several jokes – or as close to jokes as university administrators make.  For example, when a person from another university would tell some story about something horrible their president did, a member of the committee said, “Maybe he learned that from Kevin Wilds.”  In another instance, a response was, “that must be what Jesuitical” means.  It was embarrassing to hear, since as I think most of you know, I am loyal to Loyola because it means I am loyal to my students and to all of you, just not to the current administration. 

In response to Wilds' concerns that the committe "tour the devastated areas of the city" they took the "VIP Tour" given by the national guard. They said they felt that they have a good handle on the conditions here.

At one point a UNO faculty member was talking about her search for the documents that supposedly explained the terminations in her department.  I said I could not believe the audacity of Walter Harris to send ME a letter saying the Pathways Plan was the result of the “intensive work” of SCAP and the University Senate.  If he had sent that letter to AAUP or even to the university at large, that would have been one thing.  But to send it to me – when I’m a member of both SCAP and the University Senate – was unbelievable.  I kind of laughed when I said it.  One of the members of the Special Committee said, “Mary, that’s tragic!  How can you laugh?”  I said, “I guess I have to laugh so I don’t cry.”

As you all probably know by now, the Presidents, Chancellors, system level administrators and a team of lawyers from the State universities in the city met with the committee the next day.  Mr. Kurland sent Wilds a letter after that meeting again asking him to meet. 

Mr. Kurland called me to report that Wilds sent him a letter that must have crossed his in the mail.  I was not copied on the letter.  Mr. Kurland said the president’s letter said he was responding to Kurland’s letter of August 23.  Then it simply said, “I look forward to reading your report.”  Since it was signed “Kevin Wildes” but his typed name under the signature said “Kevin Wilds” one can only speculate about the author of that letter.  Surely he wouldn’t send out a letter with his own name spelled incorrectly?  Although he has admitted in print that he’s not good with details, I can’t imagine overlooking the detail of the correct spelling of my own name.  Who knows? Anyway, Mr. Kurland told me that the AAUP Special Committee has no intention of begging Fr. Wildes to meet with them.  If he responds to the September 1st letter they will send members of the committee down to meet with him.  If not, they’re done.  I know they have not heard from him and that they have already started writing their Loyola report. 

It seems very likely to me that AAUP will exercise the two options they have available.  They can censure the current administration and they can sanction the university.  They have said several times that they find the Loyola administration’s treatment of faculty to be most egregious of all that has happened in this area.  Our handbook is contractually binding, they blatantly violated the process so clearly articulated therein and they DID NOT declare financial exigency.  Others did. By not doing that, they admitted there was no emergency here.  Also, when you hear about some of the draconian things other universities did, remember 1) most other handbooks are not contractual, ours is, 2) other handbooks allow for things like force majeure, and furloughs, ours does not, 3) we did not declare financial exigency, they did, and 4) other universities went under water, we did not.  

The Special Committee does not sanction the university or censure the administration.  The Committee conducted an extensive investigation and will make a recommendation.  Sanctions and censures are made and lifted by the full membership at the annual meeting in Washington, D.C. in June every year.  However, if the committee makes that recommendation it is basically a foregone conclusion that the members will do it.

What will happen if AAUP exercises its sanction and censure options?  Censure is of the current administrators.  When they are gone, the censure is gone. Historically universities only get off the sanction list when new administrations come in with Board directives to get the university off the list.  There is no instance in memory of the administration that got the university on the list getting the university off the list.

The big impact will be in the faculty’s relationship with the academic and professional associations that are signatories on the AAUP 1940 Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure.  You can check out this list
Alphabetically
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsresearch/policydocs/endorsersalpha.htm
or by discipline
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsresearch/policydocs/endorsersdis.htm

You might take a look at this list and consider the ramifications and implications of your relationship with these associations when they join AAUP in its sanction of Loyola. You might even talk to the leadership of your own associations just to get some concrete information on what has happened in similar situations in the past.  I am told that in some instances, for example, the professional association will not allow a sanctioned university to participate in any of its job placement activities. 

I would also suggest that no potential faculty member in his/her right mind would come to a university that treats tenure with such disregard.  You will be able to hire faculty, in some fields particularly that have Ph.D. gluts, but you probably will not get your first choice people.

As soon as I hear anything more from the committee or the national office, I will keep you informed.

Mary Blue