President’s letter of Aug 16, 2019

Dear Colleagues:

Loyola’s chapter of the AAUP welcomes you back for the start of a new school year.

The new year gives us much to be thankful for and much to look forward to. It is also an occasion to reflect on the year concluded, which was in many respects a challenging one for the educational and social justice mission of our university and for principles of shared governance and academic freedom. The Spring semester of 2019 saw a strike by graduate student teachers seeking union recognition; challenges to academic freedom in the form of a restrictive media policy that brought national condemnation and a new speakers’ contract (both policies were rapidly withdrawn); the unilateral decision by President Jo Ann Rooney to create a consolidated Provost position that will oversee both medical and academic operations; massive cuts of the English Language Learner Program (ELLP); concerns about the administration’s handling of numerous retaliation and harassment complaints in the Institute of Pastoral Studies; and a nearly complete closure of the Loyola University Museum of Art (LUMA).

Early this summer the outgoing officers of the AAUP communicated our chapter’s concerns to the Board of Trustees and conveyed our grave doubts about Dr. Rooney’s leadership as Loyola’s President. Even this effort at communication was stymied, however. Loyola’s administration no longer reports the current membership of our Board of Trustees. (Outdated records may be found in documents filed with the IRS.) The Phoenix reported on our letter and the response to it from the Chair of the Board. Our letter also received a reply from Senior Vice President Wayne Magdziarz, who wrote to the Phoenix defending the content and unilateralism of President Rooney’s leadership. The AAUP’s outgoing Appeals Advocate, Prof. Pamela Caughie, responded to him.

One of the points made in the AAUP letter to the Board concerned fundraising, or rather the lack of it.  A 2018 report from Moody’s Investor Service ranked Loyola highly for financial management and cash on hand, but noted “Fundraising lower than peers.” That negative judgement was offset by Moody’s expectation that Loyola would “launch … a campaign for its sesquicentennial campaign in 2020,” but President Rooney has indicated to the Faculty Senate that there will be no such campaign.

The same Moody’s report affirmed that “a critical strategic initiative is the expansion of [Loyola’s] existing global footprint through growing study abroad and international students.” Disbanding ELLP and reductions to our roles in the Beijing and Rome Centers[CI1]  hardly seem consistent with that “critical strategic initiative.” This coming year we will try to document the fiscal and educational impact of the drastic cuts to ELLP.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in July that Loyola is one of the universities that spends the smallest portion of tuition and fees on actual instruction. This coming year, we will seek to unpack this figure and learn why spending at Loyola is skewed away from instruction. Loyola’s debt weighs heavily here. We will also inquire whether administrative operations have grown at the expense of academic programs in recent years. Loyola’s AAUP officers are concerned that the academic cuts made under Rooney are greater in scope, and more deleterious to our core educational mission, than most of us have recognized.  Some sense of the educational and pedagogic losses can be gleaned from the attached description by Professor Marilyn Dunn of LUMA’s operations and the thwarting of an effort to bring the museum under the umbrella of the College of Arts and Sciences.

The country and the world are in need of the kinds of liberal education offered at Loyola.  As Wesleyan University President Michael Roth put it in the wake of the terrorist murders in El Paso, we need “civic institutions that respect the diversity of our country and protect its most vulnerable inhabitants . . . [colleges and universities] must promote civic preparedness so that our students can learn from those with a variety of political, moral and aesthetic views without this openness compromising their abilities to fight fascism when it rears its ugly head.”

How well is Loyola fulfilling this mission?  We hope that in the coming year all of our colleagues, from tenured full professors to graduate instructors, will help form and participate in our efforts to protect Loyola’s educational mission and ensure that its leadership lives up to our professed values.  The first faculty meetings sponsored by the AAUP will take place as follows, with locations to be announced soon:

Lake Shore Campus: Thursday, September 12 at 3:00.

Water Tower Campus:  Wednesday, September 18 at 3:00.



Benjamin Johnson, Department of History and Institute of Environmental Sustainability

Ian Cornelius, Department of English



Dunn Report on LUMA closing

Loyola University Museum of Art (LUMA)

Mission: The Loyola University Museum of Art (LUMA) was dedicated to exploring, promoting, and understanding art and artistic expression that illuminates enduring spiritual questions universal to all cultures and societies, and especially those relevant to issues of social equity and justice. LUMA served as a cultural and artistic ambassador representing the university’s mission of promoting education, social justice, and service in the Jesuit tradition through its exhibits and artistic, educational, and cultural programming aimed at a diverse and broadly inclusive audience (IACA 2020 Program Grant Application Narrative: Visual Arts Loyola University Museum of Art [LUMA]).

Collections and Programming:

LUMA maintains two distinct permanent collections that serve its mission.

The Martin D’Arcy Collection, which formed the origins of the museum, is considered one of the finest collections of Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque Art in the Midwest. The collection was founded in 1969 by Donald F. Rowe, S.J. who was inspired by a collection of art assembled at Campion Hall at Oxford University by Father Martin D’Arcy for whom he named the collection at Loyola University Chicago. Originally conceived as a place of quiet reflection for the university community, the D’Arcy has developed since 1990s as a collection more integrally engaged in the educational mission and programming of the university. It has provided internships, student opportunities to curate small exhibits, and has been integrated into course work for classes in art history and other disciplines. The collection lends itself to extensive research in a variety of fields that touch upon the religious and secular culture of periods of art it displays. Objects from the D’Arcy Collection are frequently requested for loans by prestigious museums in the US and Europe, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago, or incorporated into international scholarly research and publications.

LUMA also holds a permanent collection of art from diverse periods, cultures, and media, including representative pieces from LUMA’s temporary exhibits, with an emphasis on Illinois artists. Currently the collection holds art works by over 40 Illinois painters, sculptors, photographers, and printmakers.

LUMA also has mounted unique rotating exhibitions with themes addressing issues of social justice, global awareness, and environmental sustainability that often promote emerging/under-exhibited/minority artists. A recent example were the exhibitions “Everyday Englewood” and “Folded Map” that explored racial issues in our city by Chicago photographer Tonika Lewis Johnson. These exhibitions generated tremendous media attention and positive publicity for both the artist and Loyola University (see attached).

Educational programming related to the themes of Loyola’s mission (incorporating visual art, film, music, dance, lectures, panel discussions, artist talks and tours, drama and poetry readings, and workshops) has addressed both the university and broader Chicago community.

LUMA was fairly successful in securing grants for these endeavors.

History: LUMA opened in 2005 as an initiative by Loyola’s then-President Michael Garanzini, S.J. to enrich the downtown Water Tower Campus with a museum that would serve as an educational, cultural, and artistic asset for the city of Chicago, the university, and the prolific Chicago arts community. Through the efforts of Shirley Madigan, Loyola received a $7 million grant from the State of Illinois to create a cultural presence for Loyola University in the downtown area. At this time the Martin D’Arcy Collection was moved into the new, expanded museum space in Lewis Towers (about 30,000 total square feet, of which approximately 10,000 square feet is exhibition space).

In 2013 LUMA received accreditation—the highest national recognition for a museum—from the American Alliance of Museums (AAM). AAM accreditation is the field’s primary vehicle for quality assurance and public accountability. Accreditation was desired by the administration at that time.

At the time of accreditation, the university informally committed funds necessary for the operations of LUMA from rental revenue generated by Lewis Towers retail tenants (specifically the Hershey’s Chocolate store) limited to $1 million annually. The average amount of rental income allocated from FY 2012-FY 2016 was around $854,000. However, once the Hershey’s income was earmarked for LUMA, new charges were levied by the University against LUMA’s budget for maintenance.

Similar to a university library, a university museum helps fulfill its institution’s educational and cultural mission. Like a library, a university museum is not a for-profit business, rather it is supported by endowments, gifts, grants, corporate sponsorships, memberships and its university. However, it appears that Loyola University has not actively engaged in fund raising efforts to help support LUMA. The administration did not replace either of LUMA’s development staff in 2015, and in that year, the then head of Advancement lost a $1 million endowment for the D’Arcy’s curator by botching the answer to the potential donor’s concern about what would happen to the endowment if the university closed the D’Arcy or sold the collection.

When the curator of the Martin D’Arcy left to take another position in January 2016, he was not replaced. When the director of LUMA retired in August 2016, she was not replaced. A museum director plays a key role in fund raising for a museum. The only curator who remained was Natasha Ritsma, curator of education. She struggled to maintain LUMA’s programming and operations with a staff of six, reduced from twelve. Although due to her extraordinary efforts, she was very successful in programming, she was not given any authority in the direction of the museum or other staff members, and thus, LUMA has been without a museum professional to direct it for the last three years.

LUMA’s advisory board was suspended.

By 2017, the university had reduced their commitment to LUMA to $500,000, half of their original commitment of $1 million.

On 9 February 2017, several members of the CAS faculty were invited by Dean Thomas Regan, S.J. to be part of a faculty study group formed at the behest of President Rooney and then Provost Pelissero “to ‘blue sky’ what the future of LUMA might look like.” As faculty members within the College of Arts and Sciences whose teaching and research intersect with the activities of the Loyola University Museum of Art, we readily agreed to participate. The committee met multiple times over the course of the Spring 2017 semester to re-imagine the role that LUMA could play in the College and to offer recommendations for the stabilization and reorganization of the institution as well as initiatives we believed would enable LUMA to reach its potential.

At a subsequent meeting of the Dean’s LUMA committee, on 12 April 2017, Tom Kelly, Senior Vice-President for Administration Services, was invited to address the group. He stated that the College of Arts and Sciences had been asked to consider whether it could provide a home for LUMA, since Dr. Rooney did not think it should report to the President’s office. He shared financial information, noting the reduction of Loyola’s commitment from rental income to $500,000.  He also said LUMA’s hours of operation needed to be analyzed.

As we concluded in our May 2017 white paper to Dean Regan,

The Loyola University Museum of Art (LUMA) is a vital educational and cultural resource which can play a much-expanded role in a transformative educational experience for Loyola University students. LUMA is a living research institution which serves and educates both the university and public communities through its collections, exhibitions, programs, and teaching initiatives.

Our recommendations took into account the reduced budget of the museum, the fact that the administration wanted LUMA to remain in Lewis Towers, and the administration’s perceived desire to place LUMA under the auspices of the CAS and strengthen student engagement. Although supportive of the placement of LUMA under the administration of CAS, the committee’s report emphasized the primary audience of LUMA as the entire university community and recognized the larger Chicago community as an important audience as well.

Our suggestion that free admission, typical for most other university museums, was instituted in 2017 in order to increase attendance, to further reach underserved groups beyond targeted programming, to make the museum accessible to Chicago area residents from all walks of life, and to attract corporate sponsorship.

But otherwise, nearly two years passed with no discernable action taken to bring LUMA into CAS or to enact any of the rest of the report’s recommendations or to enter into discussions with the committee.

In response to a letter from the LUMA committee in December 2018, inquiring about what was happening with the museum, Tom Kelly responded that a decision would be made soon, but we heard nothing until early April 2019 when the last remaining curator, Natasha Ritsma, resigned. For three years, working with a reduced budget and a very limited staff, she had done an almost miraculous job of organizing exhibitions and programs perfectly attuned to Loyola’s mission.  When Natasha resigned, we heard rumors that all planned exhibitions and programs for 2019-2020 had been cancelled, including a lecture series celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Martin D’Arcy collection.

On 10 April 2019, faculty members of the original LUMA committee sent a letter to President Rooney and Provost Callahan expressing our grave concern about the future of LUMA, stressing its role as an integral component of undergraduate and graduate education at Loyola. The committee requested a statement of the university’s intentions for this important resource and a part in all decisions about the future of the museum. The letter voiced concerns about the potential loss of the hard-earned American Alliance of Museums accreditation and the negative consequences that would result; about the fate of the prestigious D’Arcy Collection; about the loss of exhibitions and programming that support the mission of the university; about the loss of public access; and about the loss of internship opportunities for students. The committee expressed its desire to work with the administration to shape LUMA’s future.

On 14 April 2019, we received a response from Tom Kelly. He stated that:

  • LUMA would remain within the administrative services structure under Tom Kelly in order to have a more university-centric organizational structure to promote the multi-faceted and multidisciplinary mission; the D’Arcy Collection and the annual Crèche exhibit would continue to be displayed as well as some internal and periodic external exhibits.
  • A search for a new curator to replace Natasha Ritsma would be initiated.
  • He claimed that LUMA’s annual deficit has continued to grow and is anticipated to be in excess of $1.1 million this fiscal year.
  • He claimed the new organization structure would take advantage of existing staff within the division but not sustain a full-time staff of 12.
  • He claimed that American Alliance of Museums accreditation was a primary driver of increasing deficits due to requirements for a minimum number of open public hours. Thus, the university would suspend accreditation in order to “free up resources to better serve the museum’s internal academic opportunities and utilize the museum space for special events and receptions from external groups that can generate revenue, while increasing the visibility of exhibitions—many of which now have a limited exposure due to eroding attendance.”


These basic points were essentially echoed in an official announcement on 30 April 2019 from the Office of the President. However, its language made clear that the museum would “no longer be open to the public for daily admission, but will function as both a special event and exhibition space for internal and external groups.”

Members of the LUMA committee who wrote to Tom Kelly on 10 April 2019, expressing our concerns about the fate of the museum, later came to learn that this decision had already been made at the beginning of 2019 without any further consultation with the faculty and without notification of the LUMA committee, who had been waiting for two years for a response to and discussion of our proposal for LUMA.

In the administrative restricting, LUMA was placed under the Department of Conference Services.


Several points in Tom Kelly’s response appear to be inaccurate or unclear.

This is not the same level of museum professional as a curator who can interpret collections and direct research and internships that fulfill the educational mission of the university.

  • It is unclear what is meant by an annual deficit of $1.1 million. Museums do not make money; they are funded. At the time of AAM accreditation, the university committed rental income up to $1 million to the museum. Is this what is now termed a “deficit”? In 2017 when the LUMA “blue sky” committee was convened, the rental space in Lewis Towers that provided the partial funding for LUMA was temporarily vacant after the Hershey’s Chocolate store moved, although this space has been rented again. Since the university slashed its support to $500,000 in 2017, LUMA has operated with this reduced budget, not $1 million.

Even a $1 million budget is relatively small compared to many other university museums, such as the Block Museum of Art at Northwestern University ($2,874,216), University of Michigan Museum of Art ($5,639,197), or the Kemper Museum of Art, Washington University in St. Louis ($3,472,395) [comparative figures compiled in 2017 by DFPA staff].

LUMA has not had a staff of 12 since at least 2015. Its staff numbered 5 or 6 in spring 2019. In comparison, the Block Museum of Art at Northwestern University employs 17 full-time employees; the University of Michigan Museum of Art, 39 full-time employees; the Kemper Museum of Art, Washington University in St. Louis, 19 full-time employees [comparative figures compiled in 2017 by DFPA staff].

  • AAM accreditation does not impose significant additional expenses on a university, but it does prevent an administration from turning galleries into commercial rental space. Tom Kelly cited AAM requirements for a minimum number of open public hours as a primary driver of increased deficits. The open public hours of LUMA were fewer than those of other major universities in Chicago–the DePaul Museum of Art, The Smart Museum (University of Chicago), or the Block Museum (Northwestern). The gallery attendant positions were staffed by Loyola University students who received Work Study funds. Thus, the cost of these employees was not totally borne by the university. These positions helped provide much-needed jobs for Loyola students who qualified for Work-Study funds.

The university in recent years, cut back open public hours, eliminating Sundays and more recently Saturdays in addition to the former Monday closing. It has also eliminated the one day of evening hours. It appears from official statements that in the future, the D’Arcy Collection will be viewable only by special appointment.

  • Tom Kelly’s response claimed that attendance was eroding. But this contradicts observations from former curator Natasha Ritsma, LUMA staff members, and museum patrons who can attest to increased attendance at many events, openings, lectures, class visits, and tours. The recent exhibit of Tonika Lewis Johnson’s “Folded Map” project addressing racial inequity in Chicago was heavily attended, drawing perhaps more viewers than any previous exhibition, and garnered considerable positive media attention.


Concerns Regarding the University’s New Structure for LUMA

Tom Kelly’s official statement announcing the change of LUMA’s scope of operations issued on 30 April 2019, states that LUMA “will no longer be open to the public for daily admission, but will function as both a special event and exhibition space for internal and external groups. It will continue to serve classes that arrange museum visits throughout the year, supporting academic enterprise across the University through its collections, exhibitions, and educational programs.”

This new structure, of a special collection only available through an arranged visit, raises some concerns and completely changes the concept of a functioning museum. Our original concerns that individual students would not be able to visit due to no open hours and that field trips would be virtually impossible for LSC classes due to the class grid schedule if there were no evening or weekend hours, have been somewhat alleviated by assurances from Dawn Collins, Director of Student Complex, that they want students to feel that they have access any time they need it and they will try to accommodate their schedules, if students or faculty contact the museum to make an appointment to visit individually or as a class.

However, the museum will not be able to fulfill the original purpose of the D’Arcy Collection as a place of quiet reflection for the university community. And shutting the museum away, except by appointment, is hardly likely to increase use.

In addition to the D’Arcy Collection, the special exhibits, often by contemporary artists, that focused on issues of social justice, global awareness, environmental sustainability, gender, and faith traditions addressed Loyola’s mission and served the university community. These exhibits and the related programming involved students in multiple ways as audience, participants in related performances, or as interns or employees who helped create and organize these exhibits and events. With the curtailment of exhibitions and programming, these opportunities will be lost.

The D’Arcy Collection and special exhibits and their related programming drew members of the larger Chicago community to LUMA. But when the museum is no longer open to the public or open regular hours, both the public and Loyola students will suffer this loss.

The direction of art museums today is to be more accessible to a broader audience and through their collections, exhibitions, and programming to encourage critical thinking about the past and present and world cultures and about how these relate and interact with one another in ways that can be relevant for our contemporary situation. The university has chosen a different direction.


LUMA played a crucial role in providing both student employment opportunities and extremely valuable internships to undergraduate and graduate students. It has been a particularly important part of the Art History program in many other disciplines as well. LUMA internships have launched careers in museums, business, graphic design, and special events. These students were carefully mentored and provided with opportunities to engage in many aspects of museum work. With the elimination of curators of collections and educational programming, interns will not have the same opportunities or be able to gain the same quality of professional museum experience and scholarship that has enabled them to lead extraordinary lives. The university’s renunciation of AAM accreditation of LUMA has discredited the museum in the professional museum community, and thus devalued an internship experience at LUMA. The goodwill of conservators and museum professionals that could be beneficial to students in the future has been jeopardized.

Although we are encouraged that the university will continue to maintain the Martin D’Arcy Collection, we are concerned that without a proper curator the collection may not be properly cared for or interpreted and that it will be impossible for students to be directed in internships specific to this important collection. It is particularly sad that on the fiftieth anniversary of this outstanding collection, the university has failed to promote and celebrate this treasure or utilize the anniversary as a way to publicize the university and as a fund-raising opportunity.

The university’s failure to make efforts to raise funds to support LUMA or replace essential museum staff has undermined LUMA’s role as an educational resource and its potential to support the stated mission of Loyola University Chicago. Closing the museum to the general public further cuts off potential sources of donations as well as failing to engage with the larger community.

On 19 June 2019, Tom Kelly reached out to interested faculty to solicit volunteers to provide faculty feedback in the interviewing process for the Collections and Events Coordinator and a Collections and Events Manager positions. Dawn Collins, Director of Conference Services and Student Complex, was to be interviewing candidates for these positions. We were encouraged that the administration was seeking this faculty input, and we were, and still are, willing to be involved if selected to participate. By near the end of summer, news was received that the initial search for a collections manager did not attract the quality of candidates desired.


Faculty remains concerned about the effects that the restructuring of LUMA will have on the educational mission of the university.












AAUP May 24, 2019 Letter to BOT

May 24, 2019

To: Loyola University Chicago Board of Trustees
From: American Association of University Professors, Loyola University Chicago Chapter Re: Governance and Development concerns

Dear Member of the Board of Trustees:

We write as the elected leaders of Loyola’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors to express our deep consternation over the leadership of Jo Ann Rooney as Loyola’s President.

After Dr. Rooney’s hiring, her presidency deserved at least a year, perhaps two, to adequately assess our strengths and weaknesses and to make plans to improve Loyola’s programs, facilities, internal budgets and governance-. AAUP shares with other faculty groups a desire to help Loyola’s first lay president, a woman no less, succeed in her position, and help her to strengthen our core missions of research and teaching and the development of men and women who live and work for others. Unfortunately, Dr. Rooney is just finishing her third year as president, and the “austerity” budget cuts being implemented—however financially necessary they may be—also point to her failure in her fiduciary responsibilities.

The last year has seen two academic strikes, the decision to close the English Language Learning Program (ELLP) with no apparent replacement, national condemnation of Loyola’s media policy, and a decision to nearly completely curtail the operations of the Loyola University Museum of Art (LUMA). Three years into President Rooney’s tenure in office, we still have only an interim provost and thus no real university-wide academic leadership.

Similar chaos and lack of progress seem to characterize fundraising, which is what prompted an emergency AAUP two weeks ago, and led us to write this letter.

While we fully appreciate the benefits of financial prudence – the stated reasons for the abolition of ELLP and the downgrading of LUMA — we are astonished at how little President Rooney seems to have done, or intends to do, to raise money to support the extraordinary cultural resources and compelling mission of Loyola University Chicago. We seem to have failed to capitalize on last year’s historic Final Four run, there is no head of development a year after the previous one was fired, and perhaps most shockingly, there is no plan for any significant fundraising campaign around our sesquicentennial. Moreover, some of the decisions made in the name of budgetary austerity make little sense on that ground: how, for example, are we to attract a significant number of international students – most of whom pay full tuition – without language support of the kind that nearly all universities offer?

Loyola needs a President who values what we are and sees what we could become, and aggressively seeks financial support to make such a vision a reality. Our sesquicentennial offers an opportunity to begin this process.

To many faculty, and to some chairs and deans as well, the points above add up to a disturbing picture of a university leadership that is out of touch with the experience of teaching and learning on our campuses and is ill-equipped to lead us forward. What generations of leadership have built up can


be destroyed by a few years of negligence and incompetence. We fear that that is exactly what is happening to Loyola.

The AAUP met two weeks ago to address a number of ongoing concerns—itemized below—related to governance and other budgetary issues at Loyola. We are deeply concerned about the prospect of similar measures being taken over the summer. Attached to this message you will find several resolutions concerning these issues that were passed by the University Senate earlier this month.

  • The sudden dismissal of almost the entire ELLP program
  • LUMA’s loss of its prestigious museum status and lack of planning for the collection’s future
  • The misreporting and belated “corrections” made around media policies from Marketing and the speaker’s contract
  • The inability to hire a permanent provost and misleading statements about faculty involvement with decisions related to the provost’s position
  • A second academic strike in 13 months
  • The faculty exodus from the Institute for Pastoral Studies (IPS) and administrative dismissal of Title IX reports filed against the Dean of IPS
  • The severance of our connection with the Beijing Center and the greatly reduced participation of faculty and students from Chicago in the Rome Center, reversing a nearly 60-year practice
  • The failure to consult elected faculty bodies on decisions that impact all LUC faculty, in accordance with the mission statements of Faculty Council and the University Senate.

Additionally, the AAUP has had serious issues brought before us that affect faculty and have not been appropriately addressed by university governance at other levels, several with potentially severe and embarrassing legal implications.

The board should understand that there is no personal animus with Rooney; in fact, she has spent more time meeting with the Faculty Council and the AAUP leadership than other presidents have in the past. Yet to many faculty, and chairs and deans as well, the points above add up to a disturbing picture of a university leadership that is out of touch with the experience of teaching and learning on our campuses and is ill-equipped to lead us forward.

We fear the toll that further implementation of an austerity agenda and continued chaos at the top could take on Loyola. Accordingly, we urge the Board of Trustees to consider an intervention, particularly as it relates to Rooney’s weaknesses and inexperience with appropriate development agendas and results.


Rhys Williams
Professor of Sociology
President, Loyola Lakeside AAUP Chapter

Pamela Caughie
Professor of English
Appeals Advocate, Loyola Lakeside AAUP Chapter


AAUP letter to Tom Regan

May 23, 2019

To: Thomas Regan, S.J., Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
Cc: President Jo Ann Rooney; Interim Provost Margaret Faust Callahan; AAUP-Loyola Members From: American Association of University Professors, Loyola University Chicago Chapter
Re: Inaccurate Statement to the Press about Graduate Unionization

Dear Dean Regan:

We write to urge you to correct inaccurate and misleading statements you made to the Loyola Phoenix about last month’s graduate worker strike.

According to the Phoenix, you stated that “[w]e are not going to go up 10% on undergraduate tuition to meet these demands.” The Phoenix reporter confirmed that she accurately transcribed your statement.

As was pointed out to you in a subsequent email, no issue raised by the graduate workers would come remotely close to costing this amount.

Loyola has, according to US News and World Report, 11,420 undergraduates, with tuition of slightly more than $40,000. A 10% increase would thus yield $4,000 per student, which at that number of students would generate $45,680,000. Since there were, according to the certification of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), somewhere under 200 graduate students who teach or otherwise work for the university in the prospective collective bargaining unit, this would work out to be something like $228,400 dollars per graduate worker. Even if one takes into account a substantial tuition discount rate of say 40%, increasing tuition by 10% would yield approximately $137,040 per graduate worker.

We understand that you have been charged with turning back this unionization effort, but there is no factual basis for the assertions you made. And indeed in the context of two academic strikes in thirteen months and the continued refusal of Loyola’s administration to abide by the rulings of the NLRB, we fear that such wildly exaggerated claims can only further exacerbate the acrimony, strife, and labor unrest on our campus. We urge you and our university’s leadership to both correct this assertion, and to insure that your future public comments avoid such polemical misstatement.


Rhys Williams, Professor of Sociology President, Loyola Lakeside AAUP Chapter

Benjamin Johnson
Associate Professor of History and Environmental Sustainability AAUP Member

Graduate Student Strike, April 24th; arrests and media coverage

Following the arrests last Monday, April 15th of seven LUC graduate students and supporters, the graduate students are staging a one-day walkout on April 24th on the lakeside campus.  Walk-out is at 9:00 am.  Picket line and noon rally meet in front of Mundelein.

The recent arrests have received widespread media coverage–WGN, WBEZ,  InsideHigherEd,  The Phoenix, SEIU, etc..  For over two years, LUC administration has refused to recognize their graduate student union, which won the NLRB election in Feb 2017.

Many other prestigious, private universities in major urban areas with higher costs of living have recognized their graduate student unions–GeorgetownUniversity of Chicago, NYU, Brandeis, and the list is rising. 

LUC-AAUP demand that LUC administration acknowledge their graduate students’ rights to organize and negotiate, the NLRB decision, and the support of hundreds of students, faculty and local clergy.  See LUC Worker Coalition for latest walk-out info.

AAUP-LUC Provost Discussion Points -Please Comment

AAUP-LUC Discussion Points about Provost consolidation decision

    • Governance: the decision to create one single Provost – the administrative leadership position which most directly impacts faculty, research, and students – was apparently made and without any input from the faculty, much less through consultation with any representative body that could present the concerns of faculty and students.  We worry that this decision fits with a broader pattern of unilateral decision-making.  Accepting this decision might indicate that faculty and students are comfortable with future unilateral decisions that could deeply shape the nature of our institution
    • Resource-allocation: Loyola’s different institutions need different types of resources, and make different types of contributions to the institution.  We worry that having one single Provost might overly centralized decision-making about which parts of the institution are deserving of which types or resources, and might lead to using criteria are valid for one part of the institution – for instance, bringing in research grants or partnering with private enterprise – to assess the “value” of other parts of the institution.  We worry that if narrow and monetarily-driven criteria are used to allocate value and distribute resources, the humanities and social sciences, and the CAS more broadly, might suffer deeply
    • An institutional shift towards pre-professionalization:  the Health Sciences Division and the University, including the College of Arts and Sciences, share the goal of educating Loyola’s students so that they can make positive contributions to our common national and global communities.  They, of course, do this with different types of emphases, and encourage the development of different sets of intellectual skills. We worry that a single Provost might further a tendency to view the mission of the University, and the College of Arts and Sciences in particular, through a lens that emphasizes pre-professional skills at the expense of the goal of encouraging life-long critical thinkers and learners.
    • Impact on undergraduate teaching: while the Health Sciences Division and the University are both committed to educating students, they pursue this mission very differently and serve different types of students. If, as is now possible, the future Provost is someone with a medical or nursing background, who might have little or no direct experience in teaching undergraduates, we worry about how well this person will be able to assess, reward, and shape the teaching of undergraduates, which might negatively effect the College of Arts and Sciences
    • Internal resource allocation: while creating one single Provost might seem like a cost-savings measure, we worry about what sort of administrative infrastructure this position might require.  Overseeing such a large and diverse set of institutions might require the creation of a large administrative infrastructure of Assistant Provosts and other second-tier administrators.  We worry that this might, in fact, lead to the needless and costly allocation of the institution’s resources away from teaching and research and towards the expansion of an administrative bureaucracy
    • Mission: Loyola’s stated mission is to “expand knowledge in the service of humanity through learning, justice and faith.” Loyola’s mission also promises a commitment to promoting justice and encouraging values-based leadership. This decision threatens to restrict the mission a more narrow focus on pre-professional training, and seems indicative of an internal leadership style that does not prioritize a collective discussion about the institution’s values.​
    • You can edit via this link