This post is now closed, but the comments can be read. Please continue on the new post.
Comments
Check out photo number 56 on the loyno.edu home page. It shows a view of Marquette Hall on the right side of the frame with one of the banners on St. Charles Ave. in the foreground on the left side. The words "acting justly" are emphasized.
Maybe the photographer didn't realize that he captured a juxtaposition of two of the most extreme opposites in the current New Orleans landscape. Loyola's administration, which resides in that building, has behaved so unjustly toward its staff, students and faculty that we are leaving in droves. How can we stay in the face of such blatant hypocrisy and abuse? What New Orleanians, and Loyolans, need most these days is hope for the future and support from their community members. Loyola seems unable to offer either necessity.
Does anyone have information on retention of upperclassmen at other area institutions? It would be particularly interesting to look at the current senior class. They were sophomores during the 05-06 Katrina year. Did they come back and stay, or did they go elsewhere, or maybe graduate early?
Just to punctuate the difference in incoming freshmen classes again, Tulane projected and planned for 1200 but they got more than 1300 while Loyola projected and budgeted based on 700 but got just over 500. Neither of these schools, which are literally right next door to each other on St. Charles Avenue, is back up to pre-Katrina freshmen enrollments but Tulane is within ~25% of that record high class while Loyola is still down by ~50% compared to fall 2005. Recall that Tulane incurred about $600M in damages and clean-up costs while Loyola did not flood.
When more solid information is available, it would be very interesting to compare the quality of these two classes as well. Contrary to statements made last week at Loyola's convocation, Tulane says it did not lower its standards. Loyola says it didn't either.
Ah, but the point of looking at 2006 and 2007 tells us about recovery of the university. Recovery is healthy. Yes, looking at 2005, everyone had a decline.
According to the press releases by the universities of freshmen students:
Loyola = down 55% (compare 2005 with 2007 but Loyola put their budget at 700 freshmen and didn't make it),
Tulane = down 26% (compare 2005 with 2007 but Tulane put their budget at a more realistic goal of 1,200 anticipated freshmen and they made it),
Xavier = down 25% (2005 vs. 2007).
(don't have numbers for UNO and LSUHSC is a graduate/professional school).
So, do you want me to believe the universities' spokespersons or not?
All of the other area universities saw far larger declines in 2006 (as compared to 2005) than Loyola did. So comparing enrollments from 2006 to 2007 as a measure of institutional health is misleading, to say the least.
A good leader??? At this point, I'm not sure I can recognize one if I saw one. It has been so long.
I do not understand. If it is so great at Loyola, why are so many faculty, staff, and even pro-W administrators (for example, Cornwell, Estes, Stieffel) leaving or have left the university? Oh, right. It's the crime, according to W. Interesting how there is no crime on the Tulane side of the fence while we seem to have so much crime on our side of the fence which is causing people on our side of the fence to leave. Do I have that correct?
Posted by:
It's the crime, stupid. No, it's the hurricanes, stupid. No...oh, nevermind. |
August 25, 2007 at 08:02 PM
Regarding 4:02's "Any good leader is going to ignore you and move on with the life of the university." For alumni and students who read this blog, I will give you specific examples of leaders in this beloved city who did not ignore his faculty: Tim Ryan (UNO; "[UNO] expects to enroll 1,300 freshmen in the fall, compared with 1,021 in the fall of 2006."), Scott Cowen (Tulane: "Tulane University reported last week that 1,375 high-school seniors had committed to attending, a 56-percent jump over last year's 882 new freshmen."), Norman Francis (Xavier; "Xavier was projecting an enrollment of 650 for the fall of 2007, compared with 447 last fall."), and Larry Holllier (LSUHSC; "LSU Dental School poised to reopen," Times-Picayune). The rest of the quotations are from the Chronicle of Higher Education (notably, in the same article, Loyola did not compare its Fall 2007 enrollment with its Fall 2006. We know that the numbers are down this year compared to last year.)
(1) Nothing you have ever offered has been reasoned.
(2) Where is your so-called data to support your position?
(3) Your position is, in fact, that of the minutest minority.
Mr. 4:02 does not really deserve a response. However, for the benefit of other students and alumni I will comment on this statement:
"Wildes's response--or lack thereof--to the handful of self-absorbed, self-important outliers here is spot on."
Once again, it is not a handful of us who feel this way. There were overwhelming votes of no confidence in A&S and HuNS. The Senate passed motion after motion complaining about their lack of process and incomplete data. And every conversation among faculty that I have been a part of in the last week always ends up with the topic of the lack of leadership that we face.
Wildes and Harris have a very small group of supporters on campus.
Actually, Wildes's response to the AAUP foolishness is quite clear in outlining the criteria and methodology used to determine how the university would be restructured. You may choose to disagree with those criteria, but you sound like little more than a jilted lover when you willfully ignore what is in black and white.
Wildes's response--or lack thereof--to the handful of self-absorbed, self-important outliers here is spot on. To respond in any real, engaging way to people who are unable to compromise their own limited perspective for the greater good is smart leadership. To give any credence to you people would be to allow you the relevance and power you so obviously desire but even more obviously don't deserve.
Have a new president. Any good leader is going to ignore you and move on with the life of the university. You protest yourselves into an even deeper fog of irrelevance and "crazy-old-coot"ness with ever "MUST GO!" litany and death wish for people who similarly care about your community.
Classes start next week, and the powers that be on this blog and in your alternate reality are still screaming nonsensical bullshit at the top of their lungs (the latest comparison to an abusive relationship is particularly telling of the limited grasp of reality here). Whoever the next president of the university might be, he'd do well to clean house even more and dispense with the paranoid freaks who spend their time here defaming the university and driving away the potential students you so loudly claim to desire.
The least of your worries is Kevin Wildes staying in power. At the top of your list should be a new president who has even less to lose by suing the shit out of you people for defamation on behalf of the university and the individuals whose reputations have been besmirched here.
I suppose now my sanity will be questioned (irony, thine humor is divine), or maybe some wise old sage will remind the posters here that dissent is not welcome and should be ignored. Maybe I'll be treated to a litany or a nickname. It seems that you are most troubled by responses to your rantings that mirror your own virulent attacks and resent that anyone else has a different opinion based on the facts, especially when said opinion is coherent and reasoned.
And to 'our' webmasters/mistresses (whoever you might be--Mary Blue is at the top of my list since the mere mention of her name some time ago caused the censorship brigade to be wheeled out), you should be ashamed of yourselves for your double talk about providing a forum for the community. You have provided a cauldron of negativity and acrimony for a small minority to feed upon each other's misplaced aggressions. You have failed Loyola, not Wildes. You have pushed your unwilling adversaries into a corner and made it impossible to deal with you. I don't blame them.
In the last week, three ex-Loyola faculty/staff told/emailed me that each realized, after they left Loyola, that they finally realized what being in an abusive relationship must be like. I wonder when the rest of us going to get out of this abusive relationship with Loyola. It is time, everyone. It is time to bail out before it is too late.
6:42 PM is right. Wildes has the complete, 100%, undying support of the BoT who thinks he walks on water and then changes it to wine (or is that whine?). Until THEY get the message, Loyola is Titanic University with Wildes at the helm.
"Why wouldn't they provide restitution to anyone who was damaged by institutional decisions based on incomplete or faulty information that has since been corrected?"
To the best of my knowledge, while Wildes admitted mistakes were made, the incomplete and faulty information was NEVER corrected. In fact, as you read his various responses to the former A & S college assembly, the Senate's "call for conversation" and every other attempt he has made over the past 2 years to justify his Pathways, you will see that he chose to ignore the incomplete, faulty information and create new justifications out of whole cloth. In other words, he did things "bass-akwards" -- he made the terminations and cuts, then tried to back pedal to prove that what he did was totally correct and above board AND according to the handbook. In addition, his rational and the data/information were moving targets; each time there seemed to be a different set of data or new information that was NEVER clearly revealed. We were supposed to accept the excuse that "Father knows best". The best witness to his complete ineptitude is his 20+ page response to the "Call for Conversation (2nd call)" that faculty received in December 2006. It was clear from reading it that there was NO process, no rationale, no data, no nothing, and worst of all NO CONSISTENCY. You can find it among all his other nonsense under links on loyno.info. His response to the AAUP Special Committee was laughable, had the cause of the censure not been because of the tragedy HE created.
10:09 AM wrote
"Well, Father Wildes, you know where to start. 1) Make amends with the wrongly terminated faculty. 2) Work with the AAUP and the faculty to get us removed from the censured list.
If you do these two things, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the next year."
Benefit of the doubt? I'm sorry, but if Wildes had wanted to do #1, the time to have done it was LAST year and #2 could have been avoided altogther. I have seen not one shread of demonstrable evidence that he will do anything other than "stay the course". The time for "benefit of the doubt" is over. It's time to hold his feet to the fire. Unfortunately, as long as he has the support of the BoT, all we can do is make him squirm, like the spineless waste of oxygen he is.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean you trust him. It's likely that many members of the Loyola community will never trust W no matter what he says or does.
Check out photo number 56 on the loyno.edu home page. It shows a view of Marquette Hall on the right side of the frame with one of the banners on St. Charles Ave. in the foreground on the left side. The words "acting justly" are emphasized.
Maybe the photographer didn't realize that he captured a juxtaposition of two of the most extreme opposites in the current New Orleans landscape. Loyola's administration, which resides in that building, has behaved so unjustly toward its staff, students and faculty that we are leaving in droves. How can we stay in the face of such blatant hypocrisy and abuse? What New Orleanians, and Loyolans, need most these days is hope for the future and support from their community members. Loyola seems unable to offer either necessity.
Posted by: | August 26, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Does anyone have information on retention of upperclassmen at other area institutions? It would be particularly interesting to look at the current senior class. They were sophomores during the 05-06 Katrina year. Did they come back and stay, or did they go elsewhere, or maybe graduate early?
Just to punctuate the difference in incoming freshmen classes again, Tulane projected and planned for 1200 but they got more than 1300 while Loyola projected and budgeted based on 700 but got just over 500. Neither of these schools, which are literally right next door to each other on St. Charles Avenue, is back up to pre-Katrina freshmen enrollments but Tulane is within ~25% of that record high class while Loyola is still down by ~50% compared to fall 2005. Recall that Tulane incurred about $600M in damages and clean-up costs while Loyola did not flood.
When more solid information is available, it would be very interesting to compare the quality of these two classes as well. Contrary to statements made last week at Loyola's convocation, Tulane says it did not lower its standards. Loyola says it didn't either.
Posted by: | August 26, 2007 at 09:44 AM
There are about 50 institutions of higher learning on the AAUP CENSURE LIST.
Loyola University New Orleans is one.
What a scarlet letter to wear!
Whatever you think of the current administration, only new leadership will help us get off that black-ball list.
Posted by: | August 26, 2007 at 09:37 AM
WILDES = AAUP CENSURE
Posted by: | August 26, 2007 at 09:32 AM
Kevin Wildes - Captain of Titanic Community College.
Walter Harris, Jr. - The Anchor.
4:02 PM - 1st Mate, only Cheerleader, and Steward.
Fortunately, no one else wants to sail. So, we won't sail far.
Posted by: Checkmate | August 26, 2007 at 07:56 AM
Yes, Robin, 4;02 PM is the Mother of ALL Gasbags.
Clearly, this misguided person deserves our pity. We can only hope that he seeks professional help soon.
Posted by: Batman | August 25, 2007 at 09:59 PM
Batman:
Is 4:02 PM the Mother of All Gasbags?
Posted by: Robin | August 25, 2007 at 09:55 PM
Ah, but the point of looking at 2006 and 2007 tells us about recovery of the university. Recovery is healthy. Yes, looking at 2005, everyone had a decline.
According to the press releases by the universities of freshmen students:
Loyola = down 55% (compare 2005 with 2007 but Loyola put their budget at 700 freshmen and didn't make it),
Tulane = down 26% (compare 2005 with 2007 but Tulane put their budget at a more realistic goal of 1,200 anticipated freshmen and they made it),
Xavier = down 25% (2005 vs. 2007).
(don't have numbers for UNO and LSUHSC is a graduate/professional school).
So, do you want me to believe the universities' spokespersons or not?
Posted by: | August 25, 2007 at 08:44 PM
I think the question on everyone's mind about now is:
Where in the hell has Maureen Shuh been?
Or is she still pissed off after someone called her by her first name?
Posted by: | August 25, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Who is John?
Posted by: | August 25, 2007 at 08:10 PM
Dear Mr/Ms. Stick with the Data and Facts,
All of the other area universities saw far larger declines in 2006 (as compared to 2005) than Loyola did. So comparing enrollments from 2006 to 2007 as a measure of institutional health is misleading, to say the least.
The grass is always greener, isn't it?
Posted by: | August 25, 2007 at 08:08 PM
A good leader??? At this point, I'm not sure I can recognize one if I saw one. It has been so long.
I do not understand. If it is so great at Loyola, why are so many faculty, staff, and even pro-W administrators (for example, Cornwell, Estes, Stieffel) leaving or have left the university? Oh, right. It's the crime, according to W. Interesting how there is no crime on the Tulane side of the fence while we seem to have so much crime on our side of the fence which is causing people on our side of the fence to leave. Do I have that correct?
Posted by: It's the crime, stupid. No, it's the hurricanes, stupid. No...oh, nevermind. | August 25, 2007 at 08:02 PM
Regarding 4:02's "Any good leader is going to ignore you and move on with the life of the university." For alumni and students who read this blog, I will give you specific examples of leaders in this beloved city who did not ignore his faculty: Tim Ryan (UNO; "[UNO] expects to enroll 1,300 freshmen in the fall, compared with 1,021 in the fall of 2006."), Scott Cowen (Tulane: "Tulane University reported last week that 1,375 high-school seniors had committed to attending, a 56-percent jump over last year's 882 new freshmen."), Norman Francis (Xavier; "Xavier was projecting an enrollment of 650 for the fall of 2007, compared with 447 last fall."), and Larry Holllier (LSUHSC; "LSU Dental School poised to reopen," Times-Picayune). The rest of the quotations are from the Chronicle of Higher Education (notably, in the same article, Loyola did not compare its Fall 2007 enrollment with its Fall 2006. We know that the numbers are down this year compared to last year.)
Posted by: Stick with the data and facts. | August 25, 2007 at 07:57 PM
4:02:
(1) Nothing you have ever offered has been reasoned.
(2) Where is your so-called data to support your position?
(3) Your position is, in fact, that of the minutest minority.
Methinks you protest too much, John.
Posted by: | August 25, 2007 at 06:39 PM
Mr. 4:02 does not really deserve a response. However, for the benefit of other students and alumni I will comment on this statement:
"Wildes's response--or lack thereof--to the handful of self-absorbed, self-important outliers here is spot on."
Once again, it is not a handful of us who feel this way. There were overwhelming votes of no confidence in A&S and HuNS. The Senate passed motion after motion complaining about their lack of process and incomplete data. And every conversation among faculty that I have been a part of in the last week always ends up with the topic of the lack of leadership that we face.
Wildes and Harris have a very small group of supporters on campus.
Posted by: a Hun | August 25, 2007 at 05:23 PM
6:42pm--
Actually, Wildes's response to the AAUP foolishness is quite clear in outlining the criteria and methodology used to determine how the university would be restructured. You may choose to disagree with those criteria, but you sound like little more than a jilted lover when you willfully ignore what is in black and white.
Wildes's response--or lack thereof--to the handful of self-absorbed, self-important outliers here is spot on. To respond in any real, engaging way to people who are unable to compromise their own limited perspective for the greater good is smart leadership. To give any credence to you people would be to allow you the relevance and power you so obviously desire but even more obviously don't deserve.
Have a new president. Any good leader is going to ignore you and move on with the life of the university. You protest yourselves into an even deeper fog of irrelevance and "crazy-old-coot"ness with ever "MUST GO!" litany and death wish for people who similarly care about your community.
Classes start next week, and the powers that be on this blog and in your alternate reality are still screaming nonsensical bullshit at the top of their lungs (the latest comparison to an abusive relationship is particularly telling of the limited grasp of reality here). Whoever the next president of the university might be, he'd do well to clean house even more and dispense with the paranoid freaks who spend their time here defaming the university and driving away the potential students you so loudly claim to desire.
The least of your worries is Kevin Wildes staying in power. At the top of your list should be a new president who has even less to lose by suing the shit out of you people for defamation on behalf of the university and the individuals whose reputations have been besmirched here.
I suppose now my sanity will be questioned (irony, thine humor is divine), or maybe some wise old sage will remind the posters here that dissent is not welcome and should be ignored. Maybe I'll be treated to a litany or a nickname. It seems that you are most troubled by responses to your rantings that mirror your own virulent attacks and resent that anyone else has a different opinion based on the facts, especially when said opinion is coherent and reasoned.
And to 'our' webmasters/mistresses (whoever you might be--Mary Blue is at the top of my list since the mere mention of her name some time ago caused the censorship brigade to be wheeled out), you should be ashamed of yourselves for your double talk about providing a forum for the community. You have provided a cauldron of negativity and acrimony for a small minority to feed upon each other's misplaced aggressions. You have failed Loyola, not Wildes. You have pushed your unwilling adversaries into a corner and made it impossible to deal with you. I don't blame them.
From an alum, a hearty fuck you to all of you.
Posted by: | August 25, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Reality is not paranoia.
Posted by: No hope at Loyola. | August 25, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Having prepared for the par-TICK-you-lahr-lee low number of incoming students already, many of us are doing job searches and resume revisions.
Toodles!
Posted by: Una | August 25, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Doesn't school start this week? Shouldn't you paranoid, self indulgent gasbags be preparing for classes?
Posted by: | August 25, 2007 at 10:16 AM
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP = DYING UNIVERSITY
Posted by: | August 25, 2007 at 08:47 AM
In the last week, three ex-Loyola faculty/staff told/emailed me that each realized, after they left Loyola, that they finally realized what being in an abusive relationship must be like. I wonder when the rest of us going to get out of this abusive relationship with Loyola. It is time, everyone. It is time to bail out before it is too late.
Posted by: No hope at Loyola. | August 24, 2007 at 09:58 PM
6:42 PM is right. Wildes has the complete, 100%, undying support of the BoT who thinks he walks on water and then changes it to wine (or is that whine?). Until THEY get the message, Loyola is Titanic University with Wildes at the helm.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 07:06 PM
Wildes and Harris have rendered themselves ineffective, and they both know it.
Recently, they both have been seen trying to "smooze" some faculty who have them pegged. I think they both realize that their days are numbered.
Thank you, Lord!
Posted by: Checkmate | August 24, 2007 at 07:05 PM
9:44 AM wrote:
"Why wouldn't they provide restitution to anyone who was damaged by institutional decisions based on incomplete or faulty information that has since been corrected?"
To the best of my knowledge, while Wildes admitted mistakes were made, the incomplete and faulty information was NEVER corrected. In fact, as you read his various responses to the former A & S college assembly, the Senate's "call for conversation" and every other attempt he has made over the past 2 years to justify his Pathways, you will see that he chose to ignore the incomplete, faulty information and create new justifications out of whole cloth. In other words, he did things "bass-akwards" -- he made the terminations and cuts, then tried to back pedal to prove that what he did was totally correct and above board AND according to the handbook. In addition, his rational and the data/information were moving targets; each time there seemed to be a different set of data or new information that was NEVER clearly revealed. We were supposed to accept the excuse that "Father knows best". The best witness to his complete ineptitude is his 20+ page response to the "Call for Conversation (2nd call)" that faculty received in December 2006. It was clear from reading it that there was NO process, no rationale, no data, no nothing, and worst of all NO CONSISTENCY. You can find it among all his other nonsense under links on loyno.info. His response to the AAUP Special Committee was laughable, had the cause of the censure not been because of the tragedy HE created.
10:09 AM wrote
"Well, Father Wildes, you know where to start. 1) Make amends with the wrongly terminated faculty. 2) Work with the AAUP and the faculty to get us removed from the censured list.
If you do these two things, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the next year."
Benefit of the doubt? I'm sorry, but if Wildes had wanted to do #1, the time to have done it was LAST year and #2 could have been avoided altogther. I have seen not one shread of demonstrable evidence that he will do anything other than "stay the course". The time for "benefit of the doubt" is over. It's time to hold his feet to the fire. Unfortunately, as long as he has the support of the BoT, all we can do is make him squirm, like the spineless waste of oxygen he is.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean you trust him. It's likely that many members of the Loyola community will never trust W no matter what he says or does.
Posted by: | August 24, 2007 at 05:00 PM