While Loyola may have escaped any major changes to its physical structure following Katrina, it’s likely that there will soon be significant alterations to its academic structure.

Although the university has been working to make sure there will be an appropriately-sized freshman class, it is anticipated that there will be a reduction in enrollment and tuition revenues, said Provost and Academic Vice President Walter Harris.

“The board is concerned, and rightfully so, that enrollment will not be what it would have been before Katrina,” he said.

As a result, the Board of Trustees has mandated a review of academic and non-academic programs.

“I can candidly say that we will be forced to make many extremely difficult decisions with respect to program continuance, suspension or elimination,” wrote University President the Rev. Kevin Wildes, S.J., in a March 17 memorandum to faculty.

The program review, which is being directed by Harris, will make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Board will make the ultimate decision and may accept or reject the proposal made by the university administration, said Harris.

“We are facing real challenges to remain solvent and solid as a university. The review is designed to allow us an opportunity to look very carefully and critically at the university,” Harris said.

The decision made by the board will likely be effective for the fall 2006 semester.

The eight criteria for the evaluation of programs are: demand for the program; service to majors, minors, other programs and/or the common curriculum; revenues and expense for programs; the reputation and quality of the program; the centrality of the program to the mission of the university; the impact of the program on the community, a comparison of the program to instructional expense norms at other universities; and the competitive advantage created by the program, according to the program review criteria posted on the provost’s Web site.

The College of Arts & Sciences’ College Planning Committee and the Council of Chairs were both made aware of the request for a review and the proposed criteria but did not feel comfortable making recommendations, based on their uncertainty regarding the final use of the evaluation, said Frank E. Scully Jr., dean of the College of Arts & Sciences.

The A&S evaluation done by Scully was based on the in-depth annual program reviews and college reports from the last several years, he said.

“I think I know my programs and can evaluate them relative to others in the college. I believe my rankings to be qualitatively correct,” Scully said.

It is unclear how the rankings of the programs in A&S will be compared to the evaluations of the other colleges.

“I’m concerned with the relativity of the rating system, because we have no absolute to judge against,” Scully said.

Scully said he hopes that the provost will use all the data properly and avoid making any skewed decisions. Besides the deans’ evaluations, information may come from the Office of Admissions, the Office of Student Records, Physical Plant, the Office of Institutional Research, the Finance Department, the Administration and some comparisons with other Jesuit universities, according to the provost’s Web site.

“The deans’ evaluations will only be a small fraction of the information used in the decision making process,” said Harris. There will also be input from the Standing Committee on Academic Planning and the Council of Deans, he said.

All the data collected by the provost pertinent to the review is to be posted on the provost’s Web site on April 7. The information and the resulting proposal will then be open to comments from the entire university community, including the SCAP, the University Senate, the Staff Senate, and the Student Government Association, according to a Feb. 20 memorandum from Wildes.

Some faculty members have questioned the validity of the review process.

Vernon Gregson, professor of religious studies, has taken issue with the manner the A&S evaluation was written by Dean Scully. The programs were evaluated and ranked by Dean Scully without input from the departments or any external data, Gregson said.

Gregson had a specific concern for the three graduate programs, in education, communications and religious studies, which have been ranked in the fifth quintile of the A&S program evaluation.

“You’re not going to have great numbers in the M.A. programs, so given the criteria the dean was working with, all M.A. programs will look bad,” said Gregson, who is involved in the religious studies M.A. program.

The opportunity to teach in a graduate program attracts better faculty, who in turn have an effect on the entire department, Gregson said. Loyola is currently the only university in Louisiana and Mississippi offering a graduate program in religious studies.

“The graduate studies programs affect the undergraduate programs in ways that are not superficially visible,” said Gregson.

Gregson also felt that the three graduate programs are especially relevant in the wake of Katrina. The three programs could help to provide for the future of New Orleans, with a specifically Catholic perspective, he said.

“I’m not against a genuine review process, if it’s done properly and not rushed,” said Gregson.

Harris did acknowledge that the review process would normally be taking place on a different timetable.

“Ordinarily, the review process would be done over a period of 12 to 24 months, in a very methodical way. Time isn’t on our side, and we have to do the review in about three months instead,” he said.

There is also concern from some faculty members about openness of the administration while carrying out the review.

“The president has never addressed the faculty or University Senate on the financial situation,” said Gregson.

Harris said he could not comment on decisions regarding any specific programs, since the process is ongoing.

Until the final recommendations are revealed, everything is just speculation, said Mary Blue, associate professor of communications. But she doesn’t approve of the way the review is being conducted.

“You don’t clam up in a crisis. That’s the time to be open and transparent,” said Blue.

The administration is aware of faculty concerns, said Harris, but ultimately must do what is best for the university as a whole.

“We are planning to be as open in the process as possible, but in the end someone has to make the decision, for the benefit of the university,” he said. “Ultimately, the review will put the university in a better position to move forward and become stronger, and I think the vast majority of the faculty are understanding of that.”

Lindsey Netherly can be reached at [email protected].