Six years after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Loyola is finally shaking off the consequences of its Pathways plan, and the time is ripe for reflection.
The American Association of University Professors recently lifted the censure it placed on our university for violating regulations on tenure and academic freedom. This action ended the penalty that began in 2007, after Loyola cut several major programs and fired numerous tenured professors under Pathways.
Devised to restructure and streamline Loyola, the plan aimed to save the university from plummeting enrollment caused by Katrina. Pathways, however, prompted much controversy among students, professors and alumni, and the AAUP bore down on Loyola for its actions.
Now, the censure has been lifted, and it is imperative to look back at the program’s inception and consider its lingering effects.
It is incontrovertible that we, as a university and a community, are in a better situation now than at Pathways’ birth. Our incoming freshman class is the largest in Loyola’s history, and the school is thriving. Nonetheless, the relation of Pathways to our current situation is difficult to parse.
Perhaps Pathways aided Loyola in rebounding and regaining its former glory. After all, the situation in which Katrina left New Orleans and its universities was one of destruction and uncertainty. The circumstances commanded action and significant change, and difficult decisions were required of any institution that wished to survive in the aftermath. Loyola accepted the mammoth task of regenerating itself, presenting Pathways as the imperfect, yet arguably exceedingly necessary, result.
Even so, it is not clear that Pathways was the optimal plan or that our recovery hinged on this singular program. As a university, we have labored to recuperate in many ways unrelated to Pathways, and our progress could be attributed to any or all of these other efforts. It is not even certain that with time Loyola could not have recovered on its own, without ever having needed to cut tenured faculty or programs of study.
Whether Loyola has rebounded because of or in spite of Pathways, it is essential to remember the context of the situation. The program was conceived during an unprecedented period in our history, and the atmosphere was one of intense insecurity and anxiety. We must realize that, whatever the outcome, officials were acting in what they felt was the best interest of the university at a time when foresight was immeasurably blurred by disaster.
Nevertheless, hindsight allows for clearer analysis, and the saga of Pathways should continue to educate the university’s future decisions. Poor choices were certainly made after Katrina, and Loyola must strive to ensure that these actions are not repeated.
There are no clear solutions in catastrophic circumstances such as those seen after Katrina; however, the university can and should plan carefully to ease decision-making processes and ensure fair protocol when the next disaster strikes.
If difficult choices must be made in Loyola’s future, it is the university’s duty to ensure that the rule of law and ethics, rather than sheer necessity, triumph, allowing us to fulfill our mission as a Jesuit and just institution.
