Back to the drawing board

The current structure of Loyola’s academic colleges could soon be undergoing major changes.

Loyola’s administration plans to restructure the university’s academic colleges based on two models proposed by the University Senate.

“It is important to always assess the adequacy of academic structures to ensure that they best serve the purposes of student success and collaboration between students, faculty and staff,” Marc Manganaro, provost and vice president for academic affairs, said. “I think that there was sufficient thinking around the University on the part of faculty, staff, students and administrators that it was time to assess the academic structures we have operated in for the past years.”

Like Loyola’s current academic structure, the first proposed model includes 5 colleges in addition to the library. However, these colleges would be organized differently than those currently in place.

One difference is that the current College of Music and Fine Arts would merge with the School of Mass Communication to become the College of Music, Media, and the Arts.

Unlike the current 5-college structure, the second model consists of only three colleges and the library: A College of Law, a Graduate College and one Undergraduate College that includes all undergraduate programs organized into divisions.

The university Senate will recommend one of the new structures to the Provost and President, who will present their ideas for the Board of Trustees to consider in October. According to Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Marc Manganaro, the new structure will be implemented as soon as possible.

Last fall, the University Senate received a report from the College of Social Sciences that led the faculty-comprised group to agree that the current academic structure in place at Loyola is ineffective, according to a report titled “Models for the Reorganization of Loyola University New Orleans.”

In response to the report, the Senate formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Structures, which is made up of 14 faculty members who met throughout the spring semester to discuss the issue. The committee recommended two potential new academic structures for the university.

The two models were developed and evaluated using a 10-point rubric the committee created that includes factors such as alignment with the university’s strategic plan, flexibility for students, and opportunities for creative collaborations and crossovers. The second model instigated much discussion at the special University Senate session on Aug. 14. “That kind of radical change, especially in a moment of crisis, doesn’t seem like the wisest thing to do,” says Barbara Ewell, English professor and senate member.

Business professor and senate member John Levendis expressed concern with administrative accountability in the second model.

“My biggest concern with option two is that while we’re eliminating a couple of deans and saving money that way, what we’d be doing is adding a super dean that our deans would be reporting to,” Levendis says.

Others indicated concern with marketing a unified undergraduate college to prospective students.

“It seems like our biggest concern as a university right now is attracting students,” says Jeff Albert, music industry professor and senate member.  “Of course there are things we need to change and fix and make better, but our primary goal is that we need people to teach.”

College of Law professor and senate member Isabel Medina says that she believes model two will be marketable if it proves to be the best plan for the university.

“What we need is not just marketing, but something better to market,” Medina says. “We aren’t selling Coca Cola. We want to provide a good education that graduates students. If we go with model two and money is freed up, it goes to whatever the needs are to make our programs stronger.”

Though the Senate will not pass an official motion until their next session in September, a straw poll at the end of the session indicated overwhelming support of model one. Only two Senate members voted in favor of model two. A separate vote concluded that the majority found the second model “unacceptable”.

Despite concerns, Senate members expressed the importance of remaining open to whatever the Board of Trustees decides.

“Change is not easy, but we need to see that obviously we are having issues and have to find something to move forward,” said Daniela Marx, Senate member and professor of graphic design. “It’s happening, and I’d rather us be all on board together than not.”

No matter what structure the Board of Trustees chooses to implement, the faculty has indicated their commitment to doing what they feel is best for the future of the school and its students moving forward.

“It’s up to us to teach them well, regardless of what sign is on our dean’s door,” Albert said.