The first Mercy institution of higher education in the world, and oldest college in Chicago, is cutting several core liberal arts programs and looking to cut more.
At 177 years old, Saint Xavier has a long, rich history of educating persons through the spirit of the Sisters of Mercy, which was founded by Mother Catherine McAuley in 1831.
When Saint Francis Xavier College for Women opened, they offered programs, according to SXU’s website, “anchored in religion, languages, mathematics and history.”
Unfortunately, the modern-day Saint Xavier University has begun to stray from the Mercy mission, as they have eliminated Mathematics, Philosophy, Religious Studies, and Actuarial Sciences as majors.
The Xavierite Editorial Board has had several discussions about the Academic Restructuring plans set to take place, but there is one problem that has lingered in our minds since we first heard of this plan: the whole student body has not been officially informed. Essentially, the students have been left in the dark.
All members of the editorial board agreed that the decision to not inform students is an egregious mistake and it feels like the administration does not respect the students who pay tuition dollars that cover costs at the university.
One member of the editorial board believes students have a growing mistrust of the administration, and they no longer believe administration has the student’s best interest in mind. “They only care about themselves, not my future or if I am able to get a job after graduation,” the board member said.
This judgment may seem harsh, but part of the university’s mission is “To Communicate Effectively,” so how is it effective to hide highly important information that impacts every student and leave them to learn about it through the well-established grapevine?
A different member of our board went on to say, “this type of behavior (lack of communication) would not have been accepted in even the most basic Comm 101 course.”
In an interview with the Xavierite, Provost Saib Othman, Ph.D., said that informing the whole student body on a decision that “impacts a small number of students…creates more room for rumors and miscommunication and misinformation.” Yet the only thing that has confusion is the university’s negligence to tell students about significant changes to the academic environment.
A member of the Xavierite staff wished to chime in on the communication as well, saying “There is a common misconception that giving students information will lead to chaos. In a time of uncertainty, every student deserves to be kept in the loop. Regardless of whether the decisions impact them directly, the entire student body has the right to knowledge about their peers.”
If the administration is not telling us that there are curricular changes that will alter the integrity of the university, what else are they not telling us?
Thomas Thorp Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, said the decision to not tell students about this is “incomprehensible” given the reputation of the institution.
It is undeniably clear that other faculty feel similarly to Thorp, given that they have been the ones telling students what majors have been cut since administration has yet to send a mass email to students, which has frequently and easily been used to share information in the past.
The editorial board also agreed that the administration is undervaluing the liberal arts and how they impact other majors.
One member said liberal arts are “the foundation of the school” and they need to be respected more.
Yet, the thing that is most baffling to the editorial board is not the career academic administrators who do not seem to possess the most basic interpersonal communication skills; it’s that program eliminations are happening under a shortened timeline and a questionable process.
Angelo Bonadonna, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Language and Literature, provided the Xavierite with a document the provost sent to faculty on March 14 which listed certain programs and their enrollment data since Fall 2020. Bonadonna said English faculty had “inklings” they would have to defend their department, but there was no formal paperwork until this document was shared over spring break.
Bonadonna also noted their department met with the provost the week after spring break, giving them a very short timeline to defend the major.
Matthew Costello, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, said that change needs to happen in higher education, but Saint Xavier should be doing it “in a much more thoughtful manner than we’re doing at the moment.”
Faculty voted against the first round of eliminations of Religious Studies, Philosophy, Math, and Actuarial Sciences, as well a second round of History, English, Sociology, and Spanish as noted in this week’s news articles “Saint Xavier University Eliminates Four Majors” and “SXU Faculty Holds Special Meeting Over Program Eliminations.”
We know the board has the final say on university decisions, but the bylaws of the university state the faculty senate has the task “to decide on the elimination, retention, and/or addition of instructional programs at the University, and to establish and publish criteria according to which such decisions are made.”
Thorp also said decisions like this require a lot of planning and deliberation and that has simply not happened, “By definition you can’t do that [eliminate majors] when you don’t have a dean in the College of Arts and Sciences, and you have a Provost who’s been here for one year, and you have a president who’s leaving,” Thorp said.
The editorial board wholeheartedly agrees with this sentiment. Why is Laurie M. Joyner, Ph.D., a lame duck president, being allowed to oversee significant changes when she is on her way to another university?
As stated in the Student Government Association (SGA) Letter to the Editor, the president’s office decided to “await incoming leadership to allow for their consideration,” regarding SGA’s Eid resolution to add Eid al Adha and Eid al Fitr to the academic calendar.
Editorial board members found it to be completely incomprehensible that Joyner would not pass this resolution, which already passed through faculty senate, because her time at SXU is almost over yet is approving significantly larger changes to university academics that are not approved by faculty.
The closer the editorial board looked at the information in front of us, we realized this is a much larger issue than lack of communication or a hazy process. This is about shared governance.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) states the role of faculty “is to have primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and aspects of student life which relate to the educational process,” while the role of the board in shared governance is to keep the university in line with its mission.
Although the administration has held the program eliminations are in line with the mission, we can not help but question that. And the administration should be happy that students are raising this many questions about their decisions. Part of the mission statement is to educate “persons to search for truth [and] to think critically,” and that is exactly what we are doing.
One of our editorial members said, “If the Board of Trustees can’t even bother to listen to the faculty, that sends a strong message about what they think about the students.”
On the other hand, the public grievances between faculty and administration may damage the school’s reputation to prospective students, one editorial board member pointed out.
That would be in addition to the constant conflict becoming unbearable for students and faculty alike. Issues between faculty and administration have leaked into the classroom and students are well aware of the divide.
Bonadonna noted the same negative environment the editorial board discussed, saying the grievances with administration in recent years have “made [the] environment so inhospitable that people (faculty) would self-select to leave.”
As distracting as it may seem for students to be so aware of the grievances, at least students can rely on faculty to be honest with what is going on at the university we pay so much money to attend.
And where do we go from here? What are we, as students, supposed to do?
Not everyone is going to agree on what is best for Saint Xavier, but the faculty has defended the programs and students tirelessly and it’s about time this administration respects people who disagree with them.
Nothing about this is going to change until the administration begins to value, or at least pretends to value, the words of faculty and students. And that may be the most tragic part about this institution, that the people in charge simply do not care about what any of us have to say.