This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Oct. 31, 2012 - One day after the Faculty Senate voted no confidence in Saint Louis University President Lawrence Biondi, the president of the faculty group sent a letter to the university’s board of trustees Wednesday saying Biondi and his academic vice president should be fired.
In response, the university's board released a statement late Thursday detailing how it planned to respond. It read:
"The Saint Louis University Board of Trustees is aware of the actions taken by the University Faculty Senate and the Student Government Association. The Board of Trustees Executive Committee, acting upon the recommendation from Fr. Biondi, has decided to engage an external, independent consulting firm to conduct an extensive survey of Saint Louis University students, faculty, staff and other constituencies concerning the issues that have led to the recent faculty and student resolutions. It is hoped that this survey can be initiated and concluded in the immediate future.
"Additional information about this process will be provided in the very near future."
The letter to the board, sent Mark Knuepfer, president of the Faculty Senate, said:
“To quell the steadily mounting unrest among faculty and students, keep large numbers of faculty from leaving the university, restore trust among alumni and donors, and enlist robust collaboration in setting the university on a new course, we are convinced that the proper step for the board of trustees is to remove Fr. Biondi from the office of president of Saint Louis University and Dr. [Manoj] Patankar from the office of vice president for academic affairs.”
Under the university's charter, the trustees hire and fire the president, who does not have to be a Jesuit.
Wednesday night, the university's Student Government Association also voted no confidence in Biondi, by a tally of 38-0 with one abstention.
Tuesday’s vote of no confidence, at the end of a spirited two-hour faculty meeting, came after weeks of rising tension between professors and the university’s administration.
As outlined in Knuepfer's letter, faculty members are unhappy with Patankar, who has been supported by Biondi, for a number of reasons, including:
- A strategic plan developed without collaboration from faculty members and formally repudiated by the Faculty Council of the College of Arts and Sciences.
- A plan for incentives tied to large classes and online classes, “both of which would diminish the quality of the Jesuit education that we offer and harm the university’s national reputation.”
- Dismissal of deans and department chairs who publicly challenged Patankar.
- A repeated lack of respect for shared governance, as called for in the university’s faculty manual.
“Despite his calls for better communication,” the letter said, “the president has rebuffed formal requests to appear before the Faculty Senate to discuss matters of serious concern to faculty. Thus, the president has expressed no true interest in the kind of shared governance needed to inspire and gain the active support of all who work at the university, who ardently wish to collaborate constructively in the great endeavors that lie ahead.”
The vote of no confidence, 51-4 with 2 abstentions, came after speakers wondered aloud whether it was the right tactic to take with the trustees. Some speakers said they respected what Biondi has done at the school, but his mode of leadership had become counterproductive at best.
“In voting no confidence in President Biondi, “ the letter said, “the Senate is fully aware that it has taken an action that is rare in U.S. colleges and universities, and almost unheard of at a Jesuit institution. It gives us no pleasure to take such a grave step. Fr. Biondi’s success in transforming the campus and in building facilities worthy of a first-rate research university has been remarkable. Yet the almost universally high regard in which he is held for those accomplishments makes it all the more important that the Board of Trustees attend to the faculty’s vote of no confidence, since it is a sign of the depth and seriousness of academic problems that have been mounting at the university over the last half decade and more.”
The letter emphasized that the recent votes of no confidence, first in Patankar and now in Biondi, were “motivated by the faculty’s profound concern for the welfare of Saint Louis University and dedication to the students to whom we have devoted our lives.”
It said that faculty morale is at its lowest point after declining for the past three years, and Biondi’s “obdurate refusal to address fundamental concerns reveals the contempt with which the administration regards the faculty and the issues they raise.”
It concluded:
“No forward movement of the university is possible under such conditions, and the longer it takes to resolve the crisis, the harder it will be for the university to recover.
"The present discontent on campus must not be mistaken for the disaffection of a few. The vocal protests and discourse are a thoughtful and earnest attempt by many students and faculty to find a way forward that leads to a university strengthened in its dedication to teaching, research, and service -- a beacon for the Jesuit ideals of the pursuit of truth for the glory of God and the service of humanity in the spirit of the Gospels.”
Neither a university spokesman nor Thomas Brouster, head of the SLU board of trustees, responded Wednesday afternoon to a request for comment on the letter.
In a letter sent to the university’s trustees, faculty, staff and students before Tuesday’s Faculty Senate vote, Biondi said that some members of the faculty “have presented a distorted view of the university in an attempt to divide our SLU community…. It is one thing to have honest disagreements; it is quite another to degrade this institution that we all care about so deeply.”
He said a blue ribbon committee formed with faculty, students and administration is designed to help SLU move forward, “but there are some faculty and students who want no dialogue, only conflict. There have even been faculty who have admitted that they are willing to hurt the university rather than to collaborate. If that is the aim, we should all be sad. I will continue to believe that – working together – we can overcome our concerns and issues and provide an even better educational experience for our students.”