EU Faculty Address Perceived Administrative Inaction: “Who are we in this moment?”

Elmhurst University is facing an identity crisis. As an institution with a storied history of social justice efforts and a focus on the importance of human rights, faculty now say that they’re trying to remind their students–and administration–of the university’s long-held stance of advocacy.

In an all-faculty meeting on Friday, Nov. 8, EU faculty passed a motion reaffirming their support for the belonging of all students, faculty, and staff regardless of their affiliations in the wake of the presidential election. This motion, adopted in a spur-of-the-moment decision, was borne from concern over EU President Troy VanAken’s stance of political neutrality and comments made within the meeting that upset some faculty members.

“Elmhurst University does not have a history of neutrality,” said Dr. Beatriz Gomez Acuna of the events that led to this tumultuous post-election meeting.

The historic win of President Donald Trump came as a surprise to many on campus, with concerns raised across the board about how his proposed policies might impact the diverse EU community.

Students and faculty alike waited to see what the university’s next move might be and they continued to wait, late into the week of the 5th.

On the Thursday after the election, Gomez Acuna woke up and decided that one too many days had passed–with silence still from those in higher positions within the institution.

With this in mind, Gomez Acuna sent a message out to the Faculty Women Caucus Outlook Email group, which she has long since considered a ‘safe space,’ to discuss issues in a like-minded company. By the end of the day, the women drafted a letter, intending to send it the next morning to the rest of the faculty before delivering it to EU President Troy VanAken on Monday morning.

The letter, in part, implored the President to issue a statement reaffirming the belonging of all students regardless of their minority affiliation and stating a commitment to the continued work of ensuring their well-being and success.

By the time the monthly faculty meeting rolled around on the afternoon of Friday, Nov. 8, faculty assumed they would not hear word of a statement. When President VanAken began his opening remarks at the meeting, however, he informed faculty a message had been sent out as they all sat together.

But as the faculty turned their attention to the email, Gomez Acuna said most of them were troubled by its focus. “We couldn’t believe it,” she said. “We immediately were like, this is not what the students need. This is falling really short.”

The main problem with the emailed statement, according to faculty, was the focus on EU’s recent Tuberculosis cases, with very little mention of the impact these election results might have on students belonging to marginalized groups on campus.

President VanAken has continued to make his stance of political neutrality known whilst emphasizing the importance of this as the head of an institution for everyone–not just one side or the other.  However, in the wake of an emotionally charged election, many faculty members felt a stronger stance needed to be made.

As questions began to roll in about VanAken’s emailed statement, both from those over the Zoom call and in-person in Illinois Hall, Gomez Acuna said everyone came together organically in a ‘beautiful’ way.

“The faculty was relentless; we didn’t let go. We wanted answers, and we wanted them there,” she explained of the events. “It was a very unified voice. The faculty had a very clear objective: ‘The university owes students this message. What are we doing to tell them you’re safe on campus? That we are behind you, we care about you, you are welcome, you are one of us?’”

While Gomez Acuna and others on the faculty say that they understand VanAken’s position as University President and the varying constituents he leads, they also had problems with the way he handled their questions about the email, with VanAken reminding them he had Republican donors and Board Members to think of.

Dr. Russell Ford, Philosophy Professor, says the pushback from the faculty came from a place of feeling unheard and misunderstood. “In my opinion, Troy did not adequately address the concerns that the faculty were raising,” he explained.

“I know he felt really bad, he felt cornered, which is not a good feeling to have. When you have 190 faculty members putting you in that position, it’s uncomfortable. He was a bit paralyzed, maybe a little defensive,” empathized Gomez Acuna.

Another part of the problem, said Ford, was the implication that the faculty was concerned solely about political rhetoric.

“While he tried to argue that he was attentive and sensitive to our different communities on campus when he fell back into a language of, ‘I have to talk to Republican donors and board members,’ I think he was failing to recognize that what the faculty was objecting to was not political convictions,” he explained.

“What he said clearly, and what we heard, is that the university had to be neutral and we didn’t want that,” Gomez Acuna said. “The faculty said, no, this is not time for neutrality.”

At this point, Gomez Acuna pasted part of the aforementioned faculty-drafted letter into the Zoom chat. Ford took note of this comment and adopted it into an impromptu motion called to be voted upon during the meeting, and more discussion began.

“There were talks about if we should give President VanAken the chance to be a part of this motion,” explained Ford. “I felt it was important in the moment that it was a motion by the faculty, simply because it seemed to me, and still does now, that there was daylight in between the administration’s position and the faculty’s position.”

On this perceived gap, Ford said he feels it’s an issue of ‘commitment to and respect of human diversity,’ but that he doesn’t wish to speak for the rest of the faculty or administration.

“President Van Aken had a chance to learn about what was, in my opinion, wrong about what he said,” expressed Ford. “He had the chance to listen to a whole bunch of hyper-educated folks, people who I think were directly hurt by what he said.”

Despite the admittedly high emotions and extended discussion, the motion passed overwhelmingly, with 183 faculty members out of the 190 present in the meeting voting to affirm and draft the motion into the record.

President VanAken spoke to The Leader via email about these faculty concerns and the motion that was passed at the Nov. 8 meeting.

“During both calm and tumultuous times, our students need to be able to look to their campus leaders and know that our support for them is solid. It’s grounded in our mission, vision, and values, which were reaffirmed during our last round of strategic planning by a broad, representative group,” said VanAken of the work the faculty did rallying around each other at the meeting.

He continued, expressing his support, “I respect the right of the faculty members who proposed and passed their motion. Its expression of support for all of our students and staff, and its affirmation of their belonging here, align with what we already believe and practice as an institution.”

However, VanAken maintains his stance of political neutrality and emphasizes its importance. “Neutrality after a free and fair election does not mean we have abandoned our value of social responsibility, nor does it mean we do not care for those who feel they may be impacted by the election and what may come as a result.”

One thing VanAken and his faculty seem to agree on is the continued commitment to the student body.

“We are more effective advocates for our students, and just as committed to seeking financial, academic, and other opportunities for them when our focus is on their needs rather than the current state of national politics,” affirmed VanAken.

Regardless of what happens on a national scale, the work to protect students and continue providing opportunities for them doesn’t stop with this one motion.

Dr. Chris Travis, Spanish and World Languages Professor, says it’s important to look ahead, “Words matter. Words are important, but also what comes next? What action are we taking? How are we supporting our students going forward?”

Dr. Sarah Katula, Associate Nursing Professor, says now is the time for the faculty, administration, and institution at large to step up and figure out how they’re going to define themselves going forward.

“I think we’re being challenged in this moment, what statement are we going to make?” questioned Katula.

“I think institutional identity means really being sort of knowledgeable of your lived history,” said Dr. Debra Meyer, Professor of Education, “ I think we’ve lost a sense of identity, in part because we’ve lost that history.”

Elmhurst University has a long history of taking strong political stands, despite backlash and protests from detractors.

During World War II, EU opened its doors to Japanese students seeking political asylum. From 1943-1944, EU admitted four new Japanese students from California, an effort spearheaded by a newly formed ‘Student Refugee Committee.’ The students in this organization helped to ease the transition process and provided continued support for refugee students, despite the rather vocal opposition from Elmhurst residents.

In 2011, EU was the first institution in the nation to ask students about sexual orientation on their undergraduate admission applications, drawing backlash on a national scale. Still, the institution stood by its decision for the good of its LGBTQ+ students.

“I felt like we did the right things during really, really hard moments,” Katula expressed. “Even when people in the immediate outside community thought we shouldn’t. It makes me proud of those things.”

It’s this history that faculty want to once again draw upon to shape EU’s identity in these ever-changing times.

Travis says that while there has been a lot of reminiscing on EU’s history, there has also been a lot of discussion about where the community goes from here. “Who are we in this moment as a University?”

Katula has found herself asking similar questions, “Are we evolving into something that we were not before? I think we need to have a conversation about that.”

She continued, “I don’t want to lose our identity. And if some people forgot what our identity is, this is a good moment. Let’s do the work, let’s figure it out together.”

Part of that work comes in the form of a ‘Working Group’ that the Elmhurst University Faculty Council has begun to establish.

This working group is “focused on enhancing students’ support across their institution, tasked with developing actionable recommendations to better serve students and create an inclusive, supportive environment.”

Faculty say that as they begin laying this groundwork and taking this action, it’s important that they know—and that students know—that the administration is going to work with them.

“If we say we’re going to do this work, are we going to be supported?” asked Katula. “Faculty have been talking about what’s happening and feeling like we’re sliding backward on equity.”

In his statement to The Leader via email, President VanAken emphasized the importance of collaboration for the sake of student success.

“Whether we’re on the faculty or are administrators or staff, at our core we are all here for the same reason—to contribute to the success of our students,” said VanAken. “To do that we must create and maintain the kind of campus environment where all of our students can feel welcome and that they belong. We each play different roles in this, of course, but are united in our commitment.”

Ultimately, faculty agree that there is a long road ahead for future collaborations, but remain hopeful that they can move past this bump in the road and work together for the betterment and well-being of their students.

“I’m not one to dwell on the mistakes,” said Meyer. “You’ve got to repair the harm you’ve done and move forward.”