Running head: EVALUATION OF A CAMPUS CRISIS Evaluation of a Campus Crisis: The University of Louisiana Nikki Robison SDAD 576 Seattle University February 11, 2011 1 EVALUATION OF A CAMPUS CRISIS 2 Abstract The University of Louisiana system found itself once again preparing for the onslaught of another hurricane just 3 years after the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. The University’s Emergency Response plan that was developed post Katrina was employed in August 2008 as Hurricane Gustav made its way to the shores of Louisiana. Preparation and execution of the emergency plan prior to the impact of the storm contributed to the success of the university’s overall response to the crisis. EVALUATION OF A CAMPUS CRISIS 3 Evaluation of a Campus Crisis: The University of Louisiana Only three years after Hurricane Katrina devastated the state of Louisiana and many of its universities, the University of Louisiana system found itself preparing once again for the impact of another Hurricane. Hurricane Gustav was sure to reach land and the amount of potential damage was unknown. The eight schools within the University of Louisiana system began to enact a plan. Dr. E. Joseph Savoie, President of the University of Louisiana Lafayette campus stated, “you can’t control everything, but you can get well prepared, so that there’s not a whole of guesswork. We’ve got a script lined up” (Jaschik, 2008). One can only imagine that following the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, universities in Louisiana learned a significant amount about how to respond to natural disasters and their potential threats. The preparation and existence of an emergency plan at the University of Louisiana demonstrates support for Steve Sample’s statement about university presidents responding to crisis, “have a well developed emergency plan” (Sample, 2006, p. 233). Taking the time to assess and develop an emergency plan after the damage left by Katrina was crucial to providing an efficient and effective response to the August 2008 hurricane. With the threat of Hurricane Gustav on the horizon, the University of Louisiana’s emergency reflexes kicked in to gear. Upon recognition of the potential storm, a pre-identified emergency response team for the University of Louisiana system convened to address potential issues, threats, dangers and alerted its students, faculty and staff, and communicated its plan of action in the event the storm touched ground. In the state of Louisiana, having been named a “disaster area” (Cofer, 2008), the possibility of another hurricane was taken very seriously. The presidents of their respective universities made official announcements and became the spokesperson for each of their EVALUATION OF A CAMPUS CRISIS 4 institutions. The existence of a pre-identified emergency response team was a strength of the university’s actual response to the potential crisis. As noted in University Presidents as Moral Leaders (2006), Philip Dubois reflects on his own response to crises at the University of Wyoming; he states, “minimally, though, having in place a standing crisis management team turned out to be indispensable to UW’s ability to manage each of these two major crises” (Dubois, 2006, p. 46). Although, and hopefully, an emergency plan is not often enacted by a university, it is still absolutely necessary in order to aid in an institution’s ability to respond appropriately and effectively in rare times of crisis. Additionally, identifying each university’s president within the Louisiana University system as the official spokesperson for their respective schools was a strength to the overall response to the storm. It was clear whom the community could turn to for answers and information which lead to the avoidance of mixed messages and confusion. Because the storm was expected to hit land at the start of the school year, the majority of announcements came in the form of online updates through the university website, the State of Louisiana website, mass emails, as well as through an emergency call system. The frequency of which announcements were made and the multiple avenues they were delivered ensured that everyone was well aware of the status of the crisis and the university’s plan. Characteristics of effective leaders, according to Albert Yates, is that their “communication must be open, honest, direct, and frequent” (Yates, 2006, p. 114). The University of Louisiana presidents did just that. They delivered messages to their respective schools daily, if not more frequently. The message was clear and direct and despite being honest about the potentially devastating effects they would face following the storm, their communication remained hopeful as they anticipated the schools EVALUATION OF A CAMPUS CRISIS 5 would reopen just a few days after the storm moved on. The importance of university presidents staying positive and keeping hope in times of crisis is another idea supported by Albert Yates. Your moods become their moods; your uncertainties become their uncertainties. And so, as leaders, we relinquish a portion of our discretion; we may no longer embrace or exhibit the qualities of sadness, cynicism, or pessimism that have the power to damage our organizations or the people within them. As leaders, we must believe in the future and its possibilities–or no one else will. (Yates, 2006, p. 112) The University of Louisiana Presidents remained positive in their outlook on the aftermath of the storm. They did not dwell on the past effects of Hurricane Katrina, instead they focused on the present and future. They committed themselves to focusing on ways to reopen the schools as quickly as possible. This mindset was conveyed to other members of the community and as such, it helped avoid the onset of panic by any members. Students were urged to stay home with their families until the storm passed and evacuation shelters were provided for those who were already on campus. A few of the evacuation shelters were hosted by the schools within the University of Louisiana system that existed well off the path of Hurricane Gustav and out of harm’s way. University presidents encouraged the members of the community to volunteer as they were able and recognized and acknowledged the efforts. This demonstrates the community’s response to the leadership at the University of Louisiana schools and the respect and trust they have for the eight campus Presidents. Pamela Shockley-Zalabak makes the point that trust and respect of community members is an important aspect to successfully responding in times of crisis (Shockley-Zalabak, 2006, p. 144). EVALUATION OF A CAMPUS CRISIS 6 Regardless of the effects that would be felt by the storm, each campus was prepared to conduct classes online for the first few days of school in order to allow enough time for the campus to return to normal functioning order. Development of this plan demonstrates the foresight of the University of Louisiana system and its resiliency when faced with crisis situations. Following the storm, most campuses were able to reopen immediately or after minimal clean up and repair. However, it was addressed that faculty members and staff were to first attend to any necessary damage to ensure the safety of their homes and families. Although the crisis had passed, the University of Louisiana understood that the hurricane’s effects impacted its community members beyond the scope of campus and allowed people the necessary time to sufficiently recover. Al Yates’ reflection following the Fort Collins flood parallels that of the action taken by the University of Louisiana’s presidents, “tend to people first. ‘ If we did not tend to people and treat them well, we could lose forever our most precious asset, and any physical recovery would be a hollow victory’” (Yates, 2006, p. 240). This action taken by University of Louisiana further supports the claim that their response to this crisis was appropriate and effective. Although the effects of Hurricane Gustav cannot be compared to the magnitude of devastation caused by Katrina, the effective execution of the University of Louisiana’s Emergency Plan helped downplay the potential turmoil that could have arisen from the presence of Hurricane Gustav. In my opinion, the action taken by the University of Louisiana presidents before, during and after the crisis was appropriate and effective. Their Emergency Plan is one that should be used as a model for other universities as it accounts for a number of scenarios and a range of severity. The University of Louisiana presidents approached the crisis of Hurricane EVALUATION OF A CAMPUS CRISIS 7 Gustav prepared and as such, the schools were able to recover from the storm quickly to return to a fully functioning state almost immediately. References Cofer, J. E. (2008, September 3). A message from president Cofer. Retrieved from http://www.ulm.edu/gustav/ Dubois, P. L. (2006). Presidential leadership in time of crisis. In D. Brown (Ed.), University Presidents as Moral Leaders (pp. 29-53). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Jaschik, S. (2008, September 2). Waiting to assess Gustav’s damage. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/02/gustav Sample, S. B. (2006). The contrarian's guide to university leadership. In D. Brown (Ed.), University Presidents as Moral Leaders (pp. 185-194). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2006). A response to president harbaowski's essay: building trust for enduring change. In D. Brown (Ed.), University Presidents as Moral Leaders (pp. 143146). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Yates, A. C. (2006). Virtue and leadership: good leaders must first be good people. In D. Brown (Ed.), University Presidents as Moral Leaders (pp. 107-123). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.