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.