Addition on October 18, 2013: Loyolka Email to AAUP list with Attachments
Attachment #1: SomeSelectedemailsreNSEI_2010_2012_1.0.pdf
Attachment #2: loyalka_Ameren-Westinghouse.pdf
I am attaching a selection of emails from the information we have received under the sunshine law
(some of the 2010-11 emails came only last week, but excepting those, others have been posted on the
AAUP website). Very briefly, my views are:
1. In the first email (Dec 2010) from Dean George Justice one cannot find any mention of a
discussion with faculty and deans. The target date was July 1, 2011. Also there is no mention of any
CRR etc,. The sentence regarding faculty, deans etc was inserted by Provost Brian Foster in his
modification following. There was never any discussion with the NSEI faculty at least regarding the
review and our response to it.
2. The conversations involved from almost the very beginning, five levels above us - George
Justice (ambiguous, NSEI's acting or interim director), George Justice (Dean of Grad School), Ken
(Deputy Provost), Brian Foster (Provost) and Brady Deaton (Chancellor). It is also clear that positive
information towards NSEI was disregarded or made light of.
3. The conversations were stopped in Feb 2011, I believe because of Medical Physics-CAMPEP
-accreditation process and slated visits to NSEI/MU by the accreditation team and perhaps other
matters. We got accredited on July 18, 2011 with not only MS but also PhD (for which we had not
initially applied). George Justice was ticked off by a "realtiger" blog in October 2011, with
confirmation by Ken Dean of his thoughts that "realtiger" is Loyalka.
4. The document re NSEI was resurrected in December 2011, and the entire matter was kept under
lid until the announcement of March 12, 2012. There is an email from George Justice that the action
was to be moved to an earlier date (from July 1, 2012) following a meeting on Jan 20, 2012 among the
Provost, him and the Chancellor.
5. Information regarding our external grants and funding and those of others should have been
readily available and indeed should have been compared thoughtfully before action of March 12.
Instead there was just speculation. Factual information would have shown that our funding was very
good, that we were committed to supporting the economic initiatives.
6. Yes, NSEI has done some really impressive things, as the Provost noted. The facts are also
that we have engaged very broadly, and information regarding our grants, collaborations, affiliate
faculty, etc is easily available. Much misinformation has been spread by some parties though that we
have not engaged others or excluded others. We could not have brought about the CAMPEP success if we
were excluding others. My own 2011-2015 NEUP/DOE ~1.2M grant alone involves 8 faculty (from NSEI and
other disciplines). We have just also receive a substantial grant (~800K/3 years) where Dr. Robert
Tompson is the lead investigator, and where a top university is partnering with us. We have also
received three other major grants since March 2012, two of which involve about 1 dozen faculty each
from across the campus.
7. I have included some emails from the College of Engineering. The nature of these is
self-evident. I had hoped that when we engaged with Engineering, we will get an offer we could not
refuse. I hope you will see the true nature of circumstances prevailing there- and why we had no
choice but to disengage. Actions regarding the
Faculty Driven Process were intentional, and should
be viewed with some seriousness.
I have also attached a copy of a presentation I had given to a visiting Ameren/Westinghouse team on
June 06, 2012. Our funding was very good then, and it is still very good. I particularly draw your
attention to number of MS and PhDs we graduated. We had a very good year, and I believe these numbers
match very well with those of the largest science/engineering departments on the campus.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or need more information.
Sudarshan K. Loyalka
Curators' Professor of Nuclear Engineering, NSEI, MU
A Case Study in Faculty Shared Governance and Academic Freedom-what went wrong?
The e-mails below follow the decision making process used by the MU administration in the surprise
closing of the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute on March 12, 2012. The institute, formed in
2002, had achieved the number one ranking from Academic Analytics in 2007 and had maintained high
rankings despite the administration refusing to appoint an Institute director after the
retirement of the interim director in 2006 and the administration consistently taking away significant
resources in an apparent effort to weaken the institute and its ranking. The Institute had four
faculty, 65 graduate students, a newly accredited medical physics emphasis degree, significant
research funding and significant interdisciplinary interactions on campus, throughout the nation and
the world. It offered a nuclear engineering degree with three emphasis areas: power, health physics
and medical physics.
The faculty found out about the administration's plan to close the institute when
then Graduate Dean George Justice called for a 9 am faculty meeting on March 12, 2012. Meanwhile at 9
am on March 12, Provost Foster sent an e-mail to deans, chairs and other administrators announcing the
closing of the institute. The two events, telling the faculty that the institute would be closed at
the meeting and the provost's e-mail, were supposed to have occurred simultaneously, however, one of
the NSEI faculty members was 15 minutes late. Dean Justice waited impatiently for the late faculty
member while nervously looking at his watch. The announcement stated that the institute would be shut
down on March 15. It stated that the nuclear engineering degree would be given to the college of
engineering and that the students seeking an emphasis in power engineering would get their nuclear
engineering degrees from the college of engineering. It stated that the students in the health physics
and medical physics emphasis would get a nuclear science degree from the graduate school.
were understandably upset. For those in health physics and medical physics, a nuclear engineering
degree has a significantly larger economic value than a nuclear science degree over a lifetime. To
them, their years of hard work and dedication and their choice of and trust in the University of
Missouri to nurture them as students was completely shattered.
Today, little has changed. The
administration has suspended admissions of students to the accredited medical physics emphasis area
despite the fact that it is only one of twenty four accredited programs in the US and the only
accredited program in the region. The administration has shut down admissions to the institute and
opened admissions to a newly formed and competing nuclear engineering program in the college of
engineering. Some students who applied for fall semester 2013 based their decisions to apply at the
University of Missouri because of the institute's reputation and national rating. These students were
instead admitted to the competing college of engineering program.
The decision-making processes in closing the institute is covered in the e-mails dating from June of
2011 to September 2012 and they are eye-opening. Due to the volume of emails, the detailed analysis is
seeks help and welcomes your comments and/or analysis of specific e-mails or sequences of e-mails and
how they impact faculty shared governance and academic freedom on the MU campus. Your analysis will be
posted, anonymously if you desire, with the hope of discovering what went wrong and how to improve the
AAUP MU Chapter
selected emails regarding NSEI (revised)
emails regarding NSEI from June 2011 to August 2012
June - December 2011
October 1 to Date of Request 2012