As Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Education and a professor of political science who has published on and taught about pandemics to undergraduates for years, I learned the hard way that teaching about disasters is not the same as living through one. In the subfield of international relations (IR), the study of pandemics and communicable diseases falls within the theoretical framework of neoliberal institutionalism. The prevention and management of global pandemics require the cooperation of states, through intergovernmental organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), to overcome a collective goods problem. Students of IR learn that global health security is a collective good as a common or shared interest for all humans. Yet, the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 will serve as an example for future generations on how the lack of global governance led to a worldwide health crisis in the early twenty-first century.

Even though governments were slow to act in response to the spread of this virus, universities in the United States quickly shut down their campuses and shifted to remote instruction in record time to avoid a catastrophic event in higher education. This essay presents an administrator’s perspective on the actions that universities took to avoid the collective action problem at all levels of the organization in order to deliver education remotely. Dominican University of California is a small private university of approximately 1800 students in the Northern San Francisco Bay Area. This chapter focuses on our experiences, the lessons learned, and some parallels between global and university governance to show that states, like complex campus units, can collaborate to conquer an unforeseen challenge as a pandemic.

Pre-Pandemic Institutional Orientations and Commitments: Facing the Covid-19 Challenge

By some bizarre coincidence, before the Covid-19 pandemic I co-authored a chapter titled, “Invisible Foes and Micro-enemies: Pathogens, Diseases, and Global Health Security” in a volume that I co-edited, titled Understanding New Security Threats (Gueldry et al. 2019; Formentos and Gokcek 2019). I assigned the chapter on global health security in my IR course, which concluded at the end of Fall 2019, around the same time doctors in China were becoming alarmed that a virulent virus was spreading throughout Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province. At the conclusion of that semester, any fears and concerns my students and I might have had about a future pandemic were minimal, instead being relegated to a science-fiction fantasy in movies like Outbreak (1995) and Contagion (2011). The confidence that I had in our international institutions to facilitate cooperation between governments to avert an unimaginable nightmare scenario is the reason teaching and studying about a global pandemic seemed hypothetical. I could not have imagined back then how the pandemic would actually impact my institution and me as an educator/administrator.

Why were universities across the country able to act immediately and decisively in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, when governments around the world appeared to struggle with stay-at-home orders? Naturally, one reason is that universities are much smaller units, unlike sovereign states, with perhaps much less complexity and constituencies to rely upon in the management of their day-to-day operations. Moreover, unlike the anarchic global system composed of sovereign states, universities are managed hierarchically, with the upper Administration beholden to governing boards, which are charged with fiduciary responsibilities, while the administrative units have delegated authority over academic affairs and operations. As it became clearer each subsequent day, week, and month in 2020 that a deadly virus, which had emerged in one country, was now spreading like wildfire across the globe, university leaders began responding similarly.

By mid-March 2020, over 300 universities in the United States had made a decision to move classes online (Foresman). This dramatic transition required all units on campus (academic affairs, information technology, residential life, business services, athletics, etc.) to come together quickly, with little warning to deliver education remotely. The goal was “to ensure that students’ education was disrupted as little as possible” with universities relying on a variety of digital tools, “including online learning management systems, video conferencing tools and messaging platforms, to make sure students can access course materials and communicate with professors” (Foresman). Whereas universities were already making preparations to shut down and move everything online, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) at the time had not recommended that campuses pre-emptively close, but rather, asked that they take decisive action only if they had identified any Covid-19 cases (Foresman). However, previous research on the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic showed that school closures were among the most effective non-pharmaceutical interventions (Markel et al. 2007). Unlike national governments, universities and colleges understood the urgency to act quickly because we had learned from previous emergencies and tragedies.

Academic institutions regularly and continuously hold workshops and retreats to train the campus community to navigate through almost any unimaginable crisis. The ability of faculty to adapt their courses demonstrates resilience and leadership to students when an unforeseen challenge is presented. Professors know to design courses with inherent flexibility, thereby building into the schedule adaptability to get through content without overwhelming students (Joshi et al. 2018). For example, during the wildfire season in California, schools are now routinely prepared to temporarily shut down and evacuate the campus. This preparation has resulted from the experience of multiple power outages, the close proximity of fire to campus, and/or dangerous air quality in past years. In the US Southeast, schools have prepared to do the same during hurricane season. When Hurricane Florence hit in 2018, the University of North Carolina Wilmington had to shut down for approximately one month. On the other side of the world, when a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2011, faculty at the University of Canterbury “adapted to teaching in tents on the car park or in approved buildings off-campus. Courses were shortened by one to three weeks, and students were required to become stronger independent learners. With less opportunity for face-to-face contact, lecturers learnt how to use the computer learning system more intensively, and some recorded their lectures” (Lord 2011, 591).

These types of experiences taught university administrators that class meetings could be held remotely through “the use of e-learning and associated available technologies” in order “to provide students with continued access to educational” programs “when physical attendance on a campus is highly problematic or impossible” (Tull et al. 2017, 66). Thus, universities had learned through crises (either their own or those at other institutions) that investment in technology would be the key not only to survive, but also to overcome possible disruptions to regular business operations. During a crisis, university administrators, professors, and staff need to communicate regularly with the campus community directly via email, social media, or through a communication tree.

It is also important to recognize that some members of a university community may be more directly impacted by a crisis than others. University counselors are available to help those in need. Professors make alternative arrangements for course assignments when students are unable to do their work, either because of physical disruptions like power outages and displacement, or for emotional reasons after living through a crisis.Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, educators were already prepared and knew, should the unexpected hit, they would need to deliver the same course content in an alternative mode. Indeed, some faculty build a crisis into their courses as a learning opportunity. In the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, some faculty at surrounding universities and colleges “changed their original plans for class upon realizing that their students needed to discuss the crisis” (Hosek and Lauren 2016, 71).

Although there was some variation across institutions over the course of the pandemic, higher education was nearly completely remote by mid-spring 2020, with online course delivery and Zoom meetings becoming the norm. As states made varying decisions on the degree to open the economy and lift stay-at-home orders, most universities and colleges seemed to act in unison. However, as the pandemic wore on, some colleges and universities diverged from others. Whereas the California public universities decided to remain online because of surging cases throughout the state, in Texas, Georgia, and much of the southern United States, the attitude was quite different as students and teachers were encouraged to engage in-person or hybrid learning. The political culture or leaning of a region appeared to influence local or state governments on mask mandates, in-person gatherings and limited capacity, as well as online teaching, thereby impacting university decisions. Nonetheless, and despite these differences, the ability of all universities and colleges to adapt quickly and effectively in response to the pandemic likely kept the number of cases lower than they might have been in other circumstances.

Living Through the Pandemic

At Dominican University, our experience was similar to institutions across the country. On March 16, 2020, the first shelter-in-place order in the country went into effect in the six Bay Area Counties of California. The week prior was our Spring Break, and most faculty and students were away from campus. Prior to Spring Break, university administration, faculty, and staff began a conversation on what might happen if the university needed to shut down immediately because of a Covid-19 outbreak, as community spread had been reported in the adjacent counties. The university began preparing while waiting for directives from local, state, and national governments. Although students and faculty were away, including two sets of groups on co-curricular excursions to Iceland and Costa Rica, the rest of the staff/administrative units were on campus planning for asynchronous or synchronous delivery of courses. Vice presidents, deans, faculty developers, and information technology team members gathered to map out remote delivery of education if the campus was forced to shut down. The administration canceled classes for the first two days following Spring Break, but no one imagined that we were preparing for a far longer shut down than any of us knew was coming.

Once the shelter-in-place order went into effect, all students, faculty, and staff were asked to leave campus immediately. Many faculty did not realize that what was happening was not going to be a few days away from campus, as we had grown accustomed to during past wildfires and power outages. Thus, offices were vacated without taking into account that faculty might not be able to return to access books and other materials to teach. Until that point, many faculty had not even used Zoom either—on a regular basis, or ever. As one faculty member stated, it was truly a “triage moment” as we all adapted day-to-day with ongoing guidance and leadership from the president and provost every few days. However, the sense of community was felt in spite of the distance. Everyone came together, supported one another, and demonstrated compassion toward each other, thereby managing to conclude the semester remotely.

Once the academic year wrapped up, a Fall Strategy Team (FST) was instituted at the university. Knowing full well that the pandemic would not end on the first day of classes in August 2020, the team consisted of academic and operations leaders across campus that met weekly to prepare the university for the fall semester. Several working groups were established with guidance from the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities to help FST members focus on different issue areas that would require planning and implementation: Health and Safety; Learning and Student Support; Infrastructure; Personnel; Finance and Legal: and Communications and External Relations. Together, they guided leaders of the various units to coordinate on a range of issues: weekly Covid-19 tests for members of the campus community; adapting dorms, residential halls, classrooms, and office spaces to limited capacity; making protective gear available to everyone on campus (face shields); arranging outdoor classroom space and building covered dance floors to take the place of indoor studios; posting signage inside and outside of buildings; shifting to online forms for all business (reimbursements, course substitutions, etc.); etc.…

The Academic Affairs Office determined that in order to keep the campus community connected, professional development sessions and tuition-free courses should be offered. Professional development sessions were geared toward pandemic pedagogy to assist faculty in adjusting to face-to-face, hybrid, and online asynchronous and synchronous modalities. Given that no one could predict in the middle of the summer whether the campus community would be fully in-person once the academic year resumed, faculty had to be prepared for all scenarios. As the summer rolled on and Covid-19 cases surged throughout California, it became clearer that not everyone would be able to return to campus in the fall. Before the state issued guidelines that only essential programs could return to campus, school deans and department chairs determined that only those courses that would be unable to meet learning outcomes effectively through remote instruction would be held in person.

In terms of enrollment, for the academic year 2020–2021 Dominican was consistent with national averages of new students, but retention rates were higher than anticipated among continuing students, even in a non-pandemic year. Athletic programs remained on hiatus until the NCAA indicated it was alright for athletes to return for practice and games. What distinguished Fall 2020 from Spring 2020 was the amount of advanced preparations for the remote delivery of education. As Dominican’s President wrote in “Moving from Tactical to the Strategic” for Inside Higher Ed, “By necessity, that adaptation has been somewhat ad hoc and reactive as we struggled to understand the nuances of evolving public health protocols…” (Marcy 2021, 2). So how well did our collective planning and preparation work once everything went into effect? The next section answers this question with evidence gathered from aggregate data from a student survey conducted in Fall 2020.

Assessment: Delivering Education in a Global Pandemic

Between September and October 2020, the university administered a Covid-19 Student Survey, developed by the Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium (HEDS). Our objective in conducting the survey was to assess the effectiveness of online instruction and co-curricular delivery, to learn how students were performing, as well as to understand where greater support from units on campus was needed. For example, in terms of living arrangements, we learned that more than 80% of students, lived off-campus during the fall semester. Students who were not on campus conveyed satisfaction with their reduced risk of contracting Covid-19, as well as spending time with family, and saving financially. Students living on campus claimed that wearing masks in their residential units was the hardest guideline to follow; nevertheless, 90% of them felt “pretty” or “very” safe with the measures the university had taken to protect the campus.

With respect to academics, over 40% of students indicated they took at least some in-person classes, though 95% said most of their classes were online. Regarding their Fall 2020 courses and communications from Dominican, students expressed the highest level of agreement with the statement: “My professors respond in a timely manner when I have questions or concerns;” and the lowest agreement with the statement: “My online classes this fall are better than my classes last spring after my institution moved to online learning.” Students communicated that they were most satisfied with class discussions and lectures via Zoom, and identified potential opportunities for improving satisfaction that included virtual tutoring sessions, online library materials, interactive simulations, and discussion boards, as well as virtual office hours. More than half of students taking courses exclusively online reported an average of seven hours or more spent on the computer for classes and work per day. Many students discussed challenges related to academic workload, expressing that some faculty expectations seemed unrealistic, and in fact, more demanding than during a typical term. The combination of pandemic, wildfires in the area, family and work responsibilities, physical and mental health issues seemed to impact students’ abilities to manage their coursework.

Regarding connectivity to the Dominican community in an environment of remote learning, most students felt “Some” or a “Very strong” connection, while 25% reported “Very little” or “No” connection. Among the undergraduate population with each cohort, a sense of connectivity to the university decreased, freshmen reported the strongest, and seniors reported the weakest connection. When asked for ideas on how to improve student experience, many requested increased online event offerings, like game nights, other social activities with peers, informal meet-and-greets with faculty, more personal check-ins with instructors, and even extended office hours. Other students expressed a desire for a variety of in-person, but socially distant, opportunities for interactions on campus, which ranged from being allowed to have guests in dorms, to one-on-one faculty meetings, to study groups, to more hands-on learning experiences or “just getting back to normal.”

Some of the negative student experiences included the challenges of engaging online and social activities, low motivation levels, and a hard time focusing without distractions were also reported, however. Frequent struggles related to a lack of connection to peers and instructors, difficulty meeting and making friends, especially among first-year students, and generally feeling isolated from the campus community. Students were least satisfied with the social life on campus, followed by access to services to improve their physical health, and opportunities to participate in campus events, clubs, and student organizations. Respondents also expressed disappointment for missing out on a traditional college experience, and wished that they could be back on campus. Yet, many also requested the option of continuing remotely during the pandemic, because of physical and mental health reasons, as well as homecare and work responsibilities.

Reflections on Inequalities Laid Bare

Unlike undergraduates today, as a student of the twentieth century, I had not experienced a global pandemic. When I was in college 30 years ago, as a political science major in an IR course, I learned about arms races, nuclear non-proliferation, and great power wars. Twenty-first-century college students yearn to learn about cyber warfare, sex and human trafficking, water security, food security, international and domestic terrorism, and now global health security. Writing about micro-pathogens, or “invisible foes,” as potential threats to global health security started out as a hypothetical, that, as a responsible educator, I felt was necessary to teach my students. In an anarchic world, the only way to manage the spread of virulent diseases to prevent the massive loss of life is through international institutions and coordinated efforts across governments (Formentos and Gokcek 2019). What the world experienced in 2020 was the failure of collective action, or a lack of cooperation among sovereign states to coordinate their policies to stop the spread of Covid-19.

Almost a year and a half after the WHO declared Covid-19 a global pandemic, more than 175 million people around the world had contracted the virus, and nearly 3.8 million people have lost their lives (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). Moreover, the world economy suffered, as many lost their jobs, businesses of all sizes went bust, and hundreds of thousands were forced to collect unemployment benefits. Universities felt the direct impact as well, with many seeing significant hits to their budgets, forcing the closure of programs, cuts to employment benefits, and even the shuttering of whole institutions because of the financial hardships exacerbated by the pandemic. Despite direct relief from the federal government in response to the Covid-19 fallout, one wonders how the pandemic might have played out had the United States, as a global leader, mobilized other countries to coordinate efforts to combat the problem.

Instead, the Trump administration announced in the middle of the pandemic that it was withdrawing the United States from the WHO (Cohen et al. 2020). The administration reasoned that the, “US’ contribution to the WHO—$400–500 million—was inordinately large in comparison to China's, and consistently accused the organization of aiding the latter in allegedly covering up the origins of the virus and allowing its spread” (Cohen et al. 2020). Subsequently, leaders of the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians urged Congress to reject the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the WHO and preserve the United States’ “relationship with this valued global institution…to invest in global health, rather than turn back” (Cohen et al. 2020). Once he took office on January 20, 2021, President Biden announced that the United States would rejoin the WHO in an effort “to advance pandemic preparedness, reverse the health consequences of climate change, and promote better health globally” (Weintraub 2021).

The decision to remain engaged with the international community through the WHO supports the theory of neoliberal institutionalism. The establishment of the UN in 1945, and subsequently the WHO in 1948, was a shift in global attitudes from fear, mistrust, and conflict, toward cooperation and peace. “The lack of a world authority compels sovereign states to provide protection of their national interests in an environment of global anarchy. Some international problems require that states place global interests above national ones when the two may be at odds” (Formentos and Gokcek 2019, 111). Neoliberal institutionalism provides insight as to how governments are able to overcome their respective national interests to address a common goal through cooperation facilitated by IGOs “to deal with a collective goods dilemma, which benefit all, irrespective of individual contributions to its production” (Formentos and Gokcek 2019, 111). The WHO, as well as US membership and leadership in the organization, is key to heralding others states to coordinate in protecting the citizens of the world from future pandemics (Weintraub 2021).

Projections for a New Normal: Lesson Learned from Remote Education

Whereas governments failed to cooperate in preventing the Covid-19 pandemic, universities took decisive collective action to shut down their respective campuses and move everything to remote delivery to avoid what might have been a far more catastrophic event to the world. Dominican’s administration realized that this new way of “doing” higher education was not a temporary adjustment because of the pandemic, but likely would pave the way for a new normal. Remote learning taught faculty, who held reservations about online teaching, that it was not as daunting as they once assumed. When it became necessary to make the shift, most faculty effectively made that adjustment, and were even surprised that they enjoyed the experience far more than imagined.

One lesson learned here is that going forward, the university will be able to offer more online and hybrid course options, as a way to appeal to students with busy lives who might not always find it easy to take courses on the physical campus. The university’s investment in smart classroom technology to provide streaming services now makes it more likely that professors and students will continue to rely on virtual video-conferencing tools like Zoom post-pandemic. The administration also decided that many of the day-to-day operations could be handled remotely, including meeting through Zoom, as opposed to on-campus. The ease with which staff, faculty, and administrators can Zoom into a meeting taught everyone that we did not all need to be in the same location to carry on with handling important university business. We now know from our experience that universities are capable of adapting, shifting, and responding to individual needs, while continuing to deliver education effectively even while fully remote. The forced adjustments in response to the pandemic might prove in the long run to be “more sustainable and more educationally robust” (Marcy 2021, 3). Finally, political leaders might apply some of the strategies used by university administrators to implement effective planning to better prepare corporations, organizations, and institutions for future global events and emergencies.