Pre-litigation letter sent by Doug Ibendahl to Roosevelt University




165 N. Canal Street
Suite 1215
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 648-0061
[email protected]

December 16, 2011



Dr. Charles R. Middleton

Roosevelt University
430 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL 60605


Re: Gillian John-Charles


Dear Dr. Middleton:

Please be advised that I have been retained by Gillian John-Charles to represent her in matters related to her wrongful and retaliatory discharge from the doctoral program administered by Roosevelt University and specifically the College of Education, Department of Educational Leadership (the “EdD Program”).

Based on our ongoing investigation, it is clear that Roosevelt University (the “University”) and its agents have exhibited disturbing intolerance and discriminated against Ms. John-Charles on the basis of her race, gender, as well as her personal beliefs and political views; have unlawfully retaliated against Ms. John-Charles for attempting to protect her reputation and pursuing her legal rights; defamed her; and have terminated Ms. John-Charles from the EdD Program in violation of public policy.

Ms. John-Charles has requested that any questions, inquiries, or other communications about these matters be referred directly to my attention.

The description of facts contained herein is not intended to be exhaustive and we hereby specifically reserve the right to supplement and/or modify the facts as further investigation dictates. Please understand that this letter has been prepared and sent for the purpose of encouraging the University to remedy the severe harm it has inflicted upon Ms. John-Charles through its unlawful and disgraceful conduct.

At a minimum the University owes Gillian John-Charles a formal, public apology, and she should be afforded the opportunity for reinstatement to the EdD Program without further delay. She is an outstanding individual and student who deserves the opportunity to complete the endeavor to which she devoted two years of her life and hard work, as well as tens-of-thousands of dollars.

Frankly given the behavior Ms. John-Charles witnessed and the treatment she endured at the University, no one would blame her for never wanting to return. However, she has so much work and money invested at this point, and is so close to completing her doctorate degree – it would be ridiculously unfair for her to be forced to throw all of that away.

The University clearly has incredibly serious problems both at the teaching and administrative levels. The presence of someone of Ms. John-Charles’ caliber on campus would provide at least some hope for the future of the University.

We trust that the University will promptly do the right and obvious thing in this matter after consideration of the facts and the law outlined below. My client of course reserves the right to utilize all legal avenues available to her as necessary to protect and restore her reputation, and to remedy the wrongs and alleviate the harm, embarrassment and suffering the University and its agents have deliberately and recklessly inflicted upon Ms. John-Charles.


Gillian John-Charles, 35, is a resident of Chicago and is a full time mathematics teacher at Kenwood Academy High School on the South Side of Chicago, a position she has held continuously since the fall of 2009. Ms. John-Charles currently teaches five classes of College Algebra at Kenwood Academy.

After completing high school in three years, Ms. John-Charles earned a bachelors degree in Finance from Illinois State University in 1997.

Ms. John-Charles also holds two graduate degrees: Master of Science in Computer Science, awarded by Illinois State University in 1999; and Master of Arts in Mathematics Education, awarded by DePaul University in 2005.

In addition to Kenwood Academy High School, Ms. John-Charles has taught full time at three other Chicago Public Schools in subjects including computers, accounting, and mathematics.

Ms. John-Charles began the EdD Program in the Fall Semester of 2009. While maintaining her full time teaching responsibilities at Kenwood Academy, she completed twelve (12) classes towards her doctorate degree, together with the other members of her cohort in the EdD Program.

Incredibly, on top of all these demands on her time and energy, Ms. John-Charles is also a single mom raising a toddler son.

Only one more year is required for Ms. John-Charles to satisfy the class requirements for her doctorate degree.

When the University ousted Ms. John-Charles, after punishing her for her personal beliefs and opinions, the EdD Program cohort lost its only black female student. (The only remaining black male student left the cohort at approximately the same time, reportedly voluntarily.)

Intimidation and Censorship in the Classroom

On October 5, 2010, Ms. John-Charles attended the third class meeting of her ethics course (ELOC 680) taught by Professor Gregory M. Hauser. The class was discussing the work of author and education reformer John Dewey. Dr. Hauser related Dewey’s belief that absent “scientific backing,” material should not be taught in school. Dr. Hauser cited evolution and creationism as examples.

Dr. Hauser then asked the class if anyone had other topics they believed should not be taught in school. One of Ms. John-Charles’ fellow students suggested sex education, but added that it would be appropriate if relating to sex anatomy and reproduction. Another student added it would be appropriate in a health class and as part of teaching about sexually transmitted diseases.

Dr. Hauser again queried the class as to subjects Dewey would say should not be discussed. Ms. John-Charles stated abstinence, and Dr. Hauser agreed, saying that would be more consistent with a religious viewpoint.

As class discussion continued, Dr. Hauser asked the students how they would treat topics related to being gay and/or gay relationships, or whether such topics would even be appropriate according to Dewey. The discussion progressed and at some point Ms. John-Charles mentioned

that it was her own personal belief that a person is not born gay. Dr. Hauser then began to directly grill Ms. John-Charles. When asked what she would say to a gay or lesbian student, Ms. John-Charles indicated that she didn’t understand the nature of the question because a person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on her conversation with anyone. Ms. John-Charles told Dr. Hauser that she treats all of her students the same and makes no distinction for race, sex, religious belief, or sexual orientation.

In light of Dr. Hauser’s aggressive tone, Ms. John-Charles felt the need to make it clear to Dr. Hauser that she had absolutely nothing against gay students. Whether someone is gay or straight is a non-issue for her. While her fellow students were nodding their heads indicating approval and understanding, Dr. Hauser forcefully interjected that he disagreed and further accused Ms. John-Charles of having an opinion on gay people that was “negative and disparaging.”

Ms. John-Charles was highly offended by Dr. Hauser’s comment and left the classroom to compose herself. Two classmates followed to console her. Both students told Ms. John-Charles they felt Dr. Hauser’s behavior was inappropriate and unprofessional.

After several minutes discussing the incident with Ms. John-Charles’ classmates, all agreed it would probably be best if she skipped the remainder of the class. Ms. John-Charles returned to the classroom, gathered her belongings and walked back out to leave for the evening. Yet another classmate followed her out and expressed his concern at the treatment Ms. John-Charles had received from Dr. Hauser. After thanking that student for his concern and support, Ms. John-Charles encouraged him to return to class, which he eventually did.

Meeting between Dr. Hauser and Ms. John-Charles

In the days following the October 5, 2010 class, Dr. Hauser requested (by email) a meeting with Ms. John-Charles prior to the next class on October 19. Ms. John-Charles attended this meeting held on October 15, 2010 at the University, optimistic that she and her professor could put the unpleasant events from the October 5th class behind them. These hopes were immediately dashed when Ms. John-Charles arrived and experienced Dr. Hauser’s angry and aggressive demeanor.

Dr. Hauser began the meeting by advising Ms. John-Charles, for the first time, that he was contacting the Dean (Dr. Thomas Philion) to see if he could also meet. After Dr. Philion arrived, Dr. Hauser launched into a belligerent attack on Ms. John-Charles over her previous classroom comment regarding her personal belief that persons are not born gay. Dr. Hauser then began an even more aggressive interrogation of Ms. John-Charles. She found the professor’s statements and attitude extremely offensive, and his accusations ridiculous and insulting. Among the absurd accusations, Dr. Hauser told Ms. John-Charles (in the presence of Dr. Philion), that she had an intolerant attitude toward gay people – a statement as false as it is defamatory. Dr. Hauser went on to tell Ms. John-Charles that she did not belong in the doctoral program.

After the disturbing meeting with Dr. Hauser, Ms. John-Charles consulted one of her professors from her prior masters degree work at another university. That professor advised Ms. John-Charles to seek outside organizations for help, and also to consult the University’s student handbook regarding rights and remedies. The professor also suggested that Ms. John-Charles begin tape recording her class with Dr. Hauser in order to protect herself from further harassment and false allegations.

At the next class with Dr. Hauser on October 19, 2010, Ms. John-Charles followed the other professor’s advice and openly pulled out a tape recorder in the presence of Dr. Hauser and fellow students. Dr. Hauser was seen to observe and recognize the tape recorder which was in plain sight and openly displayed in the small classroom. Dr. Hauser made no mention of its presence during the class and voiced no protest or concern, thus providing evidence of his actual knowledge and consent.

When the class next met on November 2, 2010, Dr. Hauser began with reference to his syllabus and a reminder that electronic devices were not to be used in his class. Dr. Hauser focused particularly on tape recording. He said that not only was recording of his class not permitted, he claimed it would be a Class 3 felony.

Seven of Ms. John-Charles’ classmates have signed a statement attesting that each had previously used some form of electronic device openly in Dr. Hauser’s class without incident or sanction, or even mention by Dr. Hauser whatsoever. Ms. John-Charles provided this list of student signatures to University officials while she was defending herself against a bad faith complaint.

The frivolous complaint against Ms. John-Charles

On November 1, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Dr. Hauser sent Ms. John-Charles an email which stated in pertinent part as follows: “A serious allegation has been made related to your conduct in the last class that necessitates that we meet prior to your attending the next class. I am available tomorrow anytime in the afternoon to meet with you and Associate Dean Philion.”

Ms. Charles of course works all day in a Chicago Public School and would not have been available to meet in the afternoon the next day, prior to the next class that evening, even if Dr. Hauser had made his request with reasonable notice. Clearly Dr. Hauser did not provide reasonable notice for a meeting he wanted to occur in less than 24 hours. Given Ms. John-Charles’ work, school, and family demands, it’s quite understandable that an email sent at 6:50 at night might not be picked up by her until well into the next day.

As detailed above, Ms. John-Charles attended Dr. Hauser’s class on the evening of November 2, 2010. While Dr. Hauser had the opportunity prior to or after the class (or during a break) to talk with Ms. John-Charles directly about scheduling a private meeting for a future date, Dr. Hauser made no attempt to do so.

Over two months go by and finally on January 10, 2011, Ms. John-Charles received an email from Eric Tammes, Assistant Vice President for Student Services, which stated in pertinent part as follows:

I have received a formal complaint that alleges your involvement in the violation of the following codes of student conduct at Roosevelt University:

3.  Obstruction or disruption of teaching, research administration, disciplinary procedures, or other University activities, including its public service functions, or of other authorized activities on University premises.

10. Failure to comply with directions of University officials acting in the performance of their duties.

Clearly this was Dr. Hauser’s clumsy attempt to play an immature “gotcha” game on Ms. John-Charles. Utilizing the testimony of her fellow students, Ms. John-Charles is prepared to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dr. Hauser had actual knowledge of the tape recorder in his classroom on October 19, 2010, but said nothing. He then feigns outrage and files a formal complaint against the only black woman in the class because he’s intolerant of her views and beliefs.

I have searched but have yet to find another case or report anywhere in America involving a university professor who filed a complaint against one of his or her own students for tape recording a class.

The University has also allowed, if not encouraged, Dr. Hauser’s abuse of the University’s own codes of student conduct. No reasonable person would read the sections cited above as applying to the present situation where a busy doctoral student who also works full time, overlooked one small paragraph on the use of electronic devices contained in a multiple-page course syllabus. Further, the professor at issue regularly overlooked and ignored the use of electronic devices by other students, all of whom we believe are prepared to testify in support of Ms. John-Charles’ contention that Dr. Hauser has singled out his one black female student in the class for discriminatory and unfair treatment.

Complaint by Ms. John-Charles

On November 11, 2010, Ms. John-Charles filed a formal complaint with the University against Dr. Hauser specifically describing in considerable detail the harassment, censorship, discrimination, as well as the violations of her civil liberties including, but not limited to freedom of speech and academic freedom which she experienced and was currently experiencing on campus. Ms. John-Charles’ complaint also described the environment she experienced at the University which she found to be both hostile and threatening.

Dr. Renate I. Rohde issued the initial dismissal of Ms. Charles complaint, and Ms. John-Charles appealed that decision. Ms. John-Charles received a response to her appeal from Dr. Holly A. Stadler, Dean, College of Education, on January 10, 2011 (the exact same day Ms. John-Charles received an email from Eric Tammes serving notice of Dr. Hauser’s “complaint” against her, as discussed above). In her response, Dr. Stadler doesn’t even attempt to seriously address the allegations made by Ms. John-Charles. Instead Dr. Stadler blames the victim and provides evidence of collusion with Dr. Hauser.

Dr. Stadler’s letter states in pertinent part, “What I do see in your complaint is that you were treated differently than other students in the class based on your verbal behavior in class that demonstrated your lack of current knowledge about the topic of homosexuality.”

Dr. Stadler’s letter also brings up the tape recorder – which is very odd given that Dr. Stadler is supposedly addressing the complaint made by Ms. John-Charles against Dr. Hauser. Dr. Stadler wrote: “Further, you ignored the course syllabus that explicitly prohibited the surreptitious taping of class conversations.”

Putting aside the incredible absurdity of using an alleged harasser’s separate “complaint” against the victim as ammunition to dismiss the victim’s complaint, Dr. Stadler is wrong when she claims Ms. John-Charles was taping “conversations.” Ms. John-Charles brought a tape recorder to one class to record the open discussion. Dr. Hauser in fact saw and acknowledged the presence of the tape recorder which was openly displayed. No one from the small class expressed any objection to the tape recorder, including Dr. Hauser, who we allege only later raised the issue in bad faith, as a dishonest means of destroying a black woman in his class who dared to think for herself.

Dr. Stadler’s January 10, 2011 correspondence also fails to acknowledge that the subject class syllabus treated tape recorders in the identical manner as any other electronic device, e.g., computer, phone, etc. By deliberately ignoring the evidence, including a signed statement from seven of Ms. John-Charles classmates to the effect that the use of electronic devices in Dr. Hauser’s class was common, Dr. Stadler provides nearly incontrovertible proof of discriminatory treatment.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports a conclusion that the University’s response to a victim of alleged harassment and discrimination is apparently in effect, “she asked for it.”  By refusing to blindly accept a professor’s view on a question that continues to be the subject of reasonable disagreement and debate among both laymen and scientific experts, the University is apparently telling Ms. John-Charles she deserved the shameful and discriminatory treatment she received.

Dismissal from the EdD Program

In a letter dated October 11, 2011, Dean Holly Stadler advised that she was supporting the decision to dismiss Ms. John-Charles from the EdD Program. Dr. Stadler further stated that her determination constituted the final state of the review process of Ms. John-Charles’ appeal.

Dr. Stadler’s letter also stated in pertinent part as follows:

“Your history in this program has been one of poor grades in several courses and dispositional observations that merit concern about your performance as a doctoral student.”

This is truly outrageous. As of the date of her unlawful dismissal from the EdD Program, Ms. John-Charles had completed twelve (12) courses. She received a grade of ‘A’ or ‘A-‘ in eight (8) of them. She had further received a grade of “Pass” in one mandatory Pass/Fail class.

Ms. John-Charles other grades are comprised of a B+, C+ and a C-. The two ‘C’ level grades were received from two professors whose conduct and/or statements are discussed herein. Specifically, Dr. Leslie Bloom assigned the grade of ‘C-‘ in ELOC 535 (Qualitative Research Methods) for the Spring 2010 Semester. And Dr. Hauser assigned the ‘C+’ in ELOC 680 (Ethics and Educational Leadership) for the Fall 2010 Semester.

Ms. John-Charles grades subsequent to the Fall 2010 Semester were: A-, B+, A, and a “Pass.” And yet she was terminated.

Ms. John-Charles’ cumulative GPA at the time of her unlawful dismissal was 3.51.

As far as the reference to “dispositional observations,” this apparently refers to a so-called “Assessment Rubric” established for each class pursuant to the “COE Dispositions Assessment Policies and Procedures” This is a program which was not implemented until long after Ms. John-Charles began the EdD Program at the University. In fact the subject “COE Dispositions Assessment Policies and Procedures” were not approved by the COE Academic Council until August 12, 2010.

The subject procedures and “Assessment Rubric” opens the door to an entirely new level of subjectivity in evaluation previously unknown in the EdD Program. Ms. John-Charles obviously had no way to know the new evaluation regime would be put into place when she applied to attend the EdD Program. The University changed the rules in midstream for Ms. John-Charles. After a year of very successful course work and performance, she finds that a new evaluation regime has been adopted, one that is incredibly subjective, and easily abused by an instructor or administration with a retaliatory or other bad faith motive. In Ms. John-Charles’ case, a trumped-up charge for recording one class (an action she took at the urging of another professor and solely to protect herself after already being harassed, defamed and lied about by Dr. Hauser in front of her fellow students) was exploited and misused for the purpose of tarnishing her evaluation under the “Assessment Rubric.” It was clearly all a pretext. The grades Ms. John-Charles’ deserved would simply have been “too good” in the minds of certain University actors who wanted Ms. John-Charles gone. Therefore, an alternative scheme, one completely subjective and easily abused, was utilized to retaliate against Ms. John-Charles and exile her from the University.

Under the new “Dispositions Assessment” system, students are assigned one of three ratings under each of several criteria. “Unacceptable” performance scores a ‘1.’ A score of ‘2’ is “Developing.” And the top score of ‘3’ means “Proficient.”

A good example of the subjectivity and potential for misuse inherent in this system is exemplified by the score of ‘2’ which Dr. Bloom assigned to Ms. John-Charles in ELOC 686 under the category “Passion for Craft.” Given that Ms. John-Charles has already devoted a good part of her life to teaching in the Chicago Public Schools on the city’s South Side, if she doesn’t deserve the top rating in “Passion for Craft” who does?

For the category “Commitment to Social Justice,” Dr. Bloom absurdly assigned Ms. John-Charles a ‘1’ – in other words “Unacceptable.” And in written comments, Dr. Bloom said this, in pertinent part, “Gillian repeatedly makes arguments that show a lack of attention to core knowledge about social justice issues, while paradoxically wanting to work focus her research on educational issues for low-income African American students. She has argued that the achievement gap is a problem of social class only, and not of race, rejecting the important literature that demonstrates the intersections of race and class and my plea to her to build that argument based on this extensive literature. . . .Further, she argues that to name the achievement gap as a differentiation between Black and White students is in and of itself racist.”

For the category “Professional Ethics 1,” Dr. Bloom assigned Ms. John-Charles a ‘2’. Her written comments about Ms. John-Charles included this, “I rate this developing because of the number of students in the cohort who have spoken to me about the way that Gillian has behaved as a part of the cohort that shows a critical need for her to develop more professionalism around issues of integrity and civility. Some students have told me of their discomfort in class with her: they feel silenced in her presence and therefore, do not contribute to class discussions.”

Who are these students Dr. Bloom is talking about who supposedly have such a problem with Ms. John-Charles? Surely she’s not talking about the majority of the cohort, the seven fellow students who stepped-up in defense of Ms. John Charles and signed a statement saying they too witnessed the common usage of electronic devices by many students in Dr. Hauser’s class. (Those signed statements have already been introduced into the record at the University by Ms. John-Charles.)

And if Ms. John-Charles ever does make another student “uncomfortable” – maybe it’s because Ms. John-Charles is a leader who encourages others to also think for themselves. Isn’t that what Roosevelt University used to be about?

Dr. Bloom provides absolutely no evidence to support the petty shots she takes at Ms. John-Charles. The record is filled with the kind hearsay, frivolity and immature drama that one might expect to read in a high school student’s diary – but not in an official evaluation report written by a University professor.

It is absolutely unfathomable that the University is making final decisions that will have such an enormous bearing on a student’s future career and personal life – on the basis of this kind of subjective, superficial fluff. If one or two professors decide a student isn’t popular enough with the right clique, out they go after some unsubstantiated blackballing. It really is a lot like high school, except here the University first pockets tens-of-thousands of dollars from the student before deciding that her views and opinions make her too unpopular.

Dr. Bloom’s statements reveal what’s really at the core of this case. Ms. John-Charles is a proud, smart, extremely accomplished black woman who refuses to play the victim. Absolutely she’ll stand up for her rights, but she completely rejects the idea that black people can’t achieve on the same level as whites. Ms. John-Charles refuses to mindlessly say and do what the masters of the liberal plantation decree. She’s a walking, everyday reminder to some at the University that their life-long ambition to “take care of” minorities is hollow to the core. Ms. John-Charles had to be silenced and exiled.

The Dispositions Assessment was also unfairly used by Dr. Hauser to torpedo Ms. John-Charles. Dr. Hauser assigned Ms. John-Charles a ‘1’ in four of the eight categories. He gave her a ‘2’ in two more. And once again, the tape recorder pretext was used in an attempt to justify the disturbing hostility Dr. Hauser has repeatedly displayed towards Ms. John-Charles. This case is most certainly not about being gay, or the “nature vs. nurture” debate. It may be for Dr. Hauser, but that’s not our concern. This case is much larger and is really about Ms. John-Charles’ more conservative viewpoints on issues of race and politics, viewpoints which some at the University clearly do not welcome.


The University’s actions described above are entirely offensive under any definition of academic freedom and social justice, and violate Ms. John-Charles’ constitutional rights to free speech, freedom from retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, equal protection of the laws, and due process. Discrimination on the basis of race and gender comprise other obvious potential causes of action.

In addition, Ms. John-Charles’ First Amendment rights to express her own personal views and opinions in the marketplace of ideas on campus and to receive information as part of her educational program are being violated every day that the University’s unlawful dismissal is in force.

By dismissing Ms. John-Charles from the EdD Program because her personal beliefs and views are contrary to those of some professors (and apparently those of the professors’ co-punishers at the University), the University by policy and practice has discriminated against Ms. John-Charles based on the viewpoint and content of her speech.

The University’s policies and practices impose an unconstitutional prior restraint because they vest University officials with the unbridled discretion to punish protected expression subject to no standards or guidelines. The University has engaged in actions that have deprived and are depriving Ms. John-Charles of her clearly established rights to academic freedom, as well as her rights to freedom of speech and expression secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because of the University’s policies and actions, Ms. John-Charles has suffered, and continues to suffer, economic injury and irreparable harm.

The foregoing facts will likewise support common law claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, tortuous interference with economic advantage, and of course defamation.


An excellent article in the Summer 2011 edition of the Roosevelt Review entitled “The Drake Effect” tells the fascinating story of an icon from the early days of your institution, Professor St. Clair Drake.

The article quotes Dr. John Bracey, University alum (and now a professor himself), this way: “Drake was all about intellectual discourse. Integrity was important to him and standing on one’s beliefs was essential.”

Dr. Middleton, what do you think Professor Drake would say about the way your University, Professor Drake’s University, has treated Ms. John-Charles?

Your University loves to brag that it’s all about “social justice.” Maybe in the past that was true. However today we have cases like this one involving Ms. John-Charles which expose to the world just how tired and hackneyed the University’s whole “social justice” shtick has become.

Sir, if we are forced to move to formal litigation, both sides will obviously explore and expand on the facts relevant to this case. But here is a fact of this case and it is undisputed: Roosevelt University drummed-out of its EdD Program the only black female student in the cohort, a single mom who was and is teaching mathematics full time, and very successfully, in the Chicago Public School system.

And oh yes, a black single mom, full time Chicago Public School teacher with a cumulative 3.51 GPA on the day the University threw her out on the phony charge of unsatisfactory academic performance. (Obviously Ms. John-Charles’ GPA would be even more impressive if not for the alleged discriminatory grading by two professors as discussed herein.)

If you would like to discuss this matter, please contact me, or have your legal representative contact me, by no later than the close of business on December 30, 2011. If we do not hear from you within that time frame, we will assume that you are not interested in exploring an informal alternative to litigation. We will thereupon proceed to undertake to secure the full spectrum of remedies available to Ms. John-Charles under the law. Obviously given the University’s outrageous behavior and actions in this case, the legal remedies available to my client are far reaching and considerable.

Finally, in order to preserve material evidence, Ms. John-Charles requests that all necessary steps be taken to ensure that no documents or other materials, including computer “cookies” and “temporary internet files,” are deleted or otherwise removed from the computers of Dr. Gregory M. Hauser, Dr. Eric Tammes, Dr. Renate I. Rohde, Dr. Leslie Bloom, Dr. Linda Jones, Dr. Samuel Rosenberg, Dr. Holly Stadler, and Dr. Deborah Kilgore Ford, as well as any centralized computer database or storage facility containing copies of the foregoing information.

We also request that you immediately make efforts to preserve all documents and other materials relating to Gillian John-Charles and her claims, including, without limitation, her student personnel file and documents regarding what, if any, investigation was undertaken as a result of the harassment/discrimination complaint made by Ms. John-Charles against Dr. Hauser and the University.

I can be reached at (312) 648-0061 if you have any questions regarding this matter.


Doug E. Ibendahl


cc:        Deborah Kilgore Ford, Roosevelt University

Eric Tammes, Roosevelt University

Holly A. Stadler, Roosevelt University

James J. Mitchell III, Chairman, Board of Trustees

Melvin L. Katten, Senior Vice Chair, Board of Trustees

            Robert Mednick, Senior Vice Chair, Board of Trustees

Kenneth Tucker, Senior Vice Chair, Board of Trustees


Deborah Kilgore Ford

Assistant Vice President, Human Resources
Roosevelt University
430 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60605


Eric Tammes

Associate Vice President for Admission
Roosevelt University
430 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60605


Holly A. Stadler

Dean, College of Education
Roosevelt University
18 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60603


James J. Mitchell III,

Chairman, Board of Trustees
Roosevelt University
430 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60605


Melvin L. Katten

Katten Muchin Rosenman

525 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60661-3693


Robert Mednick

1337 N. Sutton Place
Chicago, IL 60610-2007


Kenneth L. Tucker

1420 Sheridan Road
Wilmette, IL 60091