One-on-one: Robert Jones | 'I'm not the fashion police'

Aug. 21—Outside Robert Jones' windows on the fifth floor of the Swanlund Administration Building, campus was abuzz with activity Monday as students carted boxes of belongings into their new homes for the next nine months.

It's a scene and time of year the University of Illinois chancellor of seven-plus years never grows tired of and an office he has no plans of abandoning any time soon.

With a new academic year beginning Monday, the first African American scholar to head up the state's largest campus sat down with The News-Gazette's new UI beat writer, Luke Taylor, for an extensive conversation that touched on a number of hot topics.

Let's start with conference expansion. How involved were you in the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors' decision to add Washington and Oregon in 2024, bringing it to an 18-school league?

Well, I'm the chair of the board of the Council of Presidents and Chancellors. So yes, I've been in more meetings in the last two weeks than I had anticipated.

In fact, it took up a good part of my so-called "seven-to-10-day vacation." So yeah, very much been involved in those conversations with our commissioner, Tony Petitti, as well as the executive committee of the board.

What were some of the main arguments for and against adding two more Pac-12 teams, a year after voting to add UCLA and USC?

More arguments were in favor. It was a unanimous vote. Timing is always the issue when you're talking about expanding your conference.

We'd already put together a process where a joint committee worked on just gaining information about what's the benefit of staying at 16 versus moving to 18 or 20. And so there were all kinds of considerations in terms of "how could we do it financially in a way that wouldn't dilute the revenue that the current 16 schools would be receiving? How could we do it in a way that was not harmful to student-athletes?"

As you add institutions, you get a schedule that involves more travel, particularly when it involves an additional two institutions on the West Coast. So it was mainly around the financial implications of expanding and whether or not we would have a media partner to help cover the costs for that.

Fox came to the table with a compelling financial deal, and it is going to help mitigate some of the concerns we had about travel.

When we do travel to the West Coast to participate in playing USC and UCLA, we can now be more strategic about making sure that those teams can also play Oregon and Washington to kind of minimize the amount of time that they would have to go back and forth across the country to play, so it was mainly concerned about financial, student welfare and that kind of thing.

Do you think the Big Ten is done expanding, or will more schools be added down the line?

Nobody is in a position to say whether we're done expanding or not. We continue to be approached by institutions that are interested in joining the Big Ten, and at this point, we don't have any immediate plans to expand beyond where we're at now, but we're still engaged with anybody that wants to talk about opportunities.

That's what almost every conference in this nation is doing at this point. But there's no immediate plans to expand like that. We could go, "there are no immediate plans to expand," and all of a sudden, movement on the part of Colorado (from the Pac-12 to the Big 12) precipitated in a lot of dominoes that provided opportunity for us to add Oregon and Washington.

They're academically very aligned with the Big Ten, as well as programmatically and athletically, so we think it is going to be very good for the conference.

But at this juncture, no, we don't have any plans to expand beyond where we are now in the immediate future. You know, we'll see.

Much of the attention has focused on the athletic impact of conference expansion. Could you expand on the academic alignment?

One of the things I think all the other conferences recognize is that the Big Ten is unique in many ways. We're probably financially one of the most successful conferences in terms of how we structured and how we support member institutions — financially through media deals, etc., etc.

But we're probably equally, and most importantly, known to be the kind of academic athletic conference with the — we used to say 14, then it went to 16 — with the 18 schools that will be a member of the Big Ten starting on August 2 next year.

All except one, the University of Nebraska, are AAU (Association of American Universities) institutions. You won't find that any place among any of the rest of the athletic conferences. So we're not only known for being very aggressive and building a very strong conference, but also one that aligns around academics as well.

One of the things that people don't realize is that the original structure was the Big Ten Academic Alliance, which is a provost-driven initiative that aligns all of these academic institutions together to share best practices and to do joint purchasing and come up with common strategies that serve all institutions.

So when we talk about athletic conferences, we don't talk about it outside of the context of academics as well, and that's a very strong criteria for anyone that we consider joining us. It has to align academically as well as athletically.

Another hot topic on the athletic side has been the new 'name, image and likeness' landscape. Are you a proponent of the system as it stands now, or would you like to see it changed in some way, be it major or minor?

Well, I say name, image and likeness was started for some very good reasons. Initially, we weren't necessarily supportive, but then we got behind the notion of equity as it relates to student-athletes having the ability to generate some revenue for themselves above and beyond what the university pays for tuition and fees, etc. The original intent was to bring about more equity for the student-athletes.

I have to be very, very honest that the system needs a major overhaul. It is not being orchestrated in a way that most of us intended.

We're in the process now of trying to figure out how we can work with the NCAA as well as other organizations to really get NIL back to what it was originally focused on doing, and that is making sure that there's equity and ability for student-athletes to benefit from their name, image and likeness, and that it not be used as an enticement for recruitment or any other kinds of issues that fundamentally don't align with NCAA rules and guidelines.

How has your opinion on whether student-athletes should be compensated changed or evolved over time?

Well, I think for most people, it has changed and evolved over time because you got to understand that the original framework around this was set based on NCAA guidelines. NCAA guidelines have changed because of a court decision that forced them to change.

I've always been a very strong supporter of the notion of equity, particularly for student-athletes, and they needed to be able to get some benefit from the time they spent participating on our athletic programs. I think you will see that attitudes and perspectives are continuing to evolve, and it will continue to evolve in the NCAA over the next several years as we continue to advocate for students.

We've always had a very strong opinion here that our students are students first, athletes second. That has not fundamentally changed, notwithstanding NIL and all the other conference realignment that goes on. We still hold that as a core principle for how we think about our students.

Like us, you've probably been inundated with messages from alumni and students on both sides of the mascot debate. Where does that stand for the university as of now?

Well, let me just say that, I think people maybe lost sight of the whole underlying core principle around a mascot. I've had to contend with this during the whole seven years that I've been chancellor.

Our core principle has been around inappropriate use of Native American imagery. That's always what it has been about for us, not whether they have a mascot or not. To me, that's secondary to the fact that it is highly inappropriate, from where I sit and where most of my colleagues sit, to use Native American imagery in the way that we have historically used it.

There have been NCAA rules about that, and we moved away from that 20-some years ago, but there still persist images.

People expect me to be the fashion police. I'm not the fashion police. I can't tell people what to wear, and I won't spend my time trying to reprimand folks for wearing whatever they feel like. But that does not mean that our core principles don't remain the same, that Native American imagery has no place as a part of intercollegiate athletics here at the university. That's full stop. That's the core principle.

Now, there's different perspectives about the value of a mascot. There are very fine institutions that have no mascots. And there are other institutions that have historically had Native American imagery. Some were able to move beyond that, so there's not this lingering perspective of continuing to use or wear garments that have Native American images on them.

Others have not been as quote-unquote successful because when these images persist for decades at a university, it's kind of hard to kind of move beyond those images in a lot of ways.

We've been very clear. Our principle, to me, is not about whether to have a mascot or not. I think we've been somewhat successful in moving this issue forward in a very, very positive way — with open dialogue and conversation, not through issues of mandates, not by calling people names.

We were very, very clear about our perspective as a university community that Native American imagery has no place as a part of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. A coalition of people may still have a great sense of connection to the images of the past, but we've moved beyond that.

We've had two or three different task forces and working groups in critical conversations. It's been a labor on this issue for the last five to seven years. Now, the biggest question is the issue of the mascot. One of our last commissions created this committee that is going to be looking at what we call "new traditions." It can't just be about a mascot. What are the new traditions?

I get the piece about a sense of belonging. What we're trying to establish is a working group committee that is made up of students, faculty and staff that's going to be trying to think about "what are some new traditions that could be created to help feel that sense of belonging that has been a void the last few decades?"

How do you do that in a way that's thoughtful but also has to be fair? There can't be just one group or one person's idea that all of a sudden becomes the mascot for the university.

One of the things that we plan to try to resolve in the next academic year is "how do we create new traditions?" I think you'll start to see some of those new traditions roll out during this current academic year. There will be other new traditions we will be working as a community to create.

We'll see at the end of this what we will do about a mascot and what kind of process may be in need to be put in place to have a fair and equitable way of deciding which image may be most appropriate for a mascot.

I just want to be unequivocally clear about this: Having a mascot does not mean that it will become the entity that represents our athletic department. I have to be very, very clear about that. We will always be the Fighting Illini. Now, I've said that time and time again. That is what our nickname is, and that's what it will remain, whether or not there will be a mascot.

I don't know what time will tell, but it's an important issue. But I can tell you keeping us educational, accessible and affordable is the most important thing that I have to do. These other issues are somewhat tangential to all of that, and not the most critical thing that I spend most of my day on.

Worrying about tuition costs, worrying about how we recruit the best and brightest students from around the world — those are the things that as chancellor, I have to focus my attention on. Not to say that these issues aren't important, but we have a process that's going to work our way through those in the next couple of years.

So the 'new traditions' will come first, and then you'll figure out the mascot piece, if there is one?

We created a committee that's going to be focusing on new traditions, which is going to include different things that we might do to have a sense of belonging, and then at the end of that process it will take up the issue.

I'm not trying to kick the can down the road on this, but it has to be done systematically and thoughtfully. If we decide that a mascot is in the best interests of the university community, then there has to be a thoughtful, comprehensive way of engaging the broader university community in those discussions and in those decisions.

What do you make of the belted kingfisher proposal?

You know, it's one of many interesting ideas and so I'm not going to weigh in on whether I like it or not. It's just one idea that has gained a lot of momentum, primarily amongst some students, but there are other ideas that are out there as well.

I don't want to have an opinion one way or the other.

Another big question this summer has concerned how higher ed will respond to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that race can no longer be a factor in college admissions. How much will the change impact the University of Illinois' effort to lure more African American students to campus?

Well, let's just say we have always had a multi-criteria admission process, where race is not a factor in that decision. It's multiple variables that we looked at.

I want to emphasize that this does have to do with just the admission process. People want to extrapolate what the Supreme Court decision was, above and beyond that core issue. It's all about the use of race in admissions.

From where we sit, it's not going to fundamentally change how we go about making decisions about who gets admitted. I want to say fundamentally, we remain very much committed to access, equity and affordability. We know the value of having a diverse student body and we remain committed to that, but we all will also abide by the law because we've always abided by the law.

Under our current criteria, being a multiple-variable criteria, this doesn't really create a situation where we have to change much. It's just that everybody around the nation is taking a deeper dive looking at how they talk about their recruitment efforts, talk about their mission efforts to make sure that we are in compliance with the tone and the tenor of the law as it stands since the Supreme Court's decision a month or so ago.

It really does not undermine our commitment. It just causes us to kind of double check what we're doing and to continue to make sure we're compliant with the law.

Are you concerned about rising costs of college attendance?

Oh, I think we all are concerned about the cost of college attendance, but I think there's one thing that sometimes people lose sight of, and that's the sticker price versus what students actually pay.

The biggest percentage of our students do not pay full tuition at this university, and that's never talked about. That's not factored into the discussion — a very small percentage of our students pay full tuition. Very, very small.

The other part not talked about often enough is the number of our students that graduate with zero debt. You know, almost 60 percent of our students graduate with zero debt, and those that do graduate with debt, the average debt is about $20,000 to $22,000. To me, that's not debt, that's an investment in the future.

There are a lot of different elements and you hopefully are aware that the University of Illinois system has only had two tuition increases in the last seven or eight years. We basically had our tuition pretty flat over that time period. I'll remind you that the two times that we've introduced a modest 1.8 percent tuition increase, it only goes for that entering cohort. It doesn't translate up to the second-, third- and fourth-year students, it's just that cohort.

That's the tuition they paid for the rest of the time they're enrolled at this university. So I think we've been very, very thoughtful and committed to keeping education accessible and affordable by keeping tuition under control.

During the time that I've been here, since 2016, we're spending about $50 million a year more centrally on financial aid as a way of keeping education accessible and affordable. We're very much aware of the rising cost, and particularly the optics around the sticker price, but very few people pay sticker price at this university and we do all we can through the Illinois Commitment program — free tuition and fees for anybody from a family income of $67,100 or less. You can enroll at this university for four years, tuition- and fee-free if you are a first-year student, and transfer students get three years.

For the average family who makes $75,000 or less, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is the most affordable option among all the rest of the public options in the state. So we're doing our part to keep education accessible and affordable, keep tuition under control, and try to provide access to a broad array of students from the state of Illinois.

You're about to start your eighth year as chancellor ...

Not that I'm counting.

How much longer do you want to keep doing this?

One of our dear alums who its really invested in the success of this university is Peter Frost. Peter asked me when I started here seven years ago, he said, "Well, I know you're gonna be here at least 20 years."

And I said, "Yeah, Peter, you want them to roll me out of here with an IV and a wheelchair?"

He said, "By whatever it takes, Chancellor."

Let's just say, I doubt I'll be here 20 years, but I'm not going anywhere anytime soon.

What's left on your bucket list?

It's not a bucket list, it's a tub. Bigger than a bucket.

Well, to roll out our Boldly Illinois, a new strategic planning initiative, which is the second iteration of our Next 150. All of our attention is focused on rolling out and finishing that strategic planning process and all the elements that are components of that.

We have to hire at least 200 to 225 new faculty over the next three to four years. That's critically important because our enrollment of students has increased from about 45,000 students when I came here in 2016, to almost 57,000 this year. I don't know the exact numbers, but we will have another record-breaking class. We won't know officially until 10 days after the start of instruction, but I can guarantee you, it will be another record-breaking class in terms of first-year students.

We anticipate very large numbers of transfer students again, and so making sure that we continue to provide an amazing education at an affordable price is one of my core commitments and under Boldly Illinois, we're going to be continuing to find ways to do that.

I'd like to expand the educational opportunities through partnerships with Hope Chicago, and partnerships with HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) and HSIs, Hispanic Serving Institutions. We're continuing to work on bringing in a diverse student body and providing educational opportunities for students, not only from the state but around the nation and around the world.

And then hiring the best and brightest faculty. Our hiring initiative is critically important to keep our faculty-student ratio in alignment because we have not been able to hire faculty at the same rate that we've been able to increase student population, so we're working on that.

We will continue to do something that I think is critically important: Everybody focuses on "what is the next big idea that we can generate money or spend money on?" but we have a very intentional strategy as part of Next 150 and it will continue to be part of Boldly Illinois. And that is "How do we decrease cost and increase efficiency? How do we do more with the money that we have?"

And so we have this Operational Excellence at Illinois. That is a framework for us being able to think about our systems that may be a bit out of date, and may not add as much value or may cost more than they should in this technologically driven age in which we are living. Operational Excellence in Illinois is the time to look at rethinking human-resources functions, our financial-services functions, our space.

(Chief Communications Officer Robin Kaler's) office is a part of that ecosystem, and branding and marketing and communication is another big part of it. "How do we create more enterprise, more systemwide strategies to leverage it in a much more effective way?"

So those are the three or four big things that we will continue to work on as we roll out our strategic plan, and actually start to implement many of those strategies. We've actually started to implement almost every one of them, but this year, we have to ratchet it up to a whole different level.

We are a research university and we've demonstrated great capacity to partner with other research universities in the state. We partnered three years ago with the University of Chicago to create a Chicago Quantum Exchange. There was a piece on CNN (recently), that they were talking about how everybody is getting all concerned about ChatGPT; the real concern and a real game-changer is going to be quantum computing.

I love the example they used where with current computing, you have a mouse that has to go through this maze. It has to take one scenario at a time in order to find the correct solution. Whereas in quantum computing, say there's 20 different options to get there. They could do the analysis of all 20 at once in a shorter period of time than it takes current computers to find one. So that's going to be a game changer.

We strongly feel that because of partnerships like Chicago Quantum Exchange, the future for quantum computing will run directly through the state of Illinois, because we figured out how to leverage our assets across the major research universities here to do that.

Another example is this Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, where we partnered with Northwestern and Chicago to create this technology. It's going to be on understanding tissues and inflammation, which translates into understanding cancer and how cancer and other inflammatory diseases are controlled and regulated.