When Mississippi University for Women President Claudia A. Limbert announced last month that a committee had been formed to recommend a new name for MUW – one without "women" – not all reactions were favorable among the school's alumnae.

For some, like Dorothy Thompson of Meridian, a 1965 graduate of the Columbus university, it was as drastic as when Coca-Cola changed its original formula.

"Why mess with something that works?" asked Thompson.

But according to Limbert, the name isn't working at the best interest of the university, which, in 1982, became coed. The word "women" in the school's name is affecting campus growth – most men and even some women won't consider The W because of the reference. And as a result, enrollment is not increasing and funding from the IHL (Institutes of Higher Learning) is decreasing.

Limbert said a name change is needed not only to reflect the campus' coed population, but also for MUW to continue to grow, compete and remain relevant.

"The overall mission of our institution has not changed and will not change," she said. "Indeed, it would be foolish to ignore our illustrious history – it is a valuable asset. This university will always empower women and our environment must continue to support and foster leadership among women. We must also look beyond that sole focus and embrace all of our students as we serve all of the people of the state of Mississippi."

Since Limbert's official announcement on Aug. 5 of the formation of an Identity Committee, she has taken every opportunity to speak with clubs and organizations, the media and other interested persons – locally and statewide – about the name change. During a stop in Meridian, she met with The Star's Editorial Board.



The Star: What has happened since your official announcement?



Limbert: Several things have been happening. There's been great support for this locally, our city council and board of county supervisors and the Columbus-Lowndes Development LINK Board. They clearly see it as an economic issue for us.

Twenty-six years ago, MUW went through The Supreme Court and became coed. But the name was never changed, and it has become more of a problem as time has gone on. People have talked about changing it over the years. Before I got there in July 2002, Judge Linda Prather, who was the interim president, had a study done by Arts and Science Group Inc. (a leading consultant group to education and non-profit institutions) and they found that the name was getting between us and prospective students not just male but also females.

The Star: What were the study's findings?



Limbert: We've learned that only 3 percent of prospective students nationwide would even consider a women's institute or one that is, as ours, perceived as female-only.

As you know we have a problem here in Mississippi attracting people from other states to come in. We found out that only 4 percent of Mississippi high school seniors would consider listing us as one of their six ACT college choices.



The Star: What about MUW's marketing?



Limbert: Some people say we need to market more; that's not the case. When I first got to MUW I was handed the study Judge Prather had done and I went around the state and talked to people about the name change. I talked to civic groups, alumnae, media – anyone who let me talk with them. Everyone said the alumnae groups said, 'You really need to change the name; it should have happened a long time ago.' The alumnae groups suggested I check the marketing to see how well you've been doing.

I checked and I did see that we weren't doing as much as we could be. Plus, that's when we were hit by that big F3 tornado that struck 26 of our buildings and frankly my time needed to be spent getting the campus back to normal. And I wanted to do something with the marketing, so I hired Dr. Bucky Wesley, an expert in marketing. I also reorganized his area of the campus – he is vice president for student services and he's in charge of marketing.

Every year, I've increased the marketing budget significantly, plus I've added another $662,000 to their enrollment management budget. It's a beautiful program, it's a very efficient program. We're doing very modern things, like e-mail blasts to students, faculty, the deans – everybody's involved in it, including me. I'm given calls to make to students and try to persuade them to come to MUW. We've been doing a lot of really savvy things – even targeted marketing.



The Star: And have there been results from these new marketing techniques?

Limbert: Yes, we have grown 300 students in five years, and that's a good thing. But we need 1,500 to 2,000 students to break even. Part of this is due to the rebalancing formula the IHL, where, through no fault of their own, the legislature has less money to allocate to the universities. And as a result, the IHL board is allocating it to where there is significant student growth. And we've not had significant growth; and we need to do that.

If we don't have the name change, coupled with the retention efforts that we have going on now, what's going to happen is that we're going to lose programs, we're going to have to let faculty and staff go and that's going to, in turn, attract fewer students and the system will go down.



The Star: What is the MUW 20/20?

Limbert: In August 2007, we started this program to look at the future of university. We have our 125th anniversary coming up to in 2009 and we also needed to renew our strategic plan at that time. I thought it would be a good time to get people together; it had nothing to do with the name change, I wanted some direction from the community and the campus on "Where do we go from here?" "What's our future?"

The first meeting included 60 people – from the community, the state, alumni, faculty, staff and students on campus. It was an all-day facilitated meeting with a professional facilitator. Immediately, the name started coming up as imperative to the future of the university. The next day, a smaller group met with that same facilitator and they worked on it, too. Then, we went from there to get more information: We had 12 focus groups from the campus, again facilitated, with several questions they would each be asked. We also went to the Alumnae Association and they had their own focus group that lasted about four hours. And we also did some talks around the state with four other alumni groups.

We had all this information so I put together another committee and said, "You're a task force, I'd like you to whittle this down to maybe seven or eight pages and tell me what's important." That was a really good process that they went through and they suggested committees for several for different things, like internal communication, community involvement and alumni relations. Another very strong recommendation was an identity committee, and that leads us where we are now.



The Star: What was the Identity Committee's recommendations?:

Limbert: The two most important things they suggested was that our identity should be connected with leadership, because we do that very well and we wanted to see more of that. The other thing was that we must change our name. There were 30 people in that group and only one person voted not to change the name.

Over the summer I gave all of this thought, re-read everything and studied more. On Aug. 11, I met with the faculty and staff to let them know my decision. My decision was that we do indeed need to change our name; I saw nothing that suggested that we should not.

We formed another committee of 30 people – community people, alumni, faculty, staff and students – and they've had their first meeting (their meetings are open to the media) and they are dividing up into committees to look at different aspects of finding a name for us. They will come with three names that surface from the rest as good choices – the pros and cons for each, but not rated. Those will be given to our marketing agent to go out and test drive on current and prospective students. We may think a name is just gorgeous, but the students may not like it. From there, it will go to the final committee and once the name is approved it will go the IHL board and if they approve it, it will go to the legislature, because it has to be changed by the legislature.



The Star: When do you expect to get the final list?

Limbert: I'm not sure. When I met with the committee a week ago I told them that I wanted them to take as much time as they needed, but don't take any more time than they need. We're sort of going to play off that.



The Star: Since the announcement, have a lot of those who opposed the name change, changed their minds?

Limbert: Yes. Once they saw the data and heard me talk about it they said, "Yes, we want a thriving university, we want a strong university. We don't want it to starve to death." And that's what's going to happen.

Before the IHL rebalance, we had $1 million taken out of our budget over about three years because they had to be rewarded to places that were growing faster. This year, if we had $135,000 taken out, next year it will be $400,000 taken out. By 2014, it would be $4 million out of our budget of which is about $16 million from state appropriations. That's a quarter of our budget right there, and that's a significant loss to us. We have a lot of plans for the future that are very exciting, a lot of programs that we want to do for the future. We're very excited about the chance to change our name and to sort of give a little bit of a face lift as we go into the future. We have 125 years behind us; I can see 125 years ahead of us, too.



The Star: Are your currently on a tour about the importance of the name change?

Limbert: I am, because I feel that part of it is education. People need to know the story, they've heard some stories from certain people. But they haven't heard the real story, that I'm trying to give. I'm a business woman; I have to separate emotion from fact. I put the emotion aside and I have to look at the fact to consider what's best for the university. But I also have the obligation that I need to talk to people and educate them about why this so important to this university.



The Star: What have you learned that is so important to those who still the name should not be changed?

Limbert: I think they feel very passionate for the university, they feel great love for the university. I don't think it's any kind of meanness on their part, but I don't think they are not informed as perhaps they could be. There are some who still think that we should market ourselves as a women's university, but we are not, by law we are not. We are coed, we have male students. And to me, that would be false advertising.



The Star: What are some other reactions you've had to the possible name change?

Limbert: We had people requesting to have their diploma reissued under the new name, because some are reluctant to display it. Some people are reluctant to include it on their transcript – even though they can't transfer credits, they have to include their educational experience – or on their resume.